Sugar: The Hidden, Unavoidable Monster

How does one manipulate unavoidable behavior? This puzzling question was left simmering in my mind upon reading the Nature article “Public Health: The Toxic Truth about Sugar”. Adding sugar to food has become a universal practice. Virtually every processed food item now contains this nasty addition, cleverly disguised by unrecognizable names. High-fructose corn syrup just is one of sugar’s many faces. It, along with other artificial chemicals, has been correlated with countless non-communicable diseases around the globe. Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, authors of this article, suggest ways in which the government can manipulate the rising levels of sugar intake by the public. The article also states the need for government involvement, which is essential for this prominent cause. Their motives are sufficient, however, their suggested regulation strategies are less than adequate. Their proposed methods include to tax food items containing additional sugar and limiting their sale during school hours. These suggestions are not entirely impractical, but I think that their suggestions ignore the fact that sugar is unavoidable. I think it would be more effective to subsidize healthier foods to make it more affordable and to limit sport drinks advertisements.

Lustig, Schmidt and Brindis offer alleviation to the sugar consumption problems by proposing a sales tax on the items. Historically speaking, this is an effective way to inhibit the purchase of goods containing added fructose. This would be efficient because additional taxes cause the producer to produce less because the consumer has less money to spend on additional goods for their money is going towards taxes. However, people, especially lower-income people, need to buy these products because they are cheaper than healthier foods. According to the New York Times article “A High Price for Healthy Food”,

Healthy eating really does cost more. That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups. 

This evidence leads me to believe that if a tax is added to these food items, people of lower socio-economic class will suffer most. This suggested tax burden seems unfair for it is evident that society is not presenting the public with incentives to eat healthy. According to the article “Poverty and Obesity: the Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs” of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, “There is no question that the rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in the United States follow a socioeconomic gradient, such that the burden of disease falls disproportionately on people with limited resources, racial-ethnic minorities, and the poor”. The purchase of these food products is unavoidable. It’s cheap and attractive, especially to those striving to stretch their paycheck. As stated in the Nature article, “sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change.”
The logic of the authors of “The Toxic Truth about Sugar” claims that sugar should be taxed because the tax regulations associated with tobacco and alcohol have been affective in limited the purchase of those items,

Taxing alcohol and tobacco products — in the form of special excise duties, value-added taxes and sales taxes — are the most popular and effective ways to reduce smoking and drinking, and in turn, substance abuse and related harms. Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars. This would include sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal.

However, a Google search led me to find that, on average, one gallon of milk costs anywhere between three dollars and 50 cents to four dollars, whereas two liters of soda costs no more than two dollars. This price difference is what’s driving consumers towards an unhealthy choice, especially in these difficult economic times. I feel that government subsidies of healthy, organic food products with no addition sugars would help consumers make wiser decisions while searching the grocery aisles. The food choices that are made by consumers are based on price as supported by the New York Times Article,

The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods. The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.

The authors of the Nature article also suggest limiting the time that producers can sell their product. For example, limit the sale of sugar sports drinks and soda during school hours. I feel this would be an effective method, but I believe the root of the problem does not lie in the hands of the availability of the sports drinks. I think it is the advertising of Gatorade and other top brands that steer kids towards their products. For example, Gatorade shows top competitors, prominent athletics figures, using their product and performing at high levels. Also, Gatorade is used during sporting events. It is poured on the head of the coach of the winning team and the logos decorate stadiums. This inspires children to drink the product. Therefore, instead of regulating the sale of the items, as suggested by the authors of the Nature article, I think that the commercials should be limited. According to the abstract of the Pediatrics article, “Children, Adolescents, and Advertising”, 

Advertising is a pervasive influence on children and adolescents. Young people view more than 40 000 ads per year on television alone and increasingly are being exposed to advertising on the Internet, in magazines, and in schools. This exposure may contribute significantly to childhood and adolescent obesity, poor nutrition, and cigarette and alcohol use. Media education has been shown to be effective in mitigating some of the negative effects of advertising on children and adolescents. 

Although Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis were right in stating the need for the government regulation of sugar consumption, I think there were some crucial holes in the foundation of their claim. Instead of their idea of government-initiated sales taxes, the government should subsidize healthy foods instead because products containing added sugar are unavoidable purchases, especially consumers on a tight budget. “The Toxic Truth about Sugar” article suggest limiting the sale of sports drinks, but I feel that regulated the advertising of these drinks would be more effective in manipulating the public’s behavior, especially that of teens and children.



