Who Pays for the Junk We Eat? - Analysis of Balko and Zinczenko's Articles

The essay analyses the articles of Balko and Zinczenko on the consumption of junk food in America and concludes that Zinczenko's arguments are more relevant and sensible. Balko argues that government intervention is not a solution to combat obesity, while Zinczenko argues that lack of legal intervention is the reason why obesity and diabetes are at an all-time high in America. The essay concludes that Zinczenko's arguments are more credible as they are based on statistical data and relevant facts.

Running head: PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT
Your Name
Professor Elizabeth Weaver
ENG 101
Date
WHO PAYS FOR THE JUNK WE EAT?
The purpose of this essay is to analyse the articles entitled, “What You Eat Is Your
Business” and “Don’t Blame The Eater”, written by Radley Balko and David Zinkzenco
respectively. The writers put forth one contemporary issue, but in different ways. Balko
writes in his article that the government intervention in the areas of public healthcare
pertaining to the rise in consumption of junk food, is not justified or motivating enough for
Americans to give up their fast food diet (Balko). Zinkzenco on the other hand argues that
lack of legal intervention is the reason why obesity and diabetes are at an all time high in
America (Zinczenko). This report will be analysing why Zinczenko’s argument is more
relevant and sensible, than that of Balko’s.
Balko argues that increasing government intervention to keep the consumption of fast
food consumption is not a solution to combat obesity in the country. He states that people
would only give up junk food, if they are either getting incentives for it, or paying a higher
price for it. He attempts at demonstrating through the paper that people are less likely to
consume something if they find out that it costs them and not the government or some other
entity. He makes this point in relation to government imposing extra tax charges for the high
levels of calories which McDonald’s and similar fast food chains put into the meals that they
sell. Here lies the inconsistencies in his arguments. It is true that the taxes go to the
government’s revenue account, but it is the public who pay for the same. Hence, it is not
actually the government or some other entity who is paying for the junk food that Americans

2PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT
consume; it is their own money. Thereby, the argument regarding consumers not being
motivated enough to give up their calorie-rich diet because of more government intervention
and less public incentive, stays vague or rather untrue if his own thesis statements are to be
compared to the rest of his article. Imposing taxes on high calorie foods directly raises the
price of the food itself. Therefore, through basic knowledge in economics, one can say that
rise in price reduces demand in the market, which implies that the consumption of junk food
is likely to lessen as a result of the taxes which the government has imposed on these junk
foods. Balko also argues that government intervention, like attending summits and
formulating strategies to minimize the consumption of fast food in the nation is irrelevant,
since it is a matter of liberty of personal choice, rather than being a matter of public
consequences. This statement too does not make much sense in the real world, since obesity
is an issue which remains to be one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and also
reduces a person’s efficiency in the workforce of the nation. This obviously becomes
something to worry about for the government since its citizens are its main contributors to the
country’s GDP. Therefore, it is rather selfish to look at the issue from the perspective of
individual responsibility.
Zinczenko on the other hand has very valid points which support his arguments. He
argues that people consume junk because of reasons like lacking alternatives and labelling.
He firstly points out that fast food chains are more clustered in urban areas, and this
contributes to Americans’ habit of including junk into their diet more often than required.
This is because it is basic human psychology that they opt for the option which available to
them most conveniently. He blames the low proportion of grocery and nutritive food stores to
junk food chains as the reason why they are consumed more often than the former. I
personally live half a mile away from the nearest McDonald’s and over a couple away from
the nearest grocery store from where I could buy grapes and apples when I am hungry. This

3PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT
proves for me that the psychology which Zinczenko’s arguments are based on, are relevant
and true. He also points out labelling as an issue, and states that current labelling systems like
those of McDonald’s do not conform to the FDA standards. This does not meet the
requirements to inform the consumer about what he is consuming, thus minimizing the
chances of him consuming that. He further argues that the expenditure spent by Americans on
type 2, diabetes has increased multi-fold over the past few decades, indicating that junk food
severely takes a toll on the health of its consumers. Here, he asks why there has never been
warnings on the packages of the junk food to warn the public about its health consequences,
like warnings on tobacco packets. This makes sense because caution is required to warn the
public of the consequences of a product. He states that it is for this reason that the eaters
should not be blamed for what they are eating, and blames lack of legal interventions to
ensure that the practice of frequent consumption of fast food decreases. This somewhat
contradicts the statements made by Balko in his article, where he said that increased
government intervention is ineffective in making people give up their calorie-rich diet. The
fact is, Zinczelko has stated his arguments based on a lot of statistical data, whereas Balko
has stated his arguments purely based on assumptions and ideas. This makes Balko’s
arguments not only less believable, but the fact that he has contradicted his own statements in
his article all throughout, makes it vague.
From the analysis of both the articles, the essay can deduct that Zinczelko has more
relevant and sensible arguments to support in his claims than Balko does. It can also be
concluded that facts and arguments based on statistical data and relevant facts indeed add up
to the credibility of arguments than those that are based on assumptions and opinions. This
conclusion makes this synthesis essay work conform to its thesis statement, that Zinkzelco’s
article makes more sense and relevance than Balko’s article.

4PRINCIPLE OF MANAGEMENT
Reference
Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Cato.org. Cato Institute, 23 May 2004.
Web.
ZincZelko, David. “Don’t Blame The Eater.” 23 November 2002. Web.