ERWC @ MHS - Period 3 - Colln (2017-2018): March 2018

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

[KC]: 3P Self-Eval Quarter 3

Remember, you should be truthfully evaluating yourself in your participation and progress over this quarter. Give yourself a score out of 100 for each and justify it with a paragraph responding to the prompts in the image. Due by FRIDAY - no exceptions. Happy reflecting! :]

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

First course blog

In an article by Bittman, he emphasizes the need for a change of eating habits, however it can’t solely be the burden on the people. He suggests that the government tax the crappy and unhealthy foods and make fresh produce more affordable and accessible to people. I think that’s a good idea but this government is what it is... government. The people have a big influence sure but this world in general will never be perfect. That’s a little off topic but anyways, it may change but that will be over a tremendous amount of time. In the other article by Waters, she talks about the food wasted at schools. The government tried to input programs like the Free National School Lunch Program, to help kids with low incomes and also try and make it more “healthier”. However, this isn’t the case since most of these foods are wasted and the government would spend billions into the program. In my opinion, a program like this would fall in to the kids and their eating habits. They have to be the ones to decide to eat healthy, but how can they do it if the foods presented to them are not even healthy as officials claim it to be ?

Food Waste- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/american-food-waste/491513/

First Course Blog

In Mark Bittman's article "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables", we are given a perspective on an alternative solution to improving our daily diets. Bittman presents an argument of taxing junk food and sugary drinks to discourage sales and decrease obesity in America. This sin tax proposal of his is even backed up with numbers crunched by different big name universities like the Yale University. Bittman even goes so far as to deconstruct how the arguments that some people could have against such a tax would easily be refuted. Also, the benefits tied to such a tax would be all around helpful from environmental concerns. to health care, and to even government revenue.
Alice Waters and Katrina Heron shed light on the situation of school lunches in their article "No Lunch Left Behind." Waters and Heron discuss the fact that many of the supposed healthy lunches served at school are actually the opposite as the money that is supposed to go to food goes into different expenses like kitchen maintenance and custodial services. Fast food, instead, has taken the place of nutritious food as meals like precooked chicken nuggets or pizza slices are served to students. Their solution to this is that the Department of Agriculture should have a better look at their policy and provide more support for school kitchens. As part of this solution, they suggest that the Department of Education help pay for part of the costs of what it would take to teach children how to eat healthy as that should be part of a child's education.
Both articles do a great job of highlighting that America's food and its policies for what food is sold are not doing a good job of protecting the health of its people. With obesity and Type 2 diabetes rates on the rise because of processed foods, there is an obvious problem that needs to be dealt with.

Food policy and school nutrition
https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-school-meals

First Blog post

The main idea that the article, “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” by Mark Bittman is presenting is how the American food system is corrupted with all sorts of junk food which contain huge amounts of fats for people to consume. This has lead to many people obese over the last few years as the continue to seek out this type of food that contains too many calories in it. Bittman goes in depth how the government is continuing to not only address the issue in hand but also not trying to tax every single unhealthy food on the market at a higher price and encouraging people to go out to eat more healthier options that can benefit them in the long run. If they were to tax all the junk food, health care would be more affordable as the costs in which healthcare is accountable for would decrease and that the obesity amongst adults especially the youth which is proven to have been majorly affected by this will drop significantly. Bittman then goes on to talks about how it's much faster and quicker to purchase junk food at a low and reasonable price without taking the time to cook it than to buy groceries at a supermarket and make it at home which in turn is a fresh and safety product. Bittman then justifies his argument by stating statistics from different sources that show how many soft drinks people intake every year. If the government really wanted people to eat more healthy in order to stay fit, the should encourage people more through making it much harder and difficult to access cheap and disgusting junk food that is just there to make you fat. This would then cause people to rethink the product and avoid all sorts of unhealthy food. Also, the food industry should especially promote food products that can benefit a person’s life greatly and not a product that can cause people to get obese and never have a chance to even play outside. We need the government to be on the side of the people as they lead our country and not let corporations take advantage over us. The main idea that is presented in the article “No Lunch Left Behind.” by Alice Waters and Katrina Heron is how the lunches that are being offered at school are unhealthy and unbeneficial in keeping kids safe and healthy. The National School Lunch Program which was designed for the ‘’public safety net’’ beings out food for students at schools around the country that is just simply junk food and can cause the majority of them to become sick and obese. The program invests itself into providing the students the typical meats and cheeses which is not even as good than what they could be eating like salad or pasta. If the government takes their own time into telling the program to educate the youth more about junk food and its effects in the human body, they would be disgusted by this result and eventually be interested to how healthy food could impact them in the long run. The program should be educating students into eating more fruits and vegetables that could give them vitamins in which it strengthens their immune system from harmful bacteria and parasites. We need the government to really step in on the food that they serve at school and convince them to give us healthy and organic food that we can appreciate as a community and enjoy every last bite of it.

