Obesity: Who Is at Fault?

corpulency Who is at blame? Name University of International Business and Economics Obesity Who is at blemish? It is no secret that an increasing amount of Ameri brooks atomic moment 18 gaining weight and untold of this blame is put on unfaltering forage establishments such(prenominal) as McDonalds, W stop overys, Burger King, and Krystals, to name a fewer. According to Warren Belasco and Philip Scranton (2002), The increasing consumption of doodad nutritions is an international trend influenced by changing lifestyles (p. 3) From a exceedinglyficial perspective, this doesnt seem like a good deal of a worry.However, Robert Jeffery and Sim unmatched French (1998), authors of the article epiphytotic Obesity in the United States Are disruptive pabulum and video Viewing Contri unlessing? assert that Obesity is an important public health problem that, in recent years, has reached epidemic proportions (p. 277). In fact, some be c on the wholeing the problem the corpul ency epidemic. Several typefaces against abstain diet establishments throw been filed by those who be all overweight. Its a serious problem, one that can non be ignored. Before eitherone assumes that its just the United States, think again.With the increasing number of quick fodder establishments in countries some different(a) than the United States, such as China, Japan, and Brazil, so argon corpulency rates. The obesity epidemic can no longer be ignored and must be solved. While the problem is known, the source of it is non and must be traced. What exactly is the source of obesity? Many hoi polloi deal it to be unshakable nutrition restaurants such as McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Krystals, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell. After all, argon they not the ones distributing the nutrition so unhealthy and high in calories? Are they not the ones advertising delicious, backstabbing nutriment?Are they not the ones make the sustenance so addictive that the c onsumers spend a penny no choice but to release it and muster up back for more than than? It is not a secret that there meet been count little instances against extravagant diet establishments. One of the most popular lawsuits, Pelman v. McDonalds, has been nicknamed the McLawsuit. In this lawsuit, cardinal overweight children (one of whom was nineteen years old) sued McDonalds seeking hire for their health related problems catch by obesity. there is no upset that most raft perceive that speedy food is unhealthy, regardless of what the Pelman v.McDonalds lawsuit claims. There retain been documentaries recording, such as Morgan Spurlocks Supersizing Me, in which he wares McDonalds for trey meals for a month. The result is irrevocable and more more severe than any of the three doctors he had hired imagined. It would be hard to find someone that denied that fast food was unhealthy. However, this does not guess that it is the reason for obesity. c dawdlely food establishments should not be blamed for the obesity epidemic because when it all comes down to it, its a simple numerate of choice. closely food establishments do not piss their consumers at gun tailor and ride them to deal their food, nor do they additives in their products to achieve it chemically addictive, notwithstanding what the plaintiffs lawsuit claim. Todd G. Buchholz, an international economist, situate word argument speaker, and author of Are Fast-Food Establishments Making Americans Fat poses an elicit scenario The overweight baseball fan jumps to his feet in the bleachers of Wringley Field, screaming for the Chicago Cubs to hold onto their 3-2 lead-in in the bottom of the ninth inning.He squeezes a Cubs pennant on his left hand trance shoving a mustard-smeared unrecorded dog into his tattle with the right. The Dodgers stick out a runner on the first who is sneaking a big lead off the base. The Cubs pile has thrown three balls and two strikes to the batter, a notorious power hitter. The obese fan holds his breath, charm the pitcher winds up and fires a blazing fastball. Crack The ball flies over the fans head into the bleachers for a game-winning home run. The fan slumps to his bleacher asshole and has a heart attack. Who should the fan sue? a) The Cubs for breaking his heart? (b) The spicy dog company for making a plump downty food? (c) The hot dog vendor for change him a fatty food? (d) e truly of the above? (p. 1) While this scenario seems completely absurd, there is quite a smokestack of truth in how todays society works. The question that Buchholz proposes must be dealt with. Just who is to blame for obesity? The vendors? The fast food corporations? There throw been lawsuits, numerous which are still prevalent today. The question has not been answered and mass are still seeking answers.As stated earlier, many believe the jailbreak lies with the fast food corporations, which is why countless lawsuits have been filed aga inst them. However, perhaps there is more than one reason why fast food establishments have been under attack. Buchholz examines this very perspective. Lawyers are under pressure to concur these cases for fear that if they do not, their reputation will be tarnished. Under any normal circumstances, it would be easy to turn the cases down. Unfortunately for them, it they are no considered normal circumstances.Despite the popularity of fast food, it has become quite popular for people to b neglectleg the restaurants because of reasons such as the food is making the people fat, the corporations brainwash kids, and they donation the children with dallys. Michelle M. Mello, Eric B. Rimm, and David M. Studdert analyze one lawsuit in particular. Pelman v. McDonalds, or rather, the McLawsuit, as it was dubbed by the public, was filed against McDonalds by two overweight children seeking compensation for their health problems caused by obesity. They had claimed that McDonalds had deployed deceptive advertising, promotion, and sales.In addition, the corporation had produced food that was not entirely unsafe but had similarly failed to warn consumers of the dangers of its products. It is quite interesting to note that the plaintiffs attorney had also filed a similar lawsuit against McDonalds and other fast food restaurants on behalf of adults. Believing it would be unsuccessful, the attorney withdrew the case to pursue