Language Analysis Essay - Sugar Tax [English]

[Anonymous]

Heyy! Could I get some feedback for this essay? Got the sac this week
Issue: sugar tax.
The introduction of a tax on sugar by the British government has sparked a contentious debate among Australians whether a similar tax should be imposed within Australia. In response, the senior research fellows at school of health, the University of Queensland argue in a concerned tone within their opinion piece, “Australian sugary drinks tax could save lives” that the overconsumption of sugary drinks has detrimental effect on the health of the public and therefore a tax should be imposed. The complementing image by ABC news online uses fear mongering tactics as a way of stressing the harm caused by sugar in a very informative manner. Debating the same issue but from a different perspective is The Sydney Morning Herald on their editorial piece titled, “Copying Britain’s Sugar tax is not yet all sweetness and enlightenment,” in which they argue in a rational tone that it is premature to impose such measures and highlights that the onus of one’s health should be placed upon the individual and not the government. 

The authors from the University of Queensland begin their argument by highlighting how the recent calls to impose a tax on sugar has been “applauded by public” thus emphasising the inclusive nature of this issue and elaborating how wide spread this tax has been welcomed. Through the use of such inclusive tone the authors are positioning the readers to adhere the common trend of proposing for a tax on sugar. The opinion piece then examines the positives of enforcing a sugar tax. The authors highlight how the tax on sugar could “save 1600 lives” and prevent “4400 heart attacks”. This reinforces the positive outcomes of such measures all while appealing to the reader’s sense logic and reason as now they may feel justified that the tax on sugar genuinely brings forth a decrement in ill-health.

The reader’s attention is then turned to the issue of the impacts that sugar is having on the remote areas where the consumption of sugary drinks by the indigenous men and women has spiralled out of control. The piece pinpoints how sugar is “killing” indigenous people thus necessary action must be taken to in order to combat such epidemic among such scarce people. Through the use of such bold statement the authors are appealing to the readers sense of empathy as they themselves may feel saddened knowing how sugar is wiping out centuries and generation of culture and tradition. The complementing image by ABC news online portray a similar message of the crisis caused by the excessing sugar intake. The poster depicts various facts and figures of the conniving build-up of sugar in our daily meals as well as extensively showing the enormity of sugar crisis. Figures such as “6.75KG weight gain in one year” as result of intaking sugary drinks evokes a concerned and scared response from the viewers as they may feel petrified at how easily sugar can affect and harm their daily lives.

Arguing on the same issue but with a different contention is Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial piece. The editorial argues that a tax on sugar is “premature” as there no “evidence” thus far, hence Australia should not “act with undue haste”. Through such rational explanation and calm tone the authors of the editorial positions the readers to understand and take on board the act of waiting until proper evidence is available which in turn shifts the readers support against an unproven tax. Furthermore, through the entirety of the piece the editorial repeats “Australia” numerous times which stresses how unified us Australians need to be in order combat a rising issue. By appealing to patriotism, the editorial targets Australians and the Government in an attempt halt such irrational and untested tax from being amended into our society. Similarly, the opinion piece from the University of Queensland also uses patriotism to impose a contrasting view of why “Australia should follow” the UK in introducing a similar tax. The opinion piece reiterates “most Australians” exceed the recommended levels of sugar thus “Australia” needs a tax on sugar. By constantly highlighting this issue as an Australian one the authors portray to the readers its vital that a tax is imposed on sugar otherwise it is Australians that will feel the effects of such harm. This results in the readers diminishing any arguments that may risk their health thus swaying to the side which supports a tax on sugar.

The Sydney Morning Herald then attacks the integrity of the tax on sugar by questioning whether the cost passed on by the manufactures of sugary drinks as result of the tax will “force” the consumers to make better “choices”. The ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the consumption of these beverages after the tax is imposed, leverages the editorial in implying that an attack on the hip pocket may not deter the consumption. By reinforcing the unreliable nature of the tax and how individuals will be paying more and in return will not be helping the nation get any healthier may infuriate the readers who feel annoyed and betrayed that their hard-earned money is being consumed for no good. Contrastingly, the opinion piece pinpoint how a “20%” hike in the price of soft drinks could save the health sector of Australia up to “$609 million”. By elaborating the mammoth savings that is associated with the tax on sugar the authors target the readers hip pocket nerve. Through which they attempt to prove that individuals can save money in the long run through the subsidiary savings to the Government as result of the tax. This may please the readers knowing that the sugar tax not only brings forward a healthier Australia but could also save themselves money in the long run hence concreting their support for the sugar tax.

The issue of imposing a tax on sugar has been widely debated and will continue to be debated in the years to come. The pros of a tax on sugar reflects a healthier and less obese nation however the unreliable and unproven nature of tax makes the ordeal too premature to impose in the current times.