Fast food industries have taken over with advertisement everywhere they can. Why has fast food evolved into one of the most consumed foods? Why is it so popular with children? Is it because of the advertisement posters hanging in their school hallways? Possibly, and because of this it affects the health of the people who do choose to eat fast food, especially children.
Advertisements of fast in schools support an unhealthy lifestyle. Allowing posters by Mc Donald’s or Burger King to be put up around the school makes it seem as if the school suggests kids should eat fast food. Yes, fast food is cheaper for a kid who only carries a few dollars around for lunch, but promoting fast food also gives them the impression that it is okay to eat fast food. Schools say how they want to help kids eat healthier, yet you walk into a school cafeteria and there are 2 to 4 vending machines full of candy, chips and soda, while the lunch menu is serving processed cheeseburgers, French fries and pizza. Having advertisements for fast food restaurants and having the school serve greasy food, isn’t helping the child’s help but affecting it more. Kids consider school their second home because of how much time they spend there, so they should have healthier meals to choose from.
Fast food advertising and school lunches aren’t the only reason for unhealthy kids. The reason why they eat fast food and school lunches whether they like it or not, is because they either choose to or they are used to it. In one article written in 2006 by The Post Standard, it says banning junk food from school isn’t the answer. This article believes that eating better begins at home. Parents should be responsible for what their children eat and should help them choose meals more wisely. If they don’t like what their children are eating in school, they should pack lunch for them or make healthier meals at home. This will influence the child to want to eat better food.
When I was in high school, I realized how unhealthy I was eating. Between my school being surrounded by fast food restaurants and being filled with vending machines didn’t help me make wise decisions in eating. Since McDonalds was close by, they said that they would deliver to students in the school if they paid over a certain amount. Their advertisement of delivery made it more accessible for students to get fast food quickly, and instead of walking to go by food, they will sit and wait for it to be delivered to them, which also isn’t very healthy. Having options such as delivery by a fast food restaurant is one step before other unhealthy decisions.
If advertisements for fast food restaurants are going to be placed in schools, then advertisements for sports or activities should also be posted on school walls. Since children are beginning to be less active and rather play video games than go out and plays basketball or soccer, then more options should be available and noticeable for them. In the book Fast Food Nation, one chapter named “You’re Trusted Friends” by Eric Schlosser says that the typical American child now spends about 21 hours a week watching television. (pg.46) Kids aren’t as active as they used to be which causes them to be lazy out of school. This is where parents should come in and limit the time they spend watching television or using the internet and help their child become more active. Parents know how much television ads, posters and commercials influence their children to want to buy something, so they should take more control.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Annotated Bibliography
Martin, Andrew. "Nickelodeon to Limit Use of Characters on Junk Foods." The New York times [New York] 16 Aug. 2007, Final ed., sec. C: 3. Lexis Nexis. Web.
In this article, the childrens television channel Nickelodeon says that it will prohibit their characters pictures on junk food products. Taking characters off junk foods may help prevent the children from choosing that snack jsut because their favorite cartoon character is on it. Other companies such as Disney and Dicovery Kids have agreed that they would even stop advertising unhealthy products to children under 12, unless they have certain nutritional facts. Changes to this took effect in 2009 and will remain effective with the exception of certain holidays.
Coseo, Dale. "Obesity Fight Begins at Home with Good Meals and Exercise." The Post Standard [Syracuse, NY] 26 Mar. 2010, Final ed., Opinion sec.: A17. Web.
An opinion by Coseo, Dale who represents Coca Cola goes against the increase in soda tax stating that it has nothing to do with obesity. the tax on drinks isnt only for soda, it goes for all drinks including water. Coseo feels that help for obesity begins at home with balanced meals, less technology and more exercise. Unemployment will be increased due to the effect of the "soda tax"and will not help to decrease obesity.
Stokes, Leonard. "Junk Food Tax Not a Fair One." The Times-Union [Albany, NY] 21 Aug. 2009, Final ed., Opinion sec.: A10. Web.
