The Government is not a parent. I understand and concede the fact that America is obese. There are 127 million overweight citizens in the country, but the weight of these citizens is not the responsibility of the Government. But I do realize something needs to be done. However, must be realized Government limitations will not produce and headway at all. They will be futile in slimming down the country for several reasons.
To begin, as I previously stated, there are many causes of obesity; simply limiting the intake of certain foods will be only anger healthy and fit Americans with a healthy relationship with food. Also, the government may be able to limit what children can and cannot eat in school, however these laws will be ineffective once children leave the school environment. At home, before many parents return home from work, they can binge on sweets, which is more harmful to their health more than having one cookie at lunchtime.
Being very informed with the topic of eating disorders, I feel like this is the completely wrong approach. Limiting foods will only hurt a child's relationship with food, as they will desire these "forbidden foods", as they've been termed in the pyschology field. Also, the prices that families have to pay for food items will go up, making it more difficult for lower and middle class families to stay full. This law is wrong; the Government is going too far.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Just the Facts
Subtopic One: Ineffective
- In 1985, less than 20% of people were obese in every state. By 2005, more than 40 states have over this amount.
- One in four Americans do not exercise at all.
- The Center for Consumer Freedom points out that over the last two decades the amount of information on food labels has grown with the public girth.
- In the United States, 127 million adults are overweight, 60 million are obese, and nine million are severely obese.
Subtopic Two: Laissez-Faire Reversal - The Arkansas board of Education mandated that schools send home a weight report card. Local schools in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Oregon and California require the same.
Subtopic Three: Effects - Teen and childhood years are crucial stages in a human's life to develop healthy eating habits that will last a lifetime.
- In the United States, obesity rates are the highest in poor communities.
Subtopic Four: Wrong Reasons - Taxpayers paid about $39 billion to treat obesity related conditions.
What the Experts Say
Subtopic One: Ineffective
- In response to the CA government's intentions to outlaw candy in schools, Sonia Arrison, author of Obesity Matters, claimed, "banning candy in schools in like putting a Band-Aid on a third-degree burn,".
- Richard Berman of the nonprofit, food-industry-backed Center for Consumer Freedom said "the Government can't exactly mandate sit-ups,".
Subtopic Two: Laissez-Faire Reversal - After comparing Government intervention to Hitler's Germany, William Lind, director of the Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, questioned, "Do we belong to the Government, or does the Government belong to us?"
- Kate Zernike of the New York Times stated "How much people weigh is a product of personal choice and responsibity,".
- Even the Government officals are realizing it will not be easy to intervene in such an issue. Republican Senator Lugar (Indiana) admitted, "It's a delicate line,".
- Shelley A. Hearne, executive director of the trust, reasoned, "We have a crisis of poor nutrition and physical inactivity in the U.S. and it's time we dealt with it ... but lawmakers have reaches a state of policy paralysis in regards to obesity,".
Subtopic Three: Effects - Author of Obesity Matters, Sonia Arrison, realizes, "the socialization of the costs of the probelm only make it more likely that individuals will carry on with their destructive behavior," and explains, "It's not a rocket science: whatever is subsidized will grow,".
Subtopic Four: Wrong Reasons - Sonia Arrison also said "the most obvious impact [of obesity] is the economic strain - obesity costs America a ton!"
- After explaining the costs Americans are forced to pay as a result of obesity related conditions, Czerne M. Reid, writer for the (Columbia, SC) State, reasons, "No wonder policy makers and researchers have been thinking of the epidemic and its solutions in terms of finanical gains and losses,".
- Health economist, Eric Finkelstein, said "although economic forces drive behavior, health cornerns should take precedence over economic ones when addressing obesity,".
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Subtopic 2: Laissez-Faire Reversal
My second subtopic basically presents the idea that the Government simply can't go this far; by limiting the foods that children can eat, they are reversing the laissez-faire morals many of the founding fathers possessed.
