Let Them Drink Water: Daniel Engber BBS 1st Year Patterns for College Writing

 

Argumentative Essay 1: Let Them Drink Water! By Daniel Engber

About the Essayist 

 

         Daniel Engber is an American journalist and editor known for his insightful writing on science, culture, and public policy. He has contributed to prominent publications such as The Atlantic, Slate, WIRED, The New York Times Magazine, and Radiolab. Engber has received accolades including the National Academies of Science Communication Award and the Sex-Positive Journalism Award.

Main Theme of Essay

          The main theme of Daniel Engber’s essay “Let Them Drink Water!” is the ethical and social complexity of using a “fat tax” to address public health issues like obesity. Engber explores the idea of taxing sugary drinks and junk food to promote healthier choices, but he raises concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of such policies. He argues that these taxes often disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities, suggesting a class bias in health campaigns. The essay questions whether government interventions should control dietary habits and highlights the deeper socioeconomic and cultural factors that influence personal health decisions

Click for Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHWonrGwp4M

Summary of the Essay

According to Daniel Engber, soft drinks include excessive amounts of sugary ingredients which is a real cause of obesity so sodas and energy drinks should be taxed and highly charged yet other appropriate policies should be implemented to minimize the eating habit of drinking soft drinks.

The rise of obesity is one of the serious problems in America as Obama has stated time and again. He argues that the government should be discouraging Americans by increasing taxes on such beverages and decreasing on healthy items. However, Engber believes that the drug-like effects of certain foods would help get the public to see their true dangers. He asserts that the fat tax is a solution to encourage people to lead healthy lives. Junk food and sodas are as addictive as drugs. Even though it's difficult to draw a line between drugs and delicious food that comes in the form of junk food, its negative effects are undeniable. He supports this generalization by making an analogy between tobacco and junk food. 

He quotes opponents' argument that taxing cigarettes has brought down the rate of smoking and death from lung cancer. According to Engber, the analogy requires redefinition. Policymakers and public health experts should redefine the food and make people think that junk with high sugar is a drug. Engber discusses the organic food movement which has a dogma. The central dogma of the organic movement is you can be a foodie and health-conscious (healthy) at the same time. By this, he means to say that adding a tax to junk food would fail to include other unhealthy beverages like juice which has a large amount of sugar. It affects the poor and non-white people who consume a large number of soft drinks with the most sensitive price. 

The writer's main purpose is to inform readers about taxing soft drinks and the impact of tax on non-white Americans. 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 sceptical 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 food. 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.

The lack of clarity strengthens Engber's point as it indicates such a tax may not be enough to decrease the obesity rate and burden the poor people. 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. Engber doesn't believe that Kessler's statements are false, but believes the way Kessler presents his information is flawed and limited. Engber views this application of neuroscience as an over-sensationalization of the issue that fails to acknowledge how food is meant to be delicious, and that there are all kinds of things that technically "rewire" our brains. He includes this reference as a way to lead into his discussion about the class issues present in the "fat tax".

Comprehension

1.     According to Engber, what is the public's attitude toward taxing junk food and soda? How does he support this generalization?

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 have received too much pushback to be implemented.

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?

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 become truly addictive needs to be emphasized.

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"?

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.

Purpose and Audience

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.

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/behaviours but wants his readers to recognize the class issue at play with such regulations.

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?

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 sceptical 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 food. 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.

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?

This strengthens 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:

Style and Structure

1.     What is the purpose of paragraphs 2 and 3? Why are they important to Engber's argument?

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.

2.     In paragraph 6, Engbner 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?

Engbner 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 to lessen the stigmatization of "dumpster divers" and to provoke empathy and understanding in the reader.

3.     Engber ends his essay with a surprising analogy. What two things is he comparing? Is this comparison logical? What point does it make?

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.

***

  Click for Next Lesson:  https://limbuchandrabahadur.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-meat-market-alex-tabarrok-bbs-1st.html