Summary: Don’t Blame the Eater The Op-Ed piece, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” by David Zinczenko talks about the issue of obesity in America and whose fault it really is, the eater or the people providing the food. His claim on the subject is that it is the industries fault for the obesity in America and not the peoples fault because finding an alternative to eating cheap food on the go is nearly impossible. He makes an example of himself right in the third paragraph, explaining how his mom had to work long hours to pay the bills and his choices for food were pizza hut or KFC because that was the only affordable choice for him.
He also employs a lot of logos in the following paragraphs by mentioning statistics on the matter of diabetes, and the amount of money put into treating it as the years progress. Shooting down opposing arguments also plays a factor in Zinczenko’s essay when he asks the reader “shouldn’t we know better than to eat two meals a day in fast-food restaurants? ” He states that this is one argument, but then makes the point of where are consumers, particularly teenagers, supposed to find alternatives.
He also introduces the concept of not knowing any information on the food that we are consuming, and the misleading advertising in fast food products where certain “healthy foods” are really just masked by misleading serving sizes and lack of dressing and noodles and almonds for say a healthy salad. I believe he sums up his essay by saying that the companies should be sued for not having these warning labels the same way tobacco companies are. Overall it is their fault and not as ridiculous as it seems.
Summary: What You Eat Is Your Business “What You Eat Is Your Business,” is an Op-Ed piece on the same subject but from a different, and in my opinion more agreeable, perspective. His claim is almost opposite from Zinczenko’s in that he believes that it is our responsibility to take care of our own bodies rather than the food industries. He phrases it nicely when he mentions “bringing government between you and your waistline,” which is essentially what Zinczenko argued for.
He says how this is the wrong way to fight obesity, that instead of manipulating what is available to us and how it is available to us, we should instead foster a sense of responsibility in our own health and well being. I think what he is basically saying is that we are just pointing fingers at what is our own faults, and that when the government acts for “us,” they are only acting for the public numbers rather than for the people themselves. Balko also mentions that by doing this, and having the government intervene, we have less incentive to actually put down what is causing our heart attacks.
He employs ethos when he mentions names in New York Times magazines and specials on TV’s that plead for government intervention. What I liked about this Op-Ed piece is that it makes sense and obesity should not even be in the public health concern. After all it is only there because we have to pay for the consequences of it. He provides his own stand and sticks firmly to it providing us with what he thinks would be best. The insurance companies should reward healthy lifestyles and penalize poor ones, not raise all our premiums because the rate of heart attacks are rising because the government is taking the wrong route.
It is our responsibility to diet, exercise, and worry about ourselves. Response to Both I think I take a clear favorite out of the two essays. The second one works for me better because I already had a viewpoint on the topic. The first op-ed says that it is the governments fault for providing such cheap, unknown products that seem to be our only option when it comes to eating. I think this is a ridiculous argument. It certainly is not our only choice in eating out that just sounds like an excuse to me. The people like the food, so they keep eating it instead of looking for an alternative, and then point fingers.
Sure there is diabetes and a lot of money put into treating it, but in the end the root of the problem is those people eating those foods and then making up excuses for it. This is why I agree with the second essay more. People have the ability to say no, they have the ability to look for healthier food at the same prices. They can pick up the food they are eating, and look at the nutrition facts, and look at the serving sizes. It’s not like you don’t see people living healthy life styles in the same economically classes.
You don’t need to drink soda, in fact, water is free. Even if it were true that some things did not have nutritional facts on them, don’t you think you shouldn’t eat it then, or even if that was the case, can’t people use their common sense? Obviously the bucket of fried chicken glistening in trans fat is not going to harm your coronary artery in any way. In fact, a majority of people these days have smart phones, they won’t hesitate to look up the nearest McDonalds, but how about looking up some nutritional facts on it, or reading about how to live a healthy lifestyle.
Balko is right, what you eat is your business, stop turning to the government and telling them its their fault they need to make you skinny. No they don’t, you need to stop fueling McDonalds, stop letting them think its okay to serve fries that never spoil because you claim they are the best fries you’ve ever had. It is your responsibility to diet, and exercise, and eat right, finding healthy food is not impossible, stop kidding yourselves.