Why Bloomberg Should not have illegalized soda In every state in the United States, people spend their money every day to buy fast food and soda from places like McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys etc. People who buy fast food will generally buy a meal that includes a hamburger, fries and a Soda because they all taste good, but some people want their state governments to control our fast food and soda consumption. However, I have a love/hate relationship with government involvement in our fast food and soda consumption because, I heard as an eighth grader about Michelle Obama’s activism on eating healthy along with her husband’s idea of replacing unhealthy food and drinks. I’m in favor of any unhealthy food we choose to eat or drink. Some of …show more content…
According to Ryan Schwertfeger who summarized a Balko essay called’’ What You Eat is Your Business’’, Schwertfeger claims that throughout Balko’s essay that the government should foster personal responsibility. ‘’It should be up to the individual to become fit and make the right food choices on their own.’’ (Schwertfeger, Oakland Journal ). According to Scott Faith’s Article , he argues that it should be the individual’s responsibility as to what they choose at any fast food restaurant and be able to enjoy the food menu item that the person decides to eat or drink. (Government and my …show more content…
When I was 11 years old, my older brother Michael told me about how the junior high he went to once had the vending machines stocked with soda. When I went there, they had replaced the contents with water or fruit juices because of the complaints of soda staining the carpet floors. What I did like about that was it taught me how to choose food options in which allowed me to choose what I wanted to drink that was healthy. The biggest reason I never liked it so much is because I would feel like the school administration has gone way too far as to personal choice of freedom. New York’s control of soda consumption wasn’t a good idea because it didn’t work out so well. We can still get a soda at fast food restaurants or other places whenever we want it. Michael Bloomberg’s government should not have control over this because it’s not a good idea to do it in the first place. Even if we tried to regulate someone’s diet, there is just reason for it because everyone is still going to get the same food item or
The article,“ Battle lines drawn over soda tax,” by Associated Press , the Press explains how there is an ongoing “national fight about taxing sugary drinks.” According to Associated Press, “ Health experts say the beverages contribute to health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.” This quote demonstrates that sugary drinks can lead to health issues. Since sugary drinks leads to health issues, people are considering soda tax. This is because thirteen percent of adult minorities are diagnosed with diseases such as diabetes.
Mayor Bloomberg’s plan is to decrease the amount of sugar intake that Americans digest. However, to do this successfully, he would need to include all sugary products that affect Americans, not just the most popular products, which happens to be soda. When you take away soda, people will start to replace the drink with something more available. The replacement drink could easily be something more caloric or sugary than the banned drink. Therefore, no change is made. Pure juices have the potential to be unhealthier than soda. These factors need to be considered when deciding what or what not to ban. It would be unfair to target soda and the companies that profit off of soda, without considering the other sugary products and their effect on the world. Some could argue that juice comes from fruit, while soda is artificial. Also, sugars in juice are more natural than the high fructose corn syrup. All the while, this is suppose to support the idea that juice is healthier than soda. However, according to the journal, Nutrition, fruit juice, on average, has a fructose concentration of about 45.5 grams per liter. 45.5 grams per liter is only a bit less than the average 50 grams per liter for
In his article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko emphasizes that we ought to be accountable with what we eat, and the government should not interfere with that. He declares that the state legislature and school boards are already banning snacks and soda at school campuses across the country to help out the “anti-obesity” measure. Radley claims that each individual’s health is becoming “public health” instead of it being their own problem. Balko also states, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s.” For instance, a couple of new laws have been passed for people to pay for others’ medicine. There is no incentive to eat right and healthy, if other people are paying for the doctor
Richard Balko and Mary Maxfield discuss personal responsibility, and choices in one’s health in their essays “What You Eat Is Your Business,” and “Food as Thought: Resisting the Moralization of Eating” respectively. Balko feels the government should not intervene in people’s food intake because it is an individual preference. Instead, Balko asserts that the government should foster a program to assist the American people to take on personal responsibility and ownership of their own health. Similarly, Maxfield paints the same picture that our culture now finds it immoral to eat what our body needs, therefore believing in the idea of eating less is healthier. Maxfield points out the multi-billion dollar campaign of corporations into advertising false hope into consumers by buying into eradication of fatness. Why has food have suddenly become a risky subject at the dinner table? And who is to blame? Is it everyone else or do we blame ourselves?
Zinczenko argues that it is not the consumers fault for putting themselves at risk of becoming obese or raising the chance of getting diabetes, but it is the fast-food companies fault for the lack of labeling their products with the nutritional information. While Balko argues that we as individuals should be held completely responsibly on whether or not one is choosing to put oneself at risk for obesity or type 2 diabetes. One should attain the consequences if the consumer chooses to drive to their preferred fast-food chain restaurant and place and order for an unhealthy meal. Likewise goes for the other way around, either way there are consequences for both, whether they be beneficial or not
Should people be held accountable for what they eat? Many believe that it is a matter of public health, but some think that it is the matter of personal responsibility. In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that the government spending more money on anti-obesity measures is the wrong way to fix the obesity epidemic. He claims that people should be more responsible for their personal health. I am of two minds about this author’s claim that eating and lifestyle are matters of personal choice. On the one hand, I agree with his claim because of the unfair insurance policies, people should be more responsible for their own health, and people should take the time to be responsible for their kid’s health instead of blaming someone or something irrelevant. On the other hand, the government should do their best to dispose of “food deserts,” provide more opportunities to live a healthy life style, and give tax breaks to people selling healthy foods.
