What Food Says About Class In America By Lisa Miller

Food has become part of our social status. Those who have money get to enjoy healthy organic options, while those who live on food stamps and low incomes get sugary packaged foods that are harmful to the body. In “What Food says about Class in America,” Lisa Miller, a health food enthusiast and bystander to the food problem, effectively captures the American people’s attention through descriptive imagery, alluring metaphors, and academic diction, but contradicts herself and fails to convince her target audience of the food corporations that a change is needed.

Opening her article, Miller describes her family’s breakfast habits trying to relate herself to an average person. She begins the article by saying, “I usually have a cappuccino mixed

The idea that food is fashion is exactly what they want. When food is seen as an accessory it sells like clothing and electronics. Better quality equals a higher cost. Maximizing profits is in the best interest of the companies which means that they would rather produce cheap food of a lower quality or high-quality food at an expensive cost, than high quality for a low-cost. Therefore, Miller is unsuccessful in trying to appeal to the emotional nature of her audience. Companies have to make a choice between making a profit and providing cheap food. In her article Miller is asking these companies to stop making a profit and instead offer cheap healthy food because people are suffering. While this may be a good cause, it is not a feasible cause. If they do people will have to be laid off and some companies would have to close. This is not a smart business move for them, so they will not be willing to change. Miller’s attempts at an emotional appeal fail because these corporations are restricted in the changes they can make, and people having jobs is more important that offering cheap high-quality

She includes, “Even more idiosyncratic than our obsession with nutrition, says Fischler, is that Americans see food choice as a matter of personal freedom, an inalienable right” (6). Even if these food corporations made a change it does not guarantee that it would fix this problem. Just because companies offer good quality fruits and vegetables cheaply does not mean that people will eat them. Even if Miller was able to convince some of the corporate employees to investigate providing cheap high-quality food, by mentioning that it could potentially not help the food crisis Miller unintentionally proves that making a change may not be the best option. If the companies were to lower prices they would need to sell higher quantities of products, to try to salvage the profit. However, by implying that people want to have a choice in food it signifies that there may only be a small increase in revenue but with higher starting costs it will result in a negative profit. By including this quote in her argument, Miller undermines her argument and proves that this solution may be