This essay argues against government bans on soda by examining evidence from multiple angles. It acknowledges soda's well-documented links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, tooth decay, and metabolic syndrome, but contends that banning sodas — particularly in schools or through SNAP benefit restrictions — has proven largely ineffective at reducing overall consumption. The paper also raises civil liberties concerns, especially when proposed bans target low-income populations, and draws parallels to the failed prohibition of alcohol and the ineffective war on drugs. The author concludes that public education, rather than prohibition, is the more appropriate policy response to soda-related health risks.
The paper employs a concessive argument structure: it grants the opposing side's strongest points (soda genuinely harms health) before systematically dismantling the policy solution (banning soda). This technique, known as refutation through concession, builds credibility with the reader and makes the final conclusion more persuasive.
The essay opens with a thesis-driven introduction, then spends three body paragraphs establishing the health harms of soda. It pivots at the midpoint to undercut the proposed solution — showing bans are ineffective in schools — then raises a civil liberties objection, and closes with a historical analogy (Prohibition and the war on drugs) to reinforce the argument that education, not prohibition, is the right approach. Works Cited follows MLA format.
There is no real argument in favor of soda; it adds absolutely nothing positive to anyone's daily dietary intake. In fact, it is said to contribute heavily to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay, and other serious health issues. It is argued that by banning soda, many of these negative consequences will be eliminated or at least reduced, thereby lowering the healthcare costs associated with soda consumption. With that in mind, there have been numerous attempts to ban sodas in various venues. Some schools have banned sodas from campus, and in New York, Mayor Bloomberg tried to ban the purchase of soda by food stamp recipients (Seifman). Some of these bans have come to fruition. Studies show, however, that the results have been less than promising in accomplishing the desired effect: reducing soda consumption. Furthermore, the government has no business deciding what foods people can consume. While soda may seem like a frivolous issue, banning it is not. In fact, some have gone so far as to suggest that banning soda — particularly for select groups of people — is a possible violation of civil liberties (Meghan).
When examining sodas in relation to obesity, there is little real debate that sodas contribute to the nation's obesity problem. This should come as no surprise, since sodas are loaded with sugar. When the Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source examined the possible health effects of drinking too much soda, it found a clear link between soda and obesity-related diseases. "For example, studies have found an association between Americans' soda-drinking habits and the rising rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in adults and children" (Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source). While the link between sugar and diabetes or obesity is not always direct, the connection between excessive sugar consumption and those health concerns is well established.
"Many concerns about soda center on sugar. One 12-ounce soda typically has nine teaspoons of sugar and 140 calories. Research has shown that adults and children who regularly drink beverages high in sugar tend to have higher calorie intake overall and experience weight gain. As weight increases, so does the risk of type 2 diabetes" (Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source). There is little doubt that drinking too many sodas can foster obesity and may lead to diabetes.
It is the diabetes issue that makes soda such a significant health concern — particularly when one considers how innocuous a soda can seem. "A soda a day? That's not so bad — a 150-calorie blip, burned off with a brisk half-hour walk. But it's not only your waistline that's at stake" (Dubansky). When viewed in that light, attempts to ban soda can seem positively draconian. However, "a study released in the journal Diabetes Care found that people with a daily habit of just one or two sugar-sweetened beverages — anything from sodas and energy drinks to sweetened teas and vitamin water — were more than 25% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than similar individuals who had no more than one sugary drink per month" (Dubansky).
A person might initially think that a 25% increase in risk is not substantial. However, when one considers that "the overall rate of diabetes is roughly 1 in 10, an increase of 25% raises the risk to about 1 in 8" (Dubansky), the significance becomes clearer. Furthermore, the link between soda and diabetes was not the only troubling health finding: "one-a-day drinkers in the study also had a 20% higher rate of metabolic syndrome, a collection of indicators — such as high triglycerides — suggesting that diabetes is not far off" (Dubansky). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, type 2 diabetes remains one of the most prevalent and costly chronic diseases in the United States, making these associations particularly significant from a public health standpoint.
Despite soda's genuine health risks, there appears to be little merit in the idea of banning it. It has been demonstrated that banning sodas in certain locations has no significant impact on soda consumption among targeted groups. For example, banning soft drinks in elementary schools is a popular policy idea. However, a study from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that examined the relationship between soft drink availability in elementary schools and soft drink consumption by those students found that bans were not effective at reducing overall consumption. "26% of children who have access to soft drinks at school consume them. Those who consume more soft drinks at school, such as low-income and Black non-Hispanic children, are more likely to consume more soft drinks overall" (Fernandes). In other words, children who drink soft drinks at school also have access to those drinks at home.
"Controlling for covariates, limiting the availability of soft drinks at school is associated with a 4% decrease (odds ratio 1.38) in the rate of any consumption overall. These findings suggest that soft drink availability at school may have limited impact on overall consumption for elementary school children" (Fernandes). While there was a modest reduction in overall consumption, that reduction is unlikely to produce significant health benefits for those children. Focusing on changing food environments in the home is likely to prove far more helpful for high-risk children.
Dubansky, Hanna. "Even 1 Soda a Day Can Hike Your Diabetes Risk." U.S. News Health. 27 Oct. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.
Fernandes, Meenakshi. "The Effect of Soft Drink Availability in Elementary Schools on Consumption." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 108.9 (2008): 1445–52.
Lloyd, Robin. "Acids in Popular Sodas Erode Tooth Enamel." Live Science. 21 Mar. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.
Mayo Clinic Women's Health Source. "Soda Consumption Linked to Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, Other Health Concerns." Medical News Today. 23 Aug. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.
Meghan. "Banning Soda: A Civil Rights Issue." Eat Less. Move More. Stop Complicating It. 27 Mar. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.
Seifman, David. "Soda-Ban Nix Leaves Mike Sour." New York Post. 20 Aug. 2011. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.