This article states that if the goverment really cared about obesity in America, they would have a policy focused soley on the group of obese people. Raising the price of soda will just charge Americans more more for no reason. if obesity was such a big deal, why dont they find other ways to go about solving it rather than effecting everyone including people who are not obese. It seems like the increase in revenue is more important than the decrease in obesity.
Weitzen, Terry. "Our Unhelathy Diet." The New York Times [Highland Park, NJ] 5 Apr. 2010, Final ed., sec. A: 18. Print
This article states the fact of people choosing unhealthy food over healthy food because its faster and cheaper. Its easier to grab a cookie rather than cut up fruits as a snack. Making foods and drinks with "low" in it doesnt always mean youre eating better because what youre eating is still unhealthy. If healthy foods were just as quick and cheap as unhealthy foods are, more people will choose more wisely because they can afford both.
Wright, Christine. "Banning Junk Fodd In Schools Is Not The Answer." The Post Standard [Syracuse, NY] 23 May 2006, Final ed., Editorial sec.: A9. Lexis Nexis. Web.
Removing junk food from public schools willl not solve the issue of obesity. Parents should be held accountable for their child well being and should take control of what their children eat. When children want junk, they will find a way to get it no matter where they are. Parents should set better example on what and how their children should eat. Schools shouldnt be scrutinized jsut because they sell junk food. They have a choice whether or not to eat it, and if they are being led by a healthy example at home, they will less likely choose to have as much junk daily.
In this article, the childrens television channel Nickelodeon says that it will prohibit their characters pictures on junk food products. Taking characters off junk foods may help prevent the children from choosing that snack jsut because their favorite cartoon character is on it. Other companies such as Disney and Dicovery Kids have agreed that they would even stop advertising unhealthy products to children under 12, unless they have certain nutritional facts. Changes to this took effect in 2009 and will remain effective with the exception of certain holidays.
Coseo, Dale. "Obesity Fight Begins at Home with Good Meals and Exercise." The Post Standard [Syracuse, NY] 26 Mar. 2010, Final ed., Opinion sec.: A17. Web.
An opinion by Coseo, Dale who represents Coca Cola goes against the increase in soda tax stating that it has nothing to do with obesity. the tax on drinks isnt only for soda, it goes for all drinks including water. Coseo feels that help for obesity begins at home with balanced meals, less technology and more exercise. Unemployment will be increased due to the effect of the "soda tax"and will not help to decrease obesity.
Stokes, Leonard. "Junk Food Tax Not a Fair One." The Times-Union [Albany, NY] 21 Aug. 2009, Final ed., Opinion sec.: A10. Web.
This article states that if the goverment really cared about obesity in America, they would have a policy focused soley on the group of obese people. Raising the price of soda will just charge Americans more more for no reason. if obesity was such a big deal, why dont they find other ways to go about solving it rather than effecting everyone including people who are not obese. It seems like the increase in revenue is more important than the decrease in obesity.
Weitzen, Terry. "Our Unhelathy Diet." The New York Times [Highland Park, NJ] 5 Apr. 2010, Final ed., sec. A: 18. Print
This article states the fact of people choosing unhealthy food over healthy food because its faster and cheaper. Its easier to grab a cookie rather than cut up fruits as a snack. Making foods and drinks with "low" in it doesnt always mean youre eating better because what youre eating is still unhealthy. If healthy foods were just as quick and cheap as unhealthy foods are, more people will choose more wisely because they can afford both.
Wright, Christine. "Banning Junk Fodd In Schools Is Not The Answer." The Post Standard [Syracuse, NY] 23 May 2006, Final ed., Editorial sec.: A9. Lexis Nexis. Web.
Removing junk food from public schools willl not solve the issue of obesity. Parents should be held accountable for their child well being and should take control of what their children eat. When children want junk, they will find a way to get it no matter where they are. Parents should set better example on what and how their children should eat. Schools shouldnt be scrutinized jsut because they sell junk food. They have a choice whether or not to eat it, and if they are being led by a healthy example at home, they will less likely choose to have as much junk daily.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Whats tax gonna do?
Tax on soda may not be as effective on people as the government thinks. Putting a tax on soda will not stop people from buying it, it will only make us spend more money on it, and that money will go to the government.
