Oral_Script_for_Sugary_Beverages_Tax

ORAL PRESENTATION SCRIPT FOR ENGLISH SAC Someone once said to me that there are two certainties in life, each as bad as the other: taxes and death. In my youth, I already see the big problem of tax. Today, the issue of whether a tax should be added on to sugary soft drinks and beverages has surfaced and has been the focus of Australian media. This was triggered by some medical and health parties who want to try and stem the rising tide of obesity levels in Australia especially in the younger generations. And they have pushed for the tax now, just after America and France have successfully have done the same thing, so the politicians are pressured to keep up with the trends. So, the question is: should there be a tax on sweetened beverages' My firm belief is that such a notion would be utterly absurd. Taxing sugary beverages in my humble opinion, would do little or nothing at all to I believe curb the obesity problems facing society except for depriving less fortunate peoples of some satisfaction and nutrition they currently derive from these sources. If they want to tax anything, I believe that the fast food chains and junk food companies should be taxed, as well as raising awareness and running more physical education in schools. Essentially, they are taking away the liberty of buying sweetened drinks from the poor. One point argued in the article “Hard line on soft drinks ‘will help families’” suggests that putting a tax on sugary drinks, will encourage people to go for healthier foods and drinks because they will probably end up the same price, in the long run. Could this, in fact, be so' Have the medical fraternity even stopped to consider the monetary situations of the majority of the people, who consume these beverages' Do they not for the greater part come from the poorer sectors of society' For sure, raising prices of sugary beverages to encourage people to opt for healthier options is a good idea, but is it a practical one for the already struggling masses' I doubt it. The tax will have no effect whatsoever on the wealthy, but on the effect on us normal people and the poorer people who buy these products, it will mean a big drain on their already meagre resources and cause unnecessary complications, for some it will mean a life of poverty. Should we allow a tax that would make life harder for those already struggling and which would have little or no effect on the wealthy' Of course not!!! Take the annual Cost of Living Report, conducted by the Australian Government each year; it states that if a family with two children switched to healthy foods and beverages for a year, they would spend at least $1500 more than with the “unhealthy food”. It also states that the annual cost of living is steadily rising and that salaries are not keeping pace. This is why some families are switching to the unhealthy options, because it is all they can afford. Also, the cost for buying sports drinks when playing strenuous sports or simply to keep one from exhaustion, when there is a need to stay awake to study for example, people will be paying a very high price for a needed fluid. So, why should they restrict the struggling families when a study by healthland medical stated “higher income actually increased the odds of obesity'” This shows just how ineffective and thoughtless the tax on sugary drinks is. Recent studies and surveys do show that obesity is a growing health risk for Australians, and some scientists and people claim that sugary beverages are a major contribution to obesity in Australians. They also claim that Australians are excessively consuming these sugary drinks. But let’s stop to think. Surveys also show that the average Australian doesn’t drink even half of the amount recommended so how could they be excessively consuming these drinks and how are they downing so many extra calories' A regular can of coca-cola provides twelve percent of an adult’s average dietary intake per day. That is like eating afternoon tea. It really is nothing. Seeing that the average Australian doesn’t even drink one can a day, or maybe a couple playing sports, how then can people even suggest that others are excessively consuming these drinks, except maybe, a select few. They seem to have totally overlooked that most sugary beverages have a purpose. They aren’t harmful when used in moderation. Many sportsmen buy these drinks to replenish the vitamins and electrolytes which are lost during sport and to provide a quick energy source from sugar which is burnt up very quickly too. These drinks are already very expensive but after putting a tax on them, most won’t be able to afford these energizing drinks which do help keep people healthy. It is like they haven’t even considered the purpose these drinks serve to keep people HEALTHY. In most of the articles written supporting the tax, for example “Sweet way to