Fast Food- Max Mendelson

Before starting this class, I had rarely heard the word “sustainability.” I wasn’t sure what it meant. However, I figured it’s meaning had something to do with keeping our economy in good shape.  After being in this class for over a month, I’ve come to understand that it means so much more.

The issue I want to talk about is fast food. Fast food is consumed in America for many reasons: it tastes good, it’s cheap, and it’s ready to eat within minutes after you order. With these three characteristics, what could be wrong? The answer is simple: it is extremely unhealthy for you.

An Article by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation tells us that 1 in 4 Americans consumer fast food every day, and that nearly $100 billion is spent on fast food every year at one of the 50,000 chains across the country.

There are many negative effects to fast food. Obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are just a few of these effects that eating fast food can have. However, for low-income families in the United States, and at a current time like this where our economy is not very good, fast food seems to be the only answer for these families to eat while on a tight budged.

Many steps can be taken to help sustain the public’s health with food. First, fast food restaurants need to cut back on portion size. When fast food companies show that you can upgrade to “supersize” or “Extra-large” for only pennies more, it entices people to do so, as they feel they are getting more bang for their buck. In reality, all people are getting is more low quality, unhealthy food that goes right to their stomach.

Another step could be getting people to prepare their own food from scratch. Going to a grocery store and buying your own food to cook is the healthiest way to eat, as you know exactly what is going into the meal you are abut to consume. The problem is that going to the supermarket isn’t cheap.  Healthy foods are very expensive. I learned that the reason for this is because of economics. According to an article on straighthealth.com, the demand for healthy foods is getting higher, but the supply is low and the cost is high to make these foods. Thus, the consumer must pay a higher price. If the government were to step in and figure out a way to make the cost of producing healthy food lower for farmers, then the American population could buy the healthy food for a similar price to what they are paying now for fast food. If done, this could lead to great health benefits and better sustainability.  Until then, our country’s health sustainability is at risk.

10 Nasty Reasons not to Eat McDonalds

Works Cited:

Ransohoff, Julia. "Fast Food." Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Web. 28 Sept. 2011. <http://www.pamf.org/teen/health/nutrition/fastfood.html>.

"Why Are Healthy Foods so Expensive?" Straighthealth.com. Web. 28 Sept. 2011. <http://straighthealth.com/pages/qna/healthyfoodexpensive.html>.

Fast Food - Paige Quinlan

After we have discussed the term “sustainability” several times in class, I have come to realize this means much more than “going green”. The definition I find most compelling is “improving the quality of life for all living forms”. 
One issue that I am particularly passionate about is nutrition. I believe the over consumption of fast food in the common American’s diet is concerning. In a CBS interview, Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation) states that at least one quarter of American adults eats fast food everyday.
I realize that fast food is sometimes the best option for the low-income population. It’s cheap and filling. I strongly believe, however, that offering these meals at such low costs is not beneficial for the sustainability of the American population. This food is notoriously unhealthy and over consumption is linked to various health issues such as diabetes, respiratory problems, stroke, etc. 
I think fast food restaurants should be targeted to improve their quality standards of their food. These processed food products are cheap and easy, however long-term disease caused by over consumption of these foods is very costly. People need to be consuming quality, fresh produce. However, the fact of the matter is that is that these foods are sometimes too expensive for a significant part of the population.

In my mind two things should be done:
1. Provide alternatives to low income families. I think this could be done with the expansion and promotion of the SNAP program. 
2. Regulations and quality control of fast food restaurants. First, the portion sizes offered at fast food restaurants are far too large. Also, the foods served are too heavily processed. Any other suggestions...? 

Works Cited 

Nonas, Cathy. “Americans Are Obsessed with Fast Food; The Dark Side of the All American Meal.” CBS News, 11 Feb.
         2009. Web. 27 Sept. 2011. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main326858.shtml>. 


“Top 10 Dangerous Diseases Caused by Fast Food Obesity”. Nutra Legacy. Web. 
         27 Sept. 2011.< http://www.nutralegacy.com/blog/general-healthcare/top-10-dangerous-diseases-caused-by-fast-   
         food-obesity/>.

Fast Food- Dayna Mazur

     It is undeniable that Americans eat unhealthy. The amount of fast food consumed by individuals on a regular basis is absolutely disgusting. In "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?", Mark Bittman questions the reasoning behind why Americans choose unhealthy fast food over healthier options. Americans claim that fast food is cheaper and additionally, that fast food allows for cheaper calories. 

