“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 by knowing what good food means and how to make the right choices. Good food should not have a high price, making people dizzy after seeing its price. It should be affordable for everyone so that everyone can choose to get them without worrying about what it takes to actually get them. Whether or not they choose to consume healthy foods should be the only barrier to why people's health is what it is. In his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan outlines the different problems people are currently facing in the American food system, some of which may also be found in other countries. Daily necessary and healthy foods should be the ones that will take over the food industry. Prioritizing the real value and importance of good food for people's health will lead to better diets and health outcomes. On 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 satisfy people's needs and at the same time shape them to their advantage based on what will give them the most profits. These important issues outlined in Pollan's book can also be reflected in Holly Bauer's book, Food Matters. Expensive sustainable foods, fast food chains, and government support of the industrial food chain are some of the major issues outlined in both books mentioned above. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The alternative food chain, no matter how popular it is becoming, has always remained more expensive. The subsidies that the government gave to industrialized farmers made their products cheaper. Government standardization imposed on the organic movement has also given rise to industrial organic food, whose products cost a little less than those of pastoralists. According to Pollan, in his observation at the farm, “If you buy one at the farm, a Polyface chicken costs $2.05 a pound, compared to $1.29 at the local supermarket. . . having to bring cattle and hogs to the Harrisonburg packing plant adds a dollar for every pound of beef or pork sold by Polyface and two dollars for 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-priced goods. They tend to opt for low-priced foods to get as many calories as possible and use the extra money for something else. Sustainable food will continue to be more expensive unless the price of industrial food is reflected in its real cost. Manufacturers who take pride in what they produce claim that the cost of their product is actually cheaper because of the benefits and advantages it offers to those who receive it. In the eyes of consumers it is the opposite because they do not know the subsidies granted to large industrial food chains and the health risks that arise from their products. This is why food influencers and the government should step up and take responsibility because their opinions greatly influence people's decisions. As Antoñanzas and Rodríguez-Ibeas conclude, “tax policies that increase the price of unhealthy food and discourage its consumption, educational campaigns. . . affect the emotional/health costs that iconsumers experience when they consume the product unhealthy” (Antoñanzas). Using their advertising and influence will have a big impact on how people choose their food. Having higher prices for unhealthy foods instead of the other way around will promote the consumption of healthier and more sustainable foods. Furthermore, knowing that their choices are supported by those with higher knowledge and scientific evidence, people will choose wisely and opt for healthy foods. Limited access to the money needed to afford a completely different variety of healthy foods leaves people living in low-income areas dependent on what they can afford. This barrier puts them at particularly high risk of being obese. Obesity, diabetes and other consequences of an unhealthy diet also pose a greater risk of stroke, kidney failure, cardiovascular disease and other illnesses. 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 they should bother spending so much money on organic foods when they can simply get more food for the same amount of money through different types of industrial foods available to them. It's true that the price of food has a big impact on whether or not a person buys sustainable food. This choice will determine what they put into their body and what becomes of it. Not only is the cost of organic produce more expensive, but as Pollan said, finding it is another undertaking unto 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 getting healthy foods. People usually go to farmers markets if they are looking for organic foods. These types of markets don't offer the wide variety of food choices that a supermarket does. Vileisis underlined that “shopping at the farmers' market is certainly less convenient than shopping at the supermarket. You must go at the appointed time and you will not find everything you are used to gathering all year round” (Vileisis 240). The availability of the products you are looking for is also limited. The products offered depend on seasonality. This availability makes the product more expensive than its industrial counterparts sold in stores. The desire for these seasonal products represents a huge benefit to the industrial food system. People choose supermarkets not only for the lower prices, but also for their convenience and availability, as Bauer pointed out. Fast food chains have been extremely successful commercially. Health-wise, not so much. All around there is industrial meal after industrial meal, making up the majority of the American food system. They are readily available 24/7 and do not take much time to prepare. It's where most people eat most of the time. As Pollan stated in his book, “If you're on one of the lower rungs of the American economic ladder, our cornified food chain offers real benefits: not exactly cheap food. . . , but cheap calories. . . however, 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 provides many calories. Adding up the total amount of fast food calories an average person buys for their meal usually results in theconsumption of more than half of the daily requirement. For some people, eating fast food is an everyday thing. This results in malnutrition and increased potential risk