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. A critical situation is a setting in which every action taken or word spoken is potentially important to what will happen next.  The critical situation here is the obesity in America, and every part of this argument plays into that.  This is describes the obesity issue in America.  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.  I personally agree with Bittman.  As a poor college student, I notice the change in the way I myself eat.  I cook Ramen noodles because it is cheaper and easier than buying fresh fruit, vegetables, and meat and making myself a healthy meal.  If I continue to have this budget throughout my life (which hopefully is not the case), I could definitely see myself becoming obese.  Had it not been for my obsession with working out, I would already be there. This may be my first experience with a small budget for food, but for the many unemployed or struggling in America, it is a daily event.  Bittman's idea to tax the unhealthy foods could help this huge percentage of the American population afford to be healthy.

In fact, everyone has some stake.  This situation is critical because anything relating to food -- an unavoidable part of living -- has to do with it. 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 (Bittman).  Needless to say, a person will consume more calories when they drink soda.  After all, I know I don't change the amount of food I eat whether I drink soda or water with my meal.  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 (Bittman).  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 (Bittman).

These are the people that Bittman is targeting in his argument: state and municipal legislators.  They are the ones with the power to make change.  He specifically targeted the state of New York possibly because it is home to the largest city in the country.  Thus, New York is a great place to start.  As a daughter of a man who works in New York City, I can see how that may affect more than just the state population because so many people commute from neighboring states.  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 (Bittman).  The state of New York is one community that could highly benefit from this proposal.

Bittman also mentions how the money gained from these taxes could help our economy in other ways.  The tax money that would be returned to the government could go towards lowering the prices of staple foods such as vegetables.  Instead of encouraging farmers to plant the corn and soybeans, they could farm potatoes and broccoli -- foods that can promote a healthier America.   This better eating would also cut the cost of health care programs because the number of people with the diseases stated earlier would decrease immensely.  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 (Bittman). That's $13 billion dollars to put towards areas our country may not have a lot of money for and 24% less health care issues.  To me, that's a win-win situation.

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 legistlators who make the final decisions -- the people that every citizen votes for.  Whether it is how the money comes back to the community or the general health benefits, this program could help just about every American citizen according to Bittman's argument.