I believe that politics has a significant amount of ties to food as the food industry is all about making money for themselves and whatever product they believe will succeed on the market, they will put out. Most of the products they see that are much more successful is junk food as it's easy to make and can gain them lots of money as they sell it for a cheap price. Junk food is the problem and a way to solve it is by taxing them and allowing the obesity rate to drop and people to appreciate how beneficial it would be to eat healthy foods. Nothing can stop us being who e are.

This article discusses on how supermarkets and groceries can really cause obesity rates to drop significantly. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/35/1/100/849977

Both of the articles, “Bad food? and subsidize vegetables",by Mark Bittman and "No lunch left behind", by Alice Waters and Katrina Heron emphasize advocating for healthier food options in order to decrease the chances of health conditions and endorse a better dietary life in schools, at home, and in all of american society. Ultimately, they highlight the need for the government to step in a do more to improve our health. Bittman proposes the idea of a junk food tax, similar to that of the sin tax placed on cigarettes and alcohol, stating that "taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually”, and thus promoting better healthy eating. Similarly, Waters believes that there should be more government involvement in school lunch options to improve the nutritional value of student’s lunches in schools in order to asses the increase of health issues like type 2 diabetes in adolescents.

My topic: the implementation of new 2018 nutrition label

https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm

Follow The Money

Noble acts always come with a price-- and sometimes, it is too high of a price to pay. Contemporary government subsidizes only the unhealthy portion of the food industry. This is terrible for the obesity epidemic sweeping through America. It is, however, very profitable for both the government and the food industry. Indeed, change is possible as Mark Bittman proposes. Taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing healthy ones would turn the tables around. Unfortunately, it is not so simple. Americans are currently sitting very comfortably on their extra-large chair labeled "fast food." Our current economy is built upon a heavy foundation consisting of decades of unhealthy, mass-produced food processing. Change is possible, but not easy. If healthy eating was profitable, then it would be simple. As it currently stands, Agriculture only produces $136 billion whereas food retail revenue rounds to a whopping $5.36 trillion, making it clear which portion of the industry is more profitable. Decision making is centered around money. Additionally, the food retail industry contains the convenience factor. Healthy eating is time consuming; Fast food is, well, fast. It's convenient for Americans on the go. But as I mentioned earlier, change is possible. Taxing unhealthy foods-- everything from donuts to burgers-- would be quite profitable for the government. It would also be a step towards the shifting of the industry towards healthy eating. However, taxes by themselves will not be enough. Contrary to Bittman's statement, a 20% increase in price is unlikely to cause a 20% decrease in consumption.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/

https://www.statista.com/topics/1660/food-retail/

PoF first course

In Mark Bittman’s “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables,” he highlights the fact that the need for Americans to change their eating habits is urgent and that the SAD diet will result in heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. He makes it clear that it is the government’s responsibility to tax unhealthy food and support healthier foods like fruits and vegetables. He includes a statistical example to display the much needed taxation of soda, for example. Two cents would be taxed per ounce, which doesn’t seem that bad, but when someone goes to buy a six pack of coke, they’ll be paying $1.44 than they usually would. The ultimate goal is for Americans to eat healthier, and if they have to spend more on the junk, they’ll most likely consider buying and eating healthier foods. I completely agree with Bittman in his claim. According to kidshealth.org, every 1 out of 3 kids are obese and that rate is tremendously increasing with all of the fast food and chips and sodas available for kids to easily access. The only way this can change is if the government does something about it, because believe it or not, it’s not the kids fault, or the restaurant’s or store’s fault.

