#danlong

Rhetorical Intervention Assignment

Introduction         Taxation is theft! Many cities in the U.S. have passed legislation favoring a tax on sugary beverages. The health care industry is lobbying for these taxes because they are paying more out of pocket for health problems they claim are directly related to sugary beverages. Meanwhile, the beverage industry has experienced less consumption of sugary beverages in areas affected by the tax, which has caused them to lay off employees due to lack of demand resulting in less supply needed. I care about this topic because consumers should not be burdened by additional taxes due to other consumers’ irresponsible consumption.

Section One

        The purpose of my campaign is to create awareness by contacting the American Beverage Association (ABA). I would like to show them that this sugar tax exists, yet nobody is attacking cereal, candy, or any other foods containing sugar. Some cities have even excluded sugary juices containing a small trace of actual fruit juice from the tax. I believe the beverage industry is the victim of a specific attack. If this isn’t true, then why isn’t the health care industry challenging these other products containing sugar? I would like people to understand that taxing sugar is a short term solution because there is an immediate decrease in consumption in most cases where legislation has been passed, but this fades over time as consumers tend to purchase what makes them happy. I want to encourage consumers to research this legislation so they have an opportunity to prevent it from happening. Luckily, Michigan has been proactive by passing legislation banning these taxes, so my target audience is Americans living in areas where there has not been legislation passed on either side of the discussion. The more informed our society is, the better we can combat these taxes before they are enacted. Consumers of sugary beverages understand sugar is bad for their health, and they care about children’s health, so they will blindly follow the argument that sugary beverages are bad. Consumers must understand they need to consume responsibly, and they currently are not, which causes increased costs for health care providers. Consumers should also know health care providers are for profit businesses. The premiums consumers currently pay for insurance should cover the expenses caused by over consumption, but the heal care industry is greedy. They don’t want to spend their own money combating child obesity. Instead, they want to tax the beverages, which burdens the consumer with the responsibility of funding child obesity programs. Consumes must also respect the impact these laws have on the beverage industry. Locations where the taxes are in effect have seen a short term decrease in consumption resulting in employee layoffs due to less demand causing less need for supply.

  Section Two

        Mt. Dew, Coca Cola, and Pepsi are popular, delicious beverages consumed by millions of Americans daily, but some groups are spending millions of dollars trying to impose taxes on sugar beverages, while others are spending even more money fighting the legislation. The American Beverage Association (ABA) has teamed up with some large fast food restaurants like McDonalds and Burger King in an effort to halt the taxes. On the other end of the argument is the health care industry. They claim sugar is consumed irresponsibly and society is consuming these beverages at a rate that is poorly affecting their personal health. Health Care Providers like The American Heart Association state this over-consumption is leading to rises in health related issues like type 2 diabetes, heart related issues, and obesity, which costs them more money. Why are these groups spending millions lobbying legislation, and what do they stand to lose or gain? The purpose behind the tax is to increase the price resulting in a reduction in demand, which affects the supply required by merchants to fulfill their customers demand. As a result, beverage industries are forced to lay off employees due to less consumer spending on their sugary drinks. Another significant downside to the tax resulting in an increase in price falls on consumers who will be paying more to curb their sweet tooth, but only concerning beverages.

         Patz wrote a relevant article titled, “Is Sugar Really That Bad For You?”.  Its purpose is to enlighten and educate readers that sugar consumption is acceptable and encouraged with an emphasis on strategic ingestion. It discusses the sugar supplements that are safe like Splenda and Equal, but it also analyzes the substitutes that can potentially cause health issues. She notes raw sugar is not any better than processed sugar because fructose tends to holdup in the liver for longer. This indicates the sugar beverage industry is singled out from the other sugar suppliers like candy makers Mars, Nestle, and Hersey’s. It also portrays how sugar consumption can be done responsibly. (1 Patz)

         Every year, the American Beverage Association (2 ABA) spends millions of dollars attempting to disband the possibility that the sugar in their products can pose harmful effects. An article on BeverageDaily.com describes a scenario where the ABA and, authors of the article, do not agree with the validity of a US study suggesting overconsumption of sugar beverages could have adverse effects upon heart disease risk. The original US study is published in the American Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, which is a scientific journal published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins in the United States. I need to help the ABA create awareness by exploiting the double standard, which is costing millions to defend themselves. (3 De Koning)

