“You don't need a silver fork to eat good food,” said Paul Prudhomme. Good food leads to good mood. It can also lead to a healthier lifestyle, provided you know what good nutrition means and how to make the right choices. Good food should not have a high price, which makes people turn their heads after seeing its price. It should be convenient for everyone, so that everyone has the choice to get it without worrying about what it takes to actually get it. Whether or not they choose to eat healthy foods, that should be the only reason why people's health is what it is. Throughout Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, he describes different issues that people currently face in the American food system, some of which can be seen in other countries as well. Daily necessary and healthy foods should be those that dominate the food industry. Prioritizing the true value and importance of good nutrition for population health will lead to better nutrition and better health. During his journey, he realized that most of these problems are the result of our ever-changing appetites, taken for granted by the industrial food system. They meet the needs of the people while shaping them to their advantage based on what will give them a higher profit. These major issues described in Pollan's book can also be reflected in Holly Bauer's book, Food Matters. Expensive sustainable food, fast food chains, and government support for the industrial food chain are some of the major issues highlighted in the two aforementioned books. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The alternative food chain, no matter how popular it has become, has always remained more expensive. Government subsidies to industrialized farmers made their products cheaper. Government standardization imposed on the organic movement also gave rise to industrial organic food whose products cost somewhat less than pastoral agricultural products. According to Pollan, in his observation at the farm: “If you buy one at the farm, a Polyface chicken costs $2.05 per pound, compared to $1.29 at the local supermarket. . . having to transport beef and hogs to the Harrisonburg packing plant adds a dollar to every pound of beef or pork that Polyface sells, and two dollars to every pound of ham or bacon” (Pollan 235-236). People who do not have a stable income or are on a limited budget would clearly opt for low-cost products. They tend to opt for cheaper foods in order to get as many food calories as possible and use the extra money for something else. Sustainable foods will continue to be more expensive unless the price of industrial foods reflects their true cost. Producers who are proud of what they produce claim that the cost of their product is actually cheaper because of the benefits it provides to the recipient. In the eyes of the consumer, it is the opposite, because they are unaware of the subsidies granted to large industrial food chains and the health risks linked to their products. This is why food influencers and the government should step in and take matters into their own hands, as their opinions have a huge impact on people's decisions.people. As Antoñanzas and Rodríguez-Ibeas conclude, “tax policies that increase the price of unhealthy foods and discourage their consumption, educational campaigns…. . . affect the emotional and health costs that consumers experience when consuming the unhealthy product” (Antoñanzas). Using their advertising and influence will have a huge impact on how people choose their food. Raising the prices of unhealthy foods, not the other way around, will encourage the consumption of healthier, more sustainable foods. Additionally, knowing that their choices are supported by people with higher knowledge and scientific evidence, people will choose wisely and opt for healthy foods. Limited access to the money needed to afford a whole different variety of healthy foods forces people in low-income areas to depend on what they can afford. This obstacle places them at a particularly higher risk of obesity. Obesity, diabetes and other consequences of poor diet also lead to a higher risk of stroke, kidney failure, cardiovascular disease and other diseases. In Bauer's book, Khullar mentions, "You can buy 2,000 calories for less than $10 at your neighborhood McDonald's, but you have a hard time getting your hands on an apple" (Bauer 137). Many people always end up wondering why would they bother spending so much money on organic foods when they can simply get more food for the same amount of money through the different types of industrial foods released at their disposal. It is true that the price of food has a huge impact on a person's decision whether or not to purchase sustainable food. This choice will determine what they put in their body and what happens. Not only is the cost of organic produce higher, but as Pollan said, discovering them is another feat in itself. Finding a place to buy sustainable food is another story: not only are you wasting gas or money on transportation, but you're also wasting time. These reasons add up to the total money spent on obtaining healthy foods. People usually go to farmers' markets if they are looking for organic foods. These types of markets do not offer a wide variety of food choices like a supermarket does. Vileisis pointed out that “shopping at a farmers market is certainly less convenient than shopping at a supermarket. You have to go there at the appointed time and you don't find everything you're used to picking up all year long” (Vileisis 240). The availability of the products you are looking for is also limited. The products offered are based on their seasonality. This availability makes the product more expensive than its industrial counterparts sold in stores. Cravings for these seasonal products are a huge boon to the industrial food system. People choose supermarkets not only for their lower prices, but also for their convenience and availability, as Bauer pointed out. Fast food chains have enjoyed enormous commercial success. Health-wise, not so much. All around, industrial meals follow one another, constituting the bulk of the American food system. They are available 24/7 and do not take much time to prepare. This is where most people eat most of the time. As Pollan said in his book: "If you're on one of the lower rungs of the American economic ladder, our cornified food chain