This argument, unlike my others, is basically a matter of opinion. To me, a healthy teenager, it seems obvious to assume that many Americans will feel invaded and controlled by these Government-enacted laws, however, research has shown that there are people out there ready for the Government to magically solve the obesity problem. I realized my argument solely consisted of a slew of quotations from angered Americans; I needed more to build my argument on. Luckily, I found quotes from several Government officals admitting to struggles lawmakers were experiencing when facing the obesity epidemic. Even those involved admitted that it's a "delicate line" (as one senator put it) that they need to worry about crossing. I believe this enhances my position.
Because I have not yet explained the actual issue I have with these Government encroachments, let me plainly state that I feel the Government is not granted the power to limit what you can and cannot eat because they're worried you'll get fat. I understand the Government reasoning includes points of economic boosting as well as lowering the cost society pays each year in taxes to Medicare of Medicaid funds treating obesity (117 billion-ish), but these reasons do not outweigh the rights I have as a human being - to eat what I want to eat when I want it, regardless of how detrimential it may be to my health. I believe that that this choice is mine alone.
This argument, unlike my others, is basically a matter of opinion. To me, a healthy teenager, it seems obvious to assume that many Americans will feel invaded and controlled by these Government-enacted laws, however, research has shown that there are people out there ready for the Government to magically solve the obesity problem. I realized my argument solely consisted of a slew of quotations from angered Americans; I needed more to build my argument on. Luckily, I found quotes from several Government officals admitting to struggles lawmakers were experiencing when facing the obesity epidemic. Even those involved admitted that it's a "delicate line" (as one senator put it) that they need to worry about crossing. I believe this enhances my position.
Because I have not yet explained the actual issue I have with these Government encroachments, let me plainly state that I feel the Government is not granted the power to limit what you can and cannot eat because they're worried you'll get fat. I understand the Government reasoning includes points of economic boosting as well as lowering the cost society pays each year in taxes to Medicare of Medicaid funds treating obesity (117 billion-ish), but these reasons do not outweigh the rights I have as a human being - to eat what I want to eat when I want it, regardless of how detrimential it may be to my health. I believe that that this choice is mine alone.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Subtopic 1: Ineffective
Basically, my first topic presents arguments of many people who believe that the Government cannot solve the obesity epidemic. There are many reasons this I, and many others, feel this way.
To begin, obesity is not simply caused by washing down a bag of potatoe chips with a liter of soda. Obesity actually has many contributiors: lack of exercise, gender, race, genetics etc., along with food choice of course. Clearly, the Government can't change the a person's genetic makeup, and they do not have the control to force people to do their daily jumping jacks. So out of those several contributors, the Government can only "control" one. This will not end obesity in America.
The Government's power can only go so far. Sure, they can tell you what you can and can't purchse in school, but they do not have the right to prohibit foods you bring from home. Yet, in some schools, (cough -- Jefferson -- cough) I've heard teachers and principals believe they've been granted this right. But even so, I know you can't be told by the Government what you can have in your home. And, if I return to my first grade self, I can guarentee you a sugarfree day of school called for a candy spree upon getting home. So what exactly will the Government accomplish in in limiting a kid's food choice?
I'm not sure either.
To begin, obesity is not simply caused by washing down a bag of potatoe chips with a liter of soda. Obesity actually has many contributiors: lack of exercise, gender, race, genetics etc., along with food choice of course. Clearly, the Government can't change the a person's genetic makeup, and they do not have the control to force people to do their daily jumping jacks. So out of those several contributors, the Government can only "control" one. This will not end obesity in America.
The Government's power can only go so far. Sure, they can tell you what you can and can't purchse in school, but they do not have the right to prohibit foods you bring from home. Yet, in some schools, (cough -- Jefferson -- cough) I've heard teachers and principals believe they've been granted this right. But even so, I know you can't be told by the Government what you can have in your home. And, if I return to my first grade self, I can guarentee you a sugarfree day of school called for a candy spree upon getting home. So what exactly will the Government accomplish in in limiting a kid's food choice?