In “No Lunch Left Behind,” an article by Alice Waters, mentions how the National School Lunch Program needs to be redesigned. There isn’t something I could agree with more. Waters and Heron believe that it can be fixed, but more money has to be put into it, and by “it” they mean the actual food, for out of about $9 billion, a very minimal amount of money is invested into the actual food the students are eating. Parents are demanding better school lunches, not just because they don’t taste good (they really don’t), but the lunch meals contain the same bad ingredients as processed foods in fast food restaurants. They close with “every public school child in America deserves a healthful and delicious lunch that is prepared with fresh ingredients.” That is the main point here.

My research topic is about vegetarianism vs. meat eating, which is healthier, and how would only consuming one, affect the food industry.

https://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/all-meat-vs-vegetarian-diets

PoF Blog #1

"Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables" - Mark Bittman
America has been known for their poor eating habits which have been the causes of heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Bittman argues that the food industry is not concerned about the public health, only profit, unless the federal government makes changes. He emphasizes on the topic of reversing the food industry by taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing healthy foods, to better the eating habits of Americans. Doing so, should result in less consumption of unhealthy foods and making healthy food more affordable and available. Some states already have a sales tax on unhealthy food which get added to the total at the register. However, Bittman expresses that unhealthy foods should have an excise tax because they are already shown on the shelf price, influencing the decision on purchasing. Typically, when purchasing an item many look at the shelf price and forget about the slight sales tax that is placed, so having the excise tax already in the price will result in less purchasing of unhealthy foods because of its higher price. Bittman explains how the pricing of food is determined based on the ingredients, and that other countries are putting in place a tax on saturated fat foods or unhealthy foods, something that should be done nationwide.
Although some say that taxing unhealthy food will not benefit those of low income, who are the majority of the people who buy unhealthy foods because they're cheaper. But Bittman argues that it would benefit them more by taxing the unhealthy foods, upsetting the food industry, and funding healthier alternatives to make them be as available and affordable as soda and saturated fats foods were. A huge benefit would be that it would generate billions of dollars that would go to funding healthier foods and protecting the public health by lowering the risks of diseases. Overall the government only cares about profit and so far unhealthy foods make more profit but harm the public health, whereas subsidizing healthy foods would make more profit and improve the public health of americans.
------------------------------------------------------
My topic is on the impact of food advertisement and low income communities affecting the increasing number of child obesity. Here are a few sources:

PoF Blog Post #1

In the article entitled "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables" written by Mark Bittman illustrates a suggested idea to over come the diseases formed by unhealthy eating. Bittman is suggesting to increase taxes on unhealthy food believing, "taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthy food" (Bittman). If the government would increase the prices of unhealthy food there would be a greater demand for healthier food that is set at a lower price. Therefore, there would be a lower number of obese people in America. There was a great point made when Bittman presented how a 20% increase in price of sugary drinks would bring a 20% decrease in consumption which would prevent 1.5 million American from becoming obese.

In the article entitled "No Lunch Left Behind" written by Alice Waters presents the low standards the American Government is presenting in school lunches. The low investments towards school lunches is influencing low standard meals, "National School Lunch Program contains some of the same ingredients found in fast food" (Waters). Waters is desperately presenting the malnutrition the government is providing to young children and would like to see a new system who values the health of young American children. A strong argument was made when Waters pointed out how the parents of students should rely on the government to not influence the obesity issue into their children with unhealthy school lunches.

My topic partly addresses the increase of obesity in children. This article presents a valuation on school students in New York and the statistics of child obesity in the state of New York.

Childhood Obesity in New York City Elementary School Students

PoF Blog 1

In the article "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman, Bittman talks about how taxing unhealthy foods would benefit us, and people would resort to buying healthier food. An example would be if people got taxed extra money when they buy a cheese burger or a donut, then they will decide to take a second look at the healthier options instead, which cost less. The author makes these claims to help the population eat cleaner. Diseases like type two diabetes and heart attacks would be less prevalent if people would just eat healthier. I agree that taxing unhealthy food would allow the world to live healthier lives.

