Mock Trail: Sugar Debate
Justice Opinion
As someone who is personally very educated on the topic of food and health and who is really careful about my consumption, my initial opinion was that added and processed sugar needed to be restricted and controlled. I automatically sided with the pro team. When I was writing out my opinion before the trial began I wrote about how corporation that sold us junk food had many unfair advantages over healthy food. It is cheaper and more available to the public. These giant businesses have tricks with marketing . If healthy foods had as much money and incentive behind them then I believe that it should really be up to the consumer but the fact is it isn't fair at all. Kids watch commercials of their favorite cartoons telling them to eat sugary and unhealthy foods. How do you expect a child to know better when the happy meal comes with a toy and a jungle gym. You can't expect them understand the consequences of eating these foods. You would think that this would mean the responsibility was left to the parents. Many of these junk foods such as cereal are good at hiding the fact that their products are processed and loaded with sugar. They often claim they are infact healthy. With packaging displaying fresh fruits and vegetables and claims of the vitamins within their food while completely hiding the crucial information about their products.
When the trial began the lawyers from each side gave their opening statements. I accepted what I heard from the pro side. They believed that the government needs to control sugar as they do with cigarettes and alcohol. They suggested they ban foods with added and processed sugars from commercials, add warning labels to products, and limit the sizes of these products available in restaurants. “Harmful effects of sugar emphasized to show how dangerous sugar can be in the long run. Sugar can cause health issues that are comparable to the health issues that cigarettes and alcohol can cause. Sugar also has large amounts of glucose and fructose, fructose is not necessary. The only organ in our body that can metabolize fructose is the liver anyways. Sugar poses many other potential health issues like diabetes and heart problems. Fructose also can turn into fat if your liver is filled with glycogen, when the fructose turns into fat some of it stays in the liver and may cause Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.” This is the summary of their case. I completely agree with these facts.
When the pro side went up I was surprised with their claim. Right off the bat they stated that nobody can argue that added and processed sugary is good for people. I expected them to try to convince us that sugar wasnt that harmful and is meant to be consumed in small doses and that its our citizens choice to abuse it. They said quite the opposite. I went back to the main question. Under what circumstances and to what extent should the government control the availability of added or processed sugar? They weren't just making the obvious case that it should be up to the consumer because its a “free country” instead they made a very intelligent point that the government already has involvement in the added and processed sugar market. They subsidize corn so large scale corn farmers and products actually have an unfair advantage. The first quote I want to use from their opening statement is
“During the great depression, the government took action and gave farmers money to make food cost less (which helped us over 60 years ago). With that, corn has been growing and becoming genetically modified to grow faster and easier. The overproduction of processed unnatural making of corn only uses corn based products, such as high fructose corn syrup. Yet, civilians continue to choose these products because it does not cost much, tastes good, and may have “nutrients”. “
They bring up the important fact of first off why corn farmers are being subsidized and how these rules are no longer useful to our nation. Infact they are being abused.
“Price support is a way the government takes control of the market. If the government didn't have any interference, people would not be forced to buy their products. It would cause farmers to control growing their corn and sugar because their profit would be based off of supply and demand. People would have a choice of what they want. Farmers would have a chance to compete with corporate farms. “
This quote from their opening statement explains that this eliminates the free market. The government gives these junk food products an unfair advantage by making it cheaper for them to make their product. If the government was to remove all involvement with the corn industry it would actually give justice to the situation. It was be even more of a “free county” It was give smaller farmers and natural products similar chances. It was increase the price of junk food thus making the money issue of food choices eliminated and the choice would truly be up to the consumer.
The part that made me finally agree with the con side is when they asked Marion Nestle their last question. They asked “what was more effect; cutting a weed from the stem or from the root?” Most of the justices seemed to find this question irrelevant but it made a lot of sense to me. What they meant is that by controlling the people of our nation we are just cutting the problem at the surface. If we want to actually solve it we need to go deeper to the source of the problem. This is an issue between the government and these corporations selling poison to the citizens of the united states.
Both sides agreed that added and processed sugars are bad. They both agreed something had to be done. I believe the Con side had a more valid case. I believe the government should remove all involvement with the processed and added sugar market because this gives true equality to the free market and will consequently reduce the control that junk food has on the market and make healthier options more available.
