Opposition Against The Plastic Bag Ban

Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Austin City Council members have recently endorsed a ban on plastic bags across Austin to be considered as an action item for City Council this November. The reason for this ban is because it is estimated that 263 million plastic bags are used by Austin residents every year costing the city $800,000 per year in pollution and liter management (Longoria,2011). I am a concerned citizen of Austin and a frequent shopper around the community, in my opinion, this rationale for banning plastic bags is irresponsible of the city because they aren’t taking into consideration harmful health implications for Austinites. Therefore, a citizen of Austin, I am opposed to the ban on plastic bags. I believe that this should be a concern to other citizens with hopes that they would contact their local City Council member to discuss their opposition to the plastic bag ban. This paper will address the counter argument of this current debate, as well as, discuss issues of why citizens should oppose the ban.

Environmentalist and City Council members who support the plastic bag ban argue that plastic bags are damaging to the environment and is costing tax payers a lot of money to clean up the mess (Longoria, 2011). What they don’t realize is that the alternative to banning the bags is equally damaging and dangerous. These alternatives are utilizing reusable bags which grow harmful bacteria that can create life threatening health conditions, and paper bags, which destroy oxygen producing trees. There has been no scientific or local studies looking at the impact of plastic bags on the environment (Coppola, 2011). It is apparent that the city is more focused on saving money over concern for the health and well being of Austin citizens.

The first reason why plastic bags should not be banned is because utilizing ‘green’ reusable bags have been found to breed bacteria. Research by the Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science at the University of Arizona and the Department of Public Health at Loma Linda University, suggest that consumers do not clean their ‘green’ bags This creates opportunities for cross contamination of food and a greater likelihood of food-borne illnesses (Gerba, Williams, and Sinclair, 2010). This same research also found that 97% of people do not regularly clean their reusable bags, if ever. The instructions on the reusable bags state the bags need to be washed on a regular basis however it is often ignored. Of the consumers identified in the Gurba, Williams, and Sinclair study (2010), 75% mix meat and vegetables in the same bag and also use these bags for storing books, snacks, and other personal items after shopping. This type of behavior increases the likelihood of cross contamination. By utilizing plastic bags, consumers don’t have to worry about cross contamination because single use plastic bags rarely breed bacteria. Gurba et. al. (2010) also suggest bacteria from the reusable bags could be one of the primary factors contributing to the 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses every year in the United States. Due to the potential of breeding harmful foodborne bacteria, Austinites are jeopardizing their health and ultimately their lives if plastic bags are removed from stores.

City council members and environmentalist say plastic bags pollute waterways, clog drainage systems, and take up landfill space where they don’t biodegrade and also kills wildlife (Coppola, 2011). However, according to Hilex corporation, a large manufacturer and recycler of plastic bags, states there is no evidence that plastic bags kill wildlife, or are a large source of litter. While there are many people looking at environmental aspects of removing plastic bags, there is no exact percentage of the amount that various types of waste contribute to pollution (Dorigo, 2011). In addition, Austin itself has not done an Environmental Impact Survey to determine how much of an impact removing plastic bags would really have on Austin’s environment. Instead, they are strictly concerned with the amount of money they are saving. Austin seems attracted to focus on the cost of using plastic bags over the true environmental impact. “If you’re trying to collect money from people to fix something, you need an enemy. You need a symbol. The plastic bag has become the symbol. Environmental activists have gone to extreme measures to distort facts and create their symbol. It’s a great fundraising tool for them” (Smith, 2010). This statement points out that Austin is not concerned about the well being of their citizens but protecting themselves to save money.

Another reason to not remove plastic bags is because is multiple uses and ability to be recycled. In addition to recycling, plastic bags can be utilized for other purposes such as: picking up pet waste, trash liners, lunch bags, and carrying other items. According to A Bags Life (2011), a public educational campaign that unites organizations around promoting the three R’s – reduce, reuse, and recycle, it has been found that more than 90% of users reuse or recycle their plastic bags. In effect, these are not single use bags as claimed by environmentalists. The bags have important and valid uses for citizens more than just carrying groceries and also can have an impact on our environment through recycling where the bad can be made into other products.

