I am reviewing cnevans1 post “Early Life and Childhood Prompt 1”. Their discussion of parents and future parents being incredibly vulnerable consumers is spot on. I have seen this first hand when my cousins and other family members have babies on the way. I believe that it would be very beneficial for a new parent or parent to be to read this post because it discusses the differences between a child’s wants, a child’s needs, and what a parent thinks the child needs. This comparison is the strongest part of cnevans1’s discussion because so often these three subjects become cloudy and it can be difficult to differentiate between wants, needs, and expectations. I wanted to read more about this topic when they discussed C-sections and natural birth. My mother had a C-section that saved our lives, my half sister had two emergency C-sections, and so many other women have C-sections for a variety of reasons. Recently, it has become normal to shame women for having C-sections. I have seen women tell other women that they are not real mothers and should be ashamed of themselves for not having a natural birth. And this breaks my heart because if anyone said anything like that to my mom, I would want to break them. I would love to do more research into the stigma behind C-sections and how to break that stigma. I would give cnevans1 a 3.5 out of 4 for this post. It was in depth and discussed multiple aspects of new parenthood and what it is like to be expecting a child.
For my peer-reviewed comment, I decided to review thejenetic’s food prompt 1.
- From reading this contribution, I learned that there are over 61 names that added sugars can be listed in food and nutrition labels under. This was surprising to me because it seems somewhat deceptive that companies would try and add certain ingredients that are unhealthy for us and change the name so we aren’t aware.
- It would be good for a parent to read this contribution because of how well you went in depth about childhood obesity and its correlation to sugar intake. You mentioned how child obesity has risen from 7% to 18% since the 1970s in 6-11 year olds. Unfortunately this is not surprising because of the unhealthy diets that most Americans engage in.
- The strongest (or most credible) part of this contribution is your summarization of the study done using 43 cocaine-addicted rats to prove that sugar is more addicting than cocaine. This is a strong study and it was very nicely and briefly recapped by you.
- Something that someone might question about this contribution is what kind of actions did the Obama Administration take in order to improve the nutritional standards of school lunches?
- One part that I had to read more than once in order to understand it is that there was a law that was passed allowing tomato sauce on pizza to be considered a vegetable serving. I read this multiple times, not because there was an error in your work, but because it just sounds so appalling to think that somehow pizza was considered a vegetable. Leave it to Americans, right?
- Your work was well thought out and ultimately error free. There was only one minor slip up in the last paragraph of your contribution where you said “It makes me angry how dishonest our food industry.” Where it should be “It makes me angry how dishonest our food industry IS.”
- One part that made me want to read more on this topic is all the possible diseases that can come from too much sugar intake. Things such as cardiovascular disease, high triglycerides and hypertension. Even though, as you also mentioned, added sugar is in 74% of packaged foods. IT is crazy to think about how business oriented this country is and how they are more concerned with the sales of product than what we are consuming and putting into our bodies.
- On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 4 overall, because you provided a well organized response that included specific case studies and actual statistics to prove your points. Your recommendation noted at the end about consumers pushing for better guidelines could not be more spot on. It is clear that we can’t trust the government to do it, so it is up to us as consumers to step in and make a change.
For my peer review I decided to review “Pharma Prompt 1” by jdie4. From reading this contribution I learned that drug companies hire actors to act like doctors to try to convince potential customers through direct-to-consumer ads that the drugs are endorsed by doctors. Due to these drug advertisements, many consumers will ask for the drug by name and doctors are more likely to prescribe it to them because it was explicitly asked for, rather than just buy the generic drug that may work better. These ads also cause some people to self-diagnose their problems based on the symptoms the drug commercial lists off. People should not be doing this based on commercials, they should go to their doctor for an accurate diagnosis.
It would be good for a person with health problems looking for a drug to solve the problem so that they realize that they should not listen to those ads. Instead, they should talk to their doctor rather than basing themselves off of information provided by the drug commercial that has no strict guidelines for what exactly is to be included in the commercial, making the commercials misleading.
The strongest parts of this contribution are the numbered talking points, making the information presented easy to find and straightforward, the quote cited from an article that helps back up the argument being made, and the call to action in the last paragraph as to what should be done over the drug advertisements. The call to action says, “have actual medical doctors endorse the drugs…Doctors should also be encouraged to inform their patients who come asking for these big-name drugs about alternatives and generics.”
The weakest part of this contribution is that there are no citations as to where the information talked about in the prompt was from. What is the article that was being discussed?
The contribution is straightforward and jdie4 makes it an easy read. I did not need to read it several times to understand what was being discussed and there were no typos or grammar/punctuation errors.
On a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 3 because although the article was very good, it was not cited. I know that jdie4 wrote about direct to consumer ads, but not where the information discussed is from.