Not only does shaming people out of eating not work, but it also causes long term harm. Shaming people out of eating much like Nancy Reagan 's ”just say no” campaign, is not effective. The idea of “just say no” was that telling people not to do drugs they will not, similarly telling people not to eat unhealthily will fail to have an effect. Without incentive
Zinczenko’s first point is polluted with fallacies and wrong information, and his second point is no different. He states that people don’t always read the fine print during a part of his argument, and that right there actually defeats the purpose of making the argument in the first place. He said that the people don’t pay attention; even if the restaurant supplies them with nutritional information, they don’t always feel compelled to read it thoroughly. Therefore, it’s not the company’s fault for making them unhealthy: it’s their own. Additionally, most people that desire to eat healthy will take the time to read even the fine print and follow or at least acknowledge it when dining.
There’s a reason the cafeteria doesn’t provide soda because it is not healthy for you. Therefore, many schools try and serve nutritious and healthy foods. Also in the vending machines, they might sell junk food, but they don 't sell sodas because I figure that the teachers told them not to. But if they store them with healthy food, then students won’t buy as much. Most teachers want students to start a healthy life and be obesity free and I think all students care about their weight.
In today’s world, sugar is viewed as toxic and harmful to the human body. Although true when consumed without moderation, sugar is extremely vital to one’s overall well-being. With the media encouraging sugar-restrictive diets, Americans are misled into believing this sweet substance is the enemy and eliminating it is the solution for reaching weight loss goals. However, this is not the case. Sugar, through the consumption of natural and unprocessed foods, is essential in order to sustain optimal fitness.
This counters the idea provided in source A because it opens up the idea that there are other causes to the epidemic. Then comes the paradoxical part to this idea. Knowing that throwing down grocery stores won’t instantly solve the obesity problem, however, “all the knowledge and willpower in the world won't allow food-desert residents to choose healthy foods unless they also have access” (Source C). There
Just because you spend a lot of money on anti-obesity, you just can't make people live the way you think is best for them. If that person doesn't want to work out or start eating their fruit and vegetables to stay healthy, that should be on them they should take that responsibility, you can't force them to live the life that they don't want. Having that issue in public isn't going to change how people eat and exercise just making them even lazier. If it were private, then people would have started to work out, eating fruits, etc. on their own and not because someone else wants to and that how it should
In Daniel Engber’s piece called “Let Them Drink Water!”, he talks about how taxing directly in a per pound overweight fashion isn’t really ideal. People aren’t really going to be too thrilled with paying an extortion fee to the government based on their bodily weight. But the current method of indirect taxing through soda taxes isn’t influencing people to lose weight. “The state-level penalties now in place have turned out to be way too small to make anyone lose weight, and efforts to pass more heavy-handed laws
He also states that the government should allow the citizens to access their health care funds account to support his conclusion, that, people will be more responsible for their health if someone else isn 't paying for their health problems. However, Balko fails to to provide evidence for to support his claim. Even though the problem of obesity is important, the Shorthorn should not publish "What You Eat Is Your Business" because it poorly argued and not interesting. Radley Balko’s central claim is that the government should not interfere in public health and diet. According to him people have no incentive to maintain their health when public money funds health care.
Being health is very important and there are a lot of unhealthy foods and drinks that can get in the way of staying healthy. The number of obese people is increasing in the U.S. and soda is one of the many reasons for this. But a soda ban is on the best approach for this problem because of it not being the largest cause for obesity. It is not a good idea to try to regulate the amount of soda a person can purchase because it has little to no health advantages, there are too many ways people can get around it, and it has the potential to open the gates to other bans. Although it could help people since it has not been previously proven helpful for people’s health.
Most people are not educated about the how and why their drugs work, so it could be easy for them to not take it for reasons such as they don’t directly feel the benefits of their medications, they are having adverse reactions but are not mentioning them to anybody, or they can’t remember to take all of their medications at the right times. I think one of the biggest factor could be remembering to take the medication at the right time, but also in my case my medications were not treating real problems so it was easy for me to forget. A patient may feel the same way, because their disease state may have not progressed to a state where the symptoms are not severe enough to make a change in the patients thinking. During consultation with a patient it is important to ask the right open-ended questions when doing a medication review. Instead of asking, “are you taking all of your medication at the proper times?” A better way to ask would be, “how are you taking your medications?”, and allowing the patient to explain how in their own terms.