Michael Marlow, a professor at California Polytechnic State University, conducted research on the effectiveness of government intervention in addressing America’s obesity problem. In his 2012 article titled “Government Intervention Will Not Solve Our Obesity Problem,” Marlow thoroughly analyzes the actions undertaken by the government and their outcomes. Through the use of factual evidence and research, Marlow presents a compelling argument against the efficacy of government intervention in influencing American eating habits.
According to Michael, the rise in obesity rates nationwide is unquestionable. He references data from the National Center for Health Statistics indicating that the percentage of adults affected by obesity has more than doubled since 1960, increasing from 13.4 percent to 34.3 percent in 2008. Furthermore, a recent publication in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine predicts that by 2030, 42 percent of Americans will be obese and 11 percent will be severely obese, surpassing their ideal weight by over 100 pounds (Marlow 1).
The text effectively emphasizes the grave issue of obesity in America, utilizing alarming statistics that offer crucial evidence of the ongoing rise in obesity rates. The provided information compellingly asserts that if current trends persist without alteration, a majority of the population will experience overweight issues, resulting in premature deaths and exacerbating existing heart problems faced by Americans. The inclusion of the “American Journal of Preventive Medicine” as a source further enhances this argument’s credibility and trustworthiness (Marlow).
The government has implemented new legislation to promote greater awareness of food choices. One measure includes the mandatory inclusion of calorie counts on menus at restaurant chains, aiming to prevent individuals from underestimating their calorie intake (Marlow, 1).
Michael employs logical appeal in order to illustrate the government’s efforts to regulate people’s ordering choices when eating out. According to Marlow (1), although 28 percent of customers claimed that this information influenced their decision-making, researchers were unable to detect any change in the number of purchased calories after the implementation of this law. This statement is persuasive as it demonstrates that the majority of individuals who were exposed to calorie information at restaurants did not alter their ordering habits. Consequently, it becomes evident that this action taken by the government is utterly futile.
The author examines a government regulation concerning the taxation of sugary beverages. As per the author, soda taxes primarily impact consumers without weight issues, despite not being the intended targets. In contrast, individuals who frequently consume soda tend to buy less expensive soda and make bulk discounted purchases. Additionally, they also prepare more sweetened ice tea. This argument is persuasive as it relies on logical appeal. The author’s usage of the term “bulk” is intriguing as it illustrates that consumers are purchasing larger quantities of these items at once, which could potentially contribute to weight gain. Consequently, it seems that this regulation is producing an opposite outcome from its original purpose.
“Congress, under intense pressure from the agricultural business lobby, declared pizza a vegetable in one case. This decision enabled Congress to prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from substituting more vegetables for pizza, which is categorized as a vegetable due to its tomato paste content,” explains Marlow. Through logical appeal, Michael demonstrates that the government’s approach is essentially a shortcut.
The USDA is attempting to increase the vegetable content and improve the healthiness of pizza. However, due to pressure from other agencies, the government opts for a simpler solution of classifying the entire pizza as a vegetable. This decision is highly compelling as it highlights the absurdity of the government’s action. It is evident that pizza lacks any nutritional value, making the government’s stance inconsiderate towards the wellbeing of the American people.
The author transitions from discussing the inefficacy of government laws to examining their impact on the American population. According to the author, starting in the 1970s, the Department of Agriculture has been promoting low-fat diets with the goal of reducing heart disease and obesity risks. However, this approach may have unintended consequences. Despite consuming healthier foods, Americans ended up consuming more food overall. As a result, although there was a decrease in the percentage of calories from fat between 1970 and 2000, there was actually an increase in the absolute amount of fat calories in their diet due to higher calorie intake (Marlow 1). By presenting this logical argument, the author effectively conveys their point.
The USDA has been established for about 40 years but has been unable to reduce obesity rates despite implementing numerous regulations for Americans to adhere to. The author’s article is most convincing when it discusses effective solutions, which do not involve government regulations, but rather rely on individuals and local markets. According to Marlow (1), weight loss products and ideas are tested and improved by consumers, providing better options for managing weight compared to government policies.
In this passage, the author discusses various weight loss products and programs such as weight lifting equipment, diet pills, weight loss drinks and shakes, and Weight Watchers. These strategies are tried by individuals, and if they are found to be effective, advocates promote their success to the public, leading people to continue using them. The author highlights that these approaches appear to yield the best outcomes.
Michael argues that despite government efforts to promote healthier food choices through laws and regulations, there has been no substantial impact on people’s ordering habits. He illustrates this by referring to a specific regulation intended to discourage the purchase of sugary drinks, which actually led to increased consumption. Furthermore, he criticizes the government for categorizing pizza as a vegetable based on its tomato paste content, as this did not effectively encourage vegetable consumption.
