The Pros And Cons Of Unhealty Foods

Eating healthy has become a thing of the past. In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead” offers an idea on how to change the Standard American Diet: making healthy food cheaper and fast, processed food more expensive. Calculating the tax to increase one penny would make a difference in the price and the decision for the people as to whether or not the people are will purchase processed foods. He explains that taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods should increase due to the amount of money it would bring into the government, and the benefits of a healthier American. Bittman’s results remove chronic health diseases that reinvent the way we eat. In “Nickle and Dimed on Not Getting by in America,”

Most people say that the government’s role, in our diets, is the key for a healthier life. While others may argue that it is freedom of choice to eat whatever we want. However depending on the point of view, the government’s role in shaping what we consume is either a compulsory intervention or a blatant interference on American free will. Even though we hear a good argument on the government controlling our diets, most research show that the involvement of the government on our diets has shown little to no results.

The problem with food production in America is the mistreatment of livestock, the overproduction of corn in America, and the amount of corn feeded to the animals ; these issues affect consumers’ health because of the amount of diabetes has been increasing over years. Michael Pollan in "When a Crop Becomes King” he explains that the government pays for corn to be grown a lot more then it should be ,David Barboza in the article “If You Pitch it , They will Eat It” the way companies just want to get into kids mind by tricking them into telling their parents to buy them unhealthy food just for the toy it comes with, In “Pleasures of Eating,” Wendell Berry most of the people just rather be eating out then making food. There is uncertainty about the way food is produce because we cannot control people on what they

Michael Moss, an investigative reporter who enjoys reporting on food, wrote: “The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food” (pages 471-494). This article reports on the ways that prepackaged food, especially junk food, is being designed to fit the customers’ needs and wants, as well as being something that the body craves. Moss provides multiple accounts throughout the reading in which people who have worked for or created corporate companies design foods just so they will sell. Moss expresses his thought in a clear manner to the reader so he or she will understand that Moss worries about the growing obesity in America and places the blame on junk food corporations. Though junk food corporations have a great part in the growing obesity,

Journalist and novelist Michael Pollan writes about the trials and tribulations surrounding food in North America and raises questions regarding Western diet, which is mostly comprised of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup and corn in general. He reiterates that chemically generated food is creating disease in North Americans; If we eliminate these factors and adopt the eating habits of less industrialized places in the world will we in our lifetime see rates of heart disease, type two diabetes and obesity decline dramatically? The western diet has evolved drastically in the last sixty years, so much so that people have become codependent on the government, dietitians and food agencies regarding their health and what to consume. The land is suffering from pesticides and singular plant farming, the alternative to this is to buy organic but at a higher price. Media has influenced the consumer to read the label and accept and trust the daily vitamin percentages on the box, as this is what is best for them. Money is the key factor in all of this and the government, scientific research and media know that, therefor the public is in for a shock when they realize that the very labels that are supposed to save them have fooled them.

(Parker-Pope, 2007) “If you have three dollars to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar.” said Dr. Drewnowski, Professor of the Department of Epidemiology and Medicine at the University of Washington. He further stated, “Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.” (Parker-Pope, 2007) Much of these cost are due to our Governments Farm Policy. Farm policy encourages the production of commodities for processed foods instead of healthy foods. Whether by intention or not, because of the low cost of commodities like corn and soybeans, sugars and fats like fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated vegetable oils, current farm policy has directed food industry investment into funding ways of using these cheap food additives in processed foods, thus causing consumers to eat more added sweeteners and oils than is healthy. Because these highly processed foods can be produced at a very low cost, they give significant profit for the food industry which creates an industry incentive to market “junk” foods instead of healthier foods. (Food without Thought:How US Farm Policy Contributes to Obesity)