In conclusion, citizens of Austin should go to their City Council member immediately to ask them not to support the ban on plastic bags because their life depends on it. This paper has identified three reasons not to support the ban which include, reusable bags breed bacteria, the environmental impact on plastic bags has not been proven, and plastic bags can be reused for many purposes and recycled. As more and more Austinites work to improve their health and well being, what is important here is that the focus isn’t so much on how much we can make a contribution to our environment or lessen the financial burden to the city, but how we can keep ourselves healthy as individuals and live our lives in a stress free and healthy manner. Therefore, it is imperative for Austinites to take action to not support the ban on plastic bags.

References:

Dorigo, E. (2011) Will banning plastic bags help the environment?. Science 2.0, retrieved from http://www.science20.com/enrico_dorigo/will_banning_help_the_environment-75598.

Gurba,C.P., Williams, D., & Sinclair, R.G. (2010). Assessment of the potential for cross contamination of food products by reusable shopping bags, retrieved from http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/25/study-reusable-bags-green-but-not-clean/

Longoria, B. (2011, July 25). “Austin city council members push plastic bag ban”. Community Impact Newspaper, retrieved from http://impactnews.com/central-austin/293-recent-news/13889-council-members-push-to-ban-plastic-bags-city-wide.

Smith M. (2010) Austin weighs on plastic bag ban, sparks debate. Abc news, retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/austin-weighs-plastic-bag-ban-sparks-debate/story?id=11334974#.TsLsgHOLGjU

Coppola, S. (2011). City council moves ahead on plastic bag ban. Austin American – Statesman. Retrieved from http://www.texasenvironment.org/news_story.cfm?IId=1061

A Bags Life. (2011) Recycle Me. Retrieved from http://abagslife.com/recyle-me.

Federal Funding for Medical Research: Why to Restrict Congress’s Influence

The United States Federal Government has been providing medical research funding to scientists since at least 1938, the first year such appropriations were recorded (“Appropriations”). These appropriations have been largely determined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the “world's largest and most distinguished organization dedicated to maintaining and improving health through medical science” (President's Proposed 36). Next year, Congress is projected to give $32 billion to spend on research project grants (extramural research), intramural research, development and maintenance of research centers, and contracts (President's Proposed 36).

The NIH invests its money in many areas of medical research, from tackling illnesses head-on, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and cardiovascular disease (“Estimates”), to basic research: the “fundamental observations made today [that] become the building blocks of tomorrow’s knowledge, therapies, and cures” (Fiscal Year 4). The NIH is “composed of 27 distinct institutes and centers, or ICs,” most of which “fund research in their respective health related fields” (What Happens). Every year, “20,000 independent experts from the scientific community” nationwide are selected to “review more than 80,000 NIH applications” (NIH Peer Review). The applications are graded and sent to the appropriate IC to decide how much funding should be given within that IC’s pool of money (What Happens). About one-fifth of the applications will be awarded, with an average commitment of $414,000 per year for 4.3 years (President's Proposed 39) and a maximum commitment of five years (NIH Grants IIA-44).

So which ICs get how much money? With tens of billions of dollars budgeted to the NIH every year, debate will arise as to how that money should be distributed. After an extensive review of NIH’s budgets, I find unevenness in the way their money is distributed to each IC. In arguably the most clear-cut example, $6 billion will be provided for cancer research in the 2012 fiscal year (“Estimates”). According to the FAIR (Fair Allocations In Research) Foundation, this translates to $11,000 per deceased patient (“Our Government's”). Funding for HIV/AIDS research, on the other hand, will come out to $3.2 billion, or $311,000 per deceased patient – a thirtyfold increase (“Our Government's”). The reasons for this disparity are many. HIV/AIDS in the United States has a horrific history, beginning in the early 1980s (“NIH Fact Sheets”). Until 1996, AIDS treatment was limited to “palliative care and management of opportunistic infections” (“NIH Fact Sheets”). Before 1996, HIV/AIDS funding was surprisingly small, not reaching $250 million until 1987 and $1 billion until 1992 (Folkers 459). It required grassroots activism from advocacy groups such as AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) to pressure lawmakers to bring these numbers to the level that they should been in the first place. In an episode of the television news magazine “20/20” titled “Disease Politics,” reporter John Stossel provides an explanation into the HIV/AIDS activism:

If you want to know how to make money and influence the government, look no further than the AIDS lobby. Fifteen years ago, as AIDS was killing more and more people, NIH spent little on AIDS research. So, desperate to be heard, AIDS activists rewrote the book on medical research lobbying. They heckled President Reagan, stopped traffic, marched on Congress and accused politicians who ignored their demands of discrimination against homosexuals. … The result? AIDS research now gets more money per patient than any other disease.

