I am responding to the request to analyze Radley Balko’s article, “What You Eat Is Your Business” and make a recommendation for or against publication in The Shorthorn at University of Texas at Arlington. In order to respond, I have examined the rhetorical appeals of Balko’s piece and determined why this article should be posted in the next edition of The Shorthorn. I believe that the Shorthorn audience would be interested in what is being discussed regarding of obesity, things that could potentially affect their lifestyle as well as the professors. In “What You Eat Is Your Business”, Balko claims that obesity is the responsibility of the individual not the government, and how our government is allowing American to live an unhealthy lifestyle …show more content…
Balko develops an angry tone about the fact that government believes unhealthy people should depend on healthy people or they should not hold any responsibility. Actually, Balko complains the way government prohibits any private insurer to charge additional fee of obese clients is unwise. Balko’s claim is that if people had to pay more financially, they would be more cautious about their choices on what foods should they consume. I agree with him on this point, because if insurers want to charge overweight clients with higher premiums, the clients would try to be fit in the average range to avoid paying any hard-earned money from their pocket. Balko evokes ethos appeals by demonstrating if the government is willingly paid for his anti-cholesterol medicine, then what the motivations for exercising are. He makes the audience sympathize with him by saying that what the government does is wrong. Toward the end, Balko implies that people will make better choices if there is no one responsible for those choices. Throughout the article, Balko uses unpleasant manners to convey a message to readers that what the government tries to do is wrong and the government should adjust to improve its system. Even though so many students find this article is untrue because they believe that decreasing the obesity rate is government’s job, but I believe that this paper is somewhat true because we have to cooperate with the government to make it work, otherwise, only government or only ourselves is not enough. Not only that, this article somehow evokes my sympathy with the writer, even though there are some points that I disagree
American health, specifically our obesity epidemic, has grown into a trending media topic. A quick Google search will bring up thousands of results containing a multitude of opinions and suggested solutions to our nation’s weight gain, authored by anyone ranging from expert food scientists to common, concerned citizens. Amongst the sea of public opinion on obesity, you can find two articles: Escape from the Western Diet by Michael Pollan and The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food by Michael Moss. Each article presents a different view on where the blame lies in this public health crisis and what we should do to amend the issue. Pollan’s attempt to provide an explanation pales in comparison to Moss’s reasonable discussion and viable
“Don’t Blame the Eater” is an article by David Zinczenko that explains to Americans, specifically overweight young Americans, about the risks eating at fast food restaurants and its cause of affecting one’s health. In his article, he tries to address the issue about America’s food industries by using literal devices such as tone, logos, ethos, diction, and organization in order to spread his message. He begins his article by addressing the topic and as he continues writing, he supports his topic by writing about personal experience and moves onto the reasons why his topic in a serious issue. Although he shows an overall clear progress, he does tend to have a few problems with his writing that could be improved.
The author of Obesity – America’s enemy No. 1, Jake Steinfeld, uses careful and precise wording to make the audience understand and believe the claim at hand. He stays within the aspects that contain him and within what he believes in. This makes his argument more believable. Picking apart the article with rhetorical analysis a reader can see how Steinfeld makes his claim acceptable.
“At least 25% of all Americans under age nineteen are overweight or obese” (161). In Greg Critser’s “Too Much of a Good Thing”, Critser, a published author of a book about the epidemic of obesity, explains how America has become obese. Critser published his piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2001 after the United Nations came to New York to discuss the rising issue of obesity. Critser moves on to listing facts and past studies to convince the audience of concerned parents that there is a problem. In Greg Critser’s article, the language of his argument embodies the threat of obesity by challenging emotions, providing logic, and giving examples from credible sources. The increase of obesity caused the United Nations to meet in New York to discuss the circumstance.
Zinczenko started his article with a little bit of humor, he talked about the lawsuits that parents launch against these industries. Moreover, he mentioned an example that shows that these lawsuits should not be launched from the beginning because it is the consumer’s fault to eat in these restaurants not the company’s. Starting the article with sense of humor was more convincing and it grabs the reader’s attention and appeals to their emotions. Then he moved on to mentioning his own childhood and how MacDonald’s or Taco Bell was his only choice because it was cheap. He also stated that he suffered as a teenager with being overweight. Mentioning his childhood was a good way to influence the reader to agree with him that fast food restaurants are the ones who should be blamed for making people fat and diabetic. Zinczenko also states that although he was an overweighed
In Radley Balko’s writing, “What You Eat is Your Business,” his main argument is that the types of food one eats should be each individual’s personal responsibility. The government should be held liable for what one puts into his or her mouth. More specifically, Balko states that the government gets too involved in people’s personal dietary habits to the point where they are controlling everyone. He supports this idea by writing, “President Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures” (Balko 396). In this passage, Balko is suggesting that the government gets too involved in the American people’s food intake. According to Balko, in order to make this situation a private manner, people have to take back their bodies.