Section Three

        The American Beverage Association has a website dedicated to current events surrounding these taxes as well as other beverage related issues. I chose this platform because their members consist of distributers, manufacturers, and retail operations, so the audience is vast and would have an interest in propaganda opposing the sugar tax. They also have their own websites that they could utilize to spread the message. Some of the larger members like Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co., and McDonalds could run advertisements on the radio, television, and other forms of social media. Most of the advertising would be relatively cheap, and perhaps they could use my idea to make a more professionally constructed video. (2 ABA)

Section Four

        I believe the strongest form of media would be YouTube advertisements. They can be short, direct, and will reach a vast audience. The advertisements could be coordinated with YouTube videos that cover a variety of topics including health, fitness, political propaganda, and whatever the professional marketing team at the ABA believes could be effective. The majority of consumers viewing material on YouTube are typically younger and the material in my message would impact their decisions because their age group is the largest purchasers of sugary beverages. Youtube videos have the option to skip advertisements that are too long, so keeping them under 30 seconds would be beneficial in keeping the viewers engaged in the message.

Conclusion

        The topic of sugar and health seems to be convoluted by the potential of profit. The ABA maintains their stance that their products are unfairly scrutinized alongside other sugar products that are not taxed. The health industry stands firm that sugary beverages are causing a health epidemic in the U.S. that is primarily affecting our youth. Both sides have backed their arguments with extensive research and millions of dollars spent on lobbying legislatures to pass or deny new and existing sugar taxes. Consumers must understand that taxation is a temporary, ineffective, and biased way to control consumption of sugary beverages. The health care providers are multibillion dollar companies who are interested in profits. Their motive is to save money by placing more financial responsibility on the consumers as they purchase products they deem hazardous to health.

  Works Cited:

Patz, Aviva. “Is Sugar Really That Bad For You?”. https://www.prevention.com/author/aviva-patz. Accessed Nov. 2017. http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20637702,00.html. Accessed Nov. 2017.

http://www.ameribev.org/

Rhetorical Intervention Assignment

Introduction Taxation is theft! Many Cities in the U.S. have passed legislation favoring a tax on sugary beverages. The health care industry is lobbying for these taxes because they are paying more out of pocket for health problems they claim are directly related to sugary beverages. Meanwhile, the beverage industry has experienced less consumption of sugary beverages in areas affected by the tax, which has caused them to lay off employees due to lack of demand resulting in less supply needed. I care about this topic because consumers should not be burdened by additional taxes due to other consumers’ irresponsible consumption.

Section One

The purpose of my campaign is to create awareness that this sugar tax exists, and that nobody is attacking cereal, candy, or any other foods containing sugar. Some cities have even excluded sugary juices containing a small trace of actual fruit juice from the tax. I believe the beverage industry is the victim of a specific attack. If this isn’t true, then why isn’t the health care industry challenging these other products containing sugar? I would like people to understand that taxing sugar is a short term solution because there is an immediate decrease in consumption in most cases where legislation has been passed, but this fades over time as consumers tend to purchase what makes them happy. I want to encourage consumers to research this legislation so they have an opportunity to prevent it from happening. Luckily, Michigan has been proactive by passing legislation banning these taxes, so my target audience is Americans living in areas where there has not been legislation passed on either side of the discussion. The more informed our society is, the better we can combat these immoral taxes before they are enacted. The audience currently understands sugar is bad for your health, and they care about children’s health, so they will blindly follow the argument that sugary beverages are bad. Consumers must understand they need to consume responsibly, and they currently are not, which causes increased costs for health care providers. Consumers should also know health care providers are for profit businesses. The premiums we currently pay for insurance should cover the expenses caused by over consumption, but the heal care industry is greedy. They don’t want to spend their own money combating child obesity. Instead, they want to tax the beverages, which burdens the consumer with the responsibility of funding child obesity programs. Consumes must also respect the impact these laws have on the beverage industry. Locations where the taxes are in effect have seen a short term decrease in consumption resulting in employee layoffs due to less demand causing less need for supply.

