First Course Blog

     It has become obvious that our current food system has been the cause of way too many cases of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.  However, what has been less obvious to people is the solution to the problems caused by the quality, availability (specifically, the lack of available healthy foods), and the advertisement of foods.  Fortunately, as pointed out by Mark Bittman in his article Bad Food?  Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables, there is some action that the government can take in order to fix some of the main problems in the industrial food system.
     Bittman's main idea is a tax on unhealthy foods.  The question of which foods get taxed would be decided by experts.  With an increase in the cost of foods with negative health effects,  he believes that there should be very little incentive left to buy such foods. The most important part of Bittman's plan is that these taxes will turn into government subsidies for healthier foods.  This is key given that many low income families suffer serious health simply because they can't afford to buy organic foods.  Under this hypothetical situation, the reverse would be true as large companies would no longer be able to force the less fortunate to eat their food and suffer the negative health consequences associated with it.  Since the food produced by large companies would be less convenient to buy, the massive and seemingly inescapable food advertisements that draw in way too many customers would suddenly not be so effective.  They would have no strong sales pitch.  Fast?  Nope.  Cheap? Nope.  Healthy? Definitely not. As a result, the rate of heart disease and diabetes should sharply decline. Similarly, Alice Waters uses the school system as an example of the idea that the government needs to fund healthier foods.  Her main point is that more money should go into school lunches to ensure that children receive proper nutrition.
Topic: The effects of food advertisement on health
www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx.

Fat Tax? Yes!

After reading Mark Bittman's article, "Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables" I was very intrigued by the points that were made. In paragraph 8, he talked about selling "seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit" almost anywhere. If these products were available almost everywhere, more people would definitely buy them. Instead of promoting unhealthy food, like potato chips and soda, places should promote healthy choices! This also plays a role in food advertising, and most of the time we are not really advertised the healthier option. Companies offer us the cheaper alternative! If people want to buy junk food, then maybe they should pay a tax. This leads to Bittman's next point: taxing the junk food. I honestly believe this will work in some way, possibly lowering the rate of diabetes in the United States. Taxing an item to avoid people to stop buying it seems familiar...  tobacco & alcohol! The government put a sin tax to lower the rate of consumption and have succeeded.  Taxing "sugar-sweetened" beverages will possibly save billions in health care and ultimately reduce the obesity rate. Who would think in passing simply a couple more cents can make a huge difference! I know if junk food became more expensive I would avoid eating them. 

In Alice Waters & Katrina Heron's article, "No Lunch Left Behind," talks about how school lunches sometimes don't meet nutritional requirements, which makes you think.. aren't we supposed to be given healthy foods? Of course many of us want healthy foods, but it shouldn't be more expensive!


Are GMOs Good or Bad? Genetic Engineering & Our Food

This video goes into great detail exactly how GMOs have helped farmers and countries who lack crops with nutritional value. It does talk about negative aspects of GMOs too but positives definitely outweigh the bad!! This video is fun to watch and the animation makes it more interesting. Enjoy!

First PoF Blog: Abigail Cooper

In "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman, the ideas of taxing unhealthful foods were brought up - a tax that is much similar to a sin tax, such as those put on tobacco and alcohol. However, my initial impression when I read about this idea was that the diets of Americans are their responsibility. If Americans want to eat junk food, they should have the right to; and if they want to enjoy healthy foods, they have the right to do that as well. But as I kept reading, Bittman mentions that public health is the role of the government, from water treatment to mass transit. Bittman's statement gave me a new perspective about this issue in which the blame for unhealthy foods is not completely on Americans, but on the government. Another thing that interested me was how a sin tax on unhealthy foods would be used to promote healthy lifestyle programs. I know that lifestyle programs such as Michelle Obama's were successful in bringing awareness to Americans about the importance of healthy eating, but I would be interested to know if a program promoted by the FDA would ever launch. Knowing the FDA, they seem to have a bias towards food manufacturers that bring in the most profit, and those manufacturers generally sell unhealthy foods.

A point that Bittman made was related to one of my research sources, which is comparing the issue of unhealthy foods to tobacco. The USC News article "Meat and Cheese May Be As Bad As Smoking" by Suzanne Wu shows the evident comparison of a statistic about the risk factors of eating animal products to smoking tobacco. Wu states that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone of a low-protein diet, which is an identical statistic to smokers who die of cancer. If the government action taken for smoking awareness is any similar to animal product consumption, then I'd imagine that the government will also take action for unhealthy foods as well.

