“What You Eat Is Your Business” is one of the most common lines used by the most of the people when discussing about food. In the recent times there has been a ongoing debate about vegetarianism and non vegetarianism and why vegetarianism is more ethical. The thesis statement of this essay is, the debate surrounding vegetarianism and non vegetarianism is something which cannot have a clear solution, one is ethical and humanitarian point of view and the other one is strictly a logical point of view.
In the work “What You Eat Is Your Business” author Radley Balko has stated that “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” (Balko). Therefore while talking about the topic of eliminating obesity the author also states that it is ultimately the choice of the people to decide what they will eat, what the government can do instead of posing restriction is to make the people aware about the consequences of eating unhealthy, also the government may keep a vigilance on the fast food chains and check their quality of food from time to time. Instead of being a proponent of restriction the author has opted for education, awareness and vigilance on the quality of food. This total obligation regarding prosperity by then makes prepared for substantially more government confinements on purchaser choice and regular opportunities. An overall population where everyone is responsible for each other individual's success is an overall population more skilled to recognize government restrictions. The author for example states, on what McDonalds can put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger can put on essential supply resigns, or considering food associations accountable for the negative conduct examples of sad clients.
The best way to deal with moderate the bulkiness “public health” crisis is to oust heaviness from the space of general prosperity. It doesn't have a place there at any rate. It's difficult to consider much else private and of less open stress than what we put into our bodies. It just transforms into an open issue when we drive the all inclusive community to pay for the consequences of those choices. If policymakers need to fight weight, they'll stop the slithering socialization of prescription, and move to return solitary Americans' obligation regarding claim prosperity and flourishing back to particular Americans.
The Government rather than playing the part of the restrictive policing system may rather be the welfare machinery for the general public and take necessary steps for the alleviation of healthy activities and healthy eating. Therefore if a person wants to eat meat, he may of course do that,, but in a healthy form, and this will be ensured by the government campaigns that the food people will opt for will be healthy and not cause physical complications such as obesity or lethargy.
“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” (Balko). This statement reiterates the position of the author about a completely self regulated and self designed diet that the people will follow the government will only be assisting in the process of giving health services and ensuring that the shops do not sell unhealthy products. As the bottom line the author states “We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices.” It is the prerogative of the person to decide on his or her diet, someone putting restrictions or controlling the dietary habits in a democracy is highly unwanted.
“Mark Twain said that quitting smoking is among the easiest things you can do; he did it all the time. I would add vegetarianism to the list of easy things. In high school I became vegetarian more times than I can now remember, most often as an effort to claim a bit of identity in a world of people whose identities seemed to come effortlessly.” These lines from “Against Meat” by “Jonathan Safran Foer” accurately represent the life of many people who wants to turn vegetarian for several reasons (Foer). Most often than not that vow lasts for some days after which many people return to being non vegetarian again. However it is true that today the vegetarian and the vegan movements are spreading across the world and more number of people than ever are taking up the cause of refraining from using animal products to stop the process of contributing in the industry that causes immense physical and emotional pain to the animals before finally killing them. This killing is often termed as “humane killing” but how can a killing be “humane” is a matter of question which is still unanswered. “When I was 2, the heroes of all my bedtime books were animals. The first thing I can remember learning in school was how to pet a guinea pig without accidentally killing it. One summer my family fostered a cousin’s dog. I kicked it. My father told me we don’t kick animals. When I was 7, I mourned the death of a goldfish I’d won the previous weekend. I discovered that my father had flushed it down the toilet. I told my father — using other, less familial language — we don’t flush animals down the toilet” (Foer). The author in these lines has correctly delineated by metaphor the fact that there is discrimination in the animal species by the human beings. A dog and a goat is essentially and characteristically almost similar. People would freak out in most of the western countries to eat dog meat, however there is no problem in having goat meat. Therefore this is a selective compassion that is being distributed by humanity to the animals. Compassion to a dog but killing a goat for meat is according to many vegans and vegetarians as hypocrisy and double standard. Again people may argue that goat has been put into the list of eatables but a dog is not, is enough reason to not eat a dog and eat a goat, can well be answered by saying that the lists are also prepared by the human beings themselves and the goats did not come begging to be killed.
The writer describes that the baby sitter he had when he was 9 years of age, who did not eat chicken because those were killed and hurt, consciously affected the author from childhood. It is a evident truth that the animals are hurt, they are killed before finally arriving in our plates. This had impacted the author in a great way which paved the way of converting into vegetarian. However after some years the author had left vegetarianism not before his college years again, while doing philosophy major he had again opted for vegetarianism. The author describes hwo after marriage he and his wife had been following a strange diet that was mainly vegetarian however when they felt like they could have non vegetarian food as well. The sarcastic language of the writing is clearly understandable in this part where the author is describing their state of mind by expressing “And that, I thought, was that. And I thought that was just fine. I assumed we’d maintain a diet of conscientious inconsistency. Why should eating be different from any of the other ethical realms of our lives? We were honest people who occasionally told lies, careful friends who sometimes acted clumsily. We were vegetarians who from time to time ate meat” (Foer).
When the author had a child he decided to raise the child as a vegetarian.. As indicated by an examination of U.S.D.A. information by the backing bunch Farm Forward, industrial facility cultivates now create in excess of 99 percent of the creatures eaten in this nation. What's more, in spite of names that propose generally, veritable choices which do exist, and make a significant number of the moral inquiries concerning meat debatable — are exceptionally troublesome for even an informed eater to discover. The author states that “Free range, cage free, natural and organic are nearly meaningless when it comes to animal welfare.”
The author bluntly states at the end of his writing that the amount of suffering involved in eating of meat can be avoided and there is plenty of vegetarian options available to mankind.. There is no need of contributing and adding to suffering. Though he leaves the decision of whether to eat meat or not for his children in the hand of the children only, he states that he will be surprised and shocked if that really happens. “Meat and seafood are in no way necessary for my family — unlike some in the world; we have easy access to a wide variety of other foods. And we are healthier without it. So our choices aren’t constrained” (Foer).
Balko, Radley. "What You Eat Is Your Business." They Say/I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings 2 (2012): 395-399.
Foer, Jonathan Safran. "Against meat." The New York Times (www. nytimes. com) (2009).