Should Access To Healthy Food Choices Be A Right For Everyone

The right to health care should be considered a civil right. People should not be discriminated against for being sick. Americans who are ill should not have to make the choice between financial ruin or paying for the medical treatments they need to stay alive. Coverage of all Americans would best counter or contain the spreading of epidemics such as the H1N1 flu (swine flu) or smallpox. (ProCon.org 2013, April 12).

Studies have shown that healthy diets rich in fruits, vegetables, fish and nuts cost $550 more per year than more unhealthy diets (rich in processed foods, meats, and refined grains) for a person. Such costs can be substantial for lower-income families, as US government grants for the poor are hardly enough to cover meal costs – the average Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program payments amount to under $1.50 per meal. In addition, affordable yet nutritious food is harder to obtain in poorer neighbourhoods, especially for those without an automobile. With geographical and economic barriers, healthy meals are simply just out of reach for these families and it has been shown that children from lower-income households are more likely to be obese than higher-income

Throughout Freedman’s article he mentions the “food deserts” that exist throughout America. According to Freedman these are areas, “where produce tends to be hard to find, of poor quality, or expensive.” After all, according to Consumer Reports in 2015, “ on average, organic foods were 47% more expensive,” than conventional foods. This means that a major portion of the general public cannot buy organic food because of its price tag. Pollan concurs in Food Rules: An Eater’s Manuel that, “not everyone in America can eat well, which is a literal shame,” however he counters that, “most of us can: Americans spend less then 10 percent of their income on food.” According to familiesusa.org, as of 2016 the federal government considers a state of poverty when an individual lives on $11,880 or less annually. With this $11,880 or less that impoverished individual pays for their household expenses, transportation, personal care, and medical care in edition to food. Pollan believes in cooking for yourself as way to lose weight. He brings to light his perception that, “when you go to a grocery store, you find the cheapest calories are the ones that make you the fattest.” While he acknowledges that poverty is an influential catalyst to obesity, he fails to connect that the 14.5% Americans, according to the Census Bureau, live below the poverty line and therefore these “cheap calories” may be the most viable option. Also, even if consumers were willing to buy healthier items, many may not have the time to cook a meal due to long hours at work. This is where Freedman's argument shines. He argues for a more convenient method of aiding obesity that offers access to cheaper and healthier food that can be provided

Low income families are not able to consume the food they desire due to the high prices. Cheap food such as fast food is easier for low income families to consume because they do not cost as much as some healthy meals.

Obesity has dangerously increased over the years. Its consequences can be fatal for the human immune system. Some of the complications of overweight are: heart disease, diabetes, malnutrition, cancer, and even death. However, the cost of healthy food is twice or three times more than the price of junk food. Everywhere healthy options are more expensive, even water costs more than sodas. Making healthier food more affordable, will contribute to having healthier population. I think healthy food options should be more affordable because cheaper prices for junk food promotes obesity and other severe health issues, and families with low income can’t afford the costs of a healthy lifestyle.

There are many things wrong with our food system but one of the principal problems is us and our decisions. Wendell Berry who is a farmer and environmental activist wrote in the article The Pleasures of Eating about his theory of eating responsibly which included his opinion on food and the influence others have on what type of food we consume. In his article he addresses the problem with the industries’ influence on the quality of what we eat and the role the consumer has in this process. He states that we cannot be free if our decisions are influenced by others and all we do is agree to what they tell us we should.

Americans today are no strangers to stretching every dollar earned in an attempt to live the American dream. Most people work long hours and eat on the fly with very little thought to what, or where, the food they have purchased came from. The reason food is so inexpensive has not been a concern to the average American, but the article written by Michael Pollan “The Food Movement Rising” attempts to convince the people that it is time to remove the blinders and take an accounting of the situation that America finds itself in. With obesity at epic proportions, and preventable diseases like

The dollar menu section of this documentary focused on how processed foods and fast food are typically less expensive than healthier foods. The documentary shows one family having the dilemma at the grocery store: a family is aware that the father who has diabetes needs a healthier diet with more fresh, but they are forced to buy foods they can afford. As the film implies people with lower incomes are more likely to eat processed, cheaper, foods, leading to a higher rate of diabetes, obesity and other health problems. The federal government spends billions each year subsidizing commodity crops. Over time, prices of certain crops, like soybeans and corn, were lowered due to these subsidies causing overproduction which made them a lot cheaper than other crops. Since these crops were so cheap, meat and food producers started using them for a variety of purposes, such as, high-fructose corn syrup, animal feed and hydrogenated oils. The lowest-priced options at the grocery are processed foods made from subsidized ingredients that have refined grains with added fats and sugars. This cheap food has had the greatest impact on low-income families. Because are on a tight budget, the price difference between fresh healthy foods and food with subsidized

