Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
There are multiple issues at the heart of the idea that there should be bans on junk food. The surface-level issue is that there is a point at which our free will is being corrupted by external interests, and that government as another external interest can act to counter these influences. The other major underlying issue is actually public health. This paper will examine each of these major issues at the heart of the argument and then examine the strength of the arguments in favor and against such food bands.
The individual free will argument is used by both sides. Opponents of these bans have argued that individuals have the right to make their own determinations. Surowiecki (2012) counters that people do not have a fixed definition of what they want, but rather rely on contextual clues to determine optimal consumption. These cues are typically manipulated by those in the junk food industry to drive higher consumption, since the raison d'etre of those firms is to increase profits. Thus, we have only a veneer of individual free will; the reality is that our concept of free will is frequently manipulated. This leads to the nanny state argument -- that government has recognized this behavior on the part of business and believes it is in the unique position of changing this behavior. By limiting choices, it is protecting people from their own poor decision-making; rather, it is protecting people from having their free will manipulated. This line of reasoning can become quite complex the more philosophical it gets, which leads to a wide range of arguments about free will, the role of individual decision-making in American society and as a contrast to that the role that government should play in influencing individual decision-making. The argument essentially weighs the ethics of reducing one's individual freedom against the benefits of limiting one's fast food options (Mehta, 2007).
Ultimately, the debate about individual will comes down to making a judgment call about what is better in society. Either the individual's right to make his or her own decisions is paramount or the government has a right to help shape better decision-making. When the argument is about children, as Bittman points out, there is less cope for the free will argument to be used as a defense against such laws. Children are generally believed to have lower powers to exercise their free will, and therefore are even more in need of protection than adults. Even if adults want to allow themselves to be duped by marketers, children should be afforded such protection by society, via government regulation. There may even be an inherent superiority embedded in the pro-legislation individual will argument, in that some people are savvy enough to know how marketers seek to influence consumer decision-making, but most people are not as savvy. The role of those who know is to protect those who do not. This is similar to the argument in favor of protecting children, but when it is framed as adults who are in need of protection, people can become quite defensive out the implication that they might be as need of protection as children because their decision-making processes are no better. There are alternatives, such as self-regulation, but studies have shown that self-regulation has been ineffective (Bernhardt, et al., 2013).
The other major issue is actually public health. This is not necessarily a moral issue where the general benefit of having a healthy public is being weighed against the need to preserve individual free will. It may simply be pragmatic, as was the case with the various bans on cigarette marketing and consumption. Governments, like the one Bloomberg runs, pay a significant portion of their expenses to health insurance, and to cover the health care needs of the underprivileged in their societies. There is significant motivation, therefore, to reduce this cost burden. Obesity and related ailments like heart disease and diabetes are contributing factors to the costs that governments face, so governments have incentive to reduce obesity levels in society. There may be nothing altruistic at all about the drive to improve the health of people in New York or anywhere else, but simply a drive to reduce some of the unnecessary costs associated with providing a broad range of health care services. At the…[continue]
"Unhealthy Food" (2013, September 30) Retrieved December 3, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/unhealthy-food-123433
"Unhealthy Food" 30 September 2013. Web.3 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/unhealthy-food-123433>
"Unhealthy Food", 30 September 2013, Accessed.3 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/unhealthy-food-123433
Already, nearly 17% of American healthcare costs are linked to obesity (Bhasha, 2010). Under the new health care reform legislation of 2010, employers are not allowed to deny insurance based on a person's weight; however, there's a caveat in which employees in wellness programs can be charged up to 50% more if their weight exceeds specified levels based on age, gender, and height (Downey, 2010). Whether government should be
I was expecting it to simply attack the way things are done today and make them sound horrible, without focusing on why they are truly bad or actually making people think about what they are eating. Those kinds of tactics are often used, but they rarely get results because people only see someone (or a group of people) being argumentative. Instead, people need to be presented with valid opinions
"For sets with a large number of options...a disorganized assortment can make it more difficult for consumers to recognize and appreciate the full extent of the variety," with arrangements of food and non-food objects (Kahn & Wansink 2004: 526). The more the appearance of variety, the higher the level of consumption of food and non-food items. In terms of taste, variety can influence consumption, even if color and 'packaging' is
Food Menu and Nutrition Food Menu Overview The objective of this study is to create two food menus as follows: (1) one healthy food menu; and (2) one unhealthy food menu, from a local fast food restaurant. Following the creation of these menus, this work will write a nutritional analysis of the meal created, discuss the reaction of the writer to this information and describe how this will affect the food choices
Food Served in Public Schools The school nutrition environment, consisting of school meals and competitive meals, has actually properly gotten terrific attention due to the fact that kids eat, usually, one-third of their everyday calorie consumption at school (Briefel et al., 2009). Improving the dietary consumption of our country's kids is of crucial value given that one-third of school-age kids are obese or overweight (Ogden et al., 2010). Paper's Scope and significant areas:. This
The section on animals was particularly heart-wrenching. In a society built on consumer excess, the meat industry has proliferated to the extent that it has become a disgusting parody of itself. We are no longer talking about families gathered around the table for a weekly pig roast. Now, Americans feel entitled to eating hamburgers twice a day, chicken every day, pork, beef, lamb, in various forms. The sense of entitlement
These unhealthy food advertisements are not only the reverse of dietary suggestions but they are also unnecessary in prevention of obesity. According to the findings, broadcast media marketing has a significant impact as compared to non-broadcast advertising. In fact, television advertising constitutes the highest percentage of food advertisements to children given that most of these adverts are during children-related programs. However, more than eighty percent of these television adverts with