In “What you eat is your Business”, Radley Balko argues that as the government is trying to control people’s health and eating habits by restricting food, taxing high calorie food and considering menu labeling. He claims that people should consider making better choices about diet, exercise and personal health when health insurance companies are not paying for the results of the choices they make. He cites ……………………… to support his assertions .However, Balko fails to support the claim with credible reasons. Therefore, the Shorthorn should not publish” What you eat is your Business” the article does not contain ample reasons to support the claim; it is tedious, poorly argued and does not hold the attention of the readers.
In the introduction to the book “Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal”, Eric Schlosser focuses on the fast food industry while in “The Good and Bad News about Obesity: It’s No Longer Rising, but It’s More Dangerous than Ever” Alexandra Sifferlin focuses on the obesity epidemic, both in the US. In particular, Schlosser discusses unethical reasons behind the success of fast food industries, as well as their destruction of the socio-economic aspects of the American rural life while Sifferlin discusses the latest prevalence and mortality rates of obesity. A careful examination of the two articles reveals a motive of public good in the two authors. Both Schlosser and Sifferlin are motivated by
Thirty years ago, overweight children were barely one in ten, but now, in 2015, one in three American children are not only overweight but obese. This problem has reached epidemic proportions and has made established writers write what they think is the source and offer solutions to the problem. Radley Balko is a self-proclaimed libertarian that writes about civil liberties and the criminal justice system to promote limited government and individual freedom. He writes “What You Eat Is Your Business” because the government has been pushing for more federal control of health care and passed a new law that makes people pay for others healthcare. He repeats several times that people should be responsible for themselves, not other people, not the companies, and definitely not the government. On the other hand, Michael Moss is an established writer on the topic of healthy eating habits and fighting for the consumer. He won the 2010 Pulitzer prize for this article “That burger that shattered her life” This article that is
In “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko tackles the issue of who is responsible for fighting obesity. Balko argues that the controversy of obesity should make the individual consumers culpable for their own health and not the government (467). As health insurers refrain from increasing premiums for obese and overweight patients, there is a decrease in motivation to keep a healthy lifestyle (Balko 467). As a result, Balko claims these manipulations make the public accountable for everyone else's health rather than their own (467). Balko continues to discuss the ways to fix the issue such as insurance companies penalizing consumers who make unhealthy food choices and rewarding good ones (468). This forces the community to become responsible
In, “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that obesity is the responsibility of the individual, not the government; and because of that healthy people are overwhelmingly footing the bill for their unhealthy fellow citizens. He points an angry finger at the government and politicians who are turning our health care system into a failing socialist commodity, making obesity a matter of public health; and claims that your lack of personal responsibility is becoming a financial burden on healthy people. Because of that, we are becoming a conforming
Radley Balko, The author of the essay “What You Eat is Your Business”, would agree that in order to stop obesity, we must turn this public problem around and make it everyone’s individual responsibility. Instead of inflicting the importance of personal ownership, government officials, politicians and congress make obesity a public problem by prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, and restrictive food marketing to children. Overall I agree that this manipulation of food options is not the proper way to fight obesity, however, I think that government should inform people about the food they are eating because then they have no excuses for not taking responsibility of the actions.
Ever since the creation of the golden arches, America has been suffering with one single problem, obesity. Obesity in America is getting worse, for nearly two-thirds of adult Americans are overweight. This obesity epidemic has become a normal since no one practices any type of active lifestyle. Of course this is a major problem and many wish it wasn 't in existence, but then we start to ask a major question. Who do we blame? There are two articles that discuss numerous sides of this question in their own unique way. “What You Eat is Your Business” by Radley Balko is better than “Don 't Blame the Eater” by David Zinczenko due to its position in argument, opposition, and it’s reoccurrence in evidence.
The government has decided that individuals should start eating healthy to reduce the rate of obesity in the county. To improve this rule, they are prepared to pass what they call ‘fat taxes’. This ‘fat tax’ is supposed to be targeted on the items that increase the level of obesity and by this, Americans would not have the funds to afford these ‘junks’ when the prices have been inflated. In this essay, I am going to share my opinion on how this ‘fat tax’ is not going to make America a better nation, and as citizens we should have the wellness of our country at heart. Although it may have the possibility of reducing obesity, it would also run companies out of business, jeopardize our freedom of choice to eat whatever we want to and fatty foods would still be cheaper than healthy food.
The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our diets. Because there are so many obese people, because obesity is an expensive disease, and because very often it is due to poverty that people cannot afford healthy foods, the government must control the amount and the range of foods which we buy and eat. Healthy foods must become affordable. Poor populations must have access to high quality foods. The production of harmful foods should be limited. All these would be impossible if the government does not take active position against our diets.