Fallacies: \"Is Sugar Toxic?\" One

¶ … fallacies: "Is sugar toxic?"

One of the most emotional issues debated in America today is the question of how, what, and how much to eat. According to science writer Gary Taubes in his editorial "Is sugar toxic" for the New York Times, medical evidence suggests that eating sugar -- even in moderation -- is just as dangerous for human health as smoking. According to Taubes, similar to smoking, there is no acceptable, healthy amount of sugar a human being should consume. Taubes makes the argument that sugar alone, rather than excess calories or a lack of exercise is to blame for the American obesity epidemic.

Taubes' main logical fallacy is an appeal to biased authority. Taubes tries to demonstrate the evils of sugar by quoting a specialist, an expert on childhood obesity from the University of California who calls sugar: "evil, poison," and "the most demonized additive known to man" (Taubes 1). Given that the professor has staked his professional reputation upon criticizing sugar, the intensity of rhetoric is unsurprising. At the end of the article, also to prove his theory, Taubes again quotes the expert, who says: "I have eliminated refined sugar from my diet and eat as little as I possibly can…because I believe ultimately it's something I can do to decrease my risk of cancer…Sugar scares me" (Taubes 9). Taubes echoes this expert's claim in his own statement that sugar frightens Taubes himself, even in moderation.

Of course, Taubes has also written several best-selling books stating that sugar rather than excess calories or a lack of exercise are the reasons for the obesity epidemic. This argument that 'because I do it, you should do it too' can be seen as a variation of the tu quoque argument, in which the persuader usually argues that because someone bad does something, the reader or listener should avoid this practice as well. Taubes argues because two 'good' people (a scientist and a science journalist) avoid sugar, the reader should not eat any sugar. (it should be noted that Taubes does admit to his bias at the beginning of the article that his own reputation as a journalist is founded upon articles he wrote for the Times stressing the value of the high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate Atkins diet.)

In the article, Taubes correlates the increase in sugar in the American diet with an increase in weight gain. In 1986, according to United States Department of Agriculture analysts, every American consumed on average 75 pounds of sugar. In the early 2000s, consumption had increased to more than 90 pounds per person per year (Taubes 3). However, Taubes neglects to note that consumption of total calories have also been increasing -- of all kinds of food, of fat as well as sugar. Physical activity has also been decreasing. Furthermore, while Taubes dismisses the additional negative effects of the addition of high-fructose corn syrup to foods and the burgeoning obesity epidemic, he also admits that the addition of HFCS to foods during the 1970s is correlated with an increase in the body mass index of Americans. In short, when statistics suit his argument -- increased sugar consumption in general as associated with an increase in Americans' weight -- he cites this as evidence. However, while he denies that new forms of sugar have a worse effect upon insulin resistance and other factors causing obesity, he ignores the impact of correlating evidence when it suits him. This selective application of causality is a form of the non-causa pro-causa argument. Increased sugar consumption may have an impact upon the rise of obesity and diabetes, but it is not necessarily the only cause.