3
Critical reading exercise Please email responses to the questions posed in class to [email protected] by Wed 5 March at 1200. Piece to read: Rethinking Our ‘Rights’ to Dangerous Behaviors FEB. 25, 2014 In the last few years, it’s become increasingly clear that food companies engineer hyperprocessed foods in ways precisely geared to most appeal to our tastes. This technologically advanced engineering is done, of course, with the goal of maximizing profits, regardless of the effects of the resulting foods on consumer health, natural resources, the environment or anything else. But the issues go way beyond food, as the City University of New York professor Nicholas Freudenberg discusses in his new book, “Lethal but Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health.” Freudenberg’s case is that the food industry is but one example of the threat to public health posed by what he calls “the corporate consumption complex,” an alliance of corporations, banks, marketers and others that essentially promote and benefit from unhealthy lifestyles. It sounds creepy; it is creepy. But it’s also plain to see. Yes, it’s unlikely there’s a cabal that sits down and asks, “How can we kill more kids tomorrow?” But Freudenberg details how six industries — food and beverage, tobacco, alcohol, firearms, pharmaceutical and automotive — use pretty much the same playbook to defend the sales of health-threatening products. This playbook, largely developed by the tobacco industry, disregards human health and poses greater threats to our existence than any communicable disease you can name. All of these industries work hard to defend our “right” — to smoke, feed our children junk, carry handguns and so on — as matters of choice, freedom and responsibility. Their unified

News - Critical Reading Exercise(2)

