Jonathan Safran Foer in “Against Meat”, Radley Balko in “What You Eat Is Your Business” and Mary Maxfield in “Food as Thought” all choose to write about Food and the social and moral impact it has.
Balko and Maxfield both seem to dislike the fact that food has become a social issue. While Balko focuses more on criticizing the interference of government with their actions and strategies, Maxfield choose to comment on the writers contributing to nutrition and food science. Balko uses heavy sarcasm about how the government is initiating several anti-obesity measures and trying to control our eating habits and behavior. He present forward examples of politicians and senators who are taking measures like investing millions of dollars on anti-obesity …show more content…
The writer points out about how this change in private health will just increase chances of more involvement of federal restrictions on the consumer’s liberties and our freedom to choose. This is so because a society where people are held responsible for the action of each other will more likely accept other restrictions put on them. Balko then proceeds to criticize how a lot of nutritionists and organizations encourages people that their condition is not their responsibility and “we’ve got to move beyond ‘personal responsibility.’”(468). The writer thinks that it’s not appropriate to count obesity as a “public health” issue and it is a personal matter and decision of what we choose to eat. Similarly, Maxfield too dislike the involvement of critics and writers in trying to control our eating choices. Maxfield begins by presenting the views of journalist Michael Pollan who thinks that Americans are “a notably unhealthy population preoccupied with ….the idea of eating healthy” (9). He is assured that our views on healthy eating are influenced by corporate machines who are benefiting from our confusion over food choices. Maxfield points out how even …show more content…
He shares his struggle with vegetarianism and how in his earlier times, he couldn’t really stick with it for a long period of time. But somewhere in his conscience he always knew that eating non-vegetarian food is the “wrong” thing to do. Foer backs up his claim with some data and statistics. He mentions a U.N. report which states that animal agriculture has become the leading cause of global warming and threatens to be the most serious environmental problem. The writer claims that “Eating Factory farmed animals….is almost certainly the single worst thing that humans do to the environment” (citation). Foer points out the difference between the treatment of dog or cat compared with a factory-farmed animal. He claims that even as a vegetarian he has unlimited choice and he is probably much healthier with them. Foer acknowledges that unlike other vegetarians he wouldn’t claim that his diet is better than a non-vegetarian diet but his morals weigh heavier than his love for meat on his decision making about food. The writer uses some strong language to influence people to think hard about the ethical aspect associated with food. He boldly asks “Why doesn’t a horny person have as strong a claim to raping an animal as a hungry one does to confining, killing and eating it?” (citation) In contrast, Maxfield criticizes how the society view is distorted in terms of how they resist all the scientific findings
Balko and Maxfield both seem to dislike the fact that food has become a social issue. While Balko focuses more on criticizing the interference of government with their actions and strategies, Maxfield choose to comment on the writers contributing to nutrition and food science. Balko uses heavy sarcasm about how the government is initiating several anti-obesity measures and trying to control our eating habits and behavior. He present forward examples of politicians and senators who are taking measures like investing millions of dollars on anti-obesity …show more content…
The writer points out about how this change in private health will just increase chances of more involvement of federal restrictions on the consumer’s liberties and our freedom to choose. This is so because a society where people are held responsible for the action of each other will more likely accept other restrictions put on them. Balko then proceeds to criticize how a lot of nutritionists and organizations encourages people that their condition is not their responsibility and “we’ve got to move beyond ‘personal responsibility.’”(468). The writer thinks that it’s not appropriate to count obesity as a “public health” issue and it is a personal matter and decision of what we choose to eat. Similarly, Maxfield too dislike the involvement of critics and writers in trying to control our eating choices. Maxfield begins by presenting the views of journalist Michael Pollan who thinks that Americans are “a notably unhealthy population preoccupied with ….the idea of eating healthy” (9). He is assured that our views on healthy eating are influenced by corporate machines who are benefiting from our confusion over food choices. Maxfield points out how even …show more content…
He shares his struggle with vegetarianism and how in his earlier times, he couldn’t really stick with it for a long period of time. But somewhere in his conscience he always knew that eating non-vegetarian food is the “wrong” thing to do. Foer backs up his claim with some data and statistics. He mentions a U.N. report which states that animal agriculture has become the leading cause of global warming and threatens to be the most serious environmental problem. The writer claims that “Eating Factory farmed animals….is almost certainly the single worst thing that humans do to the environment” (citation). Foer points out the difference between the treatment of dog or cat compared with a factory-farmed animal. He claims that even as a vegetarian he has unlimited choice and he is probably much healthier with them. Foer acknowledges that unlike other vegetarians he wouldn’t claim that his diet is better than a non-vegetarian diet but his morals weigh heavier than his love for meat on his decision making about food. The writer uses some strong language to influence people to think hard about the ethical aspect associated with food. He boldly asks “Why doesn’t a horny person have as strong a claim to raping an animal as a hungry one does to confining, killing and eating it?” (citation) In contrast, Maxfield criticizes how the society view is distorted in terms of how they resist all the scientific findings