Kotek And Nathanson, Etc.) And Senators Avakian, Devlin,

This perfectly relates to the obesity issue my group is addressing for our MAP-IT project. In Wyandotte County 23.9% of individuals live below the poverty line (Kansas Health Matters, 2017). When families live on low income they are sadly forced to make unhealthy choices because they are cheaper and readily accessible. As seen in the Unnatural Causes documentary (2008) just because someone wants to live a healthier lifestyle it sometimes isn’t easy to do. If individuals don’t have access to transportation or extra cash to spend on healthy food they can’t change their way of

The obesity epidemic in America is getting worse to the point that it spread into our children’s school lunches. In Alice Waters’ and Katrina Heron’s article “No Lunch Left Behind” explains that the government is investing a lot of funds into the schools lunches and it is being wasted to buy unhealthy junk foods. Even though with just a little more money, the food can be of better quality, healthier, and safer for the students. Waters and Heron back up their explanation by describing some of the aggravations that some Americans have for this issue through ethos, adding reliable sources to strengthen the piece, and using an informative and serious tone in attempts to be heard and understood by the government and Americans who care about the health and safety of the student.

According to his article, “The Battle Against Fast Food Begins In The Home”, the author, columnist and blogger Daniel Weintraub, argues parents, not fast-food companies or the government are responsible for their child's health and well being. Weintraub supports this claim by providing data from the Center For Public Health Advocacy on the subject of overweight schoolchildren, State law recommendations outlining nutritional standards, and his own experience with the problem. Weintraub intends to convince or persuade the parents or parent to accept the blame for their overweight child. From my standpoint, however, it is clear the

It has become impossible for low-income families to provide healthy meals for their families. Government, Farm policies and the food industry itself are main reasons as to why the cost of healthy foods has become harder for American families, especially low-income families, to provide the healthy foods needed to fight the obesity epidemic. With low- income families being the main focus point on the problem of

How would you feel if I told you that there is no one state with an obesity rate lower than 20%? Take this information and compare it to twenty years ago when every state had an obesity rate lower than 15%. Obesity has become not only the number one cause in death, but according to David Zinczenko, editor-in-chief of Men’s Health and author of “Don’t Blame the Eater”, it is the number one cost in health care with numbers rising well over 100 billion dollars a year (196). There are many people we could blame, such as the food industry or the government, but before we start pointing fingers elsewhere, individuals need to stand up and take personal responsibility for their own actions and health. Either way it is evident a

Obesity is a problem in different areas throughout the world; obesity is a major problem in the United States of America. The food industry in the U.S. has changed. Food is cheaper and easier to access, but food is lower in quality and is massively produced (Kenner, 2008). Food is no longer as hard to come by as it once was and is not as expensive, but healthy food is more expensive and, most of the time, requires trips to the grocery store. In American society today, American are busy and have minimal time to exercise, cooking, or even go to the grocery store. The lower socioeconomic classes are notably affected as a result of individuals and families of lower socioeconomic classes often can’t afford healthy food from local grocery stores

The author’s intention is to inform the reader that the healthy lunch programs are failing. The author provides plentiful information and research on the failing school lunch programs in the U.S. “In the war to get America’s children to eat healthier, things are not going well.” Kids are not eating their vegetables. This has become a big problem in America and steps need to be taken to stop unhealthy eating. Like The Agriculture Department mandating that students in the federal lunch program choose a fruit or vegetable with their meals. This solution didn’t work and actually worsened the problem. “Their consumption of fruits and vegetables actually went down 13 percent after the mandate took effect.”

Brand name fast-food items now account for almost 50% of schools sales (Brockett). As one can see, the financial benefits of the brand names in lunches can help boost a school’s declining profit. If fast-food was taken away from menus, many schools would fail to break even and have to cut their staff (Brockett). “Financially, it’s better for us if we go up to 400 meals” said Amy Hedrick, a food service supervisor in California (Lehmann). If she tries to sell off brand pizzas, her profit declines dramatically as she only sells 250 to 300 pizzas. If kids are being forced to eat healthy through their school lunch, they will leave the school over their lunch hour and go find a fast food restaurant. Even if they don’t leave, will taking away their brand name foods really solve the problem? The solution is not to frighten kids away with putting bans on school lunches. Rather, teach them about nutritional values of the healthier options and leaving them the choice, as it talks about in “The State Has No Place In The Lunch Bags Of A Nation”. If students know the benefits of eating healthy, they will start to turn away from fast