This article is talking about a mayor banning beverages larger than 16 oz. at restaurants, sports arenas and movie theaters. The reason this mayor wants to ban large sodas is because he is afraid for all of New York’s health. That’s a good thing because a lot of us don’t know what we drink and eat most of the time. We just eat our food we don’t even bother to look what’s really in side such as calories, fats and oils in our food. This Mayor is doing New York a huge favor by banning large sodas. He’s helping everyone in New York about their health but people of New York doesn’t see that. There are people who are trying to not let him pass this law because some of them probably drink 16 oz. every day of once a week or twice a week or even more.
In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business”, the author claims, Americans need to be more responsible for their own health and the government should not become involved (Balko). I argue this point; the American people have been tempted into buying foods that are unhealthy, cheap, and convenient, and we cannot be responsible when foods like this are so easy and available to purchase. We are also one of the fattest nations in the world. He conveys in the article that we should have some sort of responsibility for what we put into our own body (Balko), but I feel that with all of the tempting foods being right at our fingertips, we are getting fatter and fatter. When we turn on the television at night, and every fifteen minutes a food commercial comes on. When we go to school, there are vending machines in every building. Nobody offers water anymore with our meals; it costs extra just to get a cup for water with a meal.
In the past couple years people all around the nation, whether it's in New York City or an 8th Grade classroom in Michigan, people have been pressed with the question, whether the New York Soda Ban, is a good thing, improving health, or if there is a larger issue. Is this decision showing evidence of the Government interfering with our basic civil liberties?
It is sad. People from all races and backgrounds are obese. In a recent survey done at Henry Ford College, 43 percent of students were overweight. Whether it is because they do not follow a healthy diet or they inherited it from their parents. Being overweight is correlated with lacking exercise or physical activity and not watching what is on the plate. Obesity can cause many illnesses, including diabetes, which is very common. As the debate whether soda tax should take effect arises, critics say that the tax will help those with obesity-related illnesses. What about exercising and maintaining a healthy lifestyle? These two factors cannot be forgotten knowing they are the most important. Americans have consumed 12 percent of soda and become less active since 1970. A soda tax aims to stop consumers from buying soda to help those who are obese. This will not be effective. Therefore a soda tax will not be good public policy.
We make personal choices about what and where to eat. The government is not going to eliminate the unhealthy food because we think it is the cause of obesity. Ultimately, we must decide to either stay away from unhealthy food or eat them in moderation. Despite all the efforts of education, media and guidance it doesn’t prevent us from grabbing that cheeseburger with fries on the way to work. In his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that society should take full responsi...
In this article “Fast Food and Personal Responsibility” (2003) which was written by Ninos P. Malek, Malek tries to argue and show people that it’s not entirely the fast food industries’ fault that people are obese or sick . He argues using 3 different supporting examples; first he says that, “High school students blaming their poor diets on school cafeteria” (Malek, 2003, p.309). Most student tend do that, but actually most cafeterias sell healthy and unhealthy food but people always need something to blame and never hold themselves the responsibility for their own action, secondly he says that no one is putting people under gun point to make them buy fast food (2003, p.309). That’s actually true but still he forgot to mention the fact that they are trying to brain wash people into buying their food through their erroneous advertisements. Third and last Malek tries to compare smoking to fast food, because back then tobacco companies were sued too for almost the same reason which is about health. Malek’s argument was precise because people need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions and should know that when they buy fast food they are weighing their own costs and benefits. But he didn’t show the immoral and unethical things the fast food industries were doing by using erroneous advertisements. The fast food industries shouldn’t be held accountable for this because everyone has a freedom of choice and they can choose whether to eat it or no.
Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason, states, “We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s” (396). Individuals consistently buy fast food around the country, making the decision to consume foods that can cause obesity. There is the false economic belief that it is less expensive to eat fast food than to purchase healthy alternatives at a grocery store. Fast food is less expensive in the beginning, yet costs significantly more at the end; I am simply discussing nourishment quality here, not the consequent health insurance costs it puts on the obese. No one needs to reprimand the individuals who end up getting obese on account of no deficiency they could call their own, yet neither would anybody like to exonerate obese individuals from personal responsibility.
Have you ever thought how much soda you consume and how bad it can be for you? Many people will drink soda instead of water, simply because it tastes better. The government should limit the intake of sugary beverages because it can lead to many different problems such as heart disease, obesity, and overall it is an unhealthy life-style. “The average person consumes almost 100lbs of sugar a year, with the single biggest source being soda.” A sugary beverage occasionally would be ok, but drinking it every day would cause problems for you overtime. People drink, more soda than they do water. People should be consuming at least eight 8-ounce glasses a day. Mostly no one will drink that amount of water a day. In today’s society, it can be easy to grab a soda for one dollar and carry on. They may taste better but they are not better for your health. “Sugary drinks include soda, fruit punch, lemonade, and other “aides” sweetened powdered drinks, and sports energy drinks.”