Let Them Drink Water! Daniel Engber

 Let Them Drink Water!

              Daniel Engber

According to Daniel Engber,  soft drinks include excessive amounts of sugary ingredients which is a real cause of obesity so sodas and energy drinks should be taxed and highly charged yet more other appropriate policy should be implied to minimise the eating habit of drinking soft drinks. The rise of obesity is one of the serious problems of America as Obama has stated time and again. He argues that the government should be discouraging Americans by increasing taxes on such beverages and decreasing on healthy items. However, see value in stressing the notion that foods are addictive, and believes that the drug-like effects of certain foods would be helpful in getting the public to see their true dangers.

Engber asserts that fat tax is a solution to encourage people to lead healthy lives. Junk food and sodas are as addictive as drugs. In spite of the fact that it's difficult to draw a line between drugs and delicious food that comes in the form of junk food, its negative effects are undeniable. He supports this generalization by bringing an analogy between tobacco and junk food. He quotes opponents' argument that taxing cigarettes has brought down the rate of smoking and death from lung cancer.

According to Engber, the analogy requires redefinition. The policymakers and public health experts should redefine the food and make people think that junk with high sugar is a drug. They should tell people such sugary soda is not a beverage but a drug before adding more tax on it. 

He finds it ironic that those who advocate for healthy eating are also gourmands.

Engber discusses the organic food movement which has a dogma. The central dogma of the organic movement is you can be a foodie and health-conscious (healthy) at the same time. 

He argues that a fat tax discriminates among the varieties of the gustatory experience. By this, he means to say that adding tax to junk food would fail to include other unhealthy beverages like juice which has a large amount of sugar. It affects the poor and non-white people who consume a large number of soft drinks with the most sensitive price. 

Engber's main purpose seems to be to change the way his readers think about the idea of taxing soft drinks. He does not believe that there is a problem in regulating potentially dangerous chemicals/behaviors but wants his readers to recognize the class issue at play with such regulations.

OR, The writer's main purpose is to inform readers about taxing soft drinks and the impact of tax on non-white Americans. 

Engber seems to assume that his audience is familiar with the "fat tax" proposals on a basic level, but that they have not thought about the intricacies of the proposal in the same way that he has. He begins his essay mostly neutral and informative, coming across as lightly skeptical of the proposals he discusses; he shows that he understands the intentions of such ideas. He continues to slowly bring up problems with such solutions, then begins to discuss the problem with the double standard to which we hold foods. He likely believes that some of his audience might fall into the "pain au levain"-eaters he describes. He is quite focused on challenging the commonly-held beliefs of this group, and likely does so because he believes that he is writing to some of them.

This strengthen's Engber's point that such a tax might have little effect on obesity rates and public health and serve only as a burden on the poor. So the fat tax is a sin tax. Engber notes a lack of clarity about the effects of sin taxes. The lack of clarity strengthens Engber's point as it indicates such tax may not enough to decrease the obesity rate and burden to the poor people.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 serve to demonstrate how the proposals Engber discusses are being generally received. This helps give the reader an idea of the scale and relevance of the ideas he writes about.

Engber doesn't believe that Kessler's statements are false, but that believes that the way Kessler presents his information is flawed and limited. Engber views this application of neuroscience as an over-sensationalization of the issue that fails to acknowledge how food is meant to be delicious, and that there are all kinds of things that technically "rewire" our brains. He includes this reference as a way to lead into his discussion about the class issues present in the "fat tax".

Effect- Obesity

Cause- Junk Food- Salt, Sugar, and fat

            -Trigger " Action schemata"

            - Mindless eating (Over Eating)

            - Addictive

            - Unhealthy

            - Obesity Prevention

            - Steeping Tax ( Sin -Tax)

            - Burden to blacks and poor people

These arguments support his position, as this cause and effect illustrate his main point. He Projects value in stressing the notion that foods are addictive, and believes that the drug-like effects of certain foods would be helpful in getting the public to see their true dangers than increasing tax. He explains it in his essay thoroughly. 

Engber compares taxing some addictive foods and not others has parallels to the government giving significantly lighter prison sentences to cocaine dealers when compared to crack dealers. This comparison makes sense. Both pomegranate juice and soda contain enough sugar to be addictive in similar ways, but one is more associated with the white and wealthy than the other. The same could be said about cocaine and crack. He is pointing out how the law tends to punish the poor for things that the wealthy are not punished equally for.

In Engber's essay, "Let Them Drink Water!" (pg 641), he provides an alternate view regarding the notion of a soft drink tax. He takes time to point out how difficult it is to draw a line between what is "junk food" and what is not, and acknowledges that such a tax might put a disproportionate burden on the poor. He does, however, see value in stressing the notion that foods are addictive, and believes that the drug-like effects of certain foods would be helpful in getting the public to see their true dangers.