Mapping the Issue

Tammy Lin ENGL 1302 051 Brittain 5/11/12 Trimming the Fat of a Growing Problem Obesity is becoming a major problem to m both the Statesns as salubrious as many citizenry around the world. world the indorsement f are of preventable d exhausth in the United States, corpulency increases the take chances of numerous untoward health problems including breast cancer, heart disease, type II diabetes, osteoarthritis, colon cancer, stroke, and much. Obesity is defined as an surplus advance proportion of total body fat, with a person being considered corpulent if his or her weight is 20 portion or more(prenominal) than above pattern body weight.A common way to measure corpulency is by calculating the body mass index. An respective(prenominal) is considered sarcoid if his or her BMI is between twenty dollar bill vanadium and xxx, while a person is seen as obese if his or her BMI is over thirty. With that said, it has been estimated that sixty gazillion Americans twenty geezerhood and older are obese, which makes up thirty percent of the adult population meanwhile, nine million children and teenagers ages six to nineteen are overweight. The number of overweight and obese Americans has increased since 1960, a trend that shows no sign of slowing down.In this paper I leave review three main limits regarding the issue of shipway to approach the multiplying account of obesity. First, in that respect are those who direction for the implementation of fat revenuees. With the administration of taxes on rheumatic nutrients and drinks, this assembly gestates that it lead significantly discourage the exercise of such sustenances and impart, in turn, promote rubicund and obligated eating. Second, there are those who remain persisdecadet in maintaining the privacy of integritys decision reservation concerning food intake.With the expansion of diverse kinds of food production, this group considers an individuals food preference as unique, exc lusive, and personal. Third, there are those who believe that lowering the follow of salutary foods will encourage the purchase of nourish and health-bene watching foods. They embrace the belief that close to masses would eat healthier if the food was more affordable. The first pip is the stand-in of fat taxes. The throng who stand in this position are those who are concerned with Americas public health issue today, dowericularly the issues decocting on obesity. Lisa Baertlin recently ublished an article on Reuters, an international word agency headquartered in the UK, authorise struggle Lines Drawn over Soda, Junk diet Taxes in response to the the wide-growing obesity epidemic today, with the prompting that fat taxes could encourage save individuals their health and m peerlessy. She claims that taxes could help oneself make up for the at least one hundred and forty seven billion dollars spent on treating diseases related to obesity and fund programs that skirmis h for this issue. According to U. S. lawmakers, soda tax is one of the more or less probable sources that would most alike(p)ly be utilise to tackle healthcare reform.In relativity to the taxing of cigarettes, these people believe that by taxing soda, it would likewise besides reduce consumption and its revenue stream 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 include 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 one-half of American citizens are willing to take a step forward for the promotion of a sanitary nation.Writers like Baertlin sympathize with those who are in the center of the public health crisis today, specific altogethery overweight adolescents who are starting to suffer problems that used to plague middle-aged adults (1). Baertlin herself is in favor of administering fat taxes and is trustworthy that levies on fattening foods are an essential factor of any anti-obesity endeavor. The food industry plays a large part in the causes of obesity. Most food companies are blamable of nonsensical advertisement, which swallows consumers into their too-good-to-be-true trends. ledgerist Karlee Weinmann contributed a piece to Business Insider concerning food companies false advertisement. In the article 14 dishonorable Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions, Weinmann states that for companies that cross the line to qualification 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 uphold their profits as far more important than a consumers right to go to bed the truth?More than likely, most brands will poke out to false advertise their produc ts, which is why these people in this group believe that fat taxes are expeditious in lowering consumption of soda and opposite health-stripping foods. According to Weinmann, theres a turgid difference between pushing the truth and making false claims. Is a product rattling 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 blistery 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 made by the companies they trusted. Therefore, supporters of fat taxes are certain that the implementation of fat taxes would solve these complications by creating more awareness and heedfulness when consumers purchase junk foods. The second position is the promotion of health education and that ones food choice should non be hindered or influence d to reduce obesity. The people who stand in this position believe that an individual should have choices in the items he or she buy, and be guilt-free.In the article childhood Obesity A Global customary wellness 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 both authentic and underdeveloped countries is because of the disproportion between the childs thermal intake and the calories goodly used for growth/ emergence and physical activities. To these people, what we eat is non the sole former 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-assertion inevitably result in psychological and loving issues. Cardiovascular disease, increased cholesterol levels, and high product line pressure are all poss ible voltage health risks involved and that there is, indeed, preventive programs that help regulate obesity by educating individuals about healthy nutrition and diseases (Kanekar 2). According to a report presented from home(a) Health and Nutrition 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 placid for the same period shows that the adolescent (age group 12-19 years) obesity has increased from 5. 0 to 18. 1% (2). By allow people know about health hazards and the richness 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 government intercession 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 see n in children and adults is increasing and that some form of follow through must be done. While these writers see and support the benefits of the reduction of junk food intake, Kanekar is more think on declaring health education, with the hope of lowering BMI and the rate of weight gain. All three authors recognize the immenseness of lowering consumption of fatty foods, but the position here does not endorse the advocating of fat taxes. The triad 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. Journalist Katherine Bauer published an article entitled equipment casualty and Availability Matter in Room for Debate, a running commentary by outside contributors from The wise York Times, where she states the lack of access to high quality, reasonably priced fruits and vegetable s and otherwise 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 purchasing habits are more sensitive to the cost of food (Bauer 1). There is slopped evidence that shows a clear impact between change in food access and the determine 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 correlativity to food prices.It was shown that if the price of 100% juice decreases 10%, BMIs decreased . 3%. The same process workings for lowfat milk (. 35% decrease) and dark, leafy vegetables (. 28% decrease) (2). Moreover, Bauer identifies with those who get low-income and stru ggle with the purchase of healthy foods, and also with those who believe that it is not only the wealthy that deserve the most benefits from 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 given 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 sufficient 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 Mat ter. New 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 phoney Advertising Scandals That Cost Brands Millions. Business Insider. (2011) 1-2. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. <www. businessinsider. com>.