SWA #10

I chose the essay Bad Food? Tax It, by Mark Bittman, as the subject of my rhetorical analysis. I believe this essay is easy to understand, as we have discussed the topic of American food and health concerns a great deal in class. In addition, I like how the essay is a very practical, applicable matter for everyday life-most people do drink or eat "bad" food with some regularity, and it seems to be an interesting topic to explore. 


Working Thesis Statement
     A common group of foods in the standard American diet are some of the most hazardous foods available to the public. Junk food, containing little in the way of vitamins and nutrients and a great deal of fat and sugar, is especially dangerous to the health of all. While some measures are being taken to prevent junk food from damaging the welfare of the public, companies that produce dangerous products like these are undermining the efforts of health activist groups so that they can continue to make a profit. In Bad Food? Tax It, an essay by New York Times journalist Mark Bittman, the author uses the argumentative appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos to justify his claim that our nation will be better if "bad" food is taxed.


Formal Outline


Title: The Justification of Taxing Unhealthy Foods in America
Thesis: The author's use of logos, ethos, and pathos in his essay appeals to the reader to support the creation of a tax on bad food.

I. The author justifies that taxing bad food would benefit America by both increasing the amount of money the government has available by the taxes, and decreasing the number of people who are overweight/have health problems caused by the consumption of fast food.
     A. By putting small taxes on junk food (.02$ per ounce for soda, .50$ for fries, etc.) the junk food industries would be reduced and produce less junk food.
     B. With the money gained by taxing this food, the government could subsidize the purchase of vegetables, fruits, and grains that are much more healthy for human consumption.

II. Ethically, it does not make sense to continue to support the massive production of food products that goes on today- no one wants to cause children to become fat and unhealthy
     A. People who are fat because of the junk food industry and suffer health problems that must be taken care of by the government are increasing the billions of dollars the government needs to spend on people who need healthcare because of diabetes related issues.
     B. Based on research done by renowned universities (Columbia, Yale) many states are already pushing or have pushed for taxes on these products. States recognize that the problems of health could be reduced if the ease at which Americans could get junk food was not as it is.

III. Parents should not have to deal with the possibility of causing their children to become dependent on others because of their diet. If parents truly want their children to live life to the fullest, they would not so readily go to fast food places or grocery stores and buy junk food for their families.
     A. By adding a 0.01$ tax on sodas and sugar sweetened beverages, 37,000 cases of diabetes would prevented and three billion dollars in healthcare would be saved in New york State alone.
     B. More money could be spent on gyms, pools, and other recreational activities through saving money on these taxes.