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.