Public Health: Should there be a Sugar Tax?
Thesis: A sugar tax implemented in the U.S. would be beneficial because both the American people and the large corporations must be held accountable for the unethical consumption of sugar, which is burdening our healthcare system.
First, a sugar tax would be beneficial because the companies which produce sugary foods and drinks should be held responsible. For example, many food labels are not entirely transparent about how much sugar is in the food item. Sarah Wilson claims, "More than 80% of products in supermarkets contain (mostly) hidden, added sugar." Another example is that big companies target poor areas of the country with advertising for cheap, unhealthy foods. Profiting off the ignorance of the disadvantaged is unethical. For this reason, these companies should be taxed so that they have to change their marketing or their products.
.
Image Credit: https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/09/news/economy/soda-tax-uk-sugar-revenue/index.html
Next, a sugar tax would be beneficial because consumers need to be held responsible for their personal health. Ultimately, no one can control what everyone consumes at the end of the day, but studies show that "Low-income individuals would reduce consumption the most and they would be the most to benefit in terms of weight-reduction." In other words, people will limit their consumption of sugary foods when it becomes less accessible and thus benefit from them. Another example of personal accountability is found in the science of sugar consumption. Sarah Wilson claims, "It's addictive, and it's the only food molecule on the planet that switches off our appetite hormones." For this reason, consumers should be taxed because research shows that they would benefit from it. After all, the over-consumption of sugar is a problem at the level of the individual.
In conclusion, a sugar tax should be implemented for two reasons: it would help individuals maintain responsible eating habits and personal health goals and promote ethical advertising among big corporations.
Sources: Wilson, Sarah. "I've Heard All the Arguments against a Sugar Tax. I'm Still Calling for one in Australia." The Guardian, April 19, 2016.
This VIDEO weighs some of the pros and cons of the sugar tax implemented in the U.K.
Source: https://twitter.com/sodataxes/status/534535871731884032?cxt=HHwWgIDDpOLihusOAAAA
Thesis: Implementing a sugar tax in the U.S. would be counterproductive and misdirect the focus of the ongoing health crisis because it shifts the responsibility of the American people to food and drink corporations.
While the argument supporting introducing a sugar tax is structurally sound with solid facts, it fails to address the root of the problem, making it fundamentally weak. The position that companies who produce sugary foods and drinks should be taxed to combat increased obesity and other health issues is entirely unfounded. There is somewhat of a gray area in the target of the argument presented in the article. At points author, Sarah Wilson mentions the taxation of sugar as a whole. Still, she mainly narrows the scope of her argument to soft drinks making numerous references to soda companies, even referring to the drink industry as "Big Soda." This two-part argument weakens her overall goal, as she mixes in supportive health facts which generally refer to sugar consumption as a whole with points explicitly made about the dangers of soft drinks.
Wilson's article seemingly works behind the misconception that soft drinks are the "Big, bad wolf," which is the primary contributor to obesity, and that is simply not true. An article from the National Institute of Health titled "Ten Putative Contributors to the Obesity Epidemic" lists the two most prominent factors in the growing health crisis as "Certain food marketing practices" and "Institutionally-driven reductions in physical activity." Further examination of the "food marketing practices" in question reveals several areas potentially responsible, some of which are: Restaurant dining, Vending machines, and High Fructose Corn Syrup Consumption (HFCS - primarily found in soda). To this, the article's writers make a very notable point in stating that HFCS has only been speculated to be a contributor and "it is unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose (table sugar)." The notion presented in this example furthers the idea that a sugar tax would be counterproductive; the focus of the U.S. obesity crisis would be more effective if targeted toward other aspects of sugar consumption and physical activity.
Another weak point in the article which disguised as a strength is the statement, "More than 80% of products in supermarkets contain (mostly) hidden, added sugar …" This point is essentially a straw man argument because the main idea of the article is dedicated to implementing a tax on soda due to its critical role in the obesity crisis. Still, the author makes a point referencing 80% of products in supermarkets. If the soda tax's core argument is that it is unhealthy due to copious amounts of sugar, then I would argue there is no immediate solution to make the drinks cost more. A more straightforward solution would be to directly petition the amounts of sugar available in soft drinks and other sugary products to a federal agency like the FDA. To clarify, my argument is in no way advocating for soda. Still, it is more so aimed at the belief that taxing ample food and drink companies will solve Americans' health crisis. In reality, establishing a tax on food and drink corporations puts the dietary responsibilities on the said industry.
Source:https://twitter.com/sodataxes/photo
- Bryson Guillen
McAllister, Emily J et al. "Ten putative contributors to the obesity epidemic." Critical reviews in food science and nutrition vol. 49,10 (2009): 868-913. doi:10.1080/10408390903372599
Wilson, Sarah. "I've Heard All the Arguments against a Sugar Tax. I'm Still Calling for one in Australia." The Guardian, April 19, 2016.
Comments
Post a Comment