Significant strides have been made since in the search for a cure, including the discovery of antiretroviral treatments and developments into “neutralizing diverse HIV strains” (“NIH Fact Sheets”). Because of these discoveries, transmitting HIV and dying from AIDS is much easier to prevent than it was 20 years ago. These developments lead me to believe that the urgency nowadays to find a cure to HIV/AIDS is no more significant than finding a cure for cancer or other diseases with life-ending consequences. Yet, the difference between dollars per diseased patient is still astounding, arguably in part to the increased pressure Congress has to keep it that way.

The politicking for medical research funds didn’t stop with HIV/AIDS. Stossel reminds us of similar success with breast cancer activism and activism for diseases that have celebrity support. He highlights the struggles of Joan Samuelson, a former lawyer with Parkinson’s disease. She left her profession to “devote what time she has left to asking Congress to set aside more money for Parkinson’s” (Disease). Her committee meeting discussing Parkinson’s was unsuccessful, with “[m]ost of the legislators’ chairs … empty” (Disease). It wasn’t until actor Michael J. Fox shared his experiences with Parkinson’s that convinced Congress to put more aside for that disease’s research. Stossel provides an excellent synopsis of the problem:

Now, given that these billions [provided to the NIH every year] are your tax money, you would think they [the NIH] would be sure to spend it on the research scientists think will save the most lives or relieve the most suffering. But amazingly they don’t, because Congress makes sure that they spent the lion’s share of the money on the people who have the most political clout.

But don’t blame the activists for this problem. Don’t blame our lawmakers either. The fact of the matter is our senators and representatives are elected by the People, and are thus forced to succumb to the pressure of supporting such activism. Otherwise, they risk losing their reelection. So, to achieve a better balance of funding, I propose we rid our Congress from most of the power they have over the NIH. That power – with the exception of how much money the NIH is given as a whole – is transferred to the NIH, a non-elected, politically unbiased body that has a better idea than Congress of how money should be distributed to their ICs.

This suddenly limits the People’s voice, you might say. However, I would suggest that this isn’t the case at all, because Congress is most concerned about simply staying in office. The only way that is possible is responding in favor of lobbyists – not you, the average U.S. citizen. Anything lacking “star power” will rarely win in Congress, regardless of how attached or detached the NIH is from the government. You might also say that the only way HIV/AIDS research could have increased in the NIH was with star power and activism; the NIH wouldn’t increase funding on their own. I beg to differ. Because researchers at NIH know more than the senators and representatives that fund them, HIV/AIDS research money may have reached legit amounts much earlier, and activism wouldn’t have been necessary. I especially believe that nowadays, as we move towards a more accepting and prejudiceless culture.

Should the NIH take over all financial decisions, it is possible that they begin to provide less toward HIV/AIDS and more towards diseases with higher death tolls, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, in an effort to make funding more balanced among the medical research areas. I know many will not like this change, but all things considered, I’m okay with it. Tom Coates, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, and others suggest not to “drag AIDS care and prevention down to the level of every other disease, but let's bring everything else up to the level of AIDS” (“Experts”). Unfortunately, it’s wishful thinking. In an ideal world, we have unlimited funding to provide for scientific studies of all kinds. But we don’t; we’re in the worst recession since at least the 1980s.

The political influence is too great in an area that so vastly affects our well-being, and it’s affecting how money is spent. Let the NIH make its own decisions as to how money should be funded across its many ICs. We can make more rational, balanced, and effective decisions on the distribution of medical research this way. Call or mail your representative today.

Works Cited

"Appropriations." The NIH Almanac. National Institutes of Health, 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/appropriations/index.htm>.

Disease Politics, 20/20. American Broadcasting Company, 1999. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fairfoundation.org/stossel.wmv>.

"Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC)." NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). National Institutes of Health, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/default.aspx>.

"Experts Rethinking Billions Spent on AIDS." MSNBC.com. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22726852/ns/health-aids/t/experts-rethinking-billions-spent-aids>.

Folkers, Gregory K., and Anthony S. Fauci. "The AIDS Research Model: Implications for Other Infectious Diseases of Global Health Importance." JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Assocation 286.4 (2001): 459. American Medical Association. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/directors/Documents/aidsmodel.pdf>.

"NIH Fact Sheets - HIV/AIDS." NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). National Institutes of Health, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=30>.

NIH Peer Review Revealed. National Institutes of Health, 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://youtu.be/fBDxI6l4dOA>.

"Our Government's Bio-Medical Research Allocations by the National Institutes of Health." The Facts. The FAIR Foundation. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm>.

United States of America. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. By Francis S. Collins. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request. 11 May 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2012budgetrequest.pdf>.

United States of America. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. NIH Grants Policy Statement. 1 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2011/nihgps_2011.pdf>.

United States of America. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. President's Proposed 2012 NIH Budget. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_020911.pdf>.

What Happens to Your NIH Grant Application Video. National Institutes of Health, 16 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://youtu.be/DuuAGROm_1Q>.

Causes of Obesity

Causes of Obesity

Look at the people around you. What do you see? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) one third of the people you see around you are obese. The CDC, using data from the National Health and Examination Survey (NHANES), found that 33.8% of adults and 17% of children and adolescence (ages 2-19) are obese. But why is this bad? Obesity can lead to any number of health problems including; Hypertension or high blood pressure, Dyslipidemia (an abnormal concentration of fat in the bloodstream), Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, Stroke, Gallbladder Disease, and many others (What Are Overweight and Obesity). But what causes obesity? Many researchers, including Dr. Marion Nestle, Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University says the root cause is just “eating to many calories for our energy needs”, or geneticist Dr. James Neel, who found a particular gene that causes obesity, says that obesity is a result of “genetic differences”. However, I propose that obesity is caused by a multitude of different reasons that are just as unique to each individual as their fingerprint.

Dr. Marion Nestle, as mentioned previously, has made a good point in saying that obesity is caused by over eating, and his research does suggest that the majority of the third of obese Americans can benefit from reducing the amount they eat. However, he fails to take into account the argument that geneticist Dr. James Neel brings up. Dr. Neel had found a gene, which he dubbed the “Thrifty” gene (adenovirus-36) that has been found to cause the fat cells in the body to grow and produce more fat cells. His research now suggests that one day we may be able to stop this “viral obesity” by just preventing the activation of this gene (Neel). In contrast, Dr. Neel’s theory doesn’t account for the creation of new fat cells brought upon by eating too much or a poor diet that had been mentioned as the cause of obesity by Dr. Marion Nestle (Nestle). Dr. Neel’s theory is only relevant to the multiplication and the way that fat cells replicate in the body producing fat cells from previously living cells, and Dr. Nestle’s theory doesn’t take into account the “Thrifty Gene” that was found to cause obesity.

Obesity is a complex issue and should be thought of in terms of a result of many factors and not just single causes such as those Dr. Nestle or Dr. Neel suggest. The Canadian Obesity Network (CON) was founded in 2006 and regularly holds conferences about obesity across Canada regarding its causes and prevention. In a 2011 conference, the scientific director of CON, Dr. Arya Sharma presented points that we must all take into account if we are to truly find the causes of obesity. His main points include: “there is not one obesities, but many obesities… managing obesity is not always about loosing weight but about improving the health of oneself… Obesity is not caused by eating too much or moving to little” (Mini Review 3, Ayra). “[Obesity] is caused by a variety of underlying problems sometimes including emotional eating due to stressful events or medication”, or their type of lifestyle in general. Above all Dr, Sharma stresses that “Obesity should not be measured by the amount of excess body fat, but by the magnitude of it’s complications” (Mini Review 3, Ayra).

