1000 word arguementation essay..due today. Asap 3-6 hours

1000 word arguementation essay..due today… I need it today…… 

 

finish in 3-6 hours…

 

follow the instructions…..

 

it will be great if you can give to me in under 3 hours.

ENGLISH 101—Essay #6

Argumentation

LENGTH: 1000 words

DUE DATE:
December 11th

For your argumentative essay, you will use the readings in They Say, I Say, Chapter 16 entitled “Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?” We have already used some of the readings in this chapter for the Annotated Bibliography, and we will discuss the remaining essays in class. You will be required to use a minimum of four of the essays listed below for your chosen topic, meaning that you have quoted, used correct documentation, and prepared the Works Cited. Once you have chosen your readings, you will also need to select which position you will take on a defined issue.

READINGS:

David Zinczenko, “Don’t Blame the Eater” Page 391
Radly Balko, “What You Eat is Your Business” Page 395
Judith Warner, “Junking Junk Food” Page 400
Wil Haygood, “Kentucky Town of Manchester Illustrates National Obesity Crisis” Page 406
Michelle Obama, “ Remarks to the NAACP” Page 417
Michael Pollan, “Escape From the Western Diet” Page 434
Mary Maxfield, “Resisting the Moralization of Eating” Page 442
Susie Orbach, “Fat Is a Feminist Issue” Page 448
Carrie Packwood Freeman and Debra Merskin, “Having it His Way” Page 454

READING SUPPORT:

Norton Field Guide, Chapter 9: Arguing a Position; review Chapter 31: Analyzing Causes and Effects and Quick Access Concise, Chapter 5: Writing Arguments

PLAN:

Here is a sample for a basic structure, which is close to the classical and explains the introduction and conclusion in more detail:
I. Introduction
A. Briefly discuss the nature of the controversy. You will have read a variety of views on the problem. Don’t go into detail at this point, but state the main issues. You do not need to be naming authors or works, and you should also hold off quoting until you are writing the body paragraphs.
B. Finish the introduction with your claim, which is an argumentative thesis. This statement will explicitly state your proposed position. You must take a stand. I should clearly be able to tell your position after reading the first paragraph.
II. Explain the Problem—Use the items you read to identify the major contributing factors. Use at least two or three of the sources for explaining the problem.
III. The Solution—State the main points of your solution, using more supporting items. Try organizing in climactic order, from least to most important.
IV. The Rebuttal—Respond to any differing views, again citing specific quotes, as if you were actually answering your opposition. Therefore, you should be saying why their views are incorrect. Use evidence from any supporting readings. This section should be brief.
V. Conclusion
A. Restate your claim and your main supporting points, but not word for word. Use a final vivid example or illustration to enhance your argument. You want to leave the reader with your position in mind.
B. Finish with a final appeal in your favor.
VI. Works Cited—MLA Style, separate page.

Don’t Blame the Eater

By David Zinczenko
Published: November 23, 2002

Sign In to E-Mail

Print
If ever there were a newspaper headline custom-made for Jay Leno’s monologue, this was it. Kids taking on McDonald’s this week, suing the company for making them fat. Isn’t that like middle-aged men suing Porsche for making them get speeding tickets? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
I tend to sympathize with these portly fast-food patrons, though. Maybe that’s because I used to be one of them.
I grew up as a typical mid-1980’s latchkey kid. My parents were split up, my dad off trying to rebuild his life, my mom working long hours to make the monthly bills. Lunch and dinner, for me, was a daily choice between McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut. Then as now, these were the only available options for an American kid to get an affordable meal. By age 15, I had packed 212 pounds of torpid teenage tallow on my once lanky 5-foot-10 frame.
Then I got lucky. I went to college, joined the Navy Reserves and got involved with a health magazine. I learned how to manage my diet. But most of the teenagers who live, as I once did, on a fast-food diet won’t turn their lives around: They’ve crossed under the golden arches to a likely fate of lifetime obesity. And the problem isn’t just theirs — it’s all of ours.

Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by a genetic disorder — only about 5 percent of childhood cases were obesity-related, or Type 2, diabetes. Today, according to the National Institutes of Health, Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in this country.
Not surprisingly, money spent to treat diabetes has skyrocketed, too. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that diabetes accounted for $2.6 billion in health care costs in 1969. Today’s number is an unbelievable $100 billion a year.
Shouldn’t we know better than to eat two meals a day in fast-food restaurants? That’s one argument. But where, exactly, are consumers — particularly teenagers — supposed to find alternatives? Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I guarantee you’ll see one of our country’s more than 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit.
Complicating the lack of alternatives is the lack of information about what, exactly, we’re consuming. There are no calorie information charts on fast-food packaging, the way there are on grocery items. Advertisements don’t carry warning labels the way tobacco ads do. Prepared foods aren’t covered under Food and Drug Administration labeling laws. Some fast-food purveyors will provide calorie information on request, but even that can be hard to understand.
For example, one company’s Web site lists its chicken salad as containing 150 calories; the almonds and noodles that come with it (an additional 190 calories) are listed separately. Add a serving of the 280-calorie dressing, and you’ve got a healthy lunch alternative that comes in at 620 calories. But that’s not all. Read the small print on the back of the dressing packet and you’ll realize it actually contains 2.5 servings. If you pour what you’ve been served, you’re suddenly up around 1,040 calories, which is half of the government’s recommended daily calorie intake. And that doesn’t take into account that 450-calorie super-size Coke.
Make fun if you will of these kids launching lawsuits against the fast-food industry, but don’t be surprised if you’re the next plaintiff. As with the tobacco industry, it may be only a matter of time before state governments begin to see a direct line between the $1 billion that McDonald’s and Burger King spend each year on advertising and their own swelling health care costs.
And I’d say the industry is vulnerable. Fast-food companies are marketing to children a product with proven health hazards and no warning labels. They would do well to protect themselves, and their customers, by providing the nutrition information people need to make informed choices about their products. Without such warnings, we’ll see more sick, obese children and more angry, litigious parents. I say, let the deep-fried chips fall where they may.

What You Eat Is Your Business

by Radley Balko
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the prime time special “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying,” will host. Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for media, nutrition activists, and policy makers — all agitating for a panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing to children, and prodding the food industry into more “responsible” behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your waistline.
Politicians have already climbed aboard. President Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, among others, have called for a “fat tax” on high-calorie foods. Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional testing.
This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we’re doing just the opposite.
For decades now, America’s health care system has been migrating toward socialism. Your well-being, shape, and condition have increasingly been deemed matters of “public health,” instead of matters of personal responsibility. Our lawmakers just enacted a huge entitlement that requires some people to pay for other people’s medicine. Sen. Hillary Clinton just penned a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine calling for yet more federal control of health care. All of the Democrat candidates for president boasted plans to push health care further into the public sector. More and more, states are preventing private health insurers from charging overweight and obese clients higher premiums, which effectively removes any financial incentive for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
We’re becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible for everyone else’s. Your heart attack drives up the cost of my premiums and office visits. And if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol medication, what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger?
This collective ownership of private health then paves the way for even more federal restrictions on consumer choice and civil liberties. A society where everyone is responsible for everyone else’s well-being is a society more apt to accept government restrictions, for example — on what McDonalds can put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger can put on grocery shelves, or holding food companies responsible for the bad habits of unhealthy consumers.
A growing army of nutritionist activists and food industry foes are egging the process on. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest has said, “we’ve got to move beyond `personal responsibility.'” The largest organization of trial lawyers now encourages its members to weed jury pools of candidates who show “personal responsibility bias.” The title of Jennings special from last December — “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying” — reveals his intent, which is to relieve viewers of responsibility for their own condition. Indeed, Jennings ended the program with an impassioned plea for government intervention to fight obesity.
The best way to alleviate the obesity “public health” crisis is to remove obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn’t belong there anyway. It’s difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers want to fight obesity, they’ll halt the creeping socialization of medicine, and move to return individual Americans’ ownership of their own health and well-being back to individual Americans.
That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with one’s health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn’t belong to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own retirement, we’re less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a cold.
We’ll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn’t paying for the consequences of those choices.
Escape from the Western Diet 