Section Two

             Mt. Dew, Coca Cola, and Pepsi are popular, delicious beverages consumed by millions of Americans daily, but some groups are spending millions of dollars trying to impose taxes on sugar beverages, while others are spending even more money fighting the legislation. The American Beverage Association (ABA) has teamed up with some large fast food restaurants like McDonalds and Burger King in an effort to halt the taxes. On the other end of the argument is the health care industry. They claim sugar is consumed irresponsibly and society is consuming these beverages at a rate that is poorly affecting their personal health. Health Care Providers state this over-consumption is leading to rises in health related issues like type 2 diabetes and obesity, which costs them more money. One benefit of the tax is that the U.S. Government is using the funds to promote healthier lifestyles for children. Why are these groups spending millions lobbying legislation, and what do they stand to lose or gain? The purpose behind the tax is to increase the price resulting in a reduction in demand, which affects the supply required by merchants to fulfill their customers demand. As a result, beverage industries are forced to lay off employees due to less consumer spending on their sugary drinks. Another significant downside to the tax resulting in an increase in price falls on consumers who will be paying more to curb their sweet tooth.  

              I found this image by searching, “does sugar make you fat”. It is sponsored by Just for Hearts, which is a leading workplace wellness company, and their website is listed on the image. The website is filled with links on healthy living, fighting obesity, and conquering addiction, and there are no sponsored ads adding to the credibility of the information provided.

              In the picture, the woman is clearly overweight. She is struggling to button her pants, which appear a few sizes smaller than she should be trying on. The half logos half pathos advertisement leads readers to believe this weight gain is due to sugar consumption, and they even show 3 heaping spoons full of sugar in the background of the photo indicating that all types of sugar are unhealthy, and it says, “Did You Know? Eating too much sugar makes you fat”. The word, “sugar” is capitalized and strategically placed directly under the word, “Eating”.  The intent is to help the reader make the connection between eating sugar and the image on the left. The bottom right corner displays an attractive woman eating something that looks like yogurt, which is generally believed to be healthy. Studies show the majority of people consume sugar irresponsibly, which leads to health issues. (1)

             This type of advertising could help people overcome their dependency on sugar because it manipulates consumers into comparing themselves to the image on the left, while deep down they wish they looked like the image on the right. It is a form of pathos shame advertising, and this example places the blame for your obesity solely on sugar and consumers lack of self-control. The image includes a helpline number in case you need some extra help staying away from sugar.

             The following is from an article on sciencedirect.com. It details the cost effectiveness of a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax in the U.S. The premise for the study quantifies the potential health and economic benefits of a national sugar tax on beverages at a tax rate of $.01 per ounce over 10 years. Based on their calculations, there should be a 3% discount to costs and health gains based on 2015 U.S. population information. The results are interesting and they claim that implementing the tax nationally would cost $51 million in the first year. The tax would reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption by 20% and mean Body Mass Index (BMI) by 0.16 units among youth and 0.08 units among adults in the second year for a cost of $3.16 per BMI unit reduced. From 2015 to 2025, the policy would result in $23.6 billion in healthcare cost savings. The tax would generate $12.5 billion in annual revenue. (Cost Effectiveness of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in the U.S. This information is significant because it describes the potential benefits of a sugar tax on a nationwide level. (2-Carter)

             The authors of the article are all professionals in the medical industry (Dr. Md. PHd.), and their logos approach forces you to acknowledge that there are benefits to a sugar tax, and that there is a serious issue with obesity in our youth. The authors’ logos approach is supported by providing mathematical calculations based on anticipated outcomes and consumer reactions to the tax. Long, Gortmaker, Ward, and Resch are all Harvard graduates and have several years of experience in the health field. Each author has been published numerous times and many of their studies are based around child obesity. 

             The monetary figures produced by the equation represent an opportunity for the healthcare providers to save $2.36 billion each year, so it is obvious why they are pushing for this legislation to pass in more and more Cities, States, and potentially Countrywide. If sugar is bad for health, then why are they only targeting the beverage industry?   