of obesity. Fast food is unhealthy. Some healthy ingredients do not result in a healthy eating outcome. Fast food restaurants have long depended on soft drink sales for profits. This cheap drink is not only cheap in price, but also low in calories, as Pollan claimed. It might cost someone just a few dollars to buy soda from a restaurant, but it only costs them less than a quarter for each soda sold. This type of sugary drink is the main source of added sugars 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 fast food drink contains about double that, about 17-20 teaspoons of sugar” (Gustafson). As one of the sources of fast food revenue and a regular daily drink for some people, it carries many health risks. Soda consumption has increased the epidemic of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and other health problems worldwide. Fast food chains don't care about people's health as long as their profits keep growing. Every couple of miles you'll find a fast food chain to satisfy your hunger. They are high in fat and high in calories, but very low in nutrients. Junk food advertising doesn't help, it only encourages viewers to eat more of it. It paints this big picture of a very filling 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 so much time and money getting children to eat these types of foods because they know how much influence they have on their parents. Another option they added is the salad menu and it has been a big hit ever since. As Pollan said, it's a way to "deny the denier," a technique used by children to further persuade or bribe their parents. This only explains why fast food is consumed a lot, especially by children, even though it is not very nutritious and only worsens a person's health. Fast food restaurants are literally everywhere. They are promoted relentlessly. Its convenience isn't the only reason why it's popular, it's also touted as a mouth-watering food that someone can't afford to miss. It is marketed through radio, television and billboards that target adults and children, who are more vulnerable to their deceptions. Based on Bernhardt's research, “In 2006, U.S. QSR chains reported to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they spent $161 million on marketing to children ages 2 to 11. Of the money spent by QSR chains, $74.4 million went to cross-promotions. . . It is estimated that another $360 million was spent on prizes on the toys themselves” (Bernhardt 265). All this money spent on advertising fast food chains is bound to alter the food choices or preferences of a huge population. This promotes large industrial food companies in the hope of acquiring more and more customers. They promote a lot of cheap unhealthy foods, which only adds to thenumber of people facing malnutrition and other health risks. If you think about it, the government has a lot to say about each person's health. Government regulations make it more difficult for small organic or artisanal farmers to produce and sell their products. Furthermore, processing their products is made impossible by oneself because they do not allow it and sometimes say it is a waste of time since they do not produce the same results as their industrial counterpart. As Pollan elaborated from Salatin's explanation, "Such regulations favor the largest industrial meat producers, who can spread the costs of compliance over the millions of animals they process each year" (Pollan 229). Government-imposed standardization of food gives the industrial food chain the upper hand. These advantages help them place artisanal businesses lower in the food chain because they are designed to regulate large businesses and at the same time are well suited to govern smaller businesses. According to Pollan, “USDA regulations specify exactly what type of facility and system is allowed, but do not set thresholds for foodborne pathogens” (Pollan 229), which only increases the price of products from small, artisanal producers since they must transport their products to a federally inspected facility. The government gives more priority to unhealthy foods than healthy ones, which will reduce national expenditures on health care and environmental cleanup. Just as Salatin stated, economic efficiency in food production is a big priority for the American food system. They don't care whether the product is healthy or not, as long as the yield meets their standards. They prefer those who can produce and sell more than those whose product quality gives better results. Government regulations should change and support sustainable local foods instead. One study suggests a solution which is “implementing Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) in meat, poultry, seafood and juice plants. . . It requires establishments to identify food safety risks that are most likely to occur and then implement effective measures to prevent, eliminate, or reduce risks from occurring” (Keller 2). This will force industrial food companies to take greater responsibility for their products. This responsibility, which is one of the reasons why some farmers prefer artisanal farming, will demonstrate to consumers that they only want their money and that they really care about their product. They will take more precise consideration of the safety of their product, ensuring that it does not pose any danger to the consumer. This solution will also help buyers make the right and most informed decision. The government's mindset and structure towards food standardization should change. A chicken is not just a chicken and an egg is not just an egg. Subsidies given by the government should be given to organic foods. Foods that will help people be healthy and stay healthy. As Khullar suggested in his article, “By subsidizing fresh fruits and vegetables and supporting restaurants and vendors who offer healthy alternatives, we could create an economic environment more conducive to healthy eating” (Bauer 136-137). This will help organic farmers stay in line with their ideals. This will also prevent them from moving away from it due to all the implications that come with being a successful organic farmer. Actions taken by the government regarding the food industry will greatly influence people's decisions and their.