The Role Of Sugar Farming In The United States

In their 2012 article, "The Toxic Truth about Sugar," Lustig et al argue that sugar, like alcohol, ought to be regulated by governments due to the harm it can cause to individuals' health and the public good. Their argument, at first glance, appears to be highly logical and virtually unassailable: alcohol is regulated because it is bad for health and causes other problems for society, and so sugar which is the cause of much greater and more pervasive health problems and is also detrimental to the social and cultural fabric of the peoples of the world in a variety of ways involving the agricultural industry and global development should also be carefully regulated and controlled. The researchers cite actions taken in other countries along the same lines as a further justification of their call for more control when it comes to sugar content and consumption, and clearly spell out some of the concrete harms that increased sugar consumption has had and will have on the world's population, not just in developed/industrialized countries but in all countries adopting similar diets. This adds up to a very compelling picture of the threat that sugar specifically and "junk food" (calorie-dense and nutritionally-lacking consumables) generally constitutes to the world population.

Sugar is everywhere in our lives. When you eat, sugar is in the food such as hamburger, sandwiches, pizza, bread, etc. When you drink, sugar is in the beverage like soda, juice, coffee and even milk. Furthermore, sugar exists in snacks such as cookies, cupcakes, biscuits and so on. I cannot list everything with sugar here. Actually, when we eat, we eat sugar. Unfortunately, sugar is now considering a toxic to our bodies. It causes diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart attack and cancer, etc. As sugar threatens the public health, government is considering curb sugar consumption by taxes on sugar; restrictions placed on food production and even age requirements on purchasing sugary foods. For this research project, I decided to pursue the question, Should sugar be regulated? This question deserves to be examined because we need to make some change for life to reduce sugar intake but at the same time it’s controversial that whether the government should intervene and regulate sugar. I wonder how the government will take appropriate measures to regulate sugar as well as improve public health.

Ultimately, the debate continues as to whether the US government should create strict sugar regulations or not. Sugar regulations should be enforced in order to decrease the rate of diabetes, risk of liver failures, and sugar addiction problems. These problems outright can ruin a person’s life, even leading to death. These problems give the necessary reason for the government to take action for a stricter sugar regulation for population

The founding fathers of what was to become Sugar Land, Texas, would likely be surprised by the evolution of the community. Sugar Land's roots can be traced to the original land grant that Stephen F. Austin received from the government of Mexico. In 1838, Nathaniel Williams purchased the land that his brother would name Oakland Plantation due to the many varieties of oaks. The brothers and many of the neighboring plantation owners grew corn, cotton and sugar cane, and the area's first sugar refinery was built around 1879. The town of Sugar Land quickly grew around the refinery.

Thesis As I said earlier high fructose corn syrup is commonly used for a cheaper sugar substitute. But government subtitles aren't the only price we are paying. Fructose corn syrup is much more fattening than sugar. Michael pollen states in omnivore's dilemma that “Kids in the us today may turn out to be the first group of Americans with life spans that are shorter than their parents.” This important because fructose corn syrup is part of that. If we keep eating the way we do things are not going to go well. Already “momently 17% of children and teenagers are obese in 2015b compared to 5% back in the 1970s”. If we keep eating way it could lead to debits heart problems and more food policies need to be change so there is not even a possibility of choosing colorful high fructose corn slurp over an apple

I write with greatest regret, about your enforcement of the sugar act, I respect you and my lord and do not wish to defy you. I am a humble tavern owner in the colony of Maryland. Ever since you enforced of the sugar act, I have lost the ability to buy enough rum, because taxation on molasses too high. I am aware that you have recently lowered the taxes on molasses, but would you lower it a little more. I know it is unheard of to question the right of the king and I respect you, but this law has caused my tavern to become less and less popular, i cant compete with the others for I have no money. For if you do not get rid of this act, I will move to the west side, over the proclamation line. You might ask yourself, how is one silly little colonist

By the end of the French and Indian War, the British had seen an exponential growth in national debt. When George Grenville became George III’s chief minister he inherited stock in a country that was heavily in debt and quickly losing control of its financial situation. He proposed a series of acts that would make the American Colonies help pay back the debt that the british owed. These acts (Sugar, Currency & Stamps) became the first of several Parliamentary decisions that would lead to the war that removed the Colonies from British control. The sugar act was passed in 1764 to try and secure the British trade economy. Faced with the large numbers of soldiers to pay and debts from financing the war, the British determined that

