Teitelbaum and Wilensky start by commenting that Maryland is among the most struck states in the US, which I concur in my reference to a report from Trust for American Health in July, 2014. He continues to say link obesity with other ailments like diabetes, hypertension as well as sleep apnea (Tietlbaum & Wilensky, 2012). I also agree with this statement since obesity means hosting excess fats in the body that gets positively correlated with heart diseases (Stern & Kazaks, 2009).
On the same page, the two authors state the existence of a positive correlation between obesity and social, economic status. According to them, obesity is attributed to poverty. They suggest that, as income increases, the obesity rate decreases due to some factors such as limitations of affordable health food options which get comprised of low consumption of fruits and vegetables (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2012). I partly agree with this claim since a major cause of obesity is too much intake of simple carbohydrate food, which can get linked to poverty. On the other hand, I would bet that the low-income rate may only account for a small portion of sources of obesity. According to Blass, the causes of obesity, other than simple carbohydrates include the following: genetics, high frequency of eating, slow metabolism, lean or limited physical activity as well as medications such as antidepressants (Blass, 2008).
To my opinion, many of these causative agents of obesity cannot be linked to the poor. It is true that genetics is not about poverty or richness. In addition, poor people are mostly limited to food items due to low affordability. A slow metabolism can get caused by too much protein food, a lifestyle afforded only by rich people. Moreover, physical inactivity is rampant to the rich, who are inefficient in movement and spend most of their time seated in an office (Spark, 2007).
In the fourth page, Teitelbaum and Wilensky propose options to combat obesity amidst low-income earners of Maryland (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2012). The first option involves erecting stores to food deserts throughout Maryland. In the endeavor to make this a reality, they propose the development of new supermarkets to eliminate the shortage of nutritious foods. This move is deemed to bring with it some job vacancies to the local poor people. I also would concur with this progress on the part that it gets aimed at the avail of nutritious calories foods to Maryland. However, I am of the concern that the little job opportunities that would get created through these supermarkets is not sufficient enough to raise status for the common people. Building supermarkets will not thus be efficient if ways of raising income to this deserted state get not put on board. The analysis should suggest means of income for this poor people, as well as how the prices of such items will favor the common man of Maryland (Spark, 2007).
The second option talks about giving incentives or rewards to buyers of healthier foods. This trick may work as it would entice people to buy more and in the wrong run, Marylanders will adopt to the new healthy style of food consumption. This assumption is favorable; the only concern is how long this endeavor may take to change the attitude of people to foster a new lifestyle (Kegan, 2006)The third option entails increasing to farmers markets in Maryland. That, in conjunction with SNAP benefits or reward/incentives is supposed to increase food and vegetable consumption by the local low-income people. The authors continue to say that the funding for this project is from USDA (Acs et al., 2007). However, if this is not achievable, it is said that the funding of that project will get be done by the taxpayers. It is alright for the local people to fund a project that is beneficial to them. However, the people of Maryland have already been termed poor or of low income. Adding them the task to fund such a project means adding a load to a burdened, exhausted man, which to my opinion may fail. The analysis ought to find sources of capital which are reliable should be sought before this happens (Acs et al.,2007).
Recommendation
Option 1 is feasible. Building supermarkets in Maryland bring notorious food near the people. Secondly it creates a job that is politically feasible. It is also cost beneficial as people will not have to go the long distance in search of fruits and vegetables. That has a positive and fair impact to the Marylanders. The move is accordance with the law though the timing of capital to institute is not conducive (Spark, 2007).
The second option can get judged as fair as it does not force people to buy these. Option II entails a cost to combat obesity and thus, political feasibility is moderate. The effectiveness of the move in enticing people to consume fruits/ vegetables is imagined to be moderate. This move is legal whereas its administrative ease is moderate. Timeliness is fair as it may not benefit all people while the targeted impact is moderate.
The third option entails increasing farmers markets. The cost benefit of this is high though it may be expensive to the taxpayers if USDA fails to fund it. The move is legal though administrative ease is moderate. The targeted impact is high.
References
Acs, Z. , Lyles, A., & Stanton, K. (2007). Obesity, business and public policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Blass, E. (2008). Obesity: Causes, mechanisms, prevention, and treatment. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Kegan P. (2006).Incentives:Pros and cons. London: Routledge
Spark A.(2007).Nutrition in Public Health: Principles, Policies, and Practice. CRC Press
Stern, J., & Kazaks, A. (2009). Obesity: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
Tietelbaum J.& Wilensky S. (2012). Essentials of health and law: sample Analysis. Essentials of health and law: sample Analysis
Carolyn Morgan is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in college research paper services. If you need a similar paper you can place your order.