In the article "No Lunch Left Behind" by Alice Waters, Waters talks about redesigning the school lunch program. The reason for this, is that school lunches use the same chemicals as fast food places and being just as unhealthy. They also state that it doesn't help children actually become healthier. Parents and the older generations are the ones to teach the children of the future how to become healthy. School lunches should also follow along and change.

My research topic is about food health and how factory farming isn't as bad as it seems economically and environmentally.
was https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/12/why-free-range-meat-isnt-much-better-than-factory-farmed/67569/

First course blog

The main ideas behind these two articles "Bad food? and subsidize vegetables", by Mark Bittman and "No lunch left behind", by Alice Waters and Katrina Heron, both have to deal with how the food industry is ran by money and how The government should do more to improve our health. Bittman comes with the idea that the government should come up with a tax on junk food, he states "taxes have the benefit of being incorporated into the shelf price, and that's where consumers make their decisions". His idea would result in a huge decrease of people consuming junk food due to the higher cost. He compared those results with how our government came together to shine the light on smoking back in the day. Similarly, Water believes that the government should be more involved when it comes to school lunches because they're allowing foods that arent nutritional for the students and are resulting in increasing amounts of people with type 2 diabetes.

For those of you who are doing your research on the environmental impact due to agriculture, I highly recommend you go over to http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts. This shows you in depth facts on how animal agriculture is the leading cause of all of our environmental problems. The full documentary "Conspiracy" is available on Netflix so I would check it out if I were you . :)

First Course Blog

-In the article "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman. It discusses how we should start taxing unhealthy goods; such as soda and donuts. This suggestion was made to help people eat healthier. So if people have to pay more money to buy unhealthy food than their next option would be to buy healthy food. The author assumes that it will make people make a change to start eating healthier. He suggest that we tax the unhealthy goods, because of all the affects it's having on people such as type 2 diabetes and obesity. I agree with his idea to start taxing the unhealthy food, because it is causing so many more unnecessary health problems. Which people end up paying more to by medication to fix. One surprising benefit I found of the tax law was that it could, "prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion." Which could change the way are society eats in the long run and functions.

-In the article "No Lunch Left Behind" by Alice Waters and Katrina Heron. It discusses how the National School Lunch Program should be redesigned. Due to it not being healthy and containing some of the same ingredient as fast food restaurants. The author States how the Lunch program uses processed food that's easy to cook and the cheapest to buy. Parents are demanding a change in the lunch program, which with some time will be easy to fix. I agree with Waters statement that, "we can teach students to choose good food and to understand how their choices affect their health and environment." Which demonstrates with healthier food we can make a change in our life.

-My Research Topic is about food waste and it's affects on third world countries. One resource that has a lot of information is http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/3065.short

POF Blog Post 1

There are many important points made in both articles. In the article "No Lunch Left Behind" by Alice Waters, one of the interesting things I read was that even though it may sound expensive to provide kids with fresh, wholesome meals at school it would decrease hunger and bad food habits. Another very important point they made was that people think that just by throwing money at the school lunch programs everything is some how going to become healthier but its not. We need good cooks and kitchens in order to make delicious and healthy foods otherwise the programs are just going to keep buying more and more junk foods.
If the states have increased the tax on cigarettes then why cant they increase the tax on junk food. In any store that you walk into it is more expensive to buy some healthy snack than a bag of chips and a drink. We have the right to be able to afford healthy snacks. if we increase the tax on junk food then kids will buy less of them and start eating healthier. In the article "Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman, he explain how the money made from the taxes of the junk food can help subsidize the purchase of healthier snacks such as vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. I think this is a great idea because it would encourage teens to eat healthier and reduce the amount of chips, soda, and candy they have for breakfast everyday at school. This would decrease the amount of teens now having diseases related to not eating right whether its diabetes or deficiency of vitamins.

