In recent decades, high blood sugar and obesity rates dramatically increased in the United States compared to other parts of the world. The increased rate of these health problems will severely limit American vitality and way of life. In 2002, President Bush signed a $190 billion bill that would make tax payers to pay farmers an accumulated 4 million dollars a year to grow more corn. Accompanying the bill, Congress also decided to subsidize bushels of corn so American production of corn remains stable. Prior to the subsidy of corn, the United States amassed a large supply of corn due to overproduction as evident by the failure of prohibition in the 1920s as well as the creation of corn sweeteners. The synthesized sweeteners create a harming
…show more content…
The urgency of the problem is similarly to that of the Pima Indians in Arizona. The Pima Indians is a tribe that primarily relied upon farming for means of food .However, the united states government allowed the formation of The Coolidge Dam, a dam that would mainly send water to Phoenix for expansion of the future capital. As a result, the Pima Indians were void of a sufficient water source for their crops and became malnourished and in poverty. In response, the federal government sent subsidized foods to the Pima Indians. However, the subsidized food was filled with manufactured sweeteners and preservatives for the Indians that have significantly negative effects on the human body. The fact that they are unable to rely on their agricultural background destroy their culture and their own lives. The situation with the Pima Indians shows a glimpse of the future that awaits the United States if nothing is …show more content…
We’ve been doing that for over 100 years”. In Levinovitz’s article, he includes the criticism of Robert Lustig, a researcher on obesity and Type 2 diabetes which comments that sugar is “evil, toxic and poisonous”. The “crusaders” against sugar continue to yield negative effects but, is instead of just bias and failed rhetoric as written by Levinvoitz (. Sugar as a scapegoat can be attributed to failed rhetoric and myths due to crusaders against sugar. The use of sugar as a scapegoat isn’t anything particularly recent or new as it is constantly blamed by the late 18th century of sex that sugar would “create fantastic desires and bad habits in which nature has no part…”(. Sugar would be constantly demonized while non-sugar wouldn’t be negatively criticized. The use of myths also created false truths and effects of sugar. For example, the use of sugar was mentioned as killing the sexual drive which immediately contradicts the argument of a nutritionist, John Harvey Kellogg that argued sugar actually excited and increased sexual drive(). The failed rhetoric and myth that caused the blame of sugar is further supported by an article written by an epidemiologist, John Pa Ioannidis who writes that short research findings are
The urgency of the problem is similarly to that of the Pima Indians in Arizona. The Pima Indians is a tribe that primarily relied upon farming for means of food .However, the united states government allowed the formation of The Coolidge Dam, a dam that would mainly send water to Phoenix for expansion of the future capital. As a result, the Pima Indians were void of a sufficient water source for their crops and became malnourished and in poverty. In response, the federal government sent subsidized foods to the Pima Indians. However, the subsidized food was filled with manufactured sweeteners and preservatives for the Indians that have significantly negative effects on the human body. The fact that they are unable to rely on their agricultural background destroy their culture and their own lives. The situation with the Pima Indians shows a glimpse of the future that awaits the United States if nothing is …show more content…
We’ve been doing that for over 100 years”. In Levinovitz’s article, he includes the criticism of Robert Lustig, a researcher on obesity and Type 2 diabetes which comments that sugar is “evil, toxic and poisonous”. The “crusaders” against sugar continue to yield negative effects but, is instead of just bias and failed rhetoric as written by Levinvoitz (. Sugar as a scapegoat can be attributed to failed rhetoric and myths due to crusaders against sugar. The use of sugar as a scapegoat isn’t anything particularly recent or new as it is constantly blamed by the late 18th century of sex that sugar would “create fantastic desires and bad habits in which nature has no part…”(. Sugar would be constantly demonized while non-sugar wouldn’t be negatively criticized. The use of myths also created false truths and effects of sugar. For example, the use of sugar was mentioned as killing the sexual drive which immediately contradicts the argument of a nutritionist, John Harvey Kellogg that argued sugar actually excited and increased sexual drive(). The failed rhetoric and myth that caused the blame of sugar is further supported by an article written by an epidemiologist, John Pa Ioannidis who writes that short research findings are