     Mark Bittman argued that those are excuses and actually invalid. It has been calculated that a family of four can each eat an average meal size at McDonald's  for $28. But, if the family were to cook a roasted chicken with vegetables at home it would only cost $14. It seems crazy that a family would consistently choose to go the unhealthy route despite the fact that the price is double and the nutrition is worse.

     It all revolves around the fact that Americans love convenience, and that is a major problem in our society. When we're driving, there are constant food exits that only consist of greasy fast food. When full-time employees get home from work, they don't want to take the twenty minute drive to the grocery store followed by another twenty minutes of cooking. This issue of convenience relates to much that we talk about in class. We have pollution and wasted energy because we put our convenience before the health of ourselves and our society. We are too lazy to walk places instead of drive, throw away trash instead of walk to a garbage, take the stairs instead of the elevator, turn the lights off when we leave our house, etc. The negative decisions we make, based on convenience, are not only hurting our society but are also hurting our personal health. 

     Elizabeth Nolan Brown, in "Why Do We Coddle Fast Food Consumption?" argued that Mark Bittman fails to acknowledge the fact that Americans, just like in many other cases, are not aware of the damage they are doing by making decisions based on convenience. Supersize Me, a documentary of a man who consumed large amounts of McDonald's, really opened the eyes of Americans by showing how incredibly unhealthy he became. We need more realistic documentaries such as this to understand the seriousness of our lazy decisions, and maybe that will spark in positive change in Americans. 

Here is a 7 minute link to Supersize Me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2diPZOtty0

Brown, Elizabeth N. "Why Do We Coddle Fast Food Consumption? | Blisstree." Blisstree, 26 Sept. 2011. Web. 26 Sept. 2011. <http://blisstree.com/eat/why-do-we-coddle-fast-food-consumption-462/>.

Bittman, Mark. "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?" The New York Times, 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?_r=1>.

Healthcare: Michael Oosterbaan

In “Our Common Future,” the author states that, “Overriding priority should be given to needs, in particular essential needs.”  Following his argument, the most essential need must be the health of the people so the first and most important step towards a sustainable future must be to expand healthcare to everyone in the nation.  Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is supposed to expand healthcare to 34 million out of the over 50 million uninsured Americans.  The plan is taking steps towards a sustainable future, but at what cost to the rest of the population?

The first problem with this plan is that it will cost over one trillion dollars over the next ten years during a time when the economy is crumbling and nation is deeply in debt.  In order to pay for this plan, the government will make major cuts in funding for many government projects, especially Medicare.  They are also increasing taxes for many people and also imposing extra taxes and fees on health industries.  The fees will only account for 63 million dollars out of the one trillion dollar price tag, and these companies will merely increase the prices for their services in order to offset the cost of the fees.

One of the changes that the PPACA makes is called guaranteed issue.  It bans insurance companies from denying coverage or charging increased rates to anyone with preexisting conditions.   Researchers from the Oliver Wyman Company say that changes such as guaranteed issue will force the company to increase average prices for all of their customers because people with preexisting conditions have high medical costs and can no longer be charged more for their extra care.  There are also many other provisions in this bill that will cause insurance costs to rise. (The articles below explain the other provisions and the cost of each one)

Rising healthcare costs is one of the most important issues in the country right now and it will continue to be a problem until a proper plan for reform is in place.  Even though insurance costs have been rising for years, researchers suggest that the PPACA will cause insurance prices to go up by 54% after reform, not including medical inflation.  The bill must be repealed before substantial rate increases begins to take place.  If no changes are made, insurance costs will continue to skyrocket, causing even more people to be left without healthcare.

This nation needs a quality healthcare system that is expansive and inexpensive.  Obama’s plan is taking steps in the right direction, but he does not stop the insurance companies from charging more for healthcare due to the provisions of this bill.  If insurance costs go up by 54% like is predicted, a lot more people will be unable to afford health insurance.  In order to stop this, Obama must get the government to be able to regulate how much insurers charge their customers.  Without proper regulation, prices will skyrocket.

A better method would be to repeal the PPACA and create a new bill that focuses on reducing healthcare costs.  The cost of healthcare is rising every year and the PPACA will only cause these costs to rise even more dramatically.  The government must find a way to lower the cost of healthcare and they have to remain low.  If costs are lowered, more people will be able to afford healthcare so that will in and of itself will expand coverage.  Lower costs coupled with government aid will have a dramatic effect on health coverage and it is a step towards a healthy and sustainable future.

Works Cited

Elmendorf, Douglas W. Congressional Budget Office, 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 2 Mar. 2011. <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf>.