Tools

“Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”
That's the underlying advice offered in the book “In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto,” the latest from best-selling author and national food guru, Michael Pollan.
That and don't eat anything your grandmother wouldn't recognize.
It's not that the author wants to dictate what people should eat, it's just that our heavily processed Western diet has been making us increasingly sick, and Pollan wants to challenge the prevailing nutrient-by-nutrient, reductionist view of food for a broader approach that looks at the health of our entire food chain, the politics beneath it, as well as our personal relationships with food.
Style spoke with Pollan, a longtime contributor to The New York Times Magazine and the Knight professor of journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, from his home in Northern California.
Style:
So many people simply can't afford to eat organic or grass-fed animals, so how do we make quality food more affordable?

Pollan: We need changes in policy. Right now, we have a set of government policies that favor the production of industrial food. Most organic farmers receive no subsidies. … if you look at the food system we have, it's the result of the incentives we've set up, basically encouraging farmers to grow a lot of corn and soy, which are the building blocks of fast food. I think if we level the playing field so that farmers are rewarded for growing healthy food, the price will come down. It may never be as cheap as conventional food. …
[But] I also think when you get Wal-Mart involved in organic, for better or worse, they're very good at getting prices down. I just hope it doesn't come at the expense of the farmers.
How would you grade the Obama administration so far?
The moves so far have been mixed. There was an attempt to go after subsidies that was really handled badly and backfired. The idea was to cut direct payment to farmers and use that money to go straight to child-nutrition programs. I think it was a mistaken approach, a zero-sum approach that pitted farmers against hungry children, which is not the way to win over House or Senate Agriculture committees.
The appointment of the number two woman at the Department of Agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan, who started the organic food movement within government, was very encouraging. [Tom] Vilsak was a surprising choice [for Secretary of agriculture] but his moves so far indicate he has an appetite for reform.
In a way, I think the most important thing that happened so far was the organic garden on the south lawn of the White House. It's symbolic, but in this political world symbol and substance are not so different. As soon as that happens you have a conversation in the mainstream media about what real food is, growing your own food, eating fruits and vegetables. I got calls from mainstream television networks saying, “We want to do a series on this food Michelle is talking about — what is this stuff?” I actually think first ladies have enormous influence and they can drive change without attracting attack from the farm lobby.
CSAs are hot right now [Community Supported Agriculture is a socio-economic model in which  you buy shares of seasonal fresh food from local farmers]. What do people need to look for when choosing a CSA?
The right question is not “Are you organic or not?” because there are a lot of really good farmers who are not certified because they don't want to deal with the paperwork, or there's some corner they need to cut in order to survive. I don't rule them out.
The questions to ask: How do you deal with fertility or how are you fertilizing your crops? Are they using chemicals, or composting, or animal waste or whatever? If they're using synthetic nitrogen that's something to consider, because foods grown with lots of synthetic nitrogen tend to be less nutritious and the soil tends to die. It's hard to believe you're really sustainable if you're putting fossil fuel fertilizer on your crops — which is what that is. I would ask the farmers how they deal with pests. Are they using clever crop rotations or spraying pesticide and what kind? Those are key questions.