My Topic: hormones added to foods and the impacts they have in humans
https://mountainview-hospital.com/hl/?/90869/The-Controversy-Over-Added-Hormones-in-Meat-and-Dairy

PoF: First Course

In Mark Bittman’s article, Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables, Bittman
informs his readers about the importance of eating healthy, how the government
promoting unhealthy foods, and how to stop it. Bittman’s main points is when he
talks about what to to fix this problem. Bittman exclaims, “Simply put: taxes would
reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually”
(Bittman 7). This is crucial to our society because our world is filled with people who
praise unhealthy foods, and Bittman is informing us that there should be an end to this.
This articleties in with food politics because of the clashing of the government and the
food production companies.

In Alice Waters and Katrina Heron, No Lunch Left Behind, these authors speak up about
the school lunch system and how its not really helping Americans children get healthy.
Waters and Heron talks about the possible ideas into helping the school lunch programs
into helping the children at school. Waters and Heron proclaims, “We need to scrap the
current system and start from scratch. Washington needs to give schools enough money
to cook and serve unprocessed foods that are produced without pesticides or chemical
fertilizers” (Waters/Heron 6). This is important because its true! Instead of the focusing
what chemicals to put in our food, we should focus on what healthy options to serve the
children in school. This ties in with food politics because the food system has a big role
in our government.

One resource that I found very informational is a video on the hygiene in a food factory.
It is important to keep the factory where our future food is coming from clean.

First Course

In the article, "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables," Mark Bittman emphasizes how "taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually." He discusses how this plan would benefit everyone, including those of low income. In the article, "No Lunch Left Behind," Alice Water talks about how a healthier lunch program would benefit school, children, and the environment. These articles mainly focus on advocating for healthier diet options to help decrease the chances of poor health conditions.

These two articles exposes how the government subsidizes the processed food industries, when they could be promoting healthier lifestyles. The government could easily tax unhealthy food products and with the money collected it could go towards producing fresh, cheaper, better quality foods.

These articles do not particularly support my research paper, but it does provide me with more perspective and ideas. My research paper is on how gardening at home could promote healthier diets.

The video I've included provides insight on how organic foods and conventional foods are produced. This video helped me think of more ways to build my research paper. It shows me how we ourselves can choose what goes in our garden and how we can produce our own organic food products.

https://youtu.be/BebNsezt6r0

PoF Blog 1

In Mark Bittman’s article Bad food? Tax it, and subsidize vegetables, the author Bittman delivers the concept that there should be a tax on unhealthy foods to benefit everyone’s health. The main issue with this is which foods would be selected to have higher taxes, and how this decision should be left to the experts to decide what food is classified as “unhealthy.” It can be noted that with this method it would subsidize healthy foods. Making it possible for people to live in a healthier America, which in my opinion is good since it seems that we’re currently living in a “food dessert,” and this would benefit poor people. Which the author implies by stating that, “since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them” (Bittman 10).

In the article No Lunch Left Behind, Katrina Heron and Alice Water deliver a message on how the food provided by the National Lunch Program, is equally as unhealthy as fast food. And how that this government funded program will continue to make the health standards worst, unless we take action. A suggestion she makes is how we should provide real food that’s beneficial to our health.

Two good source that’s beneficial to people discussing the effects of world hunger and food waste is:

1). https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/15/470434247/these-27-solutions-could-help-the-u-s-slash-food-waste
2) https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2017/10/16/en/5-ways-usaid-helping-end-world-hunger

First Course Blog

In the article "Bad Food? Tax It, and subsidize Vegetables" Mark Bittman discusses how the food industry does not give enough importance to our health but instead they focus on making profit. Public health should be just as much importance as anything else. Bittman suggests that we place a heavier tax on unhealthy food such as junk food and soda. This type of tax is similar to sin taxes which is heavier taxes on things such as alcohol and tobacco. Placing a heavier tax on unhealthy food could lower its consumption and push people towards the healthier lifestyle. Many healthy foods cost more than junk food so we should place a heavier tax on unhealthy food and make healthy food more affordable. Bittman points out that "it's harder for many people to buy fruit than Froot Loops; chips and coke are a common breakfast." This may seem unfair to many people but our health is suffering. There are so many people obese and Type 2 diabetes is becoming common.

