Mapping the Issue

Tammy Lin ENGL 1302 051 Brittain 5/11/12 Trimming the ample of a Growing Problem Obesity is becoming a major(ip) problem to many Ameri stooges as well as many lot around the world. Being the imprimatur cause of pr til nowtable d downh in the United States, corpulency increases the risk of numerous adverse health problems including tit cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, stroke, and more than than. Obesity is defined as an excess proportion of total body naughty, with a person be considered heavy if his or her weight is twenty pct or more above normal body weight.A common way to measure obesity is by calculating the body mass index. An individual is considered great(p) if his or her BMI is between twenty five and thirty, while a person is seen as obese if his or her BMI is everyplace thirty. With that said, it has been estimated that sixty million Americans twenty years and older atomic number 18 obese, which assimilates up thirty pe rcent of the adult community meanwhile, nine million children and teenagers ages six to nineteen ar overweight. The number of overweight and obese Americans has increased since 1960, a trend that shows no sign of lag down.In this paper I will review three main positions regarding the eff back of ways to approach the multiplying rate of obesity. First, in that respect are those who advocate for the effectuation of fat assesses. With the administration of taxes on un profound forages and drinks, this group c all ups that it will importantly discourage the consumption of such solid fares and will, in turn, promote healthy and creditworthy eating. Second, in that location are those who remain persistent in maintaining the privacy of mavins decision making concerning food expenditure.With the expansion of diverse kinds of food productionion, this group considers an individuals food preference as unique, exclusive, and personal. Third, thither are those who bank that sull en the cost of healthy foods will hike the bribe of nourishing and health-bene fusilladeing foods. They embrace the belief that most quite a little would eat healthier if the food was more affordable. The first position is the support of fat taxes. The people who pedestal in this position are those who are concern with Americas globe health issue today, especi solelyy the issues picnic on obesity. Lisa Baertlin youngly ublished an article on Reuters, an international news manner headquartered in the UK, entitled Battle Lines Drawn over Soda, Junk feed Taxes in response to the the wide-growing obesity epidemic today, with the proposition that fat taxes could service of process save individuals their health and m peerlessy. She claims that taxes could help make up for the at least(prenominal) one hundred and forty seven billion dollars spent on treating diseases related to obesity and fund programs that battle for this issue. According to U. S. lawmakers, sparkling water tax is one of the most probable sources that would most likely be use to tackle healthcare reform.In relativity to the taxing of cigarettes, these people believe that by taxing soda, it would also alikely reduce consumption and its revenue float by taxing more than ten percent for beverages, purchases would be cut down by eight to ten percent. According to a recent Thomson Reuters survey included within Baertlins article, about fifty-eight percent of Americans are willing to bear a tax increase of one percent or more to support healthcare reform (Baertlin 1), which proves that more than half of American citizens are willing to take a smell forward for the promotion of a healthy nation.Writers like Baertlin sympathize with those who are in the center of the public health crisis today, specifically overweight adolescents who are starting to suffer problems that used to plague middle-aged adults (1). Baertlin herself is in raise of administering fat taxes and is certain that levies on fattening foods are an essential constituent of any anti-obesity endeavor. The food industry plays a large part in the causes of obesity. Most food companies are culpable of false advertisement, which swallows consumers into their too-good-to-be-true trends. ledgerist Karlee Weinmann contributed a tack on to task Insider concerning food companies false advertisement. In the article 14 faithlessly Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions, Weinmann states that for companies that cross the line to making false claims, it can cost millions of dollars, while also having to face public negativity. However, even with all this said, will companies modify their marketing policies for the greater good, or will they instigate their profits as far more important than a consumers right to know the truth?More than likely, most brands will stay on to false advertise their products, which is why these people in this group believe that fat taxes are efficient in let down consumption of soda and other health-stripping foods. According to Weinmann, theres a big unlikeness between pushing the truth and making false claims. Is a product really scientifically proven, and are results guaranteed? (Weinmann 1). Food brands such as Activia yogurt, Splenda, Kashi, and Eclipse gum have been caught with such false advertisement scandals the more unhealthy the food really is, the more beneficial its company would make it seem.Writers like Weinmann identify with those who have been misled by deceitful food claims do by the companies they trusted. Therefore, supporters of fat taxes are certain that the implementation of fat taxes would