Healthier fast food: Will kids actually eat it?

Healthier fast food: Will kids actually eat it? - An article published by the WEEK on July 14, is stating opinions whether children will accept eating the healthier food that is proposed by the National Restaurant Association. The idea behind this action is a campaign called Kids Live Well, based on providing sorts of meals with less calories, more fruit, vegetables, and less sugar. The food option will be available in almost 15, 000 outlets in all country. The doubt that comes out is whether this action will prompt children to eat better or is mere business strategy.

Theoretically, John Talty thinks as a good idea, but he has a doubt in terms of its practicability. He sees this action in two angles. Offering the food as one thing and persuading the kids eating as another uneasy task. He is optimist saying that the success of the project will depend on the type of healthy food provided by the restaurants, and the degree of the responsibility of what children will eat while with their parents. 

Anita Jones-Mueller, a nutritionist, advocates the idea by saying that it will help to fight childhood obesity. She says that the program is an enormous step of promoting ways to be healthier. Conversely to the C'mon who thinks that the program is not the right answer. She argues that people should not rely on restaurants to eat healthier. She also added  by saying restaurants will offer fruits most of them canned that are unhealthier when compared with the fries.

I agree and share the same opinion with C'mon. I can also go far; by saying that all behind this program is simple strategy of business. Where the restaurants will bring fresh fruits 365 days to offer consumers?  Will this business be lucrative? I don't think so! As we know, fresh products are always too expensive because some of them are costly in terms of its production. If restaurants are able to buy those products there is no doubt that the meals will be unaffordable, and as result people will not buy or will prefer eat canned because are cheaper.  C'mon also has a good point of view. The promotion of how to eat healthier should start at home. Even though we are in busy world where people focus more on their work, I think we need to stop and rethink how much we are caring about ourselves. As C'mon said, parents should spend money buying natural food not ready-made and teaching their kids how to cook and eat healthy food. In this way, kids will grow up eating home food and depending less on restaurants, thus, they can save money for other future purposes.

Are children really 'inferior goods'?

The article - Are children really 'inferior goods'?  published by THE WEEK, on July 5, 2011, states opinions weather children are important or not for a couple/ family. In perspective of an economist, he mentioned that as people make more money they neglect having more children; conversely to normal goods that are needed more and more as people get rich. This idea is also advocated by Catherine Rampell, who feels that if kids were advantageous, rich families would want to have more. She sustains her opinion by comparing people with high annual income, who need less than 3 children to those with average or low income who say that want at least 3 or more kids. Another opinion by Karl Smith see the inferiority of kids in different angle. He pointed out that people are replacing children when they are getting richer because their time become scarce and the amount of work also increase. This have an direct implication on their businesses and education, once they have to stop and devote more time to the children. The final remark by Sierra Black, states that the issue of kid's inferiority should not be seen isolatedly with mere economical analysis. There are more other factors that are taken in account whether or not to have large family. 

First of all, I am wondering why the author and other economists are comparing human beings with acquired properties. In my opinion this is unfair comparison, yet a kid/person does not have a price, ethically cannot be sold or bought, although the trends in nowadays indicate that some people can sell or buy a person. I think we are becoming more altruists insofar as we put the wealth above everything. For me it makes more sense if a rich person has someone to share with his/her wealth. And generally these people are family members.

Another reason to not compare kids with simple goods is the emotional side that people should have. Money doesn't do everything we need, mainly when we are becoming older. We need companionship. I believe that if we compare older people living in retired centers with those who live in the family houses with son/daughter, grandson/granddaughter are more likely to have great satiation with life. That means increasing the size of family member, the chances of having more companionship is high. 

However, I agree with Sierra Black, when she says that other factors are considered to have big family size than just economical argument. It is not fair to have many children without giving them adequate conditions to grow well and also is unfair to neglect having children because of lack of time or people devote too much time working. We need to balance and I think there is enough time for everyone to do everything, just a good plan we can accomplish our personal needs and moral obligations. Otherwise the human species will become extinct.

'Homework revolt': Time to give kids a break?

The article titled 'Homework revolt': Time to give kids a break? by Get2Central, Press of Atlantic City, published on June 16, 2011 on THE WEEK, states different opinions whether too much homework is beneficial for children or not. According to the article, some American school district, are pondering that too much homework mainly those given after school, are not helpful for the kids; instead of improving their academic progress, they are stressful. As a solution to mitigate the problem, was proposed a limit in number of assignments according to each grade and complete exclusion of homework during the weekends and holidays.

Some people are sceptical white the idea that kids mainly in elementary school should not be given too much homework. Opponents argue that spoiling kids can bring misunderstanding to them. They have to be shown by their teachers that an effort pays off, and good education is related to hardworking. On the other hand, supporters agree that too much schoolwork is not beneficial for the children. Because too much homework deprive kids of getting enough sleep and entertainment, and as a result they are unhappy, unhealthy and unsuccessful. Also, supporters mention that rigor can’t be compared with fulfillment, and makes more sense when kids are encouraged to read for pleasure instead of forcing them with piles of assignments.

As a wise saying “no pain, no gain”, there is no doubt that hardworking almost give a worthy reward.  I agree that students can’t benefit from too much homework, and on other side I disagree with complete elimination of homework during the weekends and holidays.

