 |
| "Context Matters" (via ContextFM). |
Among the perspectives, the major disagreement is over the impact on the body. There are studies showing both ways.
A possible point of agreement is that artificial sweeteners have no health value. Another point of agreement may be that they should be consumed in moderation. The second point may be harder to prove, because there are many people who do not consume them in moderation.
The ideological differences between the groups are centered around "naturalness." There are people who think that science is progressing and improving food, and there are people who are hesitant to accept it because it is "unnatural."
The perspective of the anti-sweeteners asks people to stop eating sweeteners, while the perspective of pro-sweeteners asks the reader to make their own choice.
The fact that many people consume artificial sweeteners, and the fact that the FDA allows artificial sweeteners helps my argument. Also, the perspective that the general American population consumes artificial sweeteners helps my argument. I chose these because people using them in their coffee every morning shows a lot.
I think that there are definitely studies that show that sweeteners are bad for you, but I don't see that as a threat because my argument is not just a black-and-white argument where I say "yes bad," or "no, good."
Reflection:
I read Lia's Blog and Grace's Blog. I'm definitely interested in their arguments because I have opposing views to both of their papers. I think that a paper is more interesting when it has a view other than your own because the whole time, you're like, "are they gonna pull this off?"
This kind of ties into what we were talking about in class today, with college freshman not having a lot of healthy options and stuff. For our whole nation, we're addicted to sugar. It's really hard, because sweeteners and sugary foods taste way better than healthy food, and the great amount of sugar that we consume is transferred directly into fat. I think you're right about this being a complicated issue, and that you can't look at it from a black and white point of view. To reduce the amount of sugar that we eat, we have to change our whole mindset as a nation. In my opinion, most of the change is going to have to come from food manufacturers, for America to really change her ways.
ReplyDeleteI think you've gotten really good ideas down for the main points of the artificial sweeteners debate. I think you have the basis for the argument down but I think you should work on providing another alternative to the artificial sweeteners. People won't stop eating sugar. That's just a fact that the entire population of America has seemed to prove, like Lia said. But I think what could be important is showing different ways in which people can still enjoy their food without having the bad affects of artificial sweeteners.
ReplyDeleteThis looks like a really great argument. I really like how theres the progressive crowd who thinks letting the food market run its course and how it contrasts those who think of the public good first. It reminds me a lot of my debate with Uber. I was wondering, with your first point, if the debate was over these sweeteners being consumed or them being put into peoples food in general. It seems like a small point, but in terms of the argument it totally changes who is fighting in this debate.
ReplyDelete