Op-Ed Summary

Summary slangt Blame the Eater The Op-Ed arrange, Dont Blame the Eater, by David Zinczenko talks just about the issue of corpulency in the States and whose fault it really is, the eater or the battalion providing the victuals. His claim on the subject is that it is the industries fault for the obesity in America and non the tribes fault because finding an alternative to eating cheap provender on the go is nearly impossible. He makes an example of himself right in the third paragraph, explaining how his mom had to work long hours to pay the bills and his choices for food were pizza pie hut or KFC because that was the only affordable choice for him.He also employs a lot of logos in the following paragraphs by mentioning statistics on the payoff of diabetes, and the amount of money put into treating it as the years progress. Shooting protrude opposing arguments also plays a factor in Zinczenkos quiz when he asks the reader shouldnt we know better than to eat devil meals a day in fast-food restaurants? He states that this is one argument, but thence makes the evince of where ar consumers, particularly teenagers, supposed to find alternatives.He also introduces the pattern of not knowing any information on the food that we be consuming, and the misleading advertising in fast food products where certain hygienic foods are really just masked by misleading suffice sizes and lack of dressing and noodles and almonds for say a wellnessy salad. I suppose he sums up his essay by saying that the companies should be sued for not having these warning labels the same 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 smell 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 t han the food industries. He phrases it nicely when he mentions bringing organization activity between you and your waistline, which is essentially what Zinczenko argued for.He says how this is the slander way to fight obesity, that or else 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 come back 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 playacting for the public numbers rather than for the people themselves. Balko also mentions that by doing this, and having the government intervene, we allow 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 managed about this Op-Ed piece is that it makes sense and obesity sho uld 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 reward 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 worry about ourselves. Response to both I think I take a clear ducky out of the two essays. The second one works 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 lookin g 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 problem is those people eating those foods and then make up excuses for it. This is why I agree with the second essay more. multitude have the ability to say no, they have the ability to look for better food at the same prices. They can pick up the food they are eating, and look at the nutrition facts, and look at the component part sizes. Its not like you outweart see people living healthy life styles in the same economically classes.You dont need to drink soda, in fact, water is free. Even if it were adjust 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 common sense? Obviously the bucket of fried chicken glistening in trans fat is not going to ruin your coronary artery in any way. In fact, a volume of people these days have smart pho nes, they wont waver to look up the nearest McDonalds, but how about looking up some nutritional facts on it, or reading about how to recognise a healthy lifestyle.Balko is right, what you eat is your business, snag turning to the government and weighty them its their fault they need to make you skinny. No they dont, you need to balk fueling McDonalds, stop letting them think its okay to serve hot up that n forever 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.