In my opinion for this specific case where kids spend 8 hours day at school, the homework could be reduced. Instead of a pile of exercises that can take more than one hour, few of them could perfectly help to revise what they learned in that day. Doing a lot of assignments or exercises is not profitable. Some kids can do simply to show that they accomplished the task, but at end they didn't understand the exercise. I think studying at home must be something enjoyable and not forced as a result of mere satisfying a teacher or parents.

Regarding to banning homework during weekends and holidays, in my opinion this decision is a failure, because kids have more time and a relaxed environment during this period. Also I think that during the weekend, is a great opportunities for the parents to see the performance of their children. At this period, kids can ask their parents to explain something that they didn’t understand in the class. For me makes more sense giving homework on weekends and eliminate during the week days.

Germany swears off nuclear power: Should we?

"Germany swears off nuclear power: Should we?” published by THE WEEK on June 8, 201, states opinions about whether Germany's government will succeed or not in its plan of closing all nuclear reactors by the end of 2022. If the plan is feasible, should USA follow the example? 

According to the article, the German Chancellor has already approved a plan to entirely replace  all nuclear reactors by using alternative sources of energy. This plan stands as a preventive measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as a response to the sinister occurrence at the Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan. Different opinions were espressed, some supportive of closing the reactors and other against such mesures. The apposing side argues that discontinuing the use of nuclear power will lead to massive use of coal which has a negative impact on the environment, while those who advocate for the plan see the idea as a great opportunity for the USA and other nations to shift to clear energy such as solar and wind power in order to avoid tragedies.

Personal, I agree with those who are advocating for the use of renewable sources of energy. Looking at the presented figures, if 23 percent of Germany's power comes from nuclear reactors and if they can manage to replace their reactors with clean energy, why shouldn't the USA follow the example if it has only 20 percent? 

From my perspective, the use of clean energy should be mandatory for all nations using nuclear power. If we assume that the world is facing changes in climate (tsunamis, severe storms, heavy rain, constant floods)  that have a direct impact in melting down the nuclear reactors, there is no doubt that public health will be affected if a disaster happens. Furthermore, the USA has experienced more than one plant reactor tragedy in the past and has been witnessing other tragedies in the world such as the recent incident in Japan; I think it is time to think seriously about avoiding domestic terrorism. 

There is no doubt that the use of renewable energy is costly compared to nuclear power. But, if the USA wants to preserve the future of the country for future generations and promote eco-friendliness, the unique way is to embark on clean energy.

Japan's 'sacrificial' elderly nuclear cleanup squad

The article entitled "Japan's 'sacrificial' elderly nuclear cleanup squad", by GlobalPost, PopSci, Guardian, posted on June 3, 2011, states opinions of a group of  retirees who want to replace younger workers that are subjected in cleaning up the toxic Fukushima nuclear plant. The question that came up was if Japan’s government should accept the proposal or not.  As mentioned, the process of cleaning will take long time and is very dangerous because the workers are being exposed to excessive amount of radiation. A group of retired (engineers and some professionals) argued that it doesn't make any sense to expose young people who still have a lot of accomplishments such as caring their families and being the future the country. Arguments like "they won't develop cancer in time to die from it" and "biological logic" were pointed out by the elderly as the main motivation of the offer, however, Japan's government still refusing the offer.

First of all, I think this is a very delicate issue that might be dealt with caution. Because it involves lives, serious risks of health even death, I agree with the first position that Japan's government took declining the offer. Every people has the right to live; it is immoral to sacrifice or let them to self sacrifice as it is clear that cleaning the plant will lead to excessive exposure of radiation and future illness even death. Furthermore, is unethical to use this specific group of people (elderly), because can lead to misunderstanding, like elderly are not important for the Japan's society, thus, they can vanish. Usual we say that elderly are a live and trustful library that we can rely on and learn from them.

In other hand, the elderly allegation is reasonable to be pondered. Looking at their explanations - the time that take to develop cancer, I think this can be confronted  with the average of  Japans’ life expectancy and if there is no significant differences,  in my opinion is OK for Japan's government to accept the request. Also, once they are volunteers and no one is forcing them to do the task, I guess that they are altruistic and thinking about the future generation of the Japan's society. Once again this is a hot point, should not be decided arbitrary and pros and cons must be carefully analyzed before making improper decisions. 

Fighting over food

      High food prices are threatening many nations. It will perhaps lead to the next cause of protest in some part of the world. I think the problem is becoming worse and less is being done to solve it. The climate change, mostly drought seems to be the main cause of food shortages. In fact,  it is a part of the problem, but other influences such as investing less in food production because of biofuels and inadequate policies of food distributions can't be underestimated.
      In my understanding, I think if the problem persists over the next decades, many countries, mostly developing countries, will face serious political and economical tensions. People will not trust their governments at all and this can cause revolts. Egypt is a clear example of the fact that food production can't be replaced by luxury goods. Most developing countries rely on farming as a major source of food and jobs. Moreover, in the recent decades, the world has been witnessing changes in climate that has led to a severe drop in yields causing a deficit in food availability. Another cause of the food shortage is the replacement of food production with other crops that are used for biofuel purposes. I think this is unfair on the part of policymakers; they are putting more resources and effort in biofuel instead of food production while people are starving. Even,  if the argument is that the world want become "green" by relying less on fossil fuel, it is still unfair to use the small amount of fertile land that the world has to produce biofuel crops to the detriment of human beings. Solutions such as the use of marginal land could minimize the problem. Another solution to deal with drought, is genetic engineering. Even though it is still controversial whether genetically modified organisms (GMO) are healthy, I think at present moment it is a creative and quick method to secure and  increase food availability.