Op-Ed Summary

Summary take upt Blame the Eater The Op-Ed piece, Dont Blame the Eater, by David Zinczenko talks about the issue of fleshiness in America and whose accuse it really is, the consumeer or the people providing the food. His contract on the equal to(p) is that it is the industries fault for the obesity in America and not the peoples fault because determination an alternative to consume cheap food on the go is nigh impossible. He consumes an example of himself right in the third paragraph, explaining how his mom had to thrash long hours to pay the bills and his choices for food were pizza hut or KFC because that was the all affordable choice for him.He also employs a muss of logos in the following paragraphs by mentioning statistics on the matter of diabetes, and the amount of money pose into tr haveing it as the years progress. Shooting d take opposing arguments also plays a factor in Zinczenkos es claim when he asks the reader shouldnt 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, specially teenagers, supposed to find alternatives.He also introduces the concept of not knowing all information on the food that we are consuming, and the misleading advertising in fast food products where certain healthy foods are really beneficial masked by misleading serving sizes and lack of dressing and noodles and almonds for hypothesise a healthy salad. I believe he sums up his raise by saying that the companies should be sued for not having these warning labels the analogous focussing 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 national but from a different, and in my opinion more agreeable, perspective. His claim is about opposite from Zinczenkos in that he believes that it is our responsibility to take commiss ion of our protest bodies kinda than the food industries. He phrases it nicely when he mentions livery 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 rather of manipulating what is available to us and how it is available to us, we should instead foster a wiz of responsibility in our own health and well being. I gauge what he is basically saying is that we are honorable 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 rush less fillip to actually put down what is causing our heart attacks.He employs ethos when he mentions call in New York Times magazines and specials on TVs that claim for government intervention. What I managed 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 devour 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 proceeds healthy livelinessstyles and penalize poor ones, not raise all our premiums because the ordain 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 heartbeat one works for me better because I already had a stall 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 sure enough 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 bother 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. Its not like you dont see people living healthy life styles in the same economically classes.You dont need to alcoholism soda, in fact, water is free. Even if it were true that some things did not have nutritional facts on them, dont you think you shouldnt eat it then, or even if that was the case, cant people use their customary 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 t hese days have smart phones, they wont hesitate to look up the warm 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 dont, you need to stop fueling McDonalds, stop allow them think its okay to serve fries that never spoil because you claim they are the best fries youve ever had. It is your responsibility to diet, and exercise, and eat right, determination healthy food is not impossible, stop kidding yourselves.