             Another relevant article is titled, “Is Sugar Really That Bad For You?”. The authors name is Aviva Patz and she is a “clean-eating, vegetarian beauty junkie”. Patz has been covering multiple wellness topics including health, mental health, nutrition, and relationships for nearly 25 years. Aviva also fronts an alt-rock band, The Hey Honeys, based in Montclair, New Jersey. Patz’s Linkedin profile indicates she is currently a member of the Reader’s Digest Association and has former involvement with Weight Watchers International and Fitness Magazine. Patz is also a graduate of Columbia University where she enrolled in the Graduate School of Journalism. There are not many ads on the website, so that increases the credibility of the source. (3 Patz)

             Patz wrote this article on health.com and can be located in the home – food section of the website to enlighten and educate readers that sugar consumption is acceptable and encouraged with an emphasis on strategic ingestion. It discusses the sugar supplements that are safe like Splenda and Equal, but it also analyzes the substitutes that can potentially cause health issues. She notes raw sugar is not any better than processed sugar because fructose tends to holdup in the liver for longer.

             Patz’s logos style of writing emphasizes her beliefs and she reinforces it when she quotes David Katz, MD and Director of Yale University in her dialogue, “We actually need sugar; it’s our body’s preferred fuel”. Patz also communicates that there is “perfectly healthy natural sugar found in fruits, some veggies, and milk which makes them taste sweet” and i agree with that statement. She changes her persuasion to pathos when she states, “the added sugar is what we need to limit, but there is no need to completely cut out dessert from our diets”. Patz is relating to the reader and wants them to understand she is not saying to cut sugar completely out of your diet because she agrees with Dr. Katz about healthy natural sugars, and how it provides energy for our bodies to function. Perhaps some of the opponents of the tax have valid reasons why they do not want the price hike on their products.

             Every year, the American Beverage Association (ABA) spends millions of dollars attempting to disband the possibility that the sugar in their products can pose harmful effects. An article on BeverageDaily.com describes a scenario where the ABA and, authors of the article, do not agree with the validity of a US study suggesting overconsumption of sugar beverages could have adverse effects upon heart disease risk. The original US study is published in the American Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, which is a scientific journal published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins in the United States. The journal is currently ranked the fourth best journal in the Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems category. The authors note an association between type 2 diabetes, obesity, and weight gain to sugar sweetened beverage consumption, but mentions there are too many variables for an accurate study due to age, smoking, and alcohol to determine effects on coronary heart disease. (4 De Koning)

             After reading the article, I understand that they would take any opportunity to discredit the health industries research in order to keep their sales afloat. These major companies are profiting from the sale of sugar beverages, so to them it would be worth investing millions in the beginning stages of the implementation of the taxes. They see their profits are being swallowed up by another entity that is not even a true competitor. The health industry is trying to save money that the beverages are costing them, and the beverage industry is trying to maintain and increase their sales.

             The tax legislation has not been effective in every city. An article on the ABA website exposes how Cook County Illinois residents opposed the tax post implementation due to the severity of the tax hike and they also protested it is politically toxic, meaning the tax was imposed for the benefit of the health care industry at the expense of the consumers and producers of sugar drinks. A 2009 study showed these taxes do in fact reduce consumption of the certain types of sugar beverages affected by the tax, but these drinks were actually replaced by sugary juices and even beer. In 2017, the tax hit Philadelphia and generated far less revenue than anticipated. The author of the article is unlisted on the website, but upon further examination, I discovered a link to the full article. Basically, the ABA took what they wanted from the actual article to highlight main focus points in favor of their agenda. They use words like, “far less” when the difference between expected revenue, $46.2 million, and actual revenue, $39.5 million, was only $6.7 million, or 15%. (5 Glans)

             The full article posted on October 20, 2017, uses the same verbiage, “far less”, as the ABA version when referring to the profit gap. Here, we learn the original authors name is Matthew Glans. Glans started with Heartland in 2007 as a legislative specialist for insurance and finance, and then in 2012 was names a senior policy analyst. A report researching the effects of the tax on sales of 32 stores in Cook County Illinois revealed a decrease in purchasing of 20-30%. The article refers to the tax as a, “sin tax”. Apparently, Michigan has passed legislation pronouncing the State “shall not impose an excise tax on, or enact, enforce, or administer any ordinance, regulation, resolution, policy, rule, or directive imposing a tax or fee on, the manufacture, distribution, wholesale, or retail sale of food for immediate consumption or non-immediate consumption, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.” Perhaps more states will follow their lead halting the progress of the health industry.

