Khoury, Michael

Professor Altman
9-10-14
Engl 115, 2 pm.

Dont Blame the Eater

In this article by David Zinczenko an argument is made on weather or not
fast-food establishments should label their products, as do cigarette companies.
Zinczenko argue the negation, stating that fast-food companies labeling their
products with warnings for causing their customers to be overweight is like Porsche
labeling their products with warnings for causing speeding tickets. By him saying
this he is showing the audience just how ridiculous it is for fast-food companies to
put warning labels on their products. Rather than just argue the ridiculousness of
the labeling issues he offers situations and solutions for the overall issue witch is the
obesity epidemic in the US. Zinczenko states that at every corner in a normal US
city or town you will indefinitely find a fast-food establishment and yet there will be
no healthy choice for miles. He then points out that their consumers endow the
power of these companies to them. This is when he points out that the best way to
regulate these companies is by not contributing to them. Zinczenko is calling the
reader to action by telling him/her that the power to take down these companies is
in your hands and nothing will get done unless you, the consumer, do something.

Junking Junk Food

Judith Warner, in this piece, takes the weight problem in the US to a political
level by opening with a story of Sarah Palin and how she took cookies to a school in
Bucks County, Pa. and started handing them out to the students. A tweet of hers was
quoted saying this school was in the midst of a school cookie ban debate. This
school, in fact, wasnt in the midst of any such ban or debate over such a thing. Palin
just used this paid event as an opportunity to make it about her support on a laissezfaire eating style. Warner then shows her credibility by stating that she is published
in many magazines and newspapers and also has some published books. She then
offers a story of a Glenn Beck, who is a known Republican, has found a way to mock
the current administration by speaking of government health inspectors shutting
down a 7-year-olds lemonade stand. This is to show how certain people with
political affiliations are attempting to fight the weight crisis. She then states that
those who are fighting against the federal campaign are not fighting for the reason
of giving people the freedom to choose what they eat but rather for the benefit of
their political constituents. Warner then explains the federal campaign against
unhealthy eating in WWII where the campaign wasnt centered around changing
laws or enforcing regulations but attempting to reform American food culture all
together by starting adverts stating that food rationing was needed for troops. Sadly,
though, after the war the committee, which commissioned the campaign, was
terminated and the committee, which assumed those responsibilities, only focused
on laws and regulations. Warner then argues that we are so accustom to these laws
and regulations that it would be immensely difficult yet beneficial if we do revert to
the method that was used in WWII.

What You Eat Is Your Business

Radley Balko points out firstly in his article that the media is pushing
government to make some reforms when it comes to personal health and healthcare
in general. He then points out that president Bush was all for it and put earmarked
$200 million on his budget for these programs. This seems great but he does point
out that people do take advantage of this. These government subsidies are telling
people who have weight-related issues that its ok to keep doing exactly what theyre
doing and the government will help you by subsidizing your medication and
treatment. When, in reality, the only way the government is able to offer subsidies is
through taxes. So, by living the same lifestyle those who take advantage of these
subsidies they are taking advantage of their fellow taxpayers. He then argues that
socializing the cost of these medical resources is hurting the nation as whole. He
then states that privatizing the costs and giving healthcare companies the freedom
to reward healthy living would force those who dont to make a healthier lifestyle
for themselves.
Being Fat is OK
This article by Paul Campos is one that uses its title as a point in itself. When
Campos says, being fat is ok, he really means that being fat by the governments
standards is ok because the governments defines being fat or overweight is by a
measurement of you BMI. This is inaccurate because it is measured strictly through
height and weight even if someones weight isnt from body fat. He then explains
why diet companies do not work. He says foremost that all of their campaigns and
adverts that show proven results are not completely concluded with scientific
evidence. He mentions this throughout the article. Campos also compares fat people
today to African-Americans during in the past. He does this to show just how we see
being overweight in todays world. He then compares dieting to smoking by saying
dieting to prevent getting fat is like smoking to prevent lung cancer. He says this to
show the ridiculousness of dieting. He concludes this article by saying that diet
companies make $50 billion a year by selling placebos.