Fast food is omnipresent in our society. Fast food is successful, because its cheap, its easy obtained, and the obvious fact that its fast. However, fast food has a darker side: it is horridly unhealthy. This has led many people to develop health problems like diabetes. heart disease, high cholesterol, and obesity. The development of health problems has raised the ire of our society. But who is to blame? Is it the fast food companies? Or is it the parents and the individual? The answer, quite simply, is both.
Weintruab argues that blame lies solely on the parent, in the obesity epidemic. He states that parents are the ones who teach their children healthy eating habits. He states that parents are the one who have relinquished their parental authority. However, this is not entirely accurate.
Fast food companies share part of the blame, for a multitude of reasons. They do very little to ensure that a customer is getting a good meal, as opposed to just a filling one. Even when the company gives so-called “healthy alternatives”, the nutritional value is atrocious. Consider, if you may, a Chicken Salad offered by one fast food purveyor. The salad is listed as having just 150 calories. But that is excluding the almonds and noodles in it (another 190 calories). Furthermore, the salad dressing is an additional 280 calories per serving. But that’s still not it. The packet of dressing given contains two and a half servings, meaning this so called “healthy alternative” comes in at 1040 calories total. But even this massive sum doesn’t include any drink you might get. Clearly, the nutritional value of the food in question is horrendous, and barely deserves to be called a “nutrition”al value. The fast food companies also have marketing designed to target not the parents and individual consumer, but the children. Children are the ideal target for them: they wield large influence, and largely don’t care about the nutrition of the food, just its taste. Certainly a deplorable strategy.
But the blame does not lie solely with the company. Although the food is bad for you, the consumer is not being forced to purchase it. A consumer is free to make an alternative, actually healthy choice. But the consumer doesn’t. Weintraub’s argument is correct on this point. The consumer willingly purchases it for themselves. Or worse, parents buy it for their children. If a parent was willing to be informed, they could be. Most homes now have an internet connection. They could look up the nutritional value of their food online. Even if they don’t have a network connection, the information is available from the restaurant itself, upon request. They could see the truth themselves, but they don’t. They ignore the facts, and blame the company for any health problems they or they children may develop. Fast food companies market to children, and parents accept that. Parents do not like saying “no” anymore. They’ve essentially abdicated their chief duty: to protect their kids. They do not seem to want to defend their kids from obesity and other health concerns. They are content to allow television to raise their children for them. But this cannot be sustained.
The fast food companies, the consumer, and the parents are all to blame for the storm of unhealthiness that is now among us. The company doesn’t care about the food; only its profits, and the individual doesn’t care about the company not caring about the food, only that it’s a cheap and available meal. The growing trend of health problems related to poor nutrition is an epidemic to our society. It cannot easily be reversed. But there is hope. If the company either begins caring about the consumer, or is at least forced to care, there may be change. If the individual stops caring that it’s a cheap meal, and begins to see the true costs of unhealthy food, there may be change. If the parents take back their authority and power to say “no” to their children, there may be change.
i accidentally set it for multiple choices.
