The Debate about the Real Impact of Sugar - Essay Example

LIЕD СRIТIСАL АNАLYSIS Name Insitutiton Date It is now widespread that excessive consumption of sugar or products with excessive sugar is harmful to the health of a person in the long run. This is not just a problem of the developed world. Virtually all countries that have embraced a diet especially those dominated by low-cost, highly processed foods, has recorded a rise in the rates of obesity and other associated diseases. It is estimated that there are about 30% more persons who are overweight than those who are malnourished due to a number of reasons key among them the excessive consumption of sugar or products containing excess sugar. Many medical practitioners have advanced that poor blood regulation is the main precursor to insulin resistance and thus the most severe side effects of weight gain and the primary symptom of metabolic syndrome. This essay is a critical analysis of the debate about the real impact of sugar. The following analysis contains clear and detailed analysis of the framing devices used in the three newspapers. These newspapers are The Daily Telegraph (London), The Daily Mail (London) and The Guardian (London). This critical analysis draws on the CDA framework in an effort to bring out the intended meaning. The article clearly employs the use of Goal Premise under the CDA framework in an effort to convince the readers that the consumption of sugar is indeed harmful to the body. Under the Goal Premise, the writer postulates a future state of affairs in accordance with some source of normativity. In the article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph, ‘Sugar ban would please PM's wife’, Cameron, a politician states that his wife is ready to forgo sugar for a whole day in order to sensitize people against the dangers of excessive consumption of sugar. Key among the consequence Cameron’s wife mentions is the risk of being obese. Another article that employs the use of Goal Premise is ‘Nine Teaspoons of Sugar in just a Pint of Real Ale’ from the Daily Mail dated February 5th 2014. Additionally, many article writers use the Circumstantial Premise whereby it specifies what the context of action is, that is, facts (natural, social, institutional) that are relevant to the action, that enable it or constrain it. In The Guardian dated April 1, 2014, the writer of the article, ‘Why refined sugar is the real enemy: Anyone for 10 a day?’ appears to utilize Circumstantial Premise because of two facets. One, he is a professor, a learned person who is believed to speak facts about the effects of sugar. One of his statements is particularly forceful, “If the government and Public Health England don't shift and show acknowledgment that science goes forward; they will lose street cred," he said. "There is so much hidden sugar and so many people don't realize it." Of note, Circumstantial Premise is used in order to sway the people’s thinking be reflecting on the results of certain actions they make. Case in point, the consumption of sugar, for a fact does not have adversative effect. However, when a person consumes more than the stipulated quantities, he or she is likely to be obese (factual) and suffer from other sugra related complications like diabetes (factual). The conception of sugar and sugar-related products is not unique in this critical analysis. The two sides have strived to employ every available argumentative tactic in order to win over the audience. In the articles analyzed, there are several instances of where writers have used persuasive definitions. For instance, virtually all articles that intended to convince the audience that sugar is extremely dangerous used persuasive definitions. This was mainly to attach the emotions of the audience in order to attain maximum effects that can lead to change in the consumptions of the stated sugars. A perfect example is the article by, “How using less sugar could end obesity crisis” by Sarah Knapton. In this article, the writer defines sugar in the same level as alcohol or even tobacco. When she mentions tobacco or alcohol, she wants to attach these frames with sugar so as to emotionally drag the reader to her side. In addition, in this article, she quotes Simon Capewell, a professor of clinical and epidemiology at the University of Liverpool, “Sugar is the new tobacco.” This manifestly shows that the writer is using persuasive definition of sugar in her argument. This can also be Stipulative Definition because the writer is assigning meaning to a totally new term, producing a usage that never formerly existed. In the past, nobody or no institution has associated sugar and tobacco in terms of the impact on the human body. The writer, therefore, is merely crafting his own conception of sugar in an effort to convince the audience against excessive consumption of sugar. To greater extent, the writer is also using a metaphor so as to somewhat scare people from consuming sugar as they might end up depressed, ill and ultimately succumb just like tobacco consumers. The use of metaphors all newspapers is also felt by selective writers. Metaphors serve the function of making the point clear by pointing to another similar item. Several writers across the three newspapers have endeavored to use metaphors in order to put forth their case. For instance, Rosie Boycott wrote in Mail on Sunday in January 12, 2014, “It tastes sublime - but it’s as addictive as drugs.” Comparing sugar to drugs is a metaphor that is devoid of facts and lacks premise. It is obvious that sugar is not addictive as well as harmful like prohibited drugs. In order to persuade the audience, Boycott tries to use a metaphor to illustrate the nature of sugar-at least from his point of view. Therefore, this comparison is completely off the mark and incongruous such belligerent issues. On the contrary, some writers have vehemently opposed the use of metaphor in an effort to highlight the impact of over-consumption of sugar. In the article, “Comparing sugar to tobacco wrong, says ex-health secretary” by Rowena Mason on January 10th 2014, it is totally uncalled for and obviously alarming to compare the two items. Factually, he