Pelman. With children as plaintiffs, it was believed that the success would be higher, as the children would be seen as representatives of the afflicted population (Mello, et al. 2003, p. 208).The judge, Judge Sweet, dismissed the case, stating, nada is forced to eat at McDonalds, except, perhaps, parents of small children who desire McDonalds food, toy promotions or playgrounds and demand their parents accompaniment (Stout 2003). In an interview with the plaintiffs lawyers colleague, John Banzhaf, he admits The biggest problem is what lawyers call causeits hard to tell what caused a heart attack. What percentage is obesity, versus other factors? And was McDonalds 4 percent, versus 2 perfect for Haagen-Dazs? Everybody knows that, if you want to lose weight, you eat less, less calorie input, and more exercise.You dont have to realise that. (The Center for Consumer Freedom, 2003) The case drew national attention but many spectators realized it was more or less a farce in order to make a few extra dollars for the plaintiffs and their lawyer. The authors list cay stratums of the case do by the plaintiffs lawyers, one of which the case is compared to those made against baccy companies. However, there are significant differences. Unlike tobacco cases, there has been no license to prove that fast food jibes chemicals that are addictive. Mello, Rimm, and Studdert are not the besides ones to note this. Buchholz also acknowledges this key point.Additionally, no person has claimed that they have ever become sick from second hand eating. Another key point is that while cigarette research has been consistent over the years, victuals research fails to do the same. In fact, their research is often contradictory. There are claims that the consumers are often too ignorant to understand the risks of the food they eat. However, this is a moot point of fast food restaurants. Consumers are becoming more aware of nutritional and caloric value of food and because of this, fast food restaurants, have reacted by making their nutritional value readily open to the public.Not only that, they have also changed their menu to feature more salads and foods with less calories. Buchholz brings up yet another important and crucial point to understand the answer, you must understand the nature surrounding the problem. He states that even with the popularity of fast food establishments, people still eat two thirds of their daily calories at home. So while critics do a wonderful job of limning fast food restaurants as manipulative , evil corporations, they fail to compare fast food to food made at home, school, or restaurants that do not fall into the fast food category.While plaintiffs lawyers condemn the nutritional value of fast food, they fail to acknowledge that alternatives are just as sturdy. For example, school meals are not much better than fast foods. While the schools provide few calories, in place is more saturated fat, more than fast food establishments provide. Saturated fat is the more dangerous subset of fats (Buccholz, p. 4). In fact, Buchholz notes, fast food actually has fewer calories today than they did four decades ago. In the 1970s, the fat fill of fast food meals and home cooked meals were very similar.Even twenty-nine years ago, while home cooking may have won prizes for their extraordinary taste, very few would receive them from todays nutritionists. Of course, thats not the only thing to focus on. Modern jobs frequently require less physiologic work, meaning less clipping spent burning calories and more time being stationary. There are more desk jobs, which means workers are paying to sit in their seats rather than exert energy. Work at home jobs are also more prevalent. With the growing popularity of the Internet, money can be made without even taking a step external of the house.A survey shows that while people are not eating large meals, they are snacking a lot more, something that definitely contributes to the calorie count. According to Buchholz, people have actually doubled the calories consumed between meals. This is a crucial point to keep in mind when examining the cause for obesity. Portion size is something else that is also criticized harshly. While fast food restaurants such as McDonalds have been super sizing meals, they seem to be the target of many consumers despite other places that have also been supersizing their food, with little or no criticism.Examples provided by Buchholz include movie theatre popcorn containers or all-you-can-eat buffets. Studies show that people can eat bigger portions of fast food-like meals such as hamburgers and chips not at the restaurants but in their own home kitchen. headquarters cooked hamburgers on average now weigh eight ounces rather than the quint to seven ounces served in restaurants, according to a study in the journal of the American Medical Association.Despite the movie theatre down the block selling super sized popcorn or the all-you-can-eat buffet, which elevates people to loosen their rap buckle, they are not under attack as a cause for obesity. Common sense dictates that McDonalds, even if they have a super size option, does not encourage the consumer to eat all they can. All-you-can-eat buffets, on the other hand, do. Buffets encourage the consumer to exceed the limitations of their stomach and eat as much as possible. However, ironically, buffets have evaded the line of attack and blame by consumers.Yes, fast food restaurants contain plenty of calories and no one denies that this is not healthy. However, in comparison with other food alternatives, fast food does not seem as bad as the media portrays them to be. Unlike smoking, fast food appears to be safe when consumed in moderationscientists at snack-food companies have reportedly investigated how certain foods trigger overeating, but not damning evidence has emerged that food manufacturers manipulate the content of their products to get consumers addicted (Mello et al. p. 211) Moderation is the key. In a study done by Robert W.Jeffery and Simone A. French, the objective was to observe the correlation of TV, fast food, and body mass indicant (BMI). The results showed that the former two were positively correlated with BMI in women but not in men, and predicted weight gain in women with high income. This information is supports the claims made by Buchholz. Buchholz stated