In Pollan’s “Voting with Your Fork,” he first develops a controversial question by examining the food we eat, the production of food, and the health consequences. Pollan counterbalances his argument on food, and health being manipulated by the food industry by providing supporting evidence and expressing his opinion on the issue. Pollan identifies in his article that as the food industry produces cheaper food the unhealthier the food becomes. Pollan explanation to cheap food is, “While it is true that this system produces vast quantities of cheap food (indeed, the vastness and cheapness is part of the problem), it is not doing what any nation’s food system foremost needs to do: that is, maintain its population in a good health.” In increasing the consumption of cheap food, can result in lethal health problems. “For most of history, the food problem” has been a problem of quantity. Our shocking rates of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, foodborne illness and nutrient deficiency suggest that quantity is not the problem- or the solution.” The purpose of Pollan’s article was to trigger society to acknowledge the food being consumed, the production of cheap food, and how certain foods can lead to negative health consequences. In comparison to Pollan, Konstantinovsky also used an argument of facts to state her claims as to why

A right to healthcare could potentially save numerous lives. The death rate percentage has increased to almost half for those people who are uninsured. Even the richest nations should have healthcare. Although it should be the individual’s responsibility to get free healthcare; it’s just not ever going to work that way because not everyone can afford it. Which is why I say it should be the government’s role to provide it to us. Statistics show that in the five countries that do have a right to healthcare, people live two to three years longer than those in the U.S without it. The United States is wealthy nation therefore providing healthcare to the public would decrease death rates and increase the population health. Over half of the United States bankruptcies are because of simple medical costs and damages. If the United States residents were provided healthcare by the government, medical bankruptcies would dissipate because the government would be paying all the medical checks and statements.

Throughout the film, there are two main focuses. These are ‘a Western diet is unhealthy’ and ‘a whole-foods, plant-based diet is the solution.’ Understanding the contextual meaning is critical to dissecting the rhetorical devices because otherwise the intent of the documentary’s creators would be hidden. Dividing instances of ethos, logos, and pathos into the two focuses allows for a clear explanation of each. Through separation, one can focus on purpose and effectiveness.

The film Food Inc., like many other films of its category is not so much of an informative documentary, rather more of a slanderous exposé which blows the lid off of the food industry and its operations. To say that the film is neutral and tends towards more of an educative approach would be a misinterpretation to say the least. Throughout the entire movie it is always evident that the movie aims not solely to educate its audience about the truth of their food, but to convert the misinformed and inspire a rebellion against food industry practices. The movie does this through a tactful approach of bombarding its audience with gruesome clips, facts and testimonial story lines. The film asserts it claim through a thrilling critique of the horrific meat production process which is most prevalent in the U.S food industry and its impact on humans and the environment, while extoling alternative practices which seem to be more sustainable and humane, yet are underutilized. The film goes on to highlight the different players in the food politics arena, emphasizing the role that government agencies play. Also the film divulges the reality that is the monopolization of the food industry by big multinational corporations such as Monsanto Company, Tyson Food, Perdue Farms, Smithfield Foods, etc.

The phrase “ you are what you eat” has been used for centuries. The healthier your food the healthier you can be. However, as time goes on, I hope this phrase is no longer true. The documentary Food Inc. shows our food and what farm fresh really means; things are not always what they seem. The documentary is dark and gruesome in the way it displays our food and what goes into making it, but it also opens our eyes to the world of production and similarly what we see and what we should be seeing. Although it is a gut wrenching documentary, there is an educational informative truth behind it to see if food is really food anymore.

Some reasons why healthy food needs to be available to everyone is because of all of the health problems we have already in the United States. Another reason would be how the only thing families can afford is cheap fast food, prices needs to be changed for healthy food so people don’t experience health problems from eating too much unhealthy food. These are two main reasons why this is an issue in our country. If we lower the prices for healthy foods then we would see a big change in the health of our country.

Society must educate itself on what type of food is healthy such as fresh or fresh frozen vegetables, lean meats, whole grains and fruits. Parents should take the time to explain what these are and why they are important, educating themselves if necessary. Families can also extend this education to a hands-on experience but starting a small vegetable garden which produces some of the vegetables they eat. Author and farmer, Sharon Astyk, and sustainable systems land planner, Aaron Newton, argue that people need to take back the control of the food selection and prices by growing their own or purchasing directly from local farmers. In their article, “The Rich Get Richer: the Poor Go Hungry”, Astyk and Newton (2015) write, “When we grow our own food, or buy it directly from local farmers, we take power away from multinationals” (p.518). I agree that society should become more involved and self-sustaining pertaining to food to retain independence from companies that are loyal to shareholders. This education will provide the current and future generations necessary resources to make improved food choices, thereby reducing the obesity and diabetes epidemics gripping our nation.