Did you know that “among black women, the risk of death is increased for all categories of overweight and obesity as it is in whites”, or that Hispanics “are 45.8% more likely to be obese” (Moon). How about that if your married your 20.2% more likely to be obese, or that by ingesting just 500 more calories than needed in a day can cause you to gain one pound (that’s a little more than a snickers bar) (Calorie Intake to Gain Weight)? All of these factors need to be taken into account when trying to prevent your own obesity. Do you have one too many snacks during the day? If so, cut that number down. Do you have an ethnic background? If so, you need to take that into account if trying to find out your own weight gain causes. Are you married or single, or do you live a sedentary lifestyle? These need to be taken into account when dealing with obesity. Poor examples are one of the four main reasons why childhood obesity is growing and by taking the time to understand your body and controlling your weight we are provide younger generations with a better example that may in turn improve health to those in the future (Cordon).

In conclusion, the causes of obesity are numerous and to prevent your own obesity you have to look at your body and understand how it works. One of the best ways to do this is to have a workout partner or personal one on one trainer. When we are trying to prevent obesity alone we can miss something that a friend or someone who is trained may notice. Having a second pair of eyes on your actions keeps you in check and makes sure you are using the safe and correct prevention methods. As an athlete, I find that it also helps to keep a “nutrition journal” or a log of some kind. This allows me to visibly see my habits and makes identifying unhealthy eating, unhealthy habits, and unhealthy weight gain more visible. Have your partner or trainer view your log so that they too may know your habits. By knowing these habits and their correlation with your body you can better understand what is best at preventing obesity for you and hopefully reduce your risk of obesity caused health problems.

Works Cited

Lubin, Gus, and Kevin Lincoln. "11 Signs That You Will Be Obese." Business Insider. 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. .

Mini Review 3: CABPS/CON Bariatric Interventions. Dir. Arya Sharma. Perf. Dr. Arya Sharma. Mini Review 3: CABPS/CON Bariatric Interventions. Canadian Obesity Network, 29 Apr. 2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. .

"What Are Overweight and Obesity? - NHLBI, NIH." NIH Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. .

Cordon, Karen Mae. "Four Ways To Stop Children’s Obesity." IBTIMES.com: International Business News, Financial News, Market News, Politics, Forex, Commodities - International Business Times. International Business Times, 11 Nov. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. .

Moon, Mary Ann. "Overweight, Obesity Linked to Higher Mortality Risk in Black Women : Internal Medicine News." Home : Internal Medicine News. 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 24 Nov. 2011. .

McMahon, Micheal. "Single Gene Causes 'Viral Obesity'" New Scientist 5 Apr. 2008: 15.LexisNexis Academic. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.

Nestle, Dr. Marian. "Causes of Obesity." Weight Loss Diet Program, FREE Diet Advice! Weight Loss Diets, Low Carb Plan. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. .

"Calorie Intake to Gain Weight." BMI Calculator. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. .

Childhood Obesity Epidemic

Childhood Obesity Epidemic

Childhood obesity is rampant in young kids and the number of obese kids has increased vastly over the past 20 years. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008,” and this shows how vast increase in obese children over the past 20 years (CDC 1). Many people question who is to blame for this childhood obesity epidemic. Should we blame the parents for creating such unhealthy lifestyles for these kids, or should we blame the government for not regulating the food and advertising that the kids come in contact with daily? We must find a solution to this epidemic because with the increasing rates of childhood obesity, the children are at increased risk for many diseases that could lead to death.

Advertising companies promote their products as healthy and good for people but these young kids are eating mass quantities of these foods and taking in way to many calories than they are exerting. This is a big factor in causing obesity. Also the food that is given to the children at schools and other places is certainly not suitable for a young child that is trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The IWG, International Working Group, wants the government to, “regulate grocery lists and interfere with commercial advertising standards” (Warren 1). All of these people feel that the government needs to step in and stop childhood obesity from increasing more than it has. Many restaurants try and target these kids at a young age by providing toys with the meals or other incentives to buy their product. This is damaging the mindset of the kids because immediately want to eat the unhealthy food because of the toys or other incentives the restaurants or fast food places are providing them with. Also, most of these young children are in elementary school and according to Phil Anderson, a professor at the St. Rosemary Educational Institute, “Nutrition is completely ignored within the Elementary school systems today with no opportunity for young children to learn about nutrition” (Anderson 1). He believes that the government could implement a better nutritional program for kids in elementary schools. The government has done some to provide better choices for these children, like removing soda machines out of some schools and regulating the school lunches for these kids, but many children are still becoming obese and this is only the start to a very hard and unhealthy future. I feel like this is the less efficient route in trying to change the tides in the battle against childhood obesity because government intervention will take more time than just educating the parents on the harm that they are putting their children in.

