Name:

Date:

Period:

ARGUMENT WRITING PRE-ASSESSMENT

Directions: Read the articles provided and write an argument essay. Your argument should be
supported with reasons and backed by evidence from the accompanying articles. Make sure to
acknowledge and refute possible counterclaims.
Prompt
Sodas and other sugary drinks lead to problems like obesity and diabetes, which drive up healthcare costs. Many argue the drinks should carry a higher tax to keep people from over
consumption, as well as help cover medical costs. Should sugary drinks be taxed? Why or why
not?
Article 1:

WHO urges taxing sugary drinks, but are such measures effective?
By Madison Park, CNN
Updated 11:17 PM ET, Wed October 12, 2016
(CNN)Governments should tax sugary drinks to stave off obesity, diabetes and other
noncommunicable diseases, the World Health Organization urged.
"If governments tax products like sugary drinks, they can reduce suffering and save
lives," said Dr. Douglas Bettcher, director of WHO's Department for the Prevention of
Noncommunicable Diseases in a statement. "They can also cut healthcare costs and
increase revenues to invest in health services."
Public health experts have blamed sugar as the chief culprit for growing obesity
rates. They have also warned of growing public health emergencies in which governments
will have to grapple with unhealthy populations that need significant resources to treat
preventable diseases.
In 2014, 39% of adults worldwide were overweight, according to the WHO.
"Nutritionally, people don't need any sugar in their diet," said Dr. Francesco Branca,
director of WHO's Department of Nutrition for Health and Development.
The International Council of Beverages Associations stated that while it supports the
WHO efforts to combat obesity, "we believe a comprehensive approach including emphasis
on the whole diet is necessary to achieve a real and lasting solution."
It also stated that, "ICBA believes that all of our products can be part of a healthy
lifestyle."
Health advocates propose taxing soda, sugary juices and sports drinks, much like a
sin tax. Several countries and cities have already headed in that direction.
Next month, voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Boulder will decide whether to
levy taxes on sodas and sugary drinks in their cities. If the measures pass, they would
follow in the footsteps of Berkeley and Philadelphia.

The Berkeley case study

Berkeley became the first US city to pass taxes on sugary drinks in 2014 after voters
overwhelmingly passed the measure. The 1-cent-an-ounce tax raised the price of a soda
can by 12 cents and a two-liter bottle by 68 cents.

Name:

Date:

Period:

After the sin tax went into effect, Berkeley residents reported a 63% increase in
drinking water and a 21% drop in soda and sugary beverage consumption, according to a
2016 University of California Berkeley study.
"The soda tax appears to be an effective tool," said study senior author Kristine
Madsen, an associate professor of public health at UC Berkeley in a statement. "Not only
was the drop in sugary drink consumption in Berkeley greater than we expected, the
apparent shift to less harmful products like water is a very good sign."
Philadelphia became the second city to approve a soda tax, which goes into effect
January 2017.
The soda taxes represent a different approach after a failed attempt in New York to
restrict the size of soda cups. City health officials attempted to ban sugary drinks of more
than 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters and food service establishment in 2013. An
appeals court struck down the restriction calling them "arbitrary and capricious" -- a ruling
welcomed by the American Beverage Association.

Article 2:

Should There Be a Tax on Soda and Other Sugary Drinks?

NO: The Health Benefits Are Far Less Than Claimed

By William Shughart II
Imposing a tax on sugary drinks is bad policy. It doesnt solve the health problems it
purports to address, creates new problems and leads to waste in the public sector. Just because
the idea has gained traction among voters does not make it defensible.
First and foremost, taxing sugary drinks does not reduce purchases enough to matter.
Numerous studies find that consumption is persistent, despite higher taxes. That means health
benefits will be vanishingly small. Proponents point to a recent soda tax in Mexico that
supposedly reduced consumption, but that study has not been peer-reviewedthe finding was
announced in a news conference, supported only by PowerPoint slides.
Taxes too low?
One important reason taxes dont cut consumption much is that the taxes are often set too
low to affect behavior. Why not set them higher? That introduces other problems. Set taxes high
enough, and underground markets will arise, as they have for cigarettes in New York City.
Black markets arent the only way that people skirt high taxes. When a product becomes
more expensive in one area, they simply go across the border and buy it in a neighboring spot
where its cheaper. Thats likely why some retailers in Berkeley, Calif., which recently
implemented a new soft-drink tax, did not initially pass the tax on to customers, and thus paid it
out of their own pockets, according to some early reports. They feared losing business to stores
in nearby cities if they charge customers the full price.
There are other reasons to reject soda taxes. Evidence is mounting that drinking diet soft
drinks may be as bad asor even worse thansugary drinks. The human body apparently reacts
the same way to artificial sweeteners as it does to real sugars. The pancreas pumps out insulin,
but zero-calorie artificial sweeteners do not produce the energy rush that curbs appetites and
satisfies cravings for sweetness. Yet these drinks arent subject to taxes on sugary beverages.
Squandered cash
Beyond that, theres the matter of how these taxes are used. Selective taxes on sugary
drinks and other modern sins (junk food, fast food) are revenue engines for the public sector.
But the evidence suggests very little of the revenue ends up actually improving health outcomes.

Name:

Date:

Period:

And the burden of paying for these measures falls most heavily on low-income households;
budget constraints narrow the range of food choices open to them.
Whats more, wasteful rent seeking by advocates and adversaries of a selective tax can
swamp its social benefits, if any. Suppose that a proposed tax is expected to raise $1 million in
revenue over the medium term. Producers and retailers of soft drinks will be willing to spend up
to $1 million to block the tax from being enacted; groups supporting programs financed by the
revenue also will spend money to pass the tax. So, if $1 million (or more) is invested in
lobbying, that sum is transformed into a social cost, which must be added to the already-heavy
burden that every tax creates.
The argument that taxing sugary drinks helps to promote healthy lifestyles deflects
attention from their actual effects. We dont normally expect politicians to be truthful. But if they
want to impose these taxes, they should be honest enough to admit that they will not end obesity
or diabetes, but rather will generate more of other peoples money for profligate state
governments to spend.