Section Three

The American Beverage Association has a website dedicated to current events surrounding these taxes as well as other beverage related issues. I chose this platform because their members consist of distributers, manufacturers, and retail operations, so the audience is vast and would have an interest in propaganda opposing the sugar tax. They also have their own websites that they could utilize to spread the message. Some of the larger members like Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co., and McDonalds could run advertisements on the radio, television, and other forms of social media. Most of the advertising would be relatively cheap, and perhaps they could use my idea to make a more professionally constructed video. (6)

Section Four

I believe the strongest form of media would be YouTube advertisements. They can be short, direct, and will reach a vast audience. The advertisements could be coordinated with YouTube videos that cover a variety of topics including health, fitness, political propaganda, and whatever the professional marketing team at the ABA believes could be effective. Consumers viewing material on YouTube have the option to skip advertisements that are too long, so keeping them under 30 seconds would be beneficial.

Conclusion

The topic of sugar and health seems to be convoluted by the potential of profit. The ABA maintains their stance that their products are unfairly scrutinized alongside other sugar products that are not taxed. The health industry stands firm that sugary beverages are causing a health epidemic in the U.S. that is primarily affecting our youth. Both sides have backed their arguments with extensive research and millions of dollars spent on lobbying legislatures to pass or deny new and existing sugar taxes. Consumers must understand that taxation is a temporary, ineffective, and biased way to control consumption of sugary beverages. The health care providers are multibillion dollar companies who are interested in profits. Their motive is to save money by placing more financial responsibility on the consumers as they purchase products they deem hazardous to health.

    Works Cited:

www.justforhearts.org

Carter,Rob C. PhDd, Gortmaker, Steven PhDa, Long, Michael W. ScDa, Moodie, Marj L. DrPHd, Resch, Stephen C. PhDb, Sacks, Gary PhDe, Swinburn, Boyd A. MDef, Ward, Zachary J. MPHb “Cost Effectiveness of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in the U.S.”. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379715000963#!. Accessed November 2017.

Patz, Aviva. “Is Sugar Really That Bad For You?”. https://www.prevention.com/author/aviva-patz. Accessed Nov. 2017. http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20637702,00.html. Accessed Nov. 2017.

 De Koning, Lawrence, Malik, V.S., Kellogg, M.D., Rimm, E.B., Willett, W.C., and Hu, F.B. “Sweetened Beverage Consumption, Incident Coronary Heart disease and Biomarkers”. Journal of the American Heart Association. March 12, 2012. https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2012/03/14/ABA-attacks-study-linking-sugar-sweetened-drinks-to-heart-disease. Accessed Nov. 2017.

Glans, Matthew. “Research & Commentary: Soda Taxes Continue to Fall Flat”. http://www.ameribev.org/education-resources/blog/post/new-soda-taxes-continue-to-fall-flat/. Accessed Nov. 2017. https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research--commentary-soda-taxes-continue-to-fall-flat. Accessed Nov. 2017.

      The cultural analysis assignment is designed for us to research and debate a cultural problem that affects us on a personal level. We are supposed to gain an understanding of both sides of the argument through our research, then describe how we are persuaded by the information in the articles. We must prepare the analysis as if we are communicating the information to industry professionals as well as our classmates.

      Most of the information I have discovered is in favor of the tax, so my challenge has been trying to find factual evidence against the legislation. Also, both parties have financial motivators behind their arguments and they both refer back to how sugar affects health. One side describes sugar being the leading cause of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Their studies are based on years of research and they do prove that sugar is indeed bad for your body and overall health. The other side provides studies that show there are no harmful affects if the products are consumed responsibly. They also have an economical argument concerning job loss due to a decrease in demand therefore leading to less consumption. They argue that the tax is discriminating against the poor because they are the largest consumers of sugary beverages, but I have not been able to find a legitimate source.

