Obesity In Australia Persuasive Speech

When the 1970s introduced High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), a cheap sweetener alternative to sucrose in a fructose-glucose liquid form (fifty five percent fructose, forty two percent glucose, and three percent saccharides), it brought extensive numbers of health problems with it (Bray, 2004 & Johnson, 2010 ). Prior to the 70’s, on average, sugar contributed to four percent of daily caloric intake, however over the past four and a half decades, this statistic has increased to whopping sixteen percent, leading some scientist to consider it an “addiction” as they observe the sugar substitute wreak havoc on humans’ bodies worldwide (Butler, 2011). Along with hooking those who indulge sweets to it, High Fructose Corn Syrup also leads to obesity:

Did you know that Americans spent $76 billion dollars on soda or energy drinks in 2013? Teens today consume too much sugar from sugary drinks. The youth today are more unhealthy than previous generations and need to reduce their sugar. The article,”Soda Showdown”, written by Rebecca Zissou, presents two perspectives about taxing sugary drinks. One perspective is that there should be a tax on sugary drinks.

Taxing Sugar Sweetened Beverages and the Resulting Effects on Obesity Margot Sanger-Katz’s article “Yes, Soda Taxes Seem to Cut Soda Drinking” in The New York Times is an interesting, albeit brief, cross-examination of different research on the effects that the implementation of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has on obesity and weight gain in the population. It provides brief examples assimilated together in an attempt to discuss a highly important current public health event that unfortunately comes across as a sloppy journalistic interpretation of significant scientific progress in the public health field. Though poorly executed, this article does start an important conversation: should public health policies exist that limit access to certain foods, especially if one of public health’s biggest issues is the lack of access to certain nutritious foods for low-income areas? Furthermore, does this “soda tax” actually decrease the amount of soda consumption? Although it appears that the author has missed the point, Sanger-Katz provides a link to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that actually answers both of these questions magnificently and insists that though thirty-three

As the epidemic continues to occur more drastic measures need to be taken. To combat this health crisis a food tax, like the tax on tobacco products, needs to be placed on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption.

It is believed that many of the soft drink companies are the main reason for the rise of obesity in America. As stated in the article Coca-Cola and the fight against the global obesity epidemic, “The soft drink industry as a whole, and Coke in particular, has received harsh criticism for contributing to the global obesity epidemic. ”(Gertner 15).This suggests that as soft drinks and other processed foods are becoming more popular it is heavily contributing to the recent rise in people becoming overweight. Before fast food and soft drinks were popular, less people were obese which leads to the speculation that it is a cause for the problem. On the other hand there are studies that reveal that dietary factors don’t always affect a person’s weight.

The soda ban is a defective idea in itself because of the loopholes in the plan. As Karin Klien talks about the problem in her article “Sodas a Problem but…”, “Convenience stores such as 7-Eleven are overseen by State and would be exempt , but a Burger King across the street would be restricted” (Klien, 288). In addition, there isn’t a need for this soda ban because it makes no sense for a customer at a fast food restaurant (like Subway) to walk across the street and go to a 7-eleven, which is a state-ran store that has drinks that are over 16oz., and even over 64oz. People could even go to a grocery store and buy a 2-liter bottle of the sugary drink because it isn’t run by the city. Another way the soda ban contradicts itself is because of how you’d get the same amount of sugar if you were to drink a drink from a smoothie

Karin Klein believed it was unnecessary and stated herself “In restaurants and other establishments overseen by the city’s health inspectors, it would have been illegal to sell a serving of most sugary drinks that’s more than 16 oz. Then Klein later stated “A pizza restaurant would not be able to sell a 2-liter bottle of soda that would be shared among children at a birthday party.” This means it will make people spend double even

When you go to a restaurant do you order a soda? Do you know how much sugar is in one beverage, do you know how much sugar you consume if you get a refill? You most likely don’t know or just don’t care. The NYC soda ban is a good thing and is a step in the right direction. Beverages with excess amounts of sugar are bad for your health and need to be consumed in limited amounts, the soda ban can help with that.

Lastly, banning big sodas is bad idea because it is ineffective. You take away big sodas- big whoop, you say the reasoning behind them being banned is obese people. Why would you exclude fruit juices, milkshakes, and even sweet treats? Any of those a can cause people to become overweight aka

The sugar industry has a long history of influencing how sugar is used in the products we consume and the information we receive regarding the effects of sugar on our bodies. I am asking my audience to play closer attention to what they consume on a day to day basis. In today’s society, we go for what looks the most appetizing and for what’s most convenient, rather than whats it is truly healthy.

The soda ban should not be placed down since it is not applying to all, but a certain amount of people. It is not going to

Sugar Sugar intake should be taken more serious than it has been. There are too many health issues at risk because of this. Richard persuades the audience in his article “The Bitter Truth about Sugar and Its Effects on Our Health”, to the quality of life or the well being. Sarah Richard states that obesity and diabetes increases the risk of cancer. “Its now regarded as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases as erkk as other chronic diseases, including liver cirrhosis and dementia”(Richards).

That doesn’t seem like a huge deal, but let’s say annually as a country we drink 600 canned goods per person on average, then that $0.05 increase amounts to an additional $9,750,000,000 being spent on canned goods using aluminum imports. This also may not seem like a lot, but imagine what it cost to produce a steel building and imagine a 25% increase in those

Did you know that 60% of adults and one in four children in Australia are overweight or obese, making us one of the most overweight developed nations? Almost half of our population comsumes a sugary drink each day. I believe that it is about time we do something about this. With sugary drinks and weight related health problems closely linked, leading experts from the cancer Council, diabities Australia and the Heart foundation say the sugar tax would be a great solution.

A major reason for regulating sugary drinks is to prevent non-communicable diseases among children. If children consume sugary beverages every day, they may experience symptoms such as: weight gain, poor diet and health and tooth decay in children. Meanwhile, there is less control of sugar level which leads to diabetes. Another reason for regulating sugary drinks is to reduce pollution. Literature Review Sugary drinks are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic.