Synthesis Essay

One of the most controversial issues today is the question of how to address childhood obesity. Because of the large proportion of meals that children, particularly low-income children, consume in schools, cafeteria food has been targeted by dietary reformers as in need of a major overhaul. However, while many different types of new school menus have been proposed, the extent to which healthier foods can be offered remains controversial. Opponents to reform state that children will not eat healthier lunches, and that changing the food that children eat will have minimal impact, since the children will either bring food from home or eat food at home that is more 'kid friendly.'

In Amy Chua’s essay, “The Right Road to America” she argues the point that immigration is a great value of this country and that America was built from immigrants. One thing differs from Chua’s essay than from others because she not only gives highly credible facts on how immigrants have helped our country, but she also provides ways to improve the issues of immigration into America. Amy Chua is a highly credible professor at Yale and states throughout her essay that immigrants who possess American values deserve to be here in America and those who don’t should leave. America had always been a country that accepted immigration and allowed all

Progressivism expanded across American cities and provided a variety of responses to issues of Americans after the introduction and rapid growth of the urban industrial order. Initially the progressive began as a social movement and grew into a political one. The goals of the movement varied addressing issues such as increasing democracy in the government, the improvement of working and social conditions and identifying and correcting issues of corrupted power.

Every weekday in America millions of kids and teens line up in their schools to buy a lunch. Many of those students buying lunch typically do not even enjoy what they are given. The article “Why Students Hate School Lunch” by Kate Murphy argues about why students are wasting much if their meals due to recent health changes whereas the article “Why Some Schools Are Saying ‘No Thanks’ to the School-Lunch Program” by Alexandra Sifferlin argues on why schools are dropping the new health programs because students are wasting food or not buying at all. Looking at both articles they both question and argue why schools and students are not satisfied with the Healthy Hunger-Free Act of 2012. This act is causing students to not eat school lunches and money to be wasted. Both articles argue against the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act but the difference between the two articles explain is that one argues a student’s opinion versus the other that explains the economic effect it takes on schools.

The student’s spending in school can sometimes be very strict and money doesn’t come very easily, and the temptation of the junk food at schools isn’t helping. Reporters from TIME state that although 1% of schools are dropping out of the National School Lunch program, kids aren’t buying the healthier options, which is the main cause of the school’s decision to drop out of the program. Although this affects the school in negative ways, it reduces the overall money spent by the student. Alexandra Sifferlin also states that after the program had gone into effect, the participation of buying healthy foods drop from 5% to 3% by the end of the year. It’s an important decision to make that decides the importance of student’s decision-making between

Parents lost their jobs, recessions hit and business slowed. These kids are having to worry about more than most adults. They are having to think about what they will eat for their next meal knowing that it will not be in any way nutritious. According to the film, “last year 21 million children received free or low cost lunches” (Neumann, 2012).

Obesity is a tragic case that many people face today. Children especially face obesity at a young age due to many cases. Children are more likely face obesity if their parents, for example, eat fast food or processed goods. However, is the school lunch program a huge factor into children’s obesity? Schools can either provide only healthy foods or allow unhealthy options. In some cases, going healthy means they go into debt, or they can choose to allow unhealthy options and generate revenue. Schools lose money daily because it costs more money to prepare meals than the reimbursement they get from the federal government. Children are better off eating what they are surrounded by. If children are surrounded by home made fresh prepared meals, they are more likely to choose healthier options from that day on. To achieve this, many school districts fail and succeed to create a healthier environment for children.

The series will go to great lengths in discovering the emotional truths of being a twenty something out of college and trying to survive in Singapore. Again and again the series returns to a line of dialogue that runs some variation of ‘follow your dreams’ and recurs throughout.

I felt very confident about synthesis essays. I did great on them. I am used to writing an epitome, but on my first synthesis essay you saw, it was my highest score. Usually, I get like a five or just a plain six on an AP essay and be petulant about what I have written, but this time I got a six plus and felt great about it. It is my highest essay grade this semester. I could have gotten a seven if I would have written more. I should have to aggrandize my grade. I would have been very happy with

As students begin to become less active and eating more unhealthy, students have to suffer from their consequences. An alarming fact is that “three out of four schools [serves] too much fat” in their school lunches (Hirsch, J.M.). There has to be a way to prevent this phenomenon from occurring in schools. Schools have to take some responsibility of children’s aggressive weight gain throughout

The opponents to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act are usually students who are angry about the loss of their junk food. With this being a large factor, students who pay for full price lunches declined by about 10% in 2013, the lowest rate in over a decade (Harrington). The Government

If the kids don't get good food from the government and if they don't willingly give good food and kids pay for it, it's just a waste of everyone's money the governments and the parents it said in the text. If kids take food then it should at least be good. Let's say hot lunch today is apple sauce , peas, and chicken salad, it sounds good right well when someone gets it is smushed peas, sour apple sauce ,and letters with chicken thrown on top and no ranch. All the guy eats is the ‘chicken salad’ when the guy gets home his mom is mad because it is a waste of money.

It most importantly brings its audience to the realization that the war against junk food is not fully combatted as it still affects low socioeconomic classes as children in this class still face the risk of obesity and even more serious ailments like diabetes and cancer which can result from obesity. The authors interpret the problem facing socioeconomic class well by admitting that the foods they can mostly afford are junk food. Nonetheless, find it derogatory that the authors would suggest that parents in a low socioeconomic class lack nutritional knowledge, I perceive this as a stereotype against that social class. In conclusion, it is relevant in showing a particular trend going on in socio economic classes. However, the article would have been most relevant if it also offered ways and techniques that could be used to ensure that children from low socioeconomic classes also benefit from the laws against junk

The numerousness of child obesity in the US is at an unequaled high with about 33% of all kids and teenagers now viewed as overweight or fat (Ogden et al 2008). Impressive consideration has been centered on schools trying to distinguish approach levers that will switch the weight pestilence. Specifically, the accessibility of "aggressive foods", characterized as nourishments and refreshments accessible or being able to buy in schools, outside of the school lunch and breakfast, has been a highly talked about issue. From one perspective, adversaries address the nourishing estimation of focused sustenance and think of them as the essential wellspring of "junk" in schools

Government-subsidized food is a growing epidemic in this country. According to Adam Drewnoski, an obesity researcher at University of Washington, “A dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Also, he discovered that a dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice” (Pollan 1). This statistic proves that the emergence of unhealthy food and growing obesity numbers are directly correlated to the increasing government-subsidized food that is being thrust upon American children. One study found out that, “about 98% of all televised food ads seen by children are for foods high in sugar, fat, or sodium, and that one thirty-second commercial can influence the brand