As someone who is personally very educated on the topic of food and health and who is really careful about my consumption, my initial opinion was that added and processed sugar needed to be restricted and controlled. I automatically sided with the pro team. When I was writing out my opinion before the trial began I wrote about how corporation that sold us junk food had many unfair advantages over healthy food. It is cheaper and more available to the public. These giant businesses have tricks with marketing . If healthy foods had as much money and incentive behind them then I believe that it should really be up to the consumer but the fact is it isn't fair at all. Kids watch commercials of their favorite cartoons telling them to eat sugary and unhealthy foods. How do you expect a child to know better when the happy meal comes with a toy and a jungle gym. You can't expect them understand the consequences of eating these foods. You would think that this would mean the responsibility was left to the parents. Many of these junk foods such as cereal are good at hiding the fact that their products are processed and loaded with sugar. They often claim they are infact healthy. With packaging displaying fresh fruits and vegetables and claims of the vitamins within their food while completely hiding the crucial information about their products.
When the trial began the lawyers from each side gave their opening statements. I accepted what I heard from the pro side. They believed that the government needs to control sugar as they do with cigarettes and alcohol. They suggested they ban foods with added and processed sugars from commercials, add warning labels to products, and limit the sizes of these products available in restaurants. “Harmful effects of sugar emphasized to show how dangerous sugar can be in the long run. Sugar can cause health issues that are comparable to the health issues that cigarettes and alcohol can cause. Sugar also has large amounts of glucose and fructose, fructose is not necessary. The only organ in our body that can metabolize fructose is the liver anyways. Sugar poses many other potential health issues like diabetes and heart problems. Fructose also can turn into fat if your liver is filled with glycogen, when the fructose turns into fat some of it stays in the liver and may cause Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.” This is the summary of their case. I completely agree with these facts.
When the pro side went up I was surprised with their claim. Right off the bat they stated that nobody can argue that added and processed sugary is good for people. I expected them to try to convince us that sugar wasnt that harmful and is meant to be consumed in small doses and that its our citizens choice to abuse it. They said quite the opposite. I went back to the main question. Under what circumstances and to what extent should the government control the availability of added or processed sugar? They weren't just making the obvious case that it should be up to the consumer because its a “free country” instead they made a very intelligent point that the government already has involvement in the added and processed sugar market. They subsidize corn so large scale corn farmers and products actually have an unfair advantage. The first quote I want to use from their opening statement is
“During the great depression, the government took action and gave farmers money to make food cost less (which helped us over 60 years ago). With that, corn has been growing and becoming genetically modified to grow faster and easier. The overproduction of processed unnatural making of corn only uses corn based products, such as high fructose corn syrup. Yet, civilians continue to choose these products because it does not cost much, tastes good, and may have “nutrients”. “
They bring up the important fact of first off why corn farmers are being subsidized and how these rules are no longer useful to our nation. Infact they are being abused.
“Price support is a way the government takes control of the market. If the government didn't have any interference, people would not be forced to buy their products. It would cause farmers to control growing their corn and sugar because their profit would be based off of supply and demand. People would have a choice of what they want. Farmers would have a chance to compete with corporate farms. “
This quote from their opening statement explains that this eliminates the free market. The government gives these junk food products an unfair advantage by making it cheaper for them to make their product. If the government was to remove all involvement with the corn industry it would actually give justice to the situation. It was be even more of a “free county” It was give smaller farmers and natural products similar chances. It was increase the price of junk food thus making the money issue of food choices eliminated and the choice would truly be up to the consumer.
The part that made me finally agree with the con side is when they asked Marion Nestle their last question. They asked “what was more effect; cutting a weed from the stem or from the root?” Most of the justices seemed to find this question irrelevant but it made a lot of sense to me. What they meant is that by controlling the people of our nation we are just cutting the problem at the surface. If we want to actually solve it we need to go deeper to the source of the problem. This is an issue between the government and these corporations selling poison to the citizens of the united states.
Both sides agreed that added and processed sugars are bad. They both agreed something had to be done. I believe the Con side had a more valid case. I believe the government should remove all involvement with the processed and added sugar market because this gives true equality to the free market and will consequently reduce the control that junk food has on the market and make healthier options more available.