act upon these complications by creating more awareness and heedfulness when consumers purchase dispute foods. The second position is the promotion of health education and that ones food choice should non be hindered or influenced to reduce obesity. The people who stand in this position believe that an individual should have choices in t he items he or she buy, and be guilt-free.In the article Childhood Obesity A world(a) Public health Issue published in International Journal of Preventive Medicine, writer Amar Kanekar states that the main cause of childhood obesity in todays public health crisis in two developed and underdeveloped countries is because of the disproportion between the childs caloric intake and the calories effectively used for growth/development and physical activities. To these people, what we eat is not the sole reason of the cause of obesity genetic, behavioral, and environmental are all constituents of childhood obesity.Moreover, many health-related risks are present when a child is obese negative body-image and low self-esteem inevitably result in psychological and social issues. Cardiovascular disease, increased cholesterol levels, and high blood hale are all possible potential health risks involved and that there is, indeed, preventive programs that help regulate obesity by educating indiv iduals about healthy nutrition and diseases (Kanekar 2). According to a breed presented from National Health and support Examination Survey, in the years of 2007-2008, there was an estimation that 16. % of children and adolescent in the age group of 2-19 years were obeseThe data collected for the akin period shows that the adolescent (age group 12-19 years) obesity has increased from 5. 0 to 18. 1% (2). By letting people know about health hazards and the sizeableness of physical exercise, the chance of obesity could greatly decrease. Those who are pro-food-choice would side with Kanekar in that they believe there should not be any direct giving medication intervention with food costs, but that there should be a public informing of the effects commonly eaten unhealthy foods would result in.Kanekar, Baertlin, and Weinmann all believe that the prevalence of obesity seen in children and adults is increasing and that some form of pull through must be done. While these writers see a nd support the benefits of the reduction of cast out food intake, Kanekar is more focused on declaring health education, with the hope of grave BMI and the rate of weight gain. All three authors recognize the importance of lowering consumption of fatty foods, but the position here does not gage the advocating of fat taxes. The third position is lowering the costs of healthy foods.The people who stand in this position believe that by decreasing the costs of healthful foods sold, there would be a habit shift in the peoples purchases of fatty foods to foods that are much more nutritional. diary keeper Katherine Bauer published an article entitled Price and Availability Matter in Room for Debate, a running commentary by outside contributors from The novel York Times, where she states the lack of access to high quality, reasonably priced fruits and vegetables and other healthful foods has been associated with poorer diets and, in many cases, higher risk for obesity.This is especially true among lower-income individuals whose get habits are more sensitive to the cost of food (Bauer 1). There is strong evidence that shows a clear impact between change in food access and the pricing on ones purchasing habits. For example, there are programs that decrease the cost of healthier foods, which resulted in the increased purchasing of the healthier foods. Cheaper prices on healthy foods reduce ones weight, even if the cost of junk foods remains the same price. A news report conducted from the USDA observed the BMI of children and how it changed in correlation to food prices.It was shown that if the price of vitamin C% juice decreases 10%, BMIs decreased . 3%. The same process whole kit for lowfat milk (. 35% decrease) and dark, leafy vegetables (. 28% decrease) (2). Moreover, Bauer identifies with those who receive low-income and struggle with the purchase of healthy foods, and also with those who believe that it is not only the wealthy that be the most benefits fro m the healthy aisles in the food market. Bauers views is relatively similar with Baertlin, Weinmann, and Kanekar, in that public attitudes towards obesity and obesity policy should be disposed much more ttention than it is now, but Bauer herself has a different approach in this matter, especially from Kanekar. She believes that health education may not be ample enough to cause a significant awareness in individuals that junk foods should no longer be habitually purchased. Instead, she considers the perspective that by lowering healthy foods, there would be an effective overall change in the nations weight and BMI and that the idea would more readily fit within ones budget.Works Cited Page Baertlein, Lisa. Battle lines drawn over soda, junk food taxes. Reuters Los Angeles 1 Sept 2009, n. pag. Print. Katherine, Bauer. Price and Availability Matter. bleak York Times. (2011) 1-2. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Kanekar, Amar. Childhood Obesity A Global Public Health Issue. Int J Prev Med. (2011 ) 2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. Weinmann, Karlee. 14 False Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions. Business Insider. (2011) 1-2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. <www. businessinsider. com>.