go' Drip-feed soft drink the road to fat” from The Age, they give the nutrition reading for the most sugary drinks for a 600ml bottle when a normal serving size is a 375ml can. That really is deception. This shows how desperate the parties and media exaggerations that rally for a higher tax imposition on sugary drinks are, being deceptive and trying to pounce on the unsuspecting person. But have they for one moment turned their eyes onto the more glaring and hideous junk foods served up by International fast food chains like Red Rooster; Mac Donald’s and KFC. Would these outlets be spared from a tax hike on their products too' Might we highlight “pig-fat” ice-cream; surely these fast food chains with oily, fatty, high calorie foods should be taxed before drink companies which make drinks for enjoyment and purpose. Why shouldn’t they propose a tax on junk food as well, or even only on the foods because drinking healthier drinks will have virtually no effect on obesity' After all, Geoff Parker from the Australian Beverages Council said that “focusing on a single source of kilojoules in the diet hasn’t worked in the past, it is ignoring the concept of total diet.” Are they only trying to penalize the sugary drinks, why not the junk food that is excessively eaten which has preservatives, fats and oils. “Consuming more kilojoules than what is burnt leads to weight gain” so we are shown that it is how the individual acts to stop weight gain, either restrict the amount of calories or do more exercise to burn the calories. So, the blame can’t really be passed on to a certain product; it is the individual’s choice. So really, “Applying the tax to certain arguments because those items have an emotional association to obesity in the minds of some groups is not only flawed, but short sited and lazy.” If they really wanted to stem obesity, they should run educational sessions and be proactive doing things like making physical education in schools compulsory for the entire schooling journey or tax the actual benefactors of obesity. Summing up our dissertation on this topic, I find that imposing a tax on sweetened beverages will not achieve anything in the area of stemming obesity. I believe that if authorities really wanted to stem obesity, they should run more educational sessions, cater for more sports camps, make physical activity in schools compulsory for all students or tax the culprits for obesity. Yes, there could and would be many, many more varied and wonderful ways of creating a slim and healthy younger generation instead of taxing certain drinks. Surely, you think that all would realize that sugary drinks are one of the smallest contributions of calories to ones diet, and that many a factor not just food and drink that contribute to obesity in people. Rendering a tax on sugared drinks is both ‘tasteless’ and counterproductive. Should sugared drinks be further taxed' I answer emphatically: “no”!! Persuasive techniques: * Inclusive language * Expert opinion * Rhetoric questions * Attacks * Sarcasm * Statistics * Appeals * Pun Bibliography: * Company: News.com. Date of last site update: 17 Jan 2013. Title: Health groups call for inquiry into taxing soft drinks. Web address: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/health-groups-call-for-inquiry-into-taxing-soft-drinks/story-fneuzkvr-1226555375628. Date accessed: 16 March 2013 * Company: Australian beverages council. Date of last site update: 17 Jan 2013.Title of webpage: Industry labels rethink sugary drinks campaign as misguided. Web address: http://australianbeverages.org/lib/pdf/industry%20responds%20to%20Rethink%20Sugary%20Drinks%20Campaign.pdf. Date accessed: 17 March 2013 * Company: The Age. Date of last site update: 16 Jan 2013. Title: Sweet way to go' Drip-feed soft drinks the road to fat. Web address: http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/sweet-way-to-go-dripfeed-soft-drink-the-road-to-fat-20130116-2ctsn.html. Date accessed: 15 March 2013 * Company: Herald Sun. Date of last site update: 16 September 2012. Title: Hard line on soft drinks ‘will help families’.Web address: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/hard-line-on-soft-drinks-will-help-families/story-fnbzs1v0-1226475026732. Date accessed: 15 March 2013 * Company: Herald Sun. Date of last site update: 17 Jan 2013. Title: Debate over tax on soft drinks. Web address: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/tv-campaign-to-tackle-sugary-drinks/story-e6frf7kf-1226555477761 Date accessed: 15 March 2013 * Company: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Date of last site update: 4 September 2012. Title: Australian Bureau of statistics Web address: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4364.0.55.001Main%20Features99992011-12'opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4364.0.55.001&issue=2011-12&num=&view=. Date accessed: 17 March 2013