offers real advantages: not exactly good foodwalk. . . , but cheap calories. . . however, the eater pays a high price for these cheap calories: obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease” (Pollan 117). When people buy fast food for their meal, they buy many different things. Each of these foods alone contains a lot of calories. Adding up the total amount of fast food calories the average person buys for their meal typically results in an consumption of more than half of what they need in a day. For some people, eating fast food is part of everyday life. This leads to malnutrition and a higher potential risk of obesity. Fast food is not healthy. Some healthy ingredients do not result in a healthy dietary outcome. Fast food restaurants have long depended on their soda sales for profits. This cheap drink is not only cheap in terms of price, but it also contains cheap calories, as Pollan argued. It may only cost someone a few dollars to buy a soda at a restaurant, but it only costs them less than a quarter for each soda sold. This type of sugary drink is the largest source of added sugar in our diet. Its high added sugar content results in higher calories. According to Gustafson, "The American Heart Association recommends that women consume no more than 6 teaspoons of added sugar per day, and men no more than 9 teaspoons." . . and a typical large soda from a fast food restaurant contains about twice that amount, or about 17 to 20 teaspoons of sugar” (Gustafson). Being one of the sources of income for fast food and a regular daily drink for some people, it comes with many health risks. Soda consumption has increased the epidemic of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and other health problems around the world. Fast food chains don't care about people's health as long as their profits continue to grow. Every few miles you'll find a fast food chain to satisfy your hunger. They are high in fat and calories, but very low in nutrients. Junk food advertising doesn't help, it only encourages viewers to eat more of it. It paints the overall picture of a very hearty and satisfying meal on the cheap. You'll see more larger portions and fewer healthy, quality foods. According to Khullar, "the food industry spends nearly $2 billion marketing its products to children, and evidence suggests that children exposed to junk food advertising express a greater preference for these types of foods" ( Bauer 137). The food industry spends a lot of time and money getting children to eat these types of foods because they know the influence they have on their parents. Another option they added is the salad menu and it has been very successful since then. As Pollan said, it's a way of "denying the denier," a technique used by children to coax or bribe their parents even further. This only explains why fast food is consumed a lot, especially by children, even though it is not very nutritious and only makes a person's health bad or worse. Fast food restaurants are literally everywhere. They are constantly promoted. Its convenience is not the only reason why it is popular, it is also touted as that mouth-watering food that someone cannot afford to miss. It is marketed on radio, television and on billboardsdisplays targeting adults and children, who are more vulnerable to their deception. According to Bernhardt's research, “In 2006, U.S. QSR chains reported to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they spent $161 million marketing to children ages 2 to 11. Of the money spent by QSR channels, $74.4 million was spent on cross-promotions. . . An additional $360 million is estimated to have been spent on the toy bounties themselves” (Bernhardt 265). This amount of money spent on advertising for fast food chains is sure to change the food choice or preferences of a huge population. This encourages large industrial food companies hoping to attract more and more customers. They promote a lot of unhealthy foods at low prices, which only increases the number of people facing malnutrition and other health risks. The government has a lot to say about everyone's health if you think about it. Government regulations make it more difficult for small organic or artisanal farmers to produce and sell their products. The processing of their products is also made impossible to do on their own because they don't allow it and sometimes they say it's a waste of time because they don't give as much results as their industrial counterparts. As Pollan explained from Salatin's explanation, "such regulations favor larger industrial meatpackers, who can spread the costs of compliance across the millions of animals they process each year." (Pollan 229). The standardization imposed by the government in food matters gives the upper hand to the industrial food chain. These advantages help them place cottage businesses below the food chain, as they are designed to regulate large businesses and have been adapted to run small businesses at the same time. According to Pollan, "USDA regulations specify precisely what types of facilities and systems are permitted, but they do not set thresholds for foodborne pathogens" (Pollan 229), which only increase the price of products from small artisanal producers since they must transport their products to a federally inspected facility. The government is prioritizing unhealthy foods more than healthy foods, which will reduce national health care spending health and environmental cleaning. Just as Salatin stated, economic efficiency in food production is a high priority for the American food system. They don't care whether the product is healthy or not, as long as its performance meets their standards. They favor those who can produce and sell more over those whose product quality produces better results. Government regulations should change and instead support sustainable local foods. One study suggests a solution which is “the implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) in meat, poultry, seafood and juice establishments. . . It requires establishments to identify the food safety hazards most likely to occur and then implement effective measures to prevent, eliminate or reduce those hazards” (Keller 2). This will force food companies to take greater responsibility for their products. This responsibility, which is one of the reasons why some farmers prefer artisanal farming, will show consumers who.