Alice Waters and Katrina Heron discuss the importance of feeding school children the right lunches in the article "No Lunch Left Behind." If the government provides schools with more money then they will be able to provide all the students a proper lunch. A lot of lunches that are given out aren't even prepared in the kitchen but simply "thawed, heated, or just unwrapped." Parents expect their children to get more out of school lunches but instead they are getting processed foods. More initiative should be taken to provide healthy lunches.

https://www.ted.com/talks/mark_bittman_on_what_s_wrong_with_what_we_eat/transcript#t-32505

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

In the article, “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” by Mark Bittman, it addresses the fault in the American food system. It brings up good points about how easy it is to buy a bunch of junk food due to its lower prices compared to healthier foods. He explains how he wants the government to start taxing all the junk food. He brings in some interesting data about just how much soft drinks are consumed yearly. He states that he’d want the government to tax about 2 cents for every ounce. I agree with the idea of the government doing something about the epidemic of obesity. Healthier food should logically be easier accessible to everyone. Bittman also includes how taxing would not only save costs in health care, but that it’s decrease the percentage of obesity in the youth. The government should value the health of the people over profit. Alice Waters and Katrina Heron bring in some information about school lunches in the article, “No Lunch Left Behind.” They address the problem with the unhealthy school lunch options. They state that the National School Lunch Program distributes lunches that are no better than fast food which I can agree with. The program gives school lunch options like pizza, chicken nuggets, and other fast food options when they should take the opportunity to educate kids on making better food choices by giving healthy lunch options. Like I said before, the government needs to help the obesity epidemic and make healthier options cheaper. Healthy whole foods shouldn't be a privilege to buy—it should be a necessity. Educating people, especially at a young age, about a healthy diet that isn’t full of processed foods is really important.

Q: How could veganism help improve our environment?

http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/

First Course Blog

The main ideas presented in both articles are that there needs to be a change in the American diet essentially. Unhealthy junk foods and sugared drinks should be taxed so it costs a little more to get, and with that it will save money to give to farms that can produce more staple crops. With unhealthy foods costing more, this can result in a drastic decrease in adult and child obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and health care costs. Also, the National School Lunch Program is giving schools commodity foods, which are high-fat, poor quality meats and cheese, and processed foods like chicken nuggets and pizza. Allowing these foods in the schools is contributing to unhealthy food habits by children and obesity. They could just spend a little more money and give the schools vegetables and fruits, staple crops to provide for their meals.

This information about the food industry definitely shows how the politics tie to it by how the food industry’s mission is not the publics’ health but the profit from it. A great point from Bittman’s article is that by increasing junk food and sugar drinks prices there would be a decline in diabetes, disease, and health care costs and that shows how those foods are the part of the problem.

My research topic is basically about how majority of Americans are sick from health-related diseases caused by the food the government and health organizations are advertising and promoting. One resource I recommend that has lots of information is the documentary film What the Health by Kip Andersen, which is available on Netflix.

What the Health (Trailer)

Politics of Food Blog #1

In his article “Bad Food? Tax It and Subsidize Vegetables,” Mark Bittman discusses issues with American eating habits and introduces some resolutions. He states that taxing unhealthy foods with an tariff so the results won't be minimized by other discounts. This would prevent unhealthy habits and make money that can contribute to healthy habits. The tax money would also subsidize hearty green foods. I like that he explored the denial people would have about it and would affect destitute people, “since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them” (Bittman 10). This proposal are indeed thoughtful and rational.

In their article "No Lunch Left Behind," Katrina Heron and Alice Water’ are quite strong in informing the reader on the issue with current government funded lunch programs. They discussed that much of the food provided by the National School Lunch Program is just as bad as fast food and meals constantly disappoint to attain the worst health standards. A solution she posed is to lay additional money into the national food program. She suggests out that no hearty foods can actually cost $2.57. By suggesting investing additional money into each meal and a real kitchen, Heron and Waters came up with a profitable scheme.

One source I found useful was "Scary Non-Organic Ingredients That Are Allowed in 'USDA Certified Organic' Foods" (http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/scary-non-organic-ingredients-that-are-allowed-in-usda-certified-organic-foods/). Erin Trauth finds:

According to a 2006 Truth in Labeling report, ingredients such as autolyzed yeast, citrics, cornstarch, enzymes, gums, brewer’s yeast, nutritional yeast, calcium citrate, and natural flavorings can contain MSG.