Effective as of October 1, 2011, Denmark imposed a tax on foods containing a percentage of saturated fat that exceeded 2.3%, and are now contemplating enacting a similar tax on sugar (Johnson). In an article published by the scientific journal Nature, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar,” the authors Robert A. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt, and Claire D. Brindis propose that such a bill should likewise be passed in the United States to regulate the sale and consequently the intake of sugar. It is understandable that with more than one-third of adults (about 35.7%) and 17% children and adolescents in the United States obese, (www.cdc.gov) people feel as if the health of Americans has gotten to a crucial point where the government must step in. However, “all things that are lawful are not always expedient” (1 Corinthians 10:23), meaning that all things that may seem beneficial are not necessarily so, and even if the government felt compelled to take initiative on the issue, taxation is not the solution. Hence, it is both unfeasible and unpopular to attempt to regulate the sale and consumption of sugar within the United States. In addition, not only is sugar an essential part of our diets, but also placing a mandate on it in order to curtail consumption would constitute a violation of our free will.
Of
foremost importance are political and economical glitches in the
proposition that generating taxes for sugar will promote healthier
eating within the population. As previously mentioned, on March 5, 2012
Denmark’s current Minister of Health, Pia Olsen Dyhr, put into
circulation a possible bill that would tax sugar in an effort to
“encourage people to eat more healthily” and provide financial backing
for public health programs (Johnson). Similar initiatives are being
considered here in America. “The Toxic Truth About Sugar,” presents a
counterargument regarding how the use of sugar is so embedded within
society, and particularly within the FDA, that it would be difficult to
place restrictions on the production and the intake the sugar. The
authors suggests that it would be a plausible solution to increase the
prices of products such as soda from $1.00 to $2.00. However, the 100%
increase would be ineffective because any given day, depending on the
store or vending machine, a soda can cost $2.00. Also, in the Denmark
article, Arne Astrup, an expert in nutrition from the University of
Copenhagen, mentions, when people do not include sugar in their diet it
increases the psychological need for food, thus people would eat more of
the wrong foods in order to satisfy that hunger. Furthermore, taxing
such items would merely augment the discrepancy between the rich and
poor classes because for one, it could result in a loss of jobs. The
poor would not be able to afford the healthier options and would result
of a greater consumption in artificial sweeteners, which studies have
shown increase the risk of strokes, thereby undermining the primary
intention of the tax. (Johnson)
On
the other hand, sugar has long been apart of American tradition since
its introduction in the 1700s, and because it is such a commodity within
American society, it will likely continue to exist. Sugar cane was
initially a product of the Southeast Asian countries of New Guinea and
India (West).
Then, eventually, in conjunction with his voyage in 1492, Christopher
Columbus brought sugar to the New World via the Dominican Republic. The
European crave for sugar grew increasingly, as the product was presented
into their culture. Thus, by taking some of the leaves and planting
them in the Caribbean, Spanish explorers attempted to expand the market.
Following the popular trend, the Portuguese, British, Dutch, and French
brought the crop to their respective colonies, attempting to cash in on
the heightened demand. Sugar became so widespread that settlers needed a
different labor source to keep production aligned with the demand. So
to alleviate the discrepancy, they implored slaves to work on
plantations. The first slave ship arrived to the New World in 1505, and
most of the slaves hence were from West Africa, where the Portuguese
trading posts had previously been instituted. Resultantly, the Triangle
Trade system encompassed slaves taken to the New World, sugar imported
to Europe, and money used to purchase more slaves in Africa, an ongoing
cycle. Sugar finally reached America in the 1700s (Whipps).
Given the extensive history of sugar in America and in the world, it is
highly unlikely that its presence would just dissipate. The demand for
sugar has been stirring and brewing for centuries, thus, any attempt to
remove or control the presence of sugar in America would render
ineffective because it goes against popular desire.
In addition, sugar is a substance required for the execution
of bodily functions. Therefore, by decreasing its presence and possibly
eliminating it, which it seems the author of “The Toxic Truth About
Sugar” would favor, it would actually have an adverse effect on the
body. Food is any substance that provides nutrients and energy for the
body. Thus, the body extracts glucose, a form of sugar, from everything
that people consume by way of mouth, including both food and drink.
Glucose is a source of energy used to power bodily functions and provide
fuel for various cells within the body. For example, in cellular
respiration, a procedure that occurs in cells that converts energy
processes into adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the body uses that energy
to power all of its activities such as metabolism and digestion. The
table sugar that people consume is sucrose, a disaccharide that
encompasses monomers of fructose and glucose (Reece, Taylor, Simon, Dickey).
Essentially, that means that glucose and fructose make up table sugar;
thus, it does have some nutritional value, which the article fails to
admit. It is merely hypothesized, not scientific theory, that some
sugars can be detrimental in some instances to a person’s health, like
artificial sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup, which the author is
also negligent in noting. Also, generalizing all sugars as harmful
substances, is like commenting that all drugs. Although they sometimes
have undesirable side effects, that they are all bad and ineffective,
and that does not keep people from consuming and using them. Similarly,
the biological benefits of sugar outweigh the risks.
Lastly,
as the first amendment of United States Constitution allocates, people
have the right to make their own decisions and attempting to force
people to regulate their consumption of sugar would be a violation of
their first amendment rights. It is not mandated by the government that
people indulge in eating sugar, but it is a choice that people decide
according to their own desires because its their right to do so. The
government probably also recognizes that people have rebellious
tendencies and are not going to do anything they do not want to do, as
with any other law. So though they may try to impose restrictions,
people will find a way to get what they truly desire. Even in
considering sugar to be a negative substance, healthy food options are
also made readily available for people to consume; it is all in what
they condition themselves to eat. Also, if sugar is as addicting as the
article claims, taxing the product will not prevent addicts from buying
the product. There are countless stories about people who spend their
last dollar, steal, go into debt, and attempt to attain drugs to support
their habits by any means necessary. This could also prove true for
hypothetical restrictions placed on sugar. Not only is the restriction
of sugar not sensible historically or biologically, but it also calls
into question the morality of of such an action and its omission of free
will.
In
conclusion, despite the claims made in the article “The Toxic Truth
About Sugar,” it is not feasible to place constraints on the production
of sugar. The effect of implementing such restrictions would be obsolete
because historically there has always been and probably will always be
such a demand for the product that it would be senseless to inhibit its
profitability and to forego the desires of the people. In addition, the
authors of the featured article only mention the possible negative
outcomes of consuming too much sugar, but it does not admit the benefits
and how it aids the body. Ultimately, it is best if people make
healthier choices in regard to their eating habits rather than being
taxed. It is acceptable to include sugar in the diet but not to
overindulge as a precautionary measure. However, even if a person
decides that all they will eat is sugar, it is and should remain their
decision to make without the infringement of any governmental
restrictions.
Works Cited-
"How Sugar Changed the World." LiveScience. 02 June 2008. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.livescience.com/4949-sugar-changed-world.html>.
Johnson, Constance. "Denmark: Tax on Sugar Proposed." Denmark: Tax on Sugar
Proposed. The Library of Congress, 13 Mar. 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_3023_text>.
Reece, Jane B. Campbell Biology: Concepts & Connections. 7th ed. San Francisco,
CA.: Benjamin Cummings, 2012. Print.
"U.S. Obesity Trends." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html>.
West, Jean M. "Slavery in America." Slavery in America. Web. 21 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_sugar.htm>.
No comments:
Post a Comment