Works Cited:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html\

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/6/2563.full

http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/1/6.long

Executive Order Provokes Ethical Arguments

Judge Royce C. Lamberth Photo by Wikipedia

Pick up any current newspaper, and it will be filled with headlines showing how politics and ethics are perpetually intertwined. Almost every social issue raises a greater ethical question, forcing you to define what is and is not acceptable in our society. The question of where to draw the line, where the border between black and white lies, is constantly debated but very rarely solved. The battle surrounding the ethics of using embryonic stem cell research or disease treatment perfectly exemplifies these grey areas. Many Americans already have an opinion about the course of action they believe the government should take. A U.S. District Court judge made a decision in August 2011 to throw out a lawsuit against the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. The effects of his decision are yet to be fully realized, but Nature Online has some arguments as to why this decision is just the beginning. Nature Online’s article “Safe, not Secure”, focuses on how Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision will be met with opposition from those who are against the use of embryonic stem cells while at the same time claiming that the decision should not be enough to satisfy those in favor of using these stem cells. As someone pro-life who is against the use of embryonic stem cells in the medical field, I find that this article’s arguments that the judge was simply falling into line, that Congressional funding makes this okay, and that scientists are leaving the field due to uncertainty present several logical fallacies to be dealt with.
If you think that judges are appointed to pick and choose the cases they want to see based on fear of a higher court, then you likely agree with Judge Lamberth’s recent ruling as presented by Nature Online. According to website, Judge Lamberth’s decision was good, but not quite good enough. The online science magazine supports Lamberth’s dismissal of the lawsuit claiming that “It matters little that Lamberth made clear he was only grudgingly falling into line with a higher court's decision in April — he was right” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/476005b.html). This leaves readers angry because most readers believe that federal judges are not appointed to make decisions based on fears of appeal or to fall into line with other courts. This logic brings to mind a judge who routinely trash-bins cases hoping to shorten his docket. Surely this country deserves better from one of the highest offices in the land.
However, further research on this case proves that this is not the case at all. Unfortunately, Nature Online has used vague wording that makes Judge Lamberth seem unqualified in a manner that appears intentional. This article includes only information that makes it appear as if Judge Lamberth dismissed this case simply because he felt it would be dismissed by a higher court. In reality, Judge Lamberth originally issued an injunction, or halt, because he felt that President Obama’s decision to grant federal funding of embryonic stem cell research violated the Dickey-Wicker Amendment of 1995 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1). The amendment states that the federal government cannot use taxpayer money to fund the creation of human embryos or the destruction of human embryos. Embryonic stem cell research violates both of these criteria, as embryos are created and later destroyed to isolate the stem cells.
I would agree with Judge Lamberth that this amendment is doubly violated by Obama’s executive order to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Judge Lamberth stood by his injunction until President Obama ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to issue a temporary lift of the injunction. This resulted in Judge Lamberth eventually dropping the case altogether. Which is the same thing I would have done had my judicial authority been disregarded in that manner. Apparently, the judicial system is no longer in charge of interpreting the law and the executive branch gets veto power over everything.
Nature Online goes on to allege that although there are those who feel embryonic stem cell research and use is unethical, “six successive, elected Congresses have seen fit to fund the research” and asserts that this makes it ethically acceptable. The author attempts to make a point that since Congress is elected by the people, the people approve of everything that Congress does. This is a stretch at best and certainly fails to capture the true essence of Congress. The same democratically-elected Congress that approved stem cell research funding also voted themselves a pay raise (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-09-Raise-me_N.htm). How many Americans agree with that? According to a 2010 midterm exit poll, seventy-three percent of Americans were unhappy with the job that Congress had been doing (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021540-503544.html). To me that statistic means that in reality, the majority of Americans disagree with Congress on a regular basis. This logical fallacy assumes that Congress as a whole is an honest legal instrument put in place to serve its constituents. Good one. The fact that we are even discussing embryonic stem cell research alone proves that humanity is not as ethical as one would hope.
As if the fact that Congress voted to expend revenue on this venture isn’t enough to prove to the entire country how worthy the fight for stem cell rights is, Nature Online also mentions a statistic of how expenditures on stem cell research have changed since Congress first allowed it. “[W]hat began as a US$10-million investment by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2002 has grown to an estimated $125 million this year.” This fact should astound anyone, whether pro, con or indifferent. In less than ten years the budget for stem cell research has increased by over one thousand percent. While commerce, agriculture, justice, education, transportation, homeland security and labor are receiving less money in the new federal budget, spending for stem cell research continues to increase at an alarming rate. So important programs for everyday life in our country are being cut, but there is good news if you have one of the zero diseases treated solely by embryonic stem cells. That’s right, to date over a dozen years of research on embryonic stem cells has yet to cure anything.
In the next paragraph, the author argues that the researchers working with embryonic stem cells “have not been able to count on reasonable and steady government funding.” I am curious as to how funding that was reported as increasing over ten times the original amount a mere six lines before this complaint is now considered to be not steady.
In the final paragraph of this article Nature Online claims that “It is unknown how many young people have shunned careers in the field because of the uncertainty, but is likely to be a considerable number.” This overly broad statement serves to shock the audience into thinking that young Americans are abandoning the medical field because they are distraught over the funding crisis in embryonic stem cell research. However, the author uses no evidence or statistics to support this claim. It carries no more weight than if I were to claim that it is unknown how many polar bears have stopped eating their typical fatty fish diet because they are worried about their figures. The ambiguous wording leaves a statement that can neither be proven nor disproven because it begins with the disclaimer that “It is unknown”.
The author of this article was aiming to make logos appeals of how much sense it makes to federally fund embryonic stem cell research. Instead the author delivers several flawed arguments that present logical inconsistencies and flawed reasoning, not to mention one blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The way that Judge Lamberth was presented in this article is offensive and seriously lacking in perspective. The various complaints detract from what should be the main argument, and readers are left thinking that the author is upset by the fact that a judge ruled in his favor but did not do everything in his power to further the cause. The overall argument is ineffective and should have been further developed.




Works Cited

"Safe, not secure." Nature. Nature, 23 Aug 2010. Web. 11 Feb 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/476005b.html>.

Harris, Gardiner. "U.S. Judge Rules Against Obama’s Stem Cell Policy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Aug 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/health/policy/24stem.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1>.

"Congress gets $4,100 pay raise." USA Today. USA Today, 09 Jan 2008. Web. 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-09-Raise-me_N.htm>.

Condon, Stephanie. "Exit Poll: Voters Unhappy with Obama, Congress." CBS News. CBS News, 02 Nov 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021540-503544.html>.