Let Them Drink Water
- Daniel Engber
Summary
& Question Answers
In "Let Them Drink Water!", the author Daniel Engber writes that in 1942 Carlson suggested that they should impose a fee about overweight. Now it's mentioned again. Though it's not accepted by the public, it has an impact on people's life already. Then Daniel uses some facts to support it. He gives an example that junk food tax will be natural like cigarettes. After that, he talks about the disadvantages of junk food by experts' ideas. He says that junk food should be regarded as drags and he tries to make a difference between junk food and healthy food for people to choose. He also shows that imposing fat tax is benefit to the poor because some people think that it's unfair to poor people. So it's a way which can reduce obesity problems and increase the government's income so that it can be used to solve other problems. Finally, Daniel writes about the limitations of imposing the tax.
In
Daniel Engber's, "Let Them Drink Water! What a Fat Tax Really Means for
America", is an article trying to tie people into the idea of "fat
tax." Since we are about to spend about $1 trillion on health care on our
second-most expensive war, Engber's explains to us how commentators want to put
tax on fat people and the junky foods and soft drinks that we eat and drink every
day. They are thinking of adding tax on junk foods and soft drinks so that
consumers will soon decrease their spending amounts on these items and even
make the people in America with "health, wealth, and obesity."
Obesity is a big problem in America and think that if they add taxes to these
junky items, people will not buy them as much and overeating and diabetes rates
will decline. Engber states that junk food is like cigarettes and we can get
addicted to them. We sometimes just eat for pleasure and this is what makes us
fat. Companies are trying to persuade the consumers to eat and buy the products
and design and make the foods look good for us to want it. Engber thinks that
these "sugar sweetened beverages are not necessary for survival" and
we could always just drink water which is free or little cost and is not
destructive like these other products we put into our bodies. Raising taxes to
these things will make people not want them and will help people and their
health. Daniel Engber explains that "fat tax" will mostly affect
"mostly the nonwhite people who drink a lot of soft drinks and most
sensitive to prices".
Question
Answers
A.
Comprehension :
Q.1.
According to Engber, what is the public's attitude toward taxing junk food and
soda? How does he support this generalization?
ANSWER
: Engber says that people generally are wary of the
"fat fax". He says that legislation that has been implemented on the
state level has not yet resulted in reducing obesity, and that efforts to make
such legislation effective on a wider scale has received too much pushback to
be implemented.
Q.2.
Policymakers and public health experts who support taxing junk food draw an
analogy between junk food and cigarettes. According to Engber, what
redefinition does the analogy require?
ANSWER
: Engber says that for this analogy to work, junk food needs to be
framed like a drug. Junk food's ability to rewire the brain and to become truly
addictive needs to be emphasized.
Q.3.
What does Engber find "ironic" about "so many advocates for
healthy eating"? In paragraph 10, Engber discusses the organic food
movement. How does he define its "central dogma"?
ANSWER
: Engber says that the "central dogma" of the
organic food movement is that it's possible to be a "foodie" and to
be healthy at the same time; you just must eat real and natural foods.
B.
Purpose and Audience :
Q.1.
What is Engber's purpose? Is he writing to change his readers' minds, to
propose a course of action, to influence public policy, to inform his readers -
or to provoke them? Explain.
ANSWER
: Engber's main purpose seems to be to change the way his
readers think about the idea of taxing soft drinks. He does not believe that
there is a problem in regulating potentially dangerous chemicals/behaviors, but
wants his readers to recognize the class issue at play with such regulations.
Q.2.
Where does Engber think his audience stands on the issues he discusses? Does he
see them as knowledgeable or uninformed? Does he think they are more likely to
eat junk food or pain au levain? How can you tell?
ANSWER
: Engber seems to assume that his audience is familiar with
the "fat tax" proposals on a basic level, but that they have not
thought about the intricacies of the proposal in the same way that he has. He
begins his essay mostly neutral and informative, coming across as lightly
skeptical of the proposals he discusses; he shows that he understands the
intentions of such ideas. He continues to slowly bring up problems with such
solutions, then begins to discuss the problem with the double standard to which
we hold foods. He likely believes that some of his audience might fall into the
"pain au levain"-eaters he describes. He is quite focused on
challenging the commonly-held beliefs of this group, and likely does so because
he believes that he is writing to some of them.
Q.3.
In paragraph 14, Engber notes a lack of clarity about the effects of "sin
taxes on behavior. How does this lack of clarity strengthen his argument?
ANSWER
: This strengthen's Engber's point that such a tax might
have little effect on obesity rates and public health and serve only as a
burden on the poor:
C.
Style and structure :
Q.1.
What is the purpose of paragraphs 2 and 3? Why are they important to Engber's
argument?
ANSWER
: Paragraphs 2 and 3 serve to demonstrate how the proposals
Engber discusses are being generally received. This helps give the reader an
idea of the scale and relevance of the ideas he writes about.
Q.2.
In paragraph 6, Eighner states his purpose: to record what he has learned as a
Dumpster diver. What additional purposes do you think he had in setting his
Ideas down on paper?
ANSWER
: Eighner likely wrote this essay largely as a form of
self-expression; it serves as an outlet for his creativity and his feelings
during his homelessness. He also may have written with the intention of
lessening the stigmatization of "dumpster divers" and to provoke
empathy and understanding in the reader.
Q.3.
Engber ends his essay with a surprising analogy. What two things is he
comparing? Is this comparison logical? What point does it make?
ANSWER
: Engber compares taxing some addictive foods and not others
has parallels to the government giving significantly lighter prison sentences
to cocaine dealers when compared to crack dealers. This comparison makes sense.
Both pomegranate juice and soda contain enough sugar to be addictive in similar
ways, but one is more associated with the white and wealthy than the other. The
same could be said about cocaine and crack. He is pointing out how the law
tends to punish the poor for things that the wealthy are not punished equally
for.