The Standard American Diet (literally SAD) is a health, economical, and political issue according to Mark Bittman.  In his essay, "Bad Food? Tax It," Bittman claims that a tax on unhealthy foods and sugary drinks will not only create a healthier America, but also generate billions of dollars, which can be used to subsidize the price of the healthy foods.  Being the author, Bittman is a major stakeholder in his argument.  This argument, however, carries some stake in itself.  The critical situation here is the obesity in America, and every part of this argument plays into that.  Every article written on the matter, every child that drinks another soda, every commercial that convinces someone to eat a burger is adding into this critical situation because it is potentially important as to what will happen next. It all comes down to a person's identity in the issue, and Bittman does an exceptional job addressing a wide-set audience in explaining this critical situation.

To get some more background on the subject, Bittman added quite a few bits of contextual information to describe just how serious this issue is.  First of all, between 1978 and 2001, 278 additional calories were added to the average American diet.  40% of this number is from sugary drinks such as soda -- these liquid calories leave a person feeling less full than if they ate food.  Needless to say, a person will consume more calories when they drink soda.  This soda, along with other food and drinks of issue, have been largely linked to Type 2 Diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and a lack of nutrients.  Obesity alone is predicted to cost the nation $344 billion by 2018 -- 60% of which will come from the federal government itself.  The same government that is encouraging unhealthy food at the moment by giving money to farmers to produce maximum amount of crops such as corn and soybeans.  These are the crops that produce high-fructose corn syrup and vegetable oil which keep the price of junk food so low.  However, many state and municipal governments are starting to contemplate whether or not this is such a good idea.  30 states and cities have considered taxing soda and other sugary drinks.

However, there are constraints to Bittman's argument.  For example, some may say that this will just never happen, it is not plausible, and the politics will not be breeched.  Well, it worked for tobacco companies in the 1960's.  As lawsuits were pursued against tobacco companies 50 years ago, the health concerns of tobacco became much more apparent to Americans.  More than half of Americans quit smoking after tobacco companies cut advertisements and financed antismoking campaigns.  To this day, smoking rates are still about half of what they were in the 1960's.

Bittman's critics may include those who support the poor.  These people may say something along the lines of, "Now the poor will spend more than half of their income on food."  Well, right now, they have that issue when it comes to consuming foods that will improve their health.  The poor are at a disadvantage now and do not have the money to afford the highly priced "staple food"  -- fruits, vegetables, and grains.  If we use the taxes gained from taxing foods of issue to lower the price of these staple foods, they will pay the same price for food.  Because it will be healthier, they will also save money due to fewer visits to the doctor caused by eating unhealthy substances.  Therefore, taxing unhealthy foods, and decreasing the prices of staples will improve the lives of the poor, not harm this community.

To further invent his argument, Bittman mentions studies that have been done to prove this tax system's credibility.  Y. Claire Wang, an assistant professor at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health, did a study on what could happen if the state of New York put a tax of one penny per ounce of sugar sweetened beverages.  The results included $3 billion of health care costs saved, the prevention of 37,000 cases of diabetes, and $1 billion for the state annually.  The state of New York is one community that could highly benefit from this proposal.

As Bittman's invention continues, it becomes apparent that nationally we will earn a lot as a community.  The same program used in Wang's study could produce $13 billion per year and cut sugary beverage consumption by 24% in the United States.  With this money, Bittman proposes a few ideas that widen the audience of the essay.  For example, money could be returned to Meals on Wheels for the elderly.  Previous to this statement, the essay really did not address anyone in this age group.  Another possible place for this money could be Head Start programs for communities with large amounts of children.  This adds education into the mix along with supporters of improving our nation's education programs.  These final additions force the audience to look at their identity in this situation.  Previous to these statements, someone may not realize how much stake they have in this issue.  Someone might say, "I eat healthy, and I do not mind how someone else eats, so this is not an issue to me."  However, when they realize the profit of money both gained from the tax and saved from federal health care programs, they will realize how much more they can gain from their government.

This program could help people of all ages and backgrounds across the country.  It's a matter of how they identify themselves with the issue presented as to what position they may take on it.  Bittman does a phenomenal job at using all aspects of the critical situation to reel in his audience and produce the best argument possible.   His essay uses statistics, facts, and counterarguments to make his commitment -- a tax on unhealthy foods will improve the lives of Americans and generate money necessary for the federal government to give back even more to the community.  In the end, it all comes down to the identity the audience classifies themselves as, and Bittman quite does the college job of helping them find themselves.  Whether it is how the money comes back to the community or the general health benefits, this program could help just about any American citizen according to Bittman's argument.
