Bad Food And Subsidize Vegetables Analysis

The most common solution to problems in the American government is to implement taxes. This happened with the tobacco industry and now it is being proposed again, but this time it’s directed towards the food industry. Mark Bittman’s article “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables” featured in The New York Times argues that the average American diet is life threatening. The health risks that come with eating over processed food with too much sugar are costly and dangerous. His solution is to tax unhealthy foods. Although a simple, money-oriented solution is often criticized, his logic and reasoning is surprisingly convincing. Asking to increase the cost of everyone’s favorite foods like doughnuts, candy, and soda, is a hard argument to …show more content…
He also turns the audience against the companies contributing to this epidemic by explaining that they are ranking their profit above the health and wellbeing of their customers. Bittman uses pathos and induces a feeling of hostility in his readers towards large food corporations. By getting the audience’s attention that they are being tricked, he grabs their attention at a personal level. No one wants to be taken advantage of. He works toward his goal of making America healthier by bringing in another reason why we should be eating healthier. This strengthens his reasoning by bringing in a personal connection and using pathos, which is very …show more content…
He mentions Denmark’s saturated-fat tax, France’s proposal for tripling the tax on soda, Hungary’s proposal of a tax on bad foods, and Brazil’s Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program, which subsidizes produce markets and low-cost restaurants. Because he shows that other countries are doing the same thing, he is somewhat guilty of the bandwagon tactic. But his logic of why this tax idea benefits us is strong enough that his argument isn’t diminished by this single argumentative fallacy. Since he balances the bandwagon technique with facts, statistics, and logic, the audience thinks that the reason theses ideas are so popular among other countries is because they make sense and are beneficial. Instead of claiming that because the idea is popular, it is good, he explains that the idea is popular because it is sensible and beneficial. And this makes the audience excited to make reforms that other countries already have. But Bittman doesn’t stop his argument after his reasons and solutions. He continues by having a list of counterarguments that are backed up with rebuttals. For example, he draws comparisons to the tax on tobacco that was able to drop the smoking rate significantly. He acknowledges that one may argue that people don’t have to smoke but have to eat. Bittman refutes this argument by saying that one doesn’t need sugary beverages and