I'm not sure either.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Pros and Cons
Considering my position, it is obvious that I see the cons of Government intervention more prominently than the pros, but I'll see what I can do to give both of the pending arguments justice.
Let me step out of my mindset and first present the reasons for Government intervention. There is the obvious goal of slimming down the nation. As obesity rates have risen some incredible amount in the past 20 years, the Government is concerned for their citizens. (Mind you that they'd also like to decrease the $90 billion spent a year on obesity related medical complications.) I am with them in their concern; if these rates continue to rise we are in big trouble. There has been no other successful measure in lessening obesity in America: the rates are still rising. If the Government takes control of this situation, they will establish themselves as a savior, regaining the footing of the country through this terrible fall full of calories from McDonald's and Taco Bell.
Another aspect of the pro-government intervention arguement is the enhancement it would provide to the economy; food has become a cheap and accessible commody. Today, all a mother has to do after a busy day is take five minutes to go through the drive-thru for a $20 meal that will feed the whole family. However, with government officals requiring the purchase of nutritious or organic products, households will be putting more of their paychecks into the purchase of food, contributing to the economy, which has recently been declining.
Ah finally, the cons. Beside the simple fact that the Government would be intervening for all the wrong reasons (those of lowering the amount of Government funds spend on obesity complications, and improving the economy), the Government will be erasing all traces of the laissez faire democracy that was once in effect. Instead of allowing individuals to decide what goes into their mouths, the Government has begun monitoring that as well. It is also important to recognize the effects that might arise. For one, the Eating Disorder idea that I explained in my overview. These laws would instill a completely wrong mindset in children, to fear food. As they grow into teens and adults, they will not have an emotionally healthy relationship with food. Also, although this is far from my main concern, the result in having to purchase more healthy and expensive food could be devistating for many middle and lower class families.
Let me step out of my mindset and first present the reasons for Government intervention. There is the obvious goal of slimming down the nation. As obesity rates have risen some incredible amount in the past 20 years, the Government is concerned for their citizens. (Mind you that they'd also like to decrease the $90 billion spent a year on obesity related medical complications.) I am with them in their concern; if these rates continue to rise we are in big trouble. There has been no other successful measure in lessening obesity in America: the rates are still rising. If the Government takes control of this situation, they will establish themselves as a savior, regaining the footing of the country through this terrible fall full of calories from McDonald's and Taco Bell.
Another aspect of the pro-government intervention arguement is the enhancement it would provide to the economy; food has become a cheap and accessible commody. Today, all a mother has to do after a busy day is take five minutes to go through the drive-thru for a $20 meal that will feed the whole family. However, with government officals requiring the purchase of nutritious or organic products, households will be putting more of their paychecks into the purchase of food, contributing to the economy, which has recently been declining.
Ah finally, the cons. Beside the simple fact that the Government would be intervening for all the wrong reasons (those of lowering the amount of Government funds spend on obesity complications, and improving the economy), the Government will be erasing all traces of the laissez faire democracy that was once in effect. Instead of allowing individuals to decide what goes into their mouths, the Government has begun monitoring that as well. It is also important to recognize the effects that might arise. For one, the Eating Disorder idea that I explained in my overview. These laws would instill a completely wrong mindset in children, to fear food. As they grow into teens and adults, they will not have an emotionally healthy relationship with food. Also, although this is far from my main concern, the result in having to purchase more healthy and expensive food could be devistating for many middle and lower class families.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Overview
It's no secret that the obesity problem is getting out of hand in the United States. Movies like Supersize Me (if by a slim chance [pun] you haven't seen it, for a quick trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V168xofxgu0&feature=related) and widely shared statistics ( 300,000 Americans die a year from obesity related illnesses) exploit the "dirty little secret" Americans had been trying to hide. It cannot be denied that obesity has become a huge problem (no pun intended) in today's society, and as a result the Government has been stepping in. To stop the spread of obesity, the New Jersey Government has enacted laws that prohibit the sale of any item with sugar as the first or primary ingrediant in schools.
