Should We Regulate Sugar Like Alcohol Or Alcohol Summary

This essay will discuss the article "Should We Regulate Sugar Like Alcohol or Tobacco?" by Art Carden, Economics Professor at Samford University and writer for Forbes magazine. There are many people in favor and many other against sugar regulation, therefore, it is going to be interesting to see both points of view. The author of the article is against sugar taxation, throughout the article, he explains his reasons for disagreeing on this regulation. However, another article that talks about the benefits of such tax is going to be analyzed, in order to compare both points of view.
Taxing sugar is not a good idea. Firstly, if we look from a different point of view, non-communicable diseases are considered wealthy diseases, and if we see that

in poor countries such diseases have increased, this probably means that the economy in these countries has improved, that is not so bad.
On the other hand, the fact that infectious diseases are not the main cause of death proves that there has been a great progress in medical field and thanks to this progress, people have a longer life expectancy.
A second downside about taxing sugar is that in fact, this taxation can be used to enrich only a few people, instead of bringing benefits to consumers, such as better health. Taxation could even worsen the situation; as we know, when people want something, they seek by whatever means the way to get it, and as a result, it could bring new smugglers and higher prices. In addition, government should spend a lot of money and resources to enforce that mandate, in order to reduce sugar intake. And to be honest, who would waste time and money just to make sure that all people is paying taxes by consuming sweetened products?
Art Carden wrote "Should We Regulate Sugar Like Alcohol or Tobacco?" in order to persuade readers that taxing sugar is not a good idea. He claims being worried about non-communicable diseases, and about his children's diet, however, when he is asked about whether the government should take control in terms of sugar regulation, he gives a resounding no. Immediately invites you to read the reasons why he believes it is not a good idea.
By presenting about six different points and developing them, he tries to convince readers that taxing sweetened products is not necessary, and that on the contrary of what one thinks, this idea would bring more disadvantages than benefits.

This article is quite subjective; the author expresses fully what he feels about the topic, leaving no room for the possibility that sugar may be taxable. He even cites the works of other authors, however, he does in order to convince the reader that the points of these authors, who are in favor of the sugar regulation, are baseless points and not good enough to encourage sugar taxation.
The information is significant because he gave this problem an economic perspective, which is very unusual at this kind of topics. He takes the increase of non -communicable diseases as a rate to measure social welfare and economic growth. Carden also discusses about the high costs that government would have to pay if they decided to tax sweetened products.
However, when he argues about cancer and diabetes as possible rates to measure life expectancy and social welfare, he refers to these diseases as diseases that only attack old people, when the truth is that cancer and diabetes also attack young people as well as children. This fallacy invalidates a bit his first

point.
Although it is an article written with logic, there are some terms that author could clarify, in order to fully understand what he wants to state.
Should sugar be regulated like alcohol and tobacco? That is the question. While Carden argues the negative points about it, Rochman claims for a better health by taxing sugar. By analyzing two different articles, with two completely different perspectives, taking a position on this discussion could be easier or even more complicated.
It is absolutely true what Rochman (2012, para.1, 2, 7) argues about sugar, it is damaging to health; it causes diabetes and obesity, affects the metabolism, and many other diseases that can even cause death.

In spite of all this, sugar taxation is not an option.
As Carden explains, each individual is responsible for his own diet, health and body, sugar taxation may work for a while, but when people want something, they get it ,no matter how, where or the cost. So the government would invest a lot of money and other resources to reduce sugar consumption, but at the end people would continue consuming sugar. It would be a waste of time, resources and money. Carden is absolutely right in that point, it may sound a bit selfish, but it is true.
At some point he missed arguing that deaths from non-communicable diseases were not bad, as these could serve as indices of social welfare. This affirmation could have been accepted at the end of the last century or the very beginning of this century, but his article published in 2012 and since there are more effective ways to measure social welfare, this may be one of the few negative point at his article, besides the argument of cancer as a measure of life expectancy, because most people know that cancer is not only an elders disease; it affects every human being, regardless of sex or

age.
It can be concluded that it is a good and interesting article, since the author gives a different approach to the topic. Usually, when someone discusses about sugar regulation, many people only argue about the benefits that this would bring to health, although it is a great benefit, is interesting that some people argue about the economic and social disadvantages that this regulation would bring. From now on, sugar regulation is not only a health issue, but also an economic welfare issue.