      I have also been projecting too much of my personal opinion into this project. I keep trying to find the solution to the issue, but I need to focus on presenting the facts on both sides of the argument, then describing how these facts lead me to lean one way or the other. I need to think more about who is making the claims and focus on why they are dedicating so many assets toward controlling the outcome of the legislation. The point of this class and assignment is to make us think more about who is trying to persuade us and what their motivations are so that we are able to decipher advertising, sales, marketing, and political gimmicks thrown at us daily in real world situations.

                Taxation has been passed as a means of reducing the intake of beverages containing sugar thereby lowering health care costs. It also generates revenue that governments can use for health programs. Taxation of food is a not a problem for everyone. The wealthy have no problem affording the increase in price of the goods they desire. These taxes are affecting the poor because eating healthy is more expensive. This issue is important because it has opened a door to taxing foods based on what the government believes is best for us. There may be health benefits to consuming less sugar, but that should be our decision to make and we should not be charged a tax on our sweeter preferences.

                I found an article in The New England Journal of Medicine using Google Scholar that gives a very detailed look into the sugar tax and the intended health benefits imposing the tax might achieve. The authors are Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., Thomas Farley, M.D., M.P.H., Walter C. Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H., Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., Frank J. Chaloupka, Ph.D., Joseph W. Thompson, M.D., M.P.H., and David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D. These are all very credible and highly educated authors whose research has been published numerous times. The purpose of the article is detailing how the tax would indeed help reduce obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, while also generating revenue to fight the existing obesity issue. The authors site many case studies showing a direct link between sugar consumption and weight gain. The article also talks about how people care more about immediate satisfaction from sugar than the long term health effects, so economically it is in their best intentions to have a tax imposed to deter them from buying these products. To me, it seems as if the writers have written this paper for government entities in an effort to persuade them into adapting this tax legislation.

                The conclusion of the article describes how effectively manipulating the price by imposing an additional tax on these goods will reduce consumption, lowering health costs as a result, and will also become routine over a period of time. They also believe a nationwide tax of 1 cent per ounce would raise $14.9 billion in Federal revenue alone, while also creating more revenue for the state.

                I believe it's important for me to understand the reasons why this is happening before I can dispute it. The more I research this topic, the more I see a legitimate health concern. I have been thinking of alternative ways to reduce consumption without imposing any additional expenses for consumers. Perhaps they could ban sugar drinks from Food Stamp programs nationwide. That would reduce the amount consumed and possibly lead to beverage selections with a higher nutritional value. Another solution would be to restrict the amount of sugar that producers could legally put in drinks, although that would probably change the flavor of the items, and I don’t want that to happen. The bottom line I am trying to portray is that it should my freedom to eat and drink what I want without paying additional taxes. At my current job, I have to sign an affidavit attesting to whether or not I use tobacco products and they charge tobacco users a higher premium for insurance. I would imagine once we do not see the reduction in consumption over time as the health care providers expect, they will target individual users and raise their premiums.

Could a 'fat-tax' affect obesity?

     Food should not be taxed, yet legislation has been passed in the United States allowing for the taxation of certain foods. Why should food be taxed? Why does the nutritional value of the food matter? Who has the right to determine what food should be taxed? Who is the driving force behind these taxes and what is their motive? 

      I love candy, pop, and pretty much everything that has sugar listed as an ingredient. Some people like salty, while others enjoy sour. For me, it’s always been sweet. Sugar makes everything taste better, and it’s not fair our government is targeting this ingredient as a source of tax income. 

      The obvious solution to this dilemma is to simply not tax these delicious products. An opposing view might be that sugar in foods can lead to obesity, which leads to health care issues, leading to more expenses for health care providers. In this scenario, it would be beneficial to impose a tax on these products to deter consumers from purchasing them. Less sugar consumption leads to less medical expenses. Another benefit to this tax would be a healthier nation assuming the tax leads to a decrease in sugar consumption. 

      I don’t agree with taxing any foods for any reason. Americans should have the right to consume foods without paying more just because they have a sweet tooth. If our government is allowed to tax sugar, it opens the door to taxation of other foods. Perhaps fruit and vegetables might be next. After all, the pesticides do create an environmental concern.