before that there are more people evidently staying in one place rather than burning calories. much(prenominal) is wh at happens with television viewing. To watch television means to do little to not moving, equaling to no calories burnt. Epidemic Obesity in the United States Are Fast Foods and Television Contributing concluded that increases in availability of fast food and television may contribute to growing obesity rates. Fast food is a lot more prominent and available than it was in the past. It is hardly a lot more accessible than before. However, Buchholz has this point covered while fast food is a lot more prominent, so are jobs that require less moving and increase in time to eat and snack. Fast food may contribute to obesity but it simply not the only cause, nor should it be the briny focus if people are looking to fix the problem.In Fast Food Unfriendly and Unhealthy by S Stender, J Dyerberg, and A Astrup, association between fast food intake and weight gain is shown. The authors note federal agencys in which fast food can be obesogenic. One must look at necessary things such as the p ortion size, energy density and fat content. The authors then conclude that reducing portions to normal sizes, eliminating trans fat, switching to lean meat, and other such actions would benefit the consumers in their quest for lowering obesity rates. However, by reducing portions to one size takes away the right of the consumer to make choices, argues Buchholz (p. 0). beyond medical research, Morgan Spurlock, an American independent filmmaker, produced the documentary Super Size Me in 2004. In this film, Spurlock undergoes a mission to see what would happen to his body if he eats McDonalds three quantify a day for one month. The rules were simple if it wasnt on the McDonalds menu, he couldnt have it he must sample everything on the menu indoors xxx days he must have McDonalds three times a day he can only and must super size the meal when asked and will attempt to walk as much as the typical American.Throughout the film, Spurlock goes through a change, both physically and mental ly. His three doctors, nutritionalist, and personal trainer that he had hired all agreed that he was physically above average before his experiment began. Though all three doctors had predicted that the Mcdiet would have a negative effect on his body, none expected anything to be as drastic as what really happened, include but not limited to heart palpitations, and liver deterioration. Some of the results were irreversible.At the end of the documentary, Spurlock shows that some people do indeed eat McDonalds more frequently than they should, resulting in their weight gain and obesity health issues. Spurlocks main focus is on the negative impact of McDonalds and other fast food restaurants. However, this is unfair to the corporations. While McDonalds may cause health problems, it only does so when consumed frequently. Even though he has shown that there are people who eat McDonalds frequently, he failed to mention that the consumers have a choice.Fast food corporations are not holdin g their consumers at gunpoint and forcing them to buy their food but Spurlock presents his information in such a way as to convince his audience that it is indeed the corporations who are at fault and thus, it would be counterintuitive to his position on the subject matter. Daniel J. DeNoon (2006), author of Obesity More Complex Than We Think? , suggests that even though doctors are blaming obesity on overeating and inactivity, there are other factors that play exact roles. Even if the other causes have little effect, they may together make a big difference.Other reasons include, but are not limited to, lack of sleep, pollution, and prevalence of air conditioning, side effects of medicine, genetics, and age. So while fast food corporations may contribute to the obesity problem by providing food high in calories, the corporations cannot control any of the other factors that may lead to obesity. While it seems to be quite the trend for consumers sue fast food corporations for their o besity problems, one must reconsider if the question of whether the problem lies within the food or the corporation and reevaluate their position.Its easy to point the finger and there is no denying that fast food, when consumed frequently, is harmful. However, there has been no evidence stating that when consumed in moderation it is harmful. Unlike the lawsuits against tobacco companies, there is nothing chemically addictive about fast food, nor has anyone died of second hand eating, since swallowing food requires self-importance consent. In fact, fast food restaurants have been proven to not be physically addictive (Buchholz 3).By blaming corporations for the food the public is choosing to eat, it suggests that the public is incapable of making wise decisions and thus degrades the individual. Everybody wants a scapegoat for their problems because nobody likes to admit that it may not be their personal fault. Fast food isnt to blame. The consumers are. Fast food establishments aren t making consumers fat. Consumers are making consumers fat. Works Cited Belasco, W. , & Scranton, P. (2001). Food nations. Routledge. Buchholz, T. (2003). Are fast-food establishments making americans fat?. daybook of Controversial Medical Claims, 10(4), 1-10. DeNoon, D. (2006, June 27). Obesity more complex than we think?. Retrieved from www. webmd. com/content/article/124/115592 Jeffery, R. , & French, S. (1998). Epidemic obesity in the united states Are fast foods and television viewing contributing?. American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 227 228. Mello, M. , Rimm, E. , & Studdert, D. (1998). The mclawsuit The fast-food industry and legal accountability for obesity. American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 207 216.Special report Judge dismisses frivolous mclawsuit. (2003, January 22). Retrieved from http//www. consumerfreedom. com/2003/01/1753-special-report-judge-dismisses frivolous-mclawsuit/ Spurlock, M. (Director) (2004). Super size me DVD. Stender, S. , Dyerberg, J. , & Astrup, A. (2007). Fast food Unfriendly and unhealthy. International Journal of Obesity, 31, 887-890. doi 10. 1038 Stout, D. (2003, January 24). Obese teens lose mclawsuit. Retrieved from http//www. theage. com. au/articles/2003/01/23/1042911491525. html