Even though many students consume most of their calories off campus, studies show that school districts that serve healthy school meals and limit foods low in nutritional value have lower rates of obesity. The state of Philadelphia reported a 5.5% drop in obesity rates of students in their school districts. California reported a 5% drop and New York a 4% drop. These numbers were collected between 2007 through 2012 (Eagle). Researchers are unclear of the reasons behind the decrease in obesity. However, what these states all have in common is that they are all fighting the battle of obesity through stricter lunch options. The School District of Pennsylvania established new lunch policies in 2004. With the implementation of the new policies, deep fryers were disposed after the district stopped buying oil to fill them. Whole milk was superseded by skim milk. The district also put limits on the size of chip bags and got rid of unhealthy foods and soft drinks that were previously served. Through 2011 and 2012, the School District of Philadelphia reported another 2.5% decrease in obesity prevalence of students. The district regularly takes measurements of students throughout the school year. The decreases of overweight children in the School

Obesity has rapidly emerged as a serious health issue in America. The cause of obesity results from America’s social injustices. Today, food advertisements are in all places promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. Considering the great expense of healthy foods, low income families can barely afford fruits and vegetables. These two factors contribute to the increasing obesity rate in the United States. Unfortunately, it has taken an excessive amount of Americans to become obese for America to become aware of the issue and take action. Although obesity is still an increasing problem, America is fighting to reduce the number of obese citizens. As a result of low income and the media advertising unhealthy lifestyles, America is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

The model states the steps of policy process (Lindblom, 1959: 79 – 81; Forester, 1984: 23 – 24). At the beginning of the sequence, administrators of public sector would try to distinguish policy objectives by using an empirical analysis to develop alternative policies. The second step is examining all alternative policies possibility in order to obtain the most valuable policy that needed. Then, the administrator would take a decision on what policy that should be taken based on the process that had been done. It looks like that the process is choosing main goals of policies that already identified by all of examination process. It means policy result is already established and the process is the way to justify it and does not need to have a consultation because the process is fully integrated and acknowledged (Forester, 1984: 25). Forester (1984) also added that the policy process of rational comprehensive also coverage fully base line of information and costs for each information, and has enough time and resources to produce a best policy (Forester, 1984,

Schools in high-poverty areas with most children in need of free or reduced lunch, tend to do well with these new regulations. However, schools will less kids eligible for free or reduced lunch do not do so well, and a lot of districts in this category have dropped the program. Theory is that schools with more children than not eligible for free or reduced lunch, are more likely to eat what is served to them. “Some of our students show up for breakfast and haven’t had anything to eat since lunch the day before” (Hill). The Executive Director of Nutritional services points out a harsh fact, and the good these lunch programs bring to table.

Obesity has become an epidemic in today’s society. Today around 50% of America is now considered to be over weight. Fast-food consumption has been a major contributor to the debate of the twenty-first century. Chapter thirteen, titled “Is Fast-Food the New Tobacco,” in the They Say I Say book, consists of authors discussing the debate of fast-food’s link to obesity. Authors debate the government’s effects on the fast-food industry, along with whether or not the fast-food industry is to blame for the rise in obesity throughout America. While some people blame the fast food industry for the rise in obesity, others believe it is a matter of personal responsibility to watch what someone eats and make sure they get the proper exercise.

Federally-funded school meal programs, including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP), serve an average of 31.3 million lunches and 11.1 million breakfasts per day at a cost to the country of $11.1 billion in 2011 (Food & Nutrition Services, 2012). These federally-funded meals are an excellent opportunity for regulation of nutrition as well as education regarding healthy choices. Obesity is clearly a great threat to the health of our nation, and the federal government must step in to defend its citizens against this growing threat. Children are at the mercy of their families, their social conditions, and their schools, predisposing them to obesity through poor nutritional options and a lack of education; the federal government must intervene through regulation of school meals and snacks to protect children from the abundance of unhealthy options while also educating them and reducing childhood obesity.

Over the past 50 years, the way we eat has changed more than it had in the previous 10,000. Now, 60% of Americans over the age of 20 are overweight. The fast-food industry is highly responsible for today’s health epidemic. Some people choose to blame the government for not balancing individual rights, and the common good. However, the government is not forcing you to eat. You put yourself at risk of diet related health problems.