Critical Analysis of The Article What You Eat is Your Business 

Over the past few years, obesity has become of primary concern for the government and health industries due to its rapid growth in modern society. In “What You Eat Is Your Business”, Radley Balko argues against the government’s initiatives to fight against obesity as he claims that the government is using inaccurate forms of action to overcome the issue. Balko, further states that in order to overcome this issue it is crucial for the government to establish the importance of taking accountability for the individual life style that one chooses to follow and hold them responsible for their own personal health. Although the article consists of the use of illogical fallacies Balko was able to form a significantly strong argument, I agree with what Balko mentions in the article as the government should be holding individuals accountable for the decisions they make in their personal life, one’s personal issue should not be of concern for the general public, and government should treat all individuals equally in the system. 

In Balko’s argument he mentions ineffective forms of actions to fight against obesity, the involvement of the government in the fight was of primary concern. Balko lists various initiatives taken by the government to aid in resolving the issue, he mentions how the government is “… prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, more demanding labels on food stuff …” however, Balko claims these Imran 4 initiatives are not beneficial (Balko 651). The demand of having more labels on food items may not be considered the best alternative, in an article written by David Zinczenko, he mentions how food labels are of no use since “there are no calorie information charts on fast-food packaging, the way there are on grocery items” (Zinczenko 648), and that even if there were food labels they could be misleading. He further mentions how “president Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for anti-obesity measures.” (Zinczenko 651) the government’s form of utilizing the money is incorrect as all it does is control and limit the different foods made available to the public. The government is foolishly using this money simply to restrict certain foods from being consumed, the restrictions are an insufficient means of action to stop the issue. In fact rather than using manipulation to limit the food options, they should advise the public to take accountability for their own personal health. The money being put aside for the antiobesity can be of better use, the government could also consider healthier options to be made more accessible and affordable for the public. 

Furthermore, the government could use those funding to educate the general public on the importance of maintaing a healthier life style. When problems arise that affect the public it important for all individuals to unit and fight against the issue. However, when the arising issue is surrounding obesity the unity may not be beneficial to all members of the public rather only to those affected. Balko mentions how the “…well- being, shape, and condition have increasingly been deemed matters of “public health”, instead of matters of personal responsibility” (Balko 652) the government has made the issue of obesity into a public matter and it is wrong to do so since obesity involves personal health rather than public health. Health insurances are also of concern in this situation because many “states are preventing private health insurers from charging overweight and obese client’s higher Imran 5 premiums…” (Balko 652). The states implementing the rule of not charging over weight clients higher premiums is claimed to be unfair treatment by Balko, also this influences an unhealthy life style. If the higher premiums were equally imposed on every individual regardless of which health issue they are dealing with, it would force every individual to maintain a healthier life style. It can be understood that obesity may be a causation of genetics however, for those whom are not genetically predisposed to the disease may avoid the consequences by maintaining a healthier life style. Balko explains how if the higher premium charges were imposed on those whom are overweight it will encourage them to maintain a healthier lifestyle. 

Taking accountability for one’s own actions and taking the blame for their life choices may be difficult when someone else is supporting those actions. In Balko’s argument he mentions how if the “… government is paying for my anti anti-cholesterol medication what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger?” (Balko 652). Individuals fighting with obesity have the opportunity to make healthier life choices but when their health and well-being is being taken care of by the government then why would they feel the need to take measures to change their life style. If the government was not implementing benefits specifically for obese individuals, then that would push them to change their habits since it would become entirely their responsibility to take care of themselves and buy their own medications. Balko’s argument supports this as he claims, “we’ll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and to person health when someone else isn’t paying for the consequences of those choices” (Balko 654). If one is financially responsible for their own well-being without additional benefits, they would be more cautious with the decisions that they make. 

There are various other factors that can be taken under consideration when establishing the causations leading to obesity whether that be mental health related problem or being genetically predisposed to it. Regardless, Balko’s approach is not attacking individuals fighting against obesity however, he is emphasizing on the importance of taking responsibility of an individual’s well-being, rather than having everyone else take responsibility for it (652-653). Furthermore, he mentions if the government encourages these individuals to be accountable for their life-style, take away their premium health benefits, and stop paying for their medications it would encourage them to better care for themselves.