Both Wootan and Liodice points of view have good arguments. The
arguments discuss the CSPI legislation in regards of regulating food
advertising to children. Wootan Agree with the CSPI because he believes that it
will make the children eat healthier if they restrict the advertising agencies
for posting any and everything. The problem I have with Wootan’s argument is
that he only discusses the advertising agencies and what they need to work on.
I think that he needs more evidence in order to really expand and have a strong
argument. The only facts that were given in his argument was about how child
obesity exists. Liodice argument discusses the first amendment and how it
should be preserved and how he believes that having restrictions and guidelines
are pointless. Basically Liodice’s argument is just stating his opinions. I
believe that there should be regulations on how they can advertise food because
the United States has way too much obesity. If focusing on children’s health is
important although I believe it is the parents jobs to make sure that there
children are healthy. The problem with trying to avoid obesity is that most Americans
cannot afford good food or do not have the time to focus on good health.
I do agree that both Wootan and Liodice had good arguments, but also felt that Wootan could have more reasoning to back up his argument. Obesity is growing across the world, and it’s a problem that needs to be prevented as a child. Advertisements mainly target children because children watch television the most and they enjoy the food. If we want to prevent obesity restaurants need to promote healthy and nutritious food rather than unhealthy meals. Advertisements could change toward healthy promotions but at the same time parents need to regulate their children’s diet. Parents need to watch what their kids eat and make sure they eat healthy.
ReplyDelete