For decades, public health officials have advocated for dietary changes and increased exercise to combat obesity; however, since obesity was declared a public health crisis in the late 1990s, many different groups have preached their own solutions as well. One of these groups includes lawyers, who have made numerous arguments in front of courts attacking fast food companies as the source of obesity. However, Elizabeth M. Williams, an attorney who is also the president of the Southern Food and Beverage Museum, opposes this form of “obesity law” in her article published in Gastronomica magazine, “The Sixth Deadly Sin.” In “The Sixth Deadly Sin,” Williams uses critical descriptions, variations in syntax, and rhetorical questions to refute obesity
…show more content…
She begins by asking “Does merely being obese without health problems entitle a person to compensation? That is, are the social issues alone sufficient to trigger a fault/responsibility response in a lawsuit?” By using these questions, Williams demonstrates that obesity lawsuits cannot be held to the same standard of proof as other lawsuits, portraying their attacks on fast food corporations as unwarranted. She furthers this description when she asks readers “How does a plaintiff’s attorney choose the next defendant? Coke or Pepsi? Oreo or Little Debbie? Burger King or McDonald’s?” In presenting these companies through a series of rhetorical questions and asking readers how a plaintiff would choose a defendant, Williams portrays the plaintiff’s choice of which company to sue as arbitrary, furthering her argument that obesity lawsuits are unfair to the unfortunate chosen company. As Williams concludes her argument by describing factors which reduce exercise, she asks her readers whether it would be plausible to sue many different entities that each contribute to a lack of exercise for obese children. By highlighting many institutions that add to the obesity crisis, Williams demonstrates that holding fast food companies legally responsible for a problem caused by many is unfair and unreasonable, convincing her audience that obesity lawsuits are an improper method of solving America’s obesity
She begins by asking “Does merely being obese without health problems entitle a person to compensation? That is, are the social issues alone sufficient to trigger a fault/responsibility response in a lawsuit?” By using these questions, Williams demonstrates that obesity lawsuits cannot be held to the same standard of proof as other lawsuits, portraying their attacks on fast food corporations as unwarranted. She furthers this description when she asks readers “How does a plaintiff’s attorney choose the next defendant? Coke or Pepsi? Oreo or Little Debbie? Burger King or McDonald’s?” In presenting these companies through a series of rhetorical questions and asking readers how a plaintiff would choose a defendant, Williams portrays the plaintiff’s choice of which company to sue as arbitrary, furthering her argument that obesity lawsuits are unfair to the unfortunate chosen company. As Williams concludes her argument by describing factors which reduce exercise, she asks her readers whether it would be plausible to sue many different entities that each contribute to a lack of exercise for obese children. By highlighting many institutions that add to the obesity crisis, Williams demonstrates that holding fast food companies legally responsible for a problem caused by many is unfair and unreasonable, convincing her audience that obesity lawsuits are an improper method of solving America’s obesity