states that the health experts are very wrong to assert that sugar is as perilous as smoking tobacco. Several article writers across the three newspapers use lexical definitions of sugar. Just to illustrate, Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist does not endeavor to alter the definitions of sugar or introduce new effects. In his article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph on March 8th 2014, “It's time to protect people from the excesses and manipulations of the food industry; A Commentary,” she states the way things are. He merely quotes on what has been studied and whose findings are valid vis a vis the effects of sugar. Jenny Hope, a medical correspondent of the Daily mail (London) wrote an article, “One Fizzy Drink per Day Raises Heart Risk.” There are no deliberate embellishments of the usage and definition of the term sugar as noticed in other articles. She is forthright and simply describes the dangers of sugars if consumed beyond acceptable levels. It is important to note that, articles written by professionals especially medical practitioners like Aseem Malhotra and to a lesser extent Jenny Hope, are devoid of half-facts and lies. The articles are purely scientific and, therefore, bear scientific validity and reliability findings. The writers effectively used the definitions in the correct way which goes a long way in convincing the reader about their credibility. Further, it helps the reader understand the conceptions of the notions in question. For instance, the articles are very informative and thus valuable to the audience. The audience is not compelled to agree with the writer, but to make his or her own decisions regarding the facts that have been presented. As noted in the discussion above, it is very important to note that there is great impact that these articles may have caused since they were published up to now. These articles, no doubt, have massive social, political and moral implications in Britain and beyond. Socially, the articles will most likely compel people to stop the ever increasing consumption of sugar. Citizens will be extra careful because of the consequences of the over consumption. High consumption of sugar has been connected with the increase of overweight and obesity cases. Numerous longitudinal studies, but not all, have revealed that there is an association between sugar and several measures of increased body fat. Systematic reviews show that a greater consumption of sugar is related to small but noteworthy weight gain and obesity. As the campaign against over-consumption of sugar continues, more and more people will start reducing the purchases and consumption of sugar. There will emerge, within the medical field, a body that would specialize in giving advice, diagnosis and treatment of sugar related conditions if people do not reduce the amount of sugar they are consuming. From a scientific point of view, the effects of excessive sugar are explicit and experiments can be validated. It is for a fact that sugar comes along with other diseases like diabetes and other diseases. Politically, the implications will be dire and far reaching. Most sugar producing and distribution companies will start lobbying so as to block any law that prohibits the consumption or distribution of sugar. For instance, in one of the articles dated March 10th 2014, Sophie Borland, a health reporter states that already multinational companies have swiftly moved to protect their interest by ensuring that laws that go against their market interests do not pass. The article read in part, “THE radical UN recommendation to halve sugar intake will not be implemented in Britain says a Whitehall adviser on nutrition who has worked for Mars and Coca-Cola.” This shows the extent manufacturers and distributors can go in order to preserve the status quo. Just as predicted, the World Health Organization will wade in the murky waters of the sugar debate. Recently, the health body advised on the recommendation of the amount of sugar every individual is supposed to consume. However, the proposal was received coldly by legislators as well as the general populace. Nonetheless, the most important aspect under political implication is the role that the politicians play in the face of these debates. In retrospective, the politicians will be sharply divided even though the case against the over-consumption of sugar or sugar products. Millions of shillings will be at stake if some rafts of measures are put in place by legislators. Consequently, there is need to be in good terms with politicians in order for them to protect their interests. Additionally, some economic scholars are already fronting the idea of taxing sugar so as to curb the rate of obesity in Britain. This idea is not far-fetched even though the industries will cry foul because of the anticipated low sales due to high prices of sugar and sugar related prices. As illustrated in the foregoing essay, different writers have used different framing devices used in the three newspapers analyzed. The three newspapers are The Daily Telegraph (London), The Daily Mail (London) and The Guardian (London). In these papers, the writers have mainly used the practical arguments in the new CDA framework in order to explicate how the writers argue out their points. In this framework, the most used premises include the circumstantial premise and the goal premise. The writers used a number of framing devices and these include but limited to ostensive definitions, lexical definitions, stipulative definitions and persuasive definitions. As noted, most writers used persuasive definitions in order to convince the readers on the consumption of excessive sugar or sugar products. Indeed, these framing devices are quite effective especially in belligerent issues like these. Most writers showed that they were capable of using the framing devices effectively and indeed most people who read most of these articles may have thought about changing their behavior apropos to excessive sugar consumption. From this critical analysis, it is clear that sugar, even though exaggerated at times, is harmful to the body if consumed excessively. Read More