"Meat and Cheese May Be As Bad As Smoking" by Suzanne Wu:
https://news.usc.edu/59199/meat-and-cheese-may-be-as-bad-for-you-as-smoking/

First Pof blog

  In the article "Bad food? Tax it, and subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman, it hits on what I my topic is immediately. First of all, my topic is about the food economy, and how it doesn't equally share with the public concerning prices. In this article, it directly states, " Sweetened beverages could be taxed at 2 cents per ounce, so a six-pack of Pepsi would cost $1.44 more than it does now." What I am trying to say is the average soda is most likely 2 times less than water is today, and that is part of the problem, the other part is how they are raising the prices of healthy food and lowering the prices of unhealthy food. Switching it up will maybe save money that "could be returned to communities for local spending on gyms, pools, jogging and bike trails; " So, in general solving this could overall make a better community in cities that don't have a lot of variety in their vacancy, like creating recreational parks and libraries, etc. My argument is that these companies can do this and think they can get away with it, but we see it all the way through, (people who want to see it, that is) and it's not something we should be putting up with if the government's responsibility is to make us healthier, through a S.A.D system. (Kind of ironic) It can't be up to the people to make a stand for ourselves in order to sway the food system to make prices lower for healthier foods, it should be the government's priority that we get what we need in order to make the right choices. We just can't be corrupt, and be shady, as in the constitution it starts with, "We the people". It does not say "We the few" this isn't no communist country or whatever it is called when only a few people can actually make a difference, everyone can make a change and it all starts with the decisions we make day-by-day with the food that we eat.

  If I was to point out a very important point that refers to what my topic is about, it's the idea that the people in charge are "justifying a tax". They are starting to make the soda expensive with the "excise tax" that they are trying to get passed. " 'Excise taxes have the benefit of being incorporated into the shelf price, and that's where consumers make their purchasing decisions' says Lisa Powell, a senior research scientist at the institute for Health Research and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago." This is good for solving the problem because they are finally taxing the bad, unhealthy food little by little, and I encourage anyone who is looking at the same topic to use this as a tool to have a better effective essay.

  "No lunch Left Behind" by Alice Waters consists of the topic of school lunch, the prices, and how some food is always thrown away because the students don't like it. One effect I think that is the reason why this is a problem is quoted in the article, " But food distributed by the National School Lunch Program contains some of the same ingredients found in fast food,.." The theory here is that students are fixed on what is tasty, more than what is healthy, and the solution to this is to basically get more healthier food in those cafeterias.

 source: "Bad food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman (the new york times) july 23, 2011
 

First Course Blog- Joshua Cabebe

In the Bittman and Waters articles, they touch upon the topics of taxing and school food programs. Bittman talks about how the federal government plays a big role in America's eating habits. He states that they should work to tax unhealthy products like soda and french fries for example to make healthier foods like your normal fruits and vegetables more affordable and accessible. I 100% agree with what his article says. It's obvious to see that low income families are not financially capable of sustaining and buying healthy foods, this in turn makes them go to the cheap crappy foods that are available and convenient for their budget. It's a simple but grueling process, but it would definitely be beneficial in the end to simply switch the tax tables.  For Waters in her article, she explores the government giving schools money for the National School Lunch Program. She argues that the investment does little to no help when it comes to helping low income students and students in general. She calls the whole program a "bigger junk food system". It is true because most of the items given in the school lunch is just cheaper food of the original food itself, to add to that they are all some microwave ready products or wrapped products. The investment of this whole program was $9 billion. It would cost more to feed all kids across America a whole meal, but long term it could be helpful in perspective of health and eating habits for the kids. The United States Department of Agriculture would also have to play a role and revert back to healthier ways of procuring their foods rather than your normal industry processed foods. I see eye to eye with this but it would be very difficult considering the blind eating habits of kids nowadays. So the government can do their part and the schools, but it would depend on the students consuming these school lunches too.

Topic: Vacant lots transformed into gardens

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/02/local/la-me-urban-agriculture-law-20131003

[KC]: First Course of the PoF Blog

Hi all!

Here's your first course of the blog.

Task 1: Read and understand the Bittman and Waters articles in your packet.
Task 2: Respond to them in a blog post:
   --- What main ideas are presented in the articles? What information do they provide about the food industry and how politics ties to it? Are there any great points which might help your research?
Task 3: Provide one reputable source you've found that might help someone with a similar research topic as you. This could be a link to an article, a video, a chart, etc. Be sure to state what your topic is so that others will know whether or not this source will help them.

Then, comment on at least one other post.

This first course is DUE Wednesday, March 21st by 6pm. 

[KC]: "Your Food Story" Instructions

Remember, we're writing this in class tomorrow during our Freewrite Friday time-slot. Brainstorm a bit tonight to get your ideas gather. It's reflective, but you are also a CREATOR in this.