Eating Responsibly Instead of Recklessly The most pressing issue facing American health today lies in the increasing number of obese people. When analyzing the two texts Don’t Blame the Eater and Against Meat, both authors messages combine to form the idea that food is much more than the enemy and we must take responsibility for our own eating failures. The messages presented both convey how our parents influence our food choices, the lack of good and bad food, our own “conscientious inconsistency” with eating, and are presented in distinctive ways. Against Meat identifies how we are in control of our choices and we should be more aware of what we are eating. Don’t Blame the Eater summarizes the idea that we are unaware of what is in our food and that we should not look at food negatively due to our own poor choices. When used in combination, both texts leave the strong impression of how we are liable for our own food choices and that we should not look negatively at our energy source, food Both stories give context of their past relationship with food, influenced by their parent’s beliefs. Author Jonathan Safran Foer of Against Meat describes his grandmother’s obsession with food as “terror, gratitude, vengeance, joy, humiliation, religion, history, and, of course, love.” (450). The author attaches meaning to food as his grandmother did, not as the enemy, but as all of the qualities in life that are essential. On the contrary, David Zinczenko describes his parents’ attitude to food as a “choice between McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut” which caused him to “pack [on] 212 pounds…on [his] once lanky 5-foot-10 frame.” (462-463). The fast food industry that affected Zinczenko’s weight was perpetuated by American laziness to cooking homemade meals with the business of daily life. The difference in the authors’ ideologies of food come from their parents’ beliefs attributed to food- one side seeing food as essential and containing good qualities, whereas the other side views food as limited choices of fast food due to his parents’ laziness toward health. The parents of the authors, though not teaching a healthy way of eating, do not consider food as the “enemy” . Although both stories having contrasting parental views on food, neither side addresses meals as “good” or “bad”. American society often labels food with a positive or negative connotation, which both Against Meat and Don’t Blame the Eater speak against.
…show more content…
Author Safran Foer describes in Against Meat that his grandmother taught him that “no foods are bad for you.” (449). His own grandma lives in a world where we see every calorie as good or bad, yet she believed that even “sugars are great [and] fats are tremendous,” none of which reflect American assumptions. Zinczenko’s views depicted in Don’t Blame the Eater criticize the absence of “nutrition information people need to make informed choices” on fast food menus (464). Zinczenko argues that without being an informed public, we don’t have the prerogative to denote food as either good or bad. Both memoirs in comparison portray the idea that we are ill-acquainted with the nutrition facts of food which is why we cannot label food as positively or negatively charged. When we characterize food as good and bad, we fail to take responsibility for poor eating as the authors speak against. We are in control of how much we eat and our own lack of moderation in food consumption is the cause of obesity in America. As identified in Against Meat, our own “conscientious inconsistency” is the root of the problem with the increase in obesity (455). Each story presents its own idea of why Americans face a higher rate of obesity in the recent age than the past but the underlying message corroborated by both is that everything we face on a day to day basis distracts us from our own good health. In Safran Foer’s story, his wife and he were “vegetarians who from time to time ate meat.” (Against Meat 455). Their own inconsistency in meals gave them the unrealistic expectation that if they could eat meat despite their vegetarianism, the couple could then eat anything, promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. Similar in arguing unpredictable eating, Zinczenko poses the question
Author Safran Foer describes in Against Meat that his grandmother taught him that “no foods are bad for you.” (449). His own grandma lives in a world where we see every calorie as good or bad, yet she believed that even “sugars are great [and] fats are tremendous,” none of which reflect American assumptions. Zinczenko’s views depicted in Don’t Blame the Eater criticize the absence of “nutrition information people need to make informed choices” on fast food menus (464). Zinczenko argues that without being an informed public, we don’t have the prerogative to denote food as either good or bad. Both memoirs in comparison portray the idea that we are ill-acquainted with the nutrition facts of food which is why we cannot label food as positively or negatively charged. When we characterize food as good and bad, we fail to take responsibility for poor eating as the authors speak against. We are in control of how much we eat and our own lack of moderation in food consumption is the cause of obesity in America. As identified in Against Meat, our own “conscientious inconsistency” is the root of the problem with the increase in obesity (455). Each story presents its own idea of why Americans face a higher rate of obesity in the recent age than the past but the underlying message corroborated by both is that everything we face on a day to day basis distracts us from our own good health. In Safran Foer’s story, his wife and he were “vegetarians who from time to time ate meat.” (Against Meat 455). Their own inconsistency in meals gave them the unrealistic expectation that if they could eat meat despite their vegetarianism, the couple could then eat anything, promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. Similar in arguing unpredictable eating, Zinczenko poses the question