The author argues that a regulation designed to decrease fat intake has instead resulted in an uptick in the consumption of fatty foods. This underscores the ineffectiveness and even counterproductive nature of government laws and regulations aimed at addressing this problem. The author ultimately recommends relying on weight loss products and ideas approved by consumers as the most efficient strategy for combating obesity (Marlow 1).
Works Cited
- Marlow, Michael. “Government Intervention Will Not Solve Our Obesity Problem.” U.S News. June 5, 2012. 1. Web. Feb. 15, 2013.
Aristotelian Universe
Aristotle once viewed that the Earth is on the center of the universe and all other heavenly bodies revolve around it. It is viewed this way as he was studying the moon, the stars and the sun was revolving around the earth. The earth being on the center does not move, neither does it lie anywhere. As we can figure out from books and statements of Aristotle, he concluded three basic things about the universe. First is that the Earth is on the center of the universe, second is that it is spherical in shape and lastly that it is much smaller compared to other stars or planets (Kuhn, 1957).
Many people have proved that the Aristotelian Universe is wrong. One is Nicolaus Copernicus who as an astronomer developed the idea that the Sun is on the center of the universe, and all other planets are moving around them. As against the theory of Aristotle, Copernicus have developed the Copernican Heliocentrism, which succeeding astronomers and scientist have adopted (Wikipedia).
Tycho Brahe on the other hand developed the Tychonic system. Brahe was not a Copernican, he on the other hand have adopted the Copernican Heliocentrism but modified the same by stating that all planets revolve around the sun while the sun and the moon revolves around the earth (Wikipedia).
Galileo finally proved wrong the Aristotelian Universe. By inventing the telescope, he was able to study the movement of the planets and the movement of the earth. He developed the theory of the tides which proves the motion of the earth. For Galileo the sloshing back and forth of sea water causes the tides, the Earth’s surface speeds up and slows down the tide movement because the Earth rotates around its axis and the Earth rotates around the Sun. The main issue however was that in each day there are two high tides and Galileo was aware of this, there was an inadequacy in his research that the Earths movement causes the tides. He then dismissed this idea and considered this as a useless fiction. He also refused to accept the theory of Johannes Kepler that the moon causes the tides (Wikipedia).
As Galileo developed technology which he considers as entirely separate from pure physics. The development of technology such as the invention of the telescope gave the study of Physics an edge in the field of science. Because of these developments, study of physics became easier to prove. The invention of telescope, which is a technological advancement, proved that the Aristotelian Universe was wrong (Wikipedia).
References:
- Kuhn, Thomas.The Copernican Revolution. Harvard University Press. 1957.
- Galileo Galilei. Retrieved at <www.wikipedia.com>
- Nicolaus Copernicus. Retrieved at <www.wikipedia.com>
- Tycho Brahe. Retrieved at <www.wikipedia.com>
Aristotle, Morality As Virtue In MLA Style
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and scientist. Because of his work in metaphysics, logic, natural sciences, ethics, political science, and literary criticism, he is ranked as one of the world’s great thinkers.
According to Aristotle, Morality is the purpose of a thing, as revealed by its form, is what it strives toward. A thing is good when it performs its purpose, and, if conscious, it feels pleasure when it does so efficiently. But although each thing has its own purpose, this purpose is also a means to a higher purpose. Only man, who has both consciousness and reason, is capable of happiness, which accompanies conscious performance of a higher purpose. Man’s highest purpose is to imitate the action of the ultimate “unmoved mover”, corresponding to God, whose only action is contemplation.
The specific virtues Aristotle listed reflect those valued by his culture. They include courage, temperance, liberality, self- respect, friendliness, and justice. Aristotle stressed motive and also suitability of the action to the circumstances. Aristotle believes that having these virtues leads to happiness. Virtues can be seen when an individual responses to a certain situation. Man should react in such a way that is not in contrast with morality, and also by showing the virtues which Aristotle has identified.
For Aristotle having happiness does not depend on circumstances but it is about achieving things through your innate skills and capability, it was tagged by Aristotle as Eudaimonia (happiness). Virtues, morality and happiness are intertwined. Aristotle points out that morality’s foundation focuses on the basic longings or wishes of a human being like riches and fame which sometimes chokes or prevents men from doing what is right. When one lives with virtues basing on the moral that one should be following then he will achieve such happiness.
Reference:
“Aristotle”. New Standard Encyclopedia. Volume 2. Pages 561-562.