Argumentative Essay: The Soda Ban

Did you know that Americans spent $76 billion dollars on soda or energy drinks in 2013? Teens today consume too much sugar from sugary drinks. The youth today are more unhealthy than previous generations and need to reduce their sugar. The article,”Soda Showdown”, written by Rebecca Zissou, presents two perspectives about taxing sugary drinks.

Many people believe that only nutritious drinks should be offered at school. They claim that by doing this, students will be healthier, and do better in school. However, I disagree with this policy, and would like to convince you why my opinion is correct. Even if you stop selling a particular product at school, students will always find some way to get it from somewhere else. I believe that you shouldn’t only offer nutritious drinks at school because they’re high in sugar, students will bring drinks from home, and students will boycott the vending machines.

“New York City’s Board of Health today passed a rule banning super-sized drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.” (Doc A). Individuals in the United States are overweight because they do not know how to limit themselves. If the government were to control one of the main reasons people are obese, then several people would not be overweight because the government would take care of the problem. Banning sugary drinks over 16-ounces would help people lower their sugar intake, which would help people stay in excellent health. Although numerous amounts of people believe they should be able to make their own decisions, the government should be able to control what Americans are consuming because of children, health, and the future.

There are three main reasons to support my opinion why sodas should be banned . To begin with a soda is beverage that is bought by expensive cost. Such as a same volum of soda and water that you want to buy in a supermarket is 500 milliliter ,water is bought in 7 baht but Soda is 14 baht . In addition,more soda ingredients are toxic chemicals

Because in certain way affects in many families, and soda is coming directly from factory and it has another process to get and transported to store or schools that is more expensive than water. For instance, water should be more used than soda in schools since drinking 5 glasses of water daily decreases the risk or certain problems of

These opponents believe that the law is worth it because of the health benefits for the citizens. However, this argument has utterly no grounds because the ends should never justify the means. Forcing the citizens, who bear in mind, most of whom are adults, to do something for their own good is completely wrong. While it may be the right choice, the people should at least be able to make their own decision. The government shouldn’t have to baby their people, they can think for themselves. Removing the ability for them to have a choice strips people of their freedom, and America is built on the ideal of freedom. Adding on, the soda ban might not even have any health benefits. Referring back to Gross’ article, a nutritionist is quoted as saying, “It is not reasonable to blame or cite one product… [the proposal] produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity.” Even health experts disagree with the ban. This mandate supposedly improves people’s well-being, but it fails at accomplishing that goal. If all the law does is strip people’s rights, and doesn’t even fulfill its main purpose, then it shouldn’t be enacted. The supposed benefits aren’t worth the trouble, which is why the law is a bad

Most kids today drink sugary drinks when they get home or when go out to eat. Grocery stores sell soda and sugary drinks throughout the business (Leaf Group Ltd). Someone could be getting their groceries, and they would be able to get them with all of the other food or where they check out. “Researchers tracking 6,900 fifth-graders from public schools in 40 states through the eighth grade found that 85% of eighth graders reported drinking a sugared beverage at least once a week (about 30% said they drank them every day), regardless of whether their schools banned them or not.”(Alice Park). Most kids drink pop daily so it should not stop them from drinking it at school. “Students have many ways of accessing sugared drinks outside of the school lunch program, including vending machines, school stores and cafeteria a la carte offerings that students pay for themselves rather than with lunch vouchers.” (Alice Park).

¨Several critics questioned why the city was making proposal on sugary drinks a priority when some city schoolchildren have no physical education classes.¨ (Washington TImes) In New York, Mayor Bloomberg placed a law on the sizes of soda citizens are allowed to get. However, this caused a lot of controversy on whether the ban was good or bad. Despite the amount of people supporting the ban´s choice, the ban does have some downsides on it. It is not a good idea to limit the amount of a soda a person can purchase (or propose the ban) because it's not applying to all, it's taking rights away from people, and itś not a big deal.

