Sunday, February 20, 2011

They say, I say page 41 exercise #2 Summary #1

Summary 1.
It has been interpreted by David Zinczenko that there is nothing healthy for youth to eat of convenience without major expense. He is insisting that the fast food industries responsibility to provide a healthier line of food to it's customers. He also suggest that this will suffice for the customers being solicited to these products anyhow. With all of the phantom calories that he seemingly speaks of, he claims that there are very little options for people to enjoy a tasteful and healthy meal. Although he admits that where a person spends their money is and option, he also claim that the convenience factor is missing is the battle of the American grocery and fast food restaurants industries.

I on the other hand contend these shots taken at the fast food restaurant industry. Just as the parent is responsible for getting to work to make money to support their family- it is also their responsibility to monitor the food comsumption of their children. Should these parents win in these court cases about the affects that the fast food industry has on their children; that decision would contradict the parents responsibility to make sure that their child or children are eating the right things. I qualify my view points with the following statement. The parents that make the household run by being strictly a friend to their child, instead of a responsible person to set the stage to promote a healthy lifestyle, are more than responsible than the person that sold the items. I say this in the fact that  they knowingly paid for their family members to be in an unhealthy situation.

No comments:

Post a Comment