Grau, Jason, and Kurt Giesa. "Impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Costs." Oliver Wyman, 01 Dec. 2009. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. <http://www.oliverwyman.com/ow/pdf_files/YBS009-11-28_PPACA120309.pdf>.  

Grier, Peter. "Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Will Pay for Reform." Christian Science Monitor, 21 Mar. 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform>

H.R. 3590, 111th Cong., Http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590: (2009-2010) (enacted).

Young, Michael. "The Real Costs of Obamacare." Washington Times 28 Dec. 2010: 1. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/ehost/detail?hid=105&sid=237b7ee3-2c21-4649-9ede-0ab46b2c62e1%40sessionmgr110&vid=2&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=nfh&AN=4KB520101228041318000009>. 

Economy - By Grace Gong

Topic: Obama Draws New Hard Line on Long-Term Debt Reduction

In remarks Monday in the Rose Garden, President Obama vowed, “We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.”

By JACKIE CALMES, The New York Times

Published: September 19, 2011

video: 
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/09/19/multimedia/100000001062548/timescast--the-deficit-debate.html

Article Background:

Business magnet Buffett mentioned that United State government should increase the tax to rich people so they could help United State get through the Financial Crisis. Three days ago (Sep. 17), Wall Street got an “Occupy Wall Street” protest. The leaders of the protest seek to gather 20,000 people to sit on Wall Street in Manhattan, trying to force government “tax the rich.”

The Buffett strategy and “Occupy Wall Street” protest were both supported Obama’s speech yesterday (Sep.19). Obama decide to increase taxes to the rich to help Federal Government of United State to pass the Financial Crisis. He will collect taxes from people who earn more than 1,000,000 dollar; the total number of these people was less than 450,000.  If Obama’s propose accomplished, he could make 1.5 billion dollar for the government.

Discussion (Questions)

If Obama’s “tax the rich” strategy is successful he could get vote from poor people and earn money for the government. If not he may not able to get money and he may lose his job. American government basically never passed the “tax the rich” proposal in the past, because of a lot of rich people controlled the power in congress. Do you think Obama’s economy plan will pass or not pass by the congress? Why? How could this proposal stimulate the economy? 

Resources 

 Original article 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/politics/obama-vows-veto-if-deficit-plan-has-no-tax-increases.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

Back ground knowledge. (related, useful resources)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/216307/20110919/occupy-wall-street-protest-nyse-new-york-police-september-17.htm

Green Buildings Can Save the Planet and Our Wallets by Briana Lyon

I think that green architecture is a very important field in sustainability. The U.S. Green Business Council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; also know as LEED, in 1998. (Basic Information, 2010) The LEED certification program has brought stability to a very young field. LEED has helped establish goals and guidelines for an industry that can get very complicated. Today, LEED is the most accepted method of judging how green a building is. (Goffman, 2006) There are many components to LEED certification. It is a thorough system that works to ensure that the plans, construction, and final product are as environmentally conscious as possible.

The one issue that many people have with building these sustainable buildings is a higher up front cost. These buildings are initially more expensive, but they have substantially lower costs in the long run. A state of California study found that LEED buildings cost an average of $4 more per square foot than typical construction but, over twenty years they would generate savings of $48.87 a square foot for standard- and silver-certified buildings, and $67.31 for gold- and platinum-certified buildings. (Stang and Hawthorne, 2005) Many federal, state, and local governments and school districts have adopted various types of LEED initiatives and incentives. Program incentives include tax credits, tax breaks, density bonuses, reduced fees, priority permitting, and low-interest loans. An example is in the state of Nevada where, construction materials for a qualifying LEED building are exempt from local taxes. A 2003 analysis of 60 LEED buildings found that the buildings were on average 25-30% more energy efficient, but it also attributed substantial benefits to the increased productivity from the better ventilation, temperature control, lighting control, and reduced indoor air pollution. (Kats, 2003) Paying extra cost up front for amenities like triple panned windows instead of double-panned windows will help to create a more energy efficient building in the long run. The extra pane you rae paying for allows for better temperature control inside the building. Less heat escapes during winter months and less cool air escapes during summer months.

On top of saving money on energy bills and having a lower impact on the environment, LEED buildings have also been shown to improve productivity of the people working in these buildings. An example of this is using natural lighting versus fluorescent lighting. Daylight has more than twice the amount of light output per unit of heat generated.  Using daylight to illuminate a room can save money. Not only are fluorescent lights expensive, but they also give off heat. This extra heat can lead to extra air conditioner use, which is very costly. Studies also show that employees are happier and more productive in a naturally lit environment. (Goffman, 2006) The Business Instructional Facility at the University of Illinois is the first LEED certified building on campus, and is LEED Platinum certified. This type of commitment to sustainable architecture will not only save the University a significant amount of money, it will also lower its environmental impact.