“... restrictions would only apply to food service businesses regulated by the Health Department, including restaurants, food carts, sports arenas, delis, and movie theaters (Gross, pg 2). This solidifies the fact that the ban is unethical because convenience stores, grocery stores, and other stores not regulated by the city would be able to neglect the law. By giving an advantage to certain stores, stores lose money and customers who want a drink larger sizes of soda. The ban should not be put in place due to the fact a particular group of businesses wouldn’t be affected by it. Another example of this is shown in “Sodas a problem but…” as it says “Convenience stores such as 7-eleven would be exempt but a Burger King across the street would be restricted” (Klein, para 3). This shows how completely unjust the ban would be towards restaurants. It wouldn’t just affect large chain business like burger king; a business that would have just started would lose customers. While this happened, places like 7-eleven would just gain income and that's unwarranted. It is due to how some stores would be able to deviate from the ban, and some stores would have to follow it, that it is unacceptable to enforce the limitation on

With the constantly increasing paces of everyday life the search for an energy source, capable of boosting the human body to new limits by extending its endurance, continues. In the recent years a specific product, called an energy drink, has received much publicity worldwide. The energy drink is a highly caffeinated stimulant that is able to rise the performance of the human body. Many people consider it as a refreshment after a hard day’s work. What’s more one of the most frequently used cases of energy drinks is in combination with alcohol during parties. However, the majority of consumers do not understand the way they work and often abuse with the consumption of the substance. Furthermore, a great amount of them are unaware of what effects can be caused on the human body.

The answer is simple--sugar. Sugar is just as deadly as a cigarette or a can of tobacco. Sugar is causing the obesity rates to skyrocket in America. Sugar has invaded every product that’s not naturally grown, it’s in yogurt, drinks, bread, and many other foods and drinks consumed on a daily basis. We need to start somewhere on banning sugar. That is why many propose regulating the purchases of carbonated drinks pact with sugar, or more commonly known as soda. One can of soda contains about 2.5 tablespoons of sugar, and on average, 9% of the daily calories consumed per person is from soda. Due to the high numbers of obesity in America, soda’s and other drinks high in sugar, should be regulated.

This act might also be proven as effective because it is very similar to the cigarette tax, which showed that “the trends in cigarette prices and overall U.S. cigarette consumption from 1970 to 2015 show that there is a strong correlation between increasing prices and decreasing consumption” (TobbacoFreeKids.org). This clearly indicates that the market is willing to let go of particular items if there is an increase in prices. Statistics showed that after the tax on cigarettes, “that a $1-per-pack increase, which is similar to what the President has proposed, would result by 2021 in 8 percent fewer smokers aged 18-24, compared to current law” (Marr). Even a product like cigarettes, which is highly addictive, people were able to say no when there was a shift in costs.

A major reason for regulating sugary drinks is to prevent non-communicable diseases among children. If children consume sugary beverages every day, they may experience symptoms such as: weight gain, poor diet and health and tooth decay in children. Meanwhile, there is less control of sugar level which leads to diabetes. Another reason for regulating sugary drinks is to reduce pollution.

For a will, the sugar-sweetened drink has been taxed and are improving people diet and there is a lot of research on junk food is taxed and how it can also improve people diet. In places were sugar drinks have been taxed the person paying for there drink is taxed but for junk, food researcher has shown that taxing the people will have no impact. If people are not taxed than manufacturers should be taxed, and studies have shown when manufacturers are taxed than they are more likely to increase prices which will stop people from buying junk food and look for healthier food. Junk food has caused an increased rate of obesity and one way the government is trying to fight this is by having fat taxes which tax just unhealthy food and sugar-sweetened drinks. When junk food is being taxed than people will more incline to buy healthy food and drinks, this is only possible when the manufacturers are taxed.

Harper, T. (2006). Why the tobacco industry fears point of sale display bans. Tobacco Control, 15 (3), 270-275.