English Literature

Government Has No Business Interfering with What You Eat  and Kelly Brownell and Marion Nestles  Not If Blaming the Victim is Just Another Excuse to Get the Industry Off the Hook
    As the level of obesity grows in the U.S., what we eat is becoming more and more a political matter. Once a matter between the individual and their physician, what people eat and how they eat is being increasingly debated among politicians. In their essay, Radley Balko and Kelly Brownell with Marion Nestle argue two sides of the debate over industry regulation of the health care industry. Balkos argument rests primarily on the issue of less government intervention in the publics lives. Seeing the efforts of legislatures and health care groups to pass legislation to intervene in the freedom of the industry as an infringement on personal and commercial freedoms, Balkos view is highly politicized and polarized by his refusal to see the issue outside of the context of a political agenda. To Balko, regulating the food industry is just another step towards socialized medicine. Brownell and Nestle take a different view, attacking the anti-regulation lobbys agenda as self-serving to the industry with little regard to the individual itself. They make a compelling argument, noting that the arguments against regulation bear a striking resemblance to other such arguments, particularly the tobacco industrys fight against regulation. Of the two arguments, Brownell and Nestle make a more accurate assessment of the situation of the individual than Balko, who for all his protestations against the absorption of individual choice into the greater sphere of politics he is in fact making it political.
    Balko presents at the onset of his argument several steps in recent years which have been taken to try and combat obesity. Among these have been sort of pseudo-campaigns within the government to ease the minds of health professionals who have spoken out against the growth of obesity. Budget money has been funneled to programs that promote a health life story, man schools have voted to remove snack and soda vending machines from school campuses, labeling requirements and potential taxes and bans on certain types of food all list within the range of measures proposed or enacted across the country. While I agree to an extent with his assertion that health and wellness should be an individual responsibility, it is difficult to ignore the symptoms of an industry that lacks health standards in the proper respect. If a  food company purposely manufactured a cookie laced with cyanide and sold it to the public, that company would be held criminally libel. Even if the consumer knew what was in the cookie, to knowingly produce something you know will increase a persons risk for death should be enough to ensure that such practices are regulated. Alcohol, tobacco, and medicine which all go into our bodies like food, with the exception of tobacco moving through our system in a similar manner, are highly regulated and with good reason. When left to themselves the tobacco companies redefined irresponsible marketing with ads aimed at children and tailored for women, presenting images of health and wellness that were unrealistic. In this same manner, particularly fast food companies present a product that is bad for your health but advertise it in a family-centered and active manner that in no way shows the true effects of eating Big Macs to an excess. Have you ever seen an obese person in a McDonalds commercial
    Balkos move into a debate over nationalized health care, while understandably related to the topic, bypasses how personal responsibility can be practiced. He does not discuss the psychology behind the individuals choice to eat unhealthily and whether it is truly an effective method. Perhaps, knowing the wealth of self-help health and nutrition related books he felt that this need not be explored further, but I feel the shift to be too abrupt. The debate over obesity and industry, not really individual, regulation is a prop and an introductory tool for introducing the wider argument of governments role in health care and the interrelated role of government interventions at different levels. Key to Balkos argument is that people, left to  their own devices, will choose what is right for them and take full financial and personal responsibility. However, he does not address the issue of childhood obesity, at which many of the regulations have been aimed at fighting. Who is taking responsibility for the children
    Kelly Brownell and Marion Nestles argument concentrates on the responsibility of the food industry in propagating the effects of unhealthy lifestyles. Food is business and the bottom line is the money. As they explain the number of food items geared toward children is astounding, fast food, high sugar beverages and snacks. If one were to consider it, the most iconic symbols of the food industry were created with children in mind. Trix, a cereal high in sugar and low in any other nutritional value,  is for kids  with a goofy rabbit forever trying to get just one bite. Lucky Charms or Cookie Crisp commercials are equally geared toward children. It is, Im sure, no mistake that each of these cereals rely on cartoons as advertisement vehicles. McDonalds gives out toys and buys advertisement rights for Disney and other kid related movies. To just blame obesity on the individual is to address only half of the problem. Yes, many adults are aware that they shouldnt stop at McDonalds or Burger King on the way home from work but we still do. It is cheap and it is convenient. As Brownell and Nestle also point out, it is biology for humans to crave that which is in excess bad for us. Sugar, fat, and calories all are craved by the human body. Their third part of the argument is based in the failure of self-regulation. Sure, it would be great if everyone would listen to their doctors and not eat that double cheese burger or pint of chocolate ice cream but given the increasing numbers of obese individuals its proven to be a failed experiment. They do not deny the necessity of personal responsibility in combating obesity in adults and particularly in children, their argument merely underlines the fact that, in itself, it is not enough.
    The food industry does not have its hands tied. There are alternatives to the traditional ingredients in many foods that have proved to be the most harmful. Bakeries in New York City, faced with the restraints of a trans fat ban, found new ways to make old favorites. It is not impossible to change but in a business ruled more by the bottom line than the well-being of its consumers, sometimes it is necessary to push for those changes making the private issue of health a public policy measure. Consumers will equally adapt there is no necessity in five fast food commercials in a ninety second commercial break or to have French fries come standard with two teaspoons of salt poured on top. If individuals such as Balko want people to take personal responsibility then let us put that extra salt on the fries and ask for the high fat content cheese product or mayonnaise. The push to regulate food companies does not infringe on personal rights but instead takes the responsibility of making those decisions out of the hands of the manufacturers and more  closely in the reach of the consumer themselves.