In contrast to the argument that goverment intervention is going to help the most with the childhood obesity epidemic, many people believe that it is solely the parents fault and responsibility that the young kids are becoming obese. It is a known fact that young kids look up to their parents and follow what their parents do, so if the parents are eating bad foods and have a unhealthy lifestyle, we can assume that these young children will follow in that same path. A study in Great Britain found that, “Children of fat parents tended to be over-fed and under-exercised, setting them on a trajectory towards obesity” (Anderson 1). Taking this into account you can see that the parents play a huge role in their children’s health and wellness. Another thought about parents affecting childhood obesity is that the parents don’t have enough time or money to eat healthier. Many people feel like if the parents don’t have enough time to put some effort in to making their kids healthier that they shouldn’t even have the kids. The parents of these obese children are leading them down a path full of many sicknesses that can ultimately end in death. Some parents are even losing custody of their children because of the lack of help they are providing their children with. In the Chicago Tribune, a report in June said that, “A South Carolina mother Jerri Gray lost custody of her son, Alexander Draper, after being charged with criminal neglect. The 14-year-old weighed 555 pounds” (Khan 1). This is an extreme case but we have to expect that it can happen to young kids and take preventative measures to help this childhood obesity epidemic. If we can educate the parents on the health implications by providing course on obesity for the parents we can show what they are leading their children to, or even help them see that they can eat healthy for cheap. This can help the parents make better decisions in what they are feeding their children and also set up a better example of a healthy lifestyle for their young kids to follow.

After much research and time spent with this subject, I feel like a mixture of both of these factors would help combat childhood obesity but I strongly feel that we need to educate the parents because they have such a high influence in their children at a young age. Over the past couple of years, I have noticed a considerable change in the younger generations of kids. I can see that the rate of young children becoming obese is increasing and something must be done to prevent this epidemic form becoming worse. I feel that we must help the parents and teach them or we can cause the next generations of kids to follow in the footsteps and the childhood obesity rates will continue to increase. These young kids that are becoming obese are increasing their risks to be obese when they are older and this highly increases their risks for many diseases that are very harmful to people and especially these young adults. I feel that we have to educate the parents in some way because they are they play the leading role in influencing what kind of lifestyle the kids will have.

In Conclusion, we have seen the two arguments in this ongoing childhood obesity epidemic. Both arguments have many valid points but parents play the key role in the children’s life and educating them on the dangers of childhood obesity could vastly change the amount of young kids becoming obese. Something must be done to prevent this ongoing epidemic because it is leading to very unhealthy futures for the next generations and for the kids that will be adults in the future. Whether advertising must be regulated or whether parents should be more educated, these children are helpless at these young ages and someone must step in and help these young kids.

Works Cited

Anderson, Phil. "Child Obesity: Who is to blame?." http://schoolworkhelper.net/. St. Rosemary Educational Institution, December 2, 2010. Web. Retrieved on: Wednesday 30th November 2011. http://schoolworkhelper.net/2010/12/child-obesity-who-is-to-blame/.

Khan, Amina. "Parents to Blame for Childhood Obesity? - Chicagotribune.com." Chicago Tribune: Chicago Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Weather and Traffic - Chicagotribune.com. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-hk-health-obesity-0106jan07,0,2836526.story>.

Spicer, Rachel. "Child Obesity, Eating Habits Not Necessarily Parents’ Fault - Opinion."Kansas State Collegian - Kansas State University. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.kstatecollegian.com/opinion/child-obesity-eating-habits-not-necessarily-parents-fault-1.2606484>.

Warren, Tierra. "Food Czars Blame Childhood Obesity on Advertising | MyHeritage." MyHeritage | For Members of the Conservative Heritage Foundation. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.myheritage.org/news/food-czars-blame-childhood-obesity-on-advertising/>.

"CDC - NPAO - Obesity Facts - Adolescent and School Health." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm>.