In your latest book, one of the big themes involves time, and how people can find the time in today's fast-food culture to increase the quality of their food. How do we combat this perception of foodies as effete liberals with too much time on their hands?
Well, the food movement is not a left or liberal movement. It has a lot of support on the right. There is a traditional segment of the right, on the evangelical side, that recognizes that cooking for your children and eating a family meal is an important traditional family value and ceding all that responsibility to corporations is not conservative at all, it's an erosion of traditional values. Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News is conservative and a member of this movement. Former speechwriter to President Bush, Matthew Scully, wrote one of the most powerful indictments of animal agriculture we have from a Christian point of view [“Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy”].
I think you're right that time is a big issue for people. With both men and women in the work force there is less time to cook. The goal should not be to put women back in the kitchen, it's to put both men and women in the kitchen working together. … to reconstruct a nonsexist culture of cooking. And to recognize that cooking for your children is a really important part of good parenthood in the same way that reading to them is.
The fact is we find time for the things we value. In the last five years we found two hours a day for Internet, where did we get that time? It was important, so we took a little away from television, we took some from our employers. I think the job of storytellers like ourselves is to convince people of the value and satisfaction of taking back control of food choices and food preparation. It's not easy because you're up against $32 billion in marketing messages telling you you're too busy and you should just go enjoy fast food. But there's a feedback loop happening as people realize fast food is making them unhealthy. That's what this food movement is about: It's a dawning recognition that eating this way, even though it's easy and cheap and superficially satisfying, is a public-health disaster.
You're speaking here with Marion Nestle — what does she bring to the table and what will you likely discuss?
Marion has a deep knowledge of both nutrition science and nutrition policy. She has been on the inside when government was writing nutritional guidelines, so she knows how that process works and the roles of corporations in influencing those guidelines. She also understands how difficult it is to study impact of certain foods on diet.
She's been a great teacher of mine — I learned a lot about food marketing and nutritional health. I look forward to engaging with her about the food industry and how it might be part of the solution. We're at this very interesting moment where we have a government that seems sympathetic to the food movement. There are opportunities for reform, so we'll talk about the state of the food movement and whether we stand at a moment where we can change the system.
What do you think will happen to investigative journalism over the next five years?
I'm really worried about the future of journalism. I think when society stops supporting its newspapers it will also have a feedback loop in the form of rampant political corruption. No one is going to look over the shoulders of our state or local governments the way newspapers do. TV simply does not do it. Internet simply doesn't.  So I think we're going to have tremendous abuses and will then recognize the supreme value to a free republic of newspapers and of a free press with resources. Then I think you'll see the rebuilding of that capacity. It may be nonprofits. … We have the nonprofit model in radio that has been very successful although I don't think NPR does nearly enough original reporting — to a remarkable extent they're dependent on newspaper reporting. It's amazing how much the rest of media is parasitic on newspapers.
Micropayments are interesting too: I think we could move to a system where we painlessly pay pennies for many things on Internet if we didn't have to give a password every time it happens. … If you look at the New York Times for example, who have tremendous Web traffic, it's not an audience problem — it's a business model problem.