In the documentary film “Fed Up”, sugar and the sweeteners in our food or beverages is featured to be the prime ingredient that is making the most of our adolescents obese. It tells of a few families struggling with obesity, and how these families have been trying to do everything they can to help their children lose weight. It shows what kind of food that they are eating at home and the weight problem that most of the family is struggling with. The food that is being served at schools and also the thousands of products that contain sugar, everywhere groceries are bought; sugar is the main cause for obesity. It tells that low wage earners have no choice, but to buy unhealthy food, because healthier food cost more. “The bottom line: cheap, unhealthy foods mixed with a sedentary lifestyle has made obesity the new normal in America. There is no single, simple answer to explain the obesity patterns in America, says Walter Willett, who chairs the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health” article in the U. S. News. Although it does cost more, a school of public health wrote in an article, “While healthier diets did cost more, the difference was smaller than many people might have expected. Over the course of a year, $1.50/day more for eating a healthy diet would increase food costs for one person by about $550 per year. On the other hand, this price difference is very small in comparison to the economic costs of diet-related chronic diseases, which would be

Body mass index, or BMI, is used by doctors and health physicians to measure excessively high levels of body fat in relation to lean body mass in an individual. Having a BMI ratio that is considered above average or too high normally denotes persons at risk to several health adversities such as heart attacks, liver damage, diabetes, and even more widespread, obesity. In 2005, the United States Department of Health and Human Services estimated that over half of the adult American population was either overweight or obese, and many of these health concerns were correlated with a person’s diet and type of food consumption. In an attempt to assign blame for the cause, political and social commentators’ claim that long standing farm subsidies on particular food commodities correlate with rising obesity trends in America. In a documentary titled Food, Inc., opened to audience in 2008, award winning filmmaker Robert Kenner argues that current agricultural policies on these subsidized food commodities are allowing major food corporations to mass produce products that negatively affect the health of consumers nationwide. He contends that commodity crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans are heavily subsidized by the government to produce snack foods that are high in calorie content but low in cost, becoming the prime choice for Americans looking for cheap and readily available foods to eat. Kenner believes that government subsidies need to either be

When most people think about sugar, their first thoughts are not: heart disease, addiction, or slow and painful death; yet, unfortunately, these conditions are very real consequences of the unregulated and excessive consumption of sugar. In Nature’s article, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” (2012), Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist; Laura Schmidt, Professor of Health Policy at UCSF; and Claire Brindis, Professor of Pediatrics and Health Policy at UCSF, evaluate the world’s ever-increasing and toxic struggle with the substance sugar – also discussing counter measures to promote healthier diets amongst American’s and other societies. Lustig and his colleagues develop their argument using statistical evidence as they address the global impact of sugar, refuting minor oppositions, before dissecting each harmful aspect of the substance – even comparing it to substances more known for their toxicity. Eventually, presenting readers with possible routes of regulation, the authors firmly suggest government intervention in the production and sale of sugary foods. Although the argument is well executed, I remain unconvinced that government intervention is actually necessary.

“If and when the public chooses to use government power to offset the factors that promote obesity, we can do so. A day may come when we decide to limit advertising of unhealthy food, strengthen lifestyle teaching in schools, and create stronger financial incentives to adhere to lifestyle recommendations. The more eager we the people are to fight the obesogenic environment, the more responsive and effective our governments will become” (Medscape General Medicine, vol. 9, no. 4, 2007).

Balko believes that instead of people blaming the fast food companies, people need to be responsible enough to understand that fast food is not healthy for some people to eat regularly. The author explains how the government wants to intervene in the struggle against obesity when there is no need for them to do so. Balko proposes that instead of wasting money trying to fight obesity, the government should simply reward those who have the willpower to stay away from fast food and manage their own health. Balko believes that the government should reward these people through the healthcare system (158). Zinczenko and Balko represent the 2 sides of the argument over fast food.

There are better alternatives for preventing obesity than a fat tax. The policy-improving RAND Corporation examined twenty international programs which offered subsidies for fruit and vegetables. Study author Ruopeng An wrote: “All but

Due to the obesity epidemic, the government may need to intervene as a result of its own involvement in supporting institutions that are contributing to the problem. For example, the government supports the production of food commodities and subsidized U.S. crops, most notably sugar

The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our

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.