Op-Ed Summary

Summary Dont Blame the Eater The Op-Ed piece, Dont Blame the Eater, by David Zinczenko talks about the issue of obesity in America and whose break of serve it really is, the eater or the people providing the food. His need on the melodic theme 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 forge 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 pursual paragraphs by mentioning statistics on the matter of diabetes, and the amount of money put into treating it as the years progress. Shooting d throw opposing arguments also plays a factor in Zinczenkos essay 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, just then makes the point of where ar 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 wellnessy foods are really just masked by misleading serving sizes and drop of dressing and noodles and almonds for say a healthy salad. I believe he sums up his essay by face that the companies should be sued for not having these warning labels the uniform 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 Zinczenkos in that he believes that it is our responsibility to take care of our own bodies rather than the food industries. He ph rases 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 TVs that plead for government intervention. What I exchangeabled 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 pay back 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 difficulty about ourselves. Response to Both I think I take a clear favorite out of the two essays. The second one industrial plant 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 shoemakers last 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 mightiness 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 emergency to drink soda, in fact, water is free. Even if it were true that well-nigh 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 common sense? Obviously the put of fried chicken glistening in trans fat is not going to harm your coronary artery in any way. In fact, a bulk of people these days have smart phones, they wont hesitate t o 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 dont, 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 youve ever had. It is your responsibility to diet, and exercise, and eat right, finding healthy food is not impossible, stop kidding yourselves.