November 25, 2010
Junking Junk Food

By JUDITH WARNER

Earlier this month, Sarah Palin showed up in Bucks County, Pa., with “dozens and dozens” of cookies, suggesting that the state’s schoolchildren risked losing the right to the occasional classroom treat because of a high-minded anti-sugar edict from the board of education. Pretty much everything about the setup was wrong. Pennsylvania wasn’t, as Palin tweeted, in the midst of a “school cookie ban” debate. And the school she turned into a photo op wouldn’t have been subject to such a ban had one existed; it wasn’t a public school but a private Christian academy. And while Palin might have been seizing an opportunity to “intro kids 2 beauty of laissez-faire,” she wasn’t just visiting with schoolchildren but was delivering a paid speech at a fund-raiser.
Still, however shaky its factual foundations, Palin’s highly mediatized cookie showdown was a big rhetorical win. With her unerring feel for the message that travels straight to the American gut, she had come up with new and vivid imagery to make the case that the Obama “nanny state” is, essentially, snatching cookies — i.e., the pursuit of happiness — from the mouths of babes. Suddenly, Pennsylvania’s suggestion that schools encourage alternatives to high-sugar sweets became an assault on the American way of life. On freedom and simple pleasures. On wholesome childhood delights and, of course, the integrity of the family.
Glenn Beck, too, has found a winning formula in mocking government efforts to lead Americans to live less fattening lives. His compendium of outrage on the topic waxes long — it includes reports of government health inspectors shutting down a 7-year-old’s lemonade stand, for example — and his argument, like Palin’s, is clear: the “choice architects” of the Obama administration, he says, believe “you’re incapable of making decisions. . . . Left to your own devices, you’re going to eat too much, you’re going to be a big fat fatty.”
At a time when more than two-thirds of American adults are indeed fat (overweight or obese) and 17 percent of children and adolescents are obese, declaring war on unhealthful eating, as the Obama administration has done to an unprecedented extent, could be fraught with political liability. Yet the administration has essentially tackled the problem as if it were a political no-brainer. Teaching Americans, and children in particular, healthier eating habits seemed so commonsensical a venture, so wholesome and safe, that Michelle Obama chose it for her apolitical personal project as first lady. She has succeeded in enlisting some bipartisan support, and some much-hyped cooperation from the food industry. But now, with antigovernment sentiment resurgent, the cookies are pushing back, like the return of the repressed. And as any homeowner who has ever been advised to bake cookies before showing a house for sale knows, their influence is irrational but real.
For in waging war on fat and sugar, what the administration is doing is taking on central aspects of the American lifestyle. Eating too much, indiscriminately, anywhere, at any time, in response to any and all stimuli, is as central to our freewheeling, mavericky way of being as car cupholders and drive-throughs. You can’t change specific eating behavior without addressing that way of life — without changing our culture of food. You need to present healthful eating as a new, desirable, freely chosen expression of the American way.
Perhaps the most successful government effort to regulate what and how much Americans consume — the food rationing programs of World War II — recognized this political-cultural-emotional scheme. Needing a number of foods, meat in particular, for the boys overseas, the government realized that it could successfully spread its message of “eat differently” only if it fought on two fronts: the nutritional and the psychological. And so it pursued a two-pronged campaign, with the Food and Nutrition Board handling the nutrition, and the psychology tasked to the Committee on Food Habits, led by the anthropologist Margaret Mead and charged by the National Research Council with “mobilizing anthropological and psychological insights as they bear upon the whole problem of changing food habits in order to raise the nutritional status of the people of the United States.” Eating the way the government wanted you to eat — healthfully and with a mind to greater public welfare — was a way of displaying patriotism, adding to the war effort.
After the war, however, the work of the Committee on Food Habits was discontinued. But the government kept disseminating nutritional advice, with the departments of agriculture and health and human services issuing nutritional guidelines that, in recent decades, have been revised every five years to reflect new and evolving scientific developments. There has, however, been no concerted parallel attempt to create more pointed and sophisticated approaches to changing how Americans think and feel about food. So we ended up with a wealth of knowledge about best nutritional practices but no cultural change to back it up.
And cultural change is what offers the best hope for transforming how and what Americans eat. As noted by David Kessler, the former U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner and author of the 2009 book “The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite,” it was a shift in cultural attitudes, not laws or regulations, that led Americans to quit smoking. In the space of a generation, he says, cigarettes stopped being portrayed as “sexy and cool” and started to be seen as “a terribly disgusting, addictive product.” Because of the unique emotional power of food, it’s hard, if not impossible, to similarly stigmatize unhealthful eating. But it’s not inconceivable, Kessler says, that social norms could change: that huge portions, or eating processed foods loaded with sugar, salt and fat, for example, could come to be seen as socially unacceptable.
The task is huge — and not just because of the predictable resistance there would be from the food industry. Largely, it’s a question, Kessler says, of breaking old cycles of association: melt-in-the-mouth baked goods with home-safe happiness, for example, or fries with fulfillment — and replacing them with a new circuitry in which, somehow, eating healthfully is self-reinforcing. Can Michelle Obama make field greens and strawberries as comforting, satisfying, and heartwarmingly American as apple pie? She has her work cut out for her.
Judith Warner is the author, most recently, of “We’ve Got Issues: Children and Parents in the Age of Medication.”