  • Upload
    ali-gh

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

3

Citation preview

Critical reading exercisePlease email responses to the questions posed in class to [email protected] by Wed 5 March at 1200.Piece to read:Rethinking Our Rights to Dangerous BehaviorsFEB. 25, 2014In the last e! "ears, its #e$o%e in$reasingl" $lear that oo& $o%'anies engineerh"'er'ro$esse& oo&s in !a"s 're$isel"geare& to %osta''eal to our tastes. (histe$hnologi$all" a&van$e& engineering is &one, o $ourse, !ith the goal o%a)i%i*ing'roits, regar&lesso theee$tso theresultingoo&son$onsu%erhealth, natural resour$es, the environ%ent or an"thing else.Butthe issues go !a" #e"on& oo&, asthe+it",niversit" o -e! .ork'roessor-i$holas Freu&en#erg &is$usses in his ne! #ook, /Lethal but Legal: Corporations,Consumption, andProtectingPublicHealth.0Freu&en#ergs$aseisthat theoo&in&ustr" is #ut one e)a%'le o the threat to 'u#li$ health 'ose& #" !hat he $alls/the $or'orate $onsu%'tion $o%'le),0 an allian$e o $or'orations, #anks,%arketers an& others that essentiall" 'ro%ote an& #eneit ro% unhealth" liest"les.It soun&s $ree'"1 it is $ree'". But its also 'lain to see. .es, its unlikel" theres a$a#al that sits &o!nan& asks, /2o!$an!e kill %ore ki&s to%orro!30 ButFreu&en#erg&etails ho!si)in&ustries 4oo&aneverage, to#a$$o, al$ohol,irear%s, 'har%a$euti$al an& auto%otive 4 use 'rett" %u$h the sa%e 'la"#ook to&een& the sales o health5threatening'ro&u$ts.(his 'la"#ook, largel" &evelo'e" the to#a$$o in&ustr", &isregar&s hu%an health an& 'oses greater threats to oure)isten$e than an" $o%%uni$a#le &isease "ou $an na%e.6ll o thesein&ustries !orkhar&to&een&our /right0 4tos%oke, ee&our$hil&ren7unk, $arr"han&gunsan&soon4as%atterso $hoi$e, ree&o%an&res'onsi#ilit". (heir uniie& line is that an"thing that restri$ts those /rights0 is un56%eri$an..et ea$h in&ustr", as it 8%ostl"9 legall" $an, &esigns 'ro&u$ts that are &ii$ult toresist an& so%eti%es a&&i$tive. (his %a" #e o#vious, i onl" in retros'e$t: The foodindustryhascreatedcombinations that%osta''ealtoour#rains instin$tualan&learne&res'onses, although!e!ereeatingthoseoo&slong#eore!ereali*e&that. It %a" #e hi&&en 8an& #or&erline illegal9, as !hen to#a$$o $o%'anies uppedthe nicotine quotient of tobacco. ;o%eti%es, as Freu&en#erg 'oints out, the a''eals%a" #e su#tle: uite si%ilar. For e)a%'le, the argu%ent or 'rote$ting 'eo'leagainst %arketers o 7unk oo& relies in 'art on the a$t that antis%okingregulations an& seat#elt la!s !ere initiall" atta$ke& as ro##ing us o $hoi$e1 no! !ekno! the"re liesavers.(husthe%ostnovel an&interesting'artsoFreu&en#ergs#ookarethosethatre'hrase the &is$ussion o rights an& $hoi$e, #e$ause !e nee& %ore than seat#eltan&antis%okingla!s, %orethanae!'oli$ies nu&ging'eo'leto!aretterhealth. ,ntil no! 8an&, sa&l", 'erha's !ell into the uture9, $or'orations have #een#oth%ore ni%#le an&%ore lush!ith$ashthanthe 'u#li$ healthar%s ogovern%ent. /?hat !e nee&,0 Freu&en#erg sai& to %e, /is to return to the 'u#li$se$tor the right to set health 'oli$" an& to li%it $or'orations ree&o% to 'roit atthe e)'ense o 'u#li$ health.0Re&eining the argu%ent %a" hel' us in& strategies that $an a$tuall" #ring a#out$hange. (he turning 'oint in the to#a$$o !ars !as !hen the >uestion $hange& ro%the in&ustr"s 4 /Do 'eo'le have the right to s%oke30 4 to that o 'u#li$ health:/Do'eo'lehavetheright to#reathe$leanair30 -otethat #oth>uestions arelegiti%ate, #ut i "oua&&resstheirst 8to!hi$htheans!eriso $ourse/"es09!ithout asking the se$on& 8to !hi$h the ans!er is o $ourse also /"es09 "ou %iss ano''ortunit" to $onvert the ans!er ro% one that lea&s to greater in&ustr" 'roits toone that has literall" $ut s%oking rates in hal.;i%ilarl", !enee&to#easkingnot/Do7unkoo&$o%'anieshavetheright to%arket to $hil&ren30 #ut /Do $hil&ren have the right to a health" &iet30 8In @e)i$o,the se$on& >uestion has #een ans!ere& 'ositivel". ;ha%eull", !e have "et to takethat ste'.9 (he >uestion is not onl", /Do !e have a right to #ear ar%s30 #ut also /Do!e have the right to #e sae in our streets an& s$hools30 In short, sa"s Freu&en#erg:/(he right to #e health" tru%'s the right o $or'orations to 'ro%ote $hoi$es thatlea&to're%ature&eathan&'reventa#leillnesses. Arote$ting'u#li$healthisaun&a%ental govern%ent res'onsi#ilit"1 a&e$ent so$iet"shoul&not allo!oo&$o%'anies to $onvin$e $hil&ren to #u" oo& thats #a& or the% or to en$ourage alieti%e o unhealth" eating.0O&&l", these are ra&i$al notions. But arent the" less /un56%eri$an0 than allo!ing a$o%'an"to%a)i%i*eitsreturnoninvest%ent#"lookingtosell to$hil&renorhealth" a&ults in !a"s that !ill $ause 're%ature %ortalit"3 6s Freu&en#erg sa"s,/;houl&nts$ien$ean&te$hnolog"#euse&toi%'rovehu%an!ell5#eing, nottoa&van$e #usiness goals that har%health30 (!o other >uestions that $an #eans!ere& /"es.0QuestionDiscuss at least two areas of potential bias by the author of thisOp-Ed piece in the NY Times.