Soda tax will not be such a big deal to people. We all travel to different stores to buy soda and they each have different prices. Since we don’t know the exact amount a bottle of soda is, we don’t really notice an increase or decrease when we purchase it. Taxes to soda also won’t positively affect the issues with obesity. Adding a couple of cents to a sugared drink isn’t going to make people stop drinking it and effect people’s weight as much as they think it would.
In an article called Soda Taxes Are Nothing More Than a Money Grab which can be found in the Advertising Age, the writer states his opinion disagreeing with the government saying that we don’t have to “swallow everything the activist and local governments are telling us.” People are beginning to believe that children who choose soda over another beverage are told to do so by the “Magical TV set” rather than their parents. As the writer describes, it is also a parents fault because they are providing children with money and transportation to get the sugared, high fructose corn syrup drink. T.V shouldn’t always be the blame for children wanting something that’s unhealthy for them. If a parent chooses to let their child have soda all the time knowing that it’s not great for them, then that blame should be put on the parent. The parents know more than a child health wise so they should be blamed for allowing their child to have sugary syrupy drinks all the time.
In the article named Soda Tax is a Sweet Idea which was published in Crain’s New York Business, the writer agrees the states claims and reality. One claim is “The tax will kill thousands of jobs”, while the reality says “The effect on beverage makers, shippers and sellers will be minimal. Consumers will buy more diet soda and bottled water from the same companies.” Companies will not be very much affected by this due to being able to sell out other drinks. As I stated before, people will not be affected by this tax.
From experience I have a family member who can’t go a day without drinking soda. She is so used to the taste and the caffeine from it that without it, she can’t function the way she usually does. She knows it’s not the best choice of drink for her and her body but in her opinion, she “needs” it. A lot of people are like this with many things, soda being one of them. They will not easily just give up soda because the price of it will go up. They will still pay the price for it, probably without even knowing the change in price.
I don’t think this Soda tax is going to affect anyone. If people want soda, they will still buy it. I don’t think this tax will help obesity or help turn people to choose healthier drinks. If people want soda, they will buy it.
Soda tax will not be such a big deal to people. We all travel to different stores to buy soda and they each have different prices. Since we don’t know the exact amount a bottle of soda is, we don’t really notice an increase or decrease when we purchase it. Taxes to soda also won’t positively affect the issues with obesity. Adding a couple of cents to a sugared drink isn’t going to make people stop drinking it and effect people’s weight as much as they think it would.
In an article called Soda Taxes Are Nothing More Than a Money Grab which can be found in the Advertising Age, the writer states his opinion disagreeing with the government saying that we don’t have to “swallow everything the activist and local governments are telling us.” People are beginning to believe that children who choose soda over another beverage are told to do so by the “Magical TV set” rather than their parents. As the writer describes, it is also a parents fault because they are providing children with money and transportation to get the sugared, high fructose corn syrup drink. T.V shouldn’t always be the blame for children wanting something that’s unhealthy for them. If a parent chooses to let their child have soda all the time knowing that it’s not great for them, then that blame should be put on the parent. The parents know more than a child health wise so they should be blamed for allowing their child to have sugary syrupy drinks all the time.
In the article named Soda Tax is a Sweet Idea which was published in Crain’s New York Business, the writer agrees the states claims and reality. One claim is “The tax will kill thousands of jobs”, while the reality says “The effect on beverage makers, shippers and sellers will be minimal. Consumers will buy more diet soda and bottled water from the same companies.” Companies will not be very much affected by this due to being able to sell out other drinks. As I stated before, people will not be affected by this tax.
From experience I have a family member who can’t go a day without drinking soda. She is so used to the taste and the caffeine from it that without it, she can’t function the way she usually does. She knows it’s not the best choice of drink for her and her body but in her opinion, she “needs” it. A lot of people are like this with many things, soda being one of them. They will not easily just give up soda because the price of it will go up. They will still pay the price for it, probably without even knowing the change in price.
I don’t think this Soda tax is going to affect anyone. If people want soda, they will still buy it. I don’t think this tax will help obesity or help turn people to choose healthier drinks. If people want soda, they will buy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