Check out this link to view the 2009 LEED Project Checklist

http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/documents/envronment_LEED_checklist_2.pdf

Here is a video that discusses the benefits of building a home following LEED certifications. It does a great job detailing the specific positive impacts LEED homes have on the environment and the benefits it has on a homeowner’s wallet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8SDyPg-M6U

Here is a video about how the Empire State building upgraded to become a LEED Certified Building. It brings up a great point of how to improve energy efficiency in existing buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0S5YBO1hec

Here is a link to a photo of the Business Instructional Facility here on campus.

http://www.topboxdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/UIUC-Business-Instructional-Facility-by-Pelli-Clarke-Pelli-Architects-588x346.jpg

Here is a photo that illustrates the costs of LEED

http://www.bestpracticesconstructionlaw.com/uploads/image/costsofleed.jpg

"Basic Information | Green Building |US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. 22 Dec. 2010. Web. 18 Sept. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm>.

Goffman, Ethan. "Green Buildings: Conserving the Human Habitat." CSA. ProQuest, Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Sept. 2011. <http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/green/review3.php>.

Kats, G. H. "Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits." Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. 2003. Web. 19 Sept. 2011. <www.masstech.org/rebate/green_buildings/GreenBuildingspaper.pdf>.

Stang, A., and C. Hawthorne. "The Green House: New Directions in Sustainable Architecture."Princeton Architectural Press (2005): 15. Yale School of Architecture. Web. 19 Sept. 2011. <http://www.architecture.yale.edu/drupal/resources/architecture_gallery/green_house>.

Sign-up Dates

Blog Participation (updated from original syllabus!)

As a communication class, it is vital that you participate by using communication technologies designed for the course, including the class Moodle site, and specifically the Class Blog.

 Throughout the semester we will collectively develop a public blog with weekly article postings and discussions. You are responsible for contributing ONE post on the date that you sign up for.

Requirements for blog postings: Your post can cover any topic related to this course, whether you wish to discuss a personal experience or a reaction to a recent publication or event is entirely up to you. Posts are to be around 200 words, and must include references. Inclusion of videos, photos or other multi-media is encouraged.

Suggested topics:

·      Economy

·      Housing

·      Community development

·      Transportation

·      Energy (oil, coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, fusion...)

·      Environment

·      Severe weather response

·      Pollution

·      Logging

·      Fracking

·      Valuing life

·      Food systems

·      Industrial farming

·      Animal food systems (livestock cultivation)

·      Slow food movements

·      Fast food

·      Organic food

·      Small farms

·      Water

Comments: You are required to post at least FIVE comments on the blog throughout the semester. Comments should be made in response to discussion questions or to generate debate in discussion. Please include links to external information. (Note: you do not need to sign up for dates to comment; commenting counts solely towards your participation on the blog).

Blog Post Sign-up

            DATE                                                NAME                                                TOPIC IDEA

9/13	1. Holly Mcclure 2.	LEEDS
9/20	1. Grace Gong 2. Briana Lyon	Economics Green architecture
9/22	1. Alex Hillmor-McGee 2. Mike Oosterbaan	Value – heath care debate
9/27	1. Paige Quinlan 2. Dayna Mazur	Fast Food
9/29	1. Jenny Schaye 2. Max Mendelson	Energy
10/4	1. Nicole Eads 2. Taylor Zoll	Animal food systems
10/6	1. Kyle Crowe 2. Bryan Emanuel	Fast food
10/11	1. Sam Esles 2. Evan Cohen	Transportation
10/13	1. Danny Bulser 2. Mike Trajkovich	Transportation Transportation
10/18	1. Michael Reiser 2. Thomas Cullen	Alternative energy
10/20	1. Colleen Baisa 2. Liz Toppy	Organic foods Sustainable food systems
10/25	1. Katie Heppard 2. Eric Shamberg	Food production Fast food
10/27	1. Brittney Frazier 2.	Food systems
11/1	1. Kevin Lang 2. Chelsie Johuston	Housing Fast food
11/3	1. Josh Haberkorn 2. Melissa Worker	Severe weather response
11/8	1. Jaclyn Bednar 2.Grace Gong	Housing Energy
11/10	1. 2.
11/15	1. 2.
11/22	1. 2.
11/29	1. 2.