When most people think about sugar, their first thoughts are not: heart disease, addiction, or slow and painful death; yet, unfortunately, these conditions are very real consequences of the unregulated and excessive consumption of sugar. In Nature’s article, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” (2012), Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist; Laura Schmidt, Professor of Health Policy at UCSF; and Claire Brindis, Professor of Pediatrics and Health Policy at UCSF, evaluate the world’s ever-increasing and toxic struggle with the substance sugar – also discussing counter measures to promote healthier diets amongst American’s and other societies. Lustig and his colleagues develop their argument using statistical evidence as they address the global impact of sugar, refuting minor oppositions, before dissecting each harmful aspect of the substance – even comparing it to substances more known for their toxicity. Eventually, presenting readers with possible routes of regulation, the authors firmly suggest government intervention in the production and sale of sugary foods. Although the argument is well executed, I remain unconvinced that government intervention is actually necessary.

The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament in April 1764 at the suggestion of George Grenville. This law, the principal ever gone by Parliament particularly to raise income from the states, was a piece of a more extensive push to fortify majestic control after the Seven Years' War and in the meantime decrease the huge national obligation England had acquired amid the battling. The pilgrims kept up that the Sugar Demonstration constituted "imposing taxes without any political benefit," since their chose agents sat in the frontier assemblies, not in Parliament. Moreover, Grenville's general project to concentrate more income from the states was seen by them as a financial danger, in perspective of the business decay America had encountered since

The Debate around Sugar Tax has become pivotal in regard to policies made within the Government. In Robin Grieve’s Article; What would a Sugar Tax Achieve, he identifies the main problem with the sugar tax is that, “Without knowing what rate of tax will be imposed no one can know how consumers will react and what effect it will have on consumption and therefore if it is a good idea or not.” The understanding of the problem comes from a Neo-Liberal perspective, as Grieve supports the idea that nothing should be done to intervene with the idea of Consumer Sovereignty. Various possible Policy Initiatives could result from this understanding of the problem, these could include things such as “Open Information” policies, and policies with the manufacturers company in regard to Bulk Sale. The understanding of the problem, due to not understanding the extent of the effect, doesn 't include the relation to obesity, and “Sugary Drink” consumption, and the idea that the Sugar Tax could do more harm than good in terms of the increase of consumption, and the replacing of healthier foods in order to still afford the sugar drinks. Alternative understanding of the issue could result in alternative policy initiative’s, for example, if there was an open information act in regard to suggested policies such as this, there would be greater focus on the idea of how it would affect health, rather than the economic market and global consumptions.

Sugar cane was first brought to Australia from South Africa with the first fleet in 1788. The sugarcane industry is of particular interest to Queenslanders as the bulk of Australia’s sugar is grown in Queensland. Today sugarcane is one of the most highly mechanised agricultural industries and is still a huge importance to the economy of North Queensland. Without the South Sea Islanders the sugarcane industries wouldn’t be as big as they are to this day.

In Mintz’s book, “Sweetness and Power,” we are introduced into the history, production, and consumption of sugar. Sugar comes from two sources: sugar cane and beets (Class Notes October 6, 2016). In discussing the history of sugar, Mintz says, “The sugar cane was first domesticated in New Guinea […] around 8000 B.C.” (Mintz 2016: 19). Yet, sugar was not processed from sugar cane until around five-hundred years ago (Mintz 2016: 16). Once different culture and countries became aware of processed sugar, it was a way for them to use sugar as opposed to different sweeteners. Being able to use sugar as an alternative, required countries to start producing it. The labor force who would produce sugar, “would have to sell its labor to the owners

In conclusion, both the pros and cons of taxing sugary drinks are likely to remain. Any attempt to address the issue will find people on each side of the debate. There will always be people who will only make changes when they are personally affected. Likewise, there will always be people willing to make changes for the greater good. In the end, States decision maker’s most careful examine both side of the sugar tax debate, as well as listen to the voices of their

We should cut down our sugar intake in America. We should start small by starting locally in our communities. Shopping from a farmer’s markets

Nowhere have protectionist tendencies been more evident than in agriculture. Across developed nations, trade barriers for agricultural commodities remain higher than those for manufactured goods. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates that on average the U.S. imposes tariffs of 4.72% on agricultural products as opposed to 3.56% on non-agricultural imports (Tariff Analysis Database, n.d.). While these tariffs are lower than those of many other developed nations, the U.S. also provide significant subsidies to agricultural producers that tend distort international markets. In the author’s opinion, the U.S. and its trading partners should pursue further agricultural trade liberalization. This position is developed in the following paragraphs. First, the economic principles favoring free trade are presented. Next, opposing arguments are considered. Finally, the paper concludes by recommending that