Before you obtain an opinion on this arguement, let me ask you, do you recall being in elementary school and celebrating your birthday with your classmates (granted you don't have a summer birthday)? I always used to bring in white cupcakes with chocolate frosting, and a cute little red heart on the top, appropriate for the Valentine season. It is now illegal for my sister, age seven, also with a February birthday, to celebrate in such a manner. Instead, she must bring in corn muffins or something of the sort. Let's be honest, what kind of birthday celebration can you possibly have without some kind of cake?
It is obvious where I stand on Government involvment in the obesity epidemic. Ever since the enactment of these laws, this issue has been very prominent in my life. Well, Eating Disorders in general have always been a major part of my life, but in a different aspect than most girls my age. My mother is a Licensed Social Worker (which is just a fancy name for a therapist) who specializes in the treatment of Eating Disorders. Therefore, the relationship I have with food is emotionally healthy. An emotionally healthy relationship with food is almost always necessary to have physically healthy relationship with food. All that really means is, ever since I was a kid, I was taught to listen to my body; if my mom had prepared a huge, healthy dinner for me, but my belly didn't feel hungry for anything but Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, that was ok. Believe it or not, the next day or so, I was craving broccoli. I was taught to eat slow and listen to my stomach; if it was full, I stopped eating. This is where problems arise for many Americans today.
If you create tension in the food aspect of life, a love hate relationship will be established between the person and the food. This Government involvement will make Eating Disorders worse than ever, not only will kids have their parents scolding them for having a brownie before dinner, but the Governor, as well, telling them not to eat cookies, soda, or candy for lunch because it will make them fat. These foods will become objects of desire, like gold, being horded, traded, and admired. Consumption of these foods will not end with Government limits, they will only become more scandelous and admirable. This, in fact, is as far from an emotionally healthy relationship with food as you can get.
Before you obtain an opinion on this arguement, let me ask you, do you recall being in elementary school and celebrating your birthday with your classmates (granted you don't have a summer birthday)? I always used to bring in white cupcakes with chocolate frosting, and a cute little red heart on the top, appropriate for the Valentine season. It is now illegal for my sister, age seven, also with a February birthday, to celebrate in such a manner. Instead, she must bring in corn muffins or something of the sort. Let's be honest, what kind of birthday celebration can you possibly have without some kind of cake?
It is obvious where I stand on Government involvment in the obesity epidemic. Ever since the enactment of these laws, this issue has been very prominent in my life. Well, Eating Disorders in general have always been a major part of my life, but in a different aspect than most girls my age. My mother is a Licensed Social Worker (which is just a fancy name for a therapist) who specializes in the treatment of Eating Disorders. Therefore, the relationship I have with food is emotionally healthy. An emotionally healthy relationship with food is almost always necessary to have physically healthy relationship with food. All that really means is, ever since I was a kid, I was taught to listen to my body; if my mom had prepared a huge, healthy dinner for me, but my belly didn't feel hungry for anything but Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, that was ok. Believe it or not, the next day or so, I was craving broccoli. I was taught to eat slow and listen to my stomach; if it was full, I stopped eating. This is where problems arise for many Americans today.
If you create tension in the food aspect of life, a love hate relationship will be established between the person and the food. This Government involvement will make Eating Disorders worse than ever, not only will kids have their parents scolding them for having a brownie before dinner, but the Governor, as well, telling them not to eat cookies, soda, or candy for lunch because it will make them fat. These foods will become objects of desire, like gold, being horded, traded, and admired. Consumption of these foods will not end with Government limits, they will only become more scandelous and admirable. This, in fact, is as far from an emotionally healthy relationship with food as you can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)