Rhetorical Analysis Essay

The news is bad. Powerful executives in tailored suits sit around a dimly-lit

board room table, red-eyed and shouting out hair-brained solutions to save their

company, their entire industry, as news reports and studies roll in, increasingly

laying blame for a suite of deadly diseases at the foot of their flagship product. The

men and women of at the table formulate a plan, and that plan, that conspiracy, is

manifold and sinister. This corporate cabal moves its considerable resources toward

discrediting scientific studies, bribing health officials, and shifting marketing

strategies to distract from, or dismiss altogether, the publics growing concern for

their own safety. If you pictured a smoke-filled boardroom circa 1960, youd be way

off. This isnt happening in the headquarters of Philip-Morris, or R.J. Reynolds, two of

the largest Tobacco firms in America. No, this malicious plot takes place in the

executive chambers of Americas soft drink industry. This is the picture painted by

Patrick Mustain, writing for Scientific Americans Food Matters column in the fall of

2016.

It may seem like a stretch, at first glance, to draw comparisons between Coca-

Cola products and Marlboro cigarettes. The article, If Soda Companies Don't Want

to Be Treated Like Tobacco Companies, They Need to Stop Acting Like Them, has

author Patrick Mustain starting from a difficult position, but armed with an

impressive number of academic studies and official reports he lays out an argument

that highlights the many disturbing similarities in the way the two industries have

attempted to, as he puts it, sway public opinion, avoid accountability and muddle

the science. (Mustain) The author gives us compelling reasons why, rather than

laugh at the suggestion, we should be genuinely concerned that Big Soda is calling
shots straight out of the Big Tobacco playbook, with more regard for the fiscal

outcomes of its product line than for the health risks they have presented

consumers with.

Without the right background information, the authors position might be less

intelligible. There is scarcely an American alive who is not aware of the dangers of

tobacco use, but we clearly take sugar consumption far less seriously, as evidenced

by the absolute ubiquity of it. But there has been growing concern, particularly over

the last decade, that foods and beverages that are high in sugar may be very

unhealthy to consume regularly, and such products have been implicated in the

countrys obesity epidemic. Near the top of the list of offending foods are soft

drinks, which generally contain little more than sugar, water, and some color and

flavoring. This has led some people to consider whether soda companies should be

free to peddle a consumable product with no nutritional value, that may well be

contributing to serious health issues. Patrick Mustain is a freelance science writer

who, according to his own article, has been monitoring developments in the soda

arena for a few years, and who is a co-founder of NewBodyEthic.org, a blog that

advocates for active lifestyles. (New Body Ethic) This article, published in Scientific

American in October, 2016, provides a great deal of supplemental information for

context. He plainly shows that sugary drinks are giving us a whole lot of negative

health risks, without much in the way of benefits.

The title gives the impression of an opinion piece; it is provocative and even

antagonistic. Nevertheless, Mustain offers links to multiple studies and reports, as

one would expect from a science writer producing content for a popular science

publication. That undoubtedly affects the mood with which one goes into this

article. The title is sensationalistic enough to bring the readers preconceptions to

the surface, and what follows is a well-informed attack on the soda industrys

products and practices, all intended to draw in then persuade anyone who would

have disagreed with the premise of the title. On the other hand, he provides

information to bolster the arguments of those who already agree with him.

Mustain uses his article to draw comparisons between the way the soda industry

has reacted to negative press, unflattering scientific findings, and looming

legislation in the modern era and the way that the tobacco industry reacted when

they faced the same sort of problems in the middle of the 20 th century, when a link

between tobacco use and cancer was finally established. He provides a link to an

October, 2016 publication by the World Health Organization in which they urge

world governments to reduce consumption of sugary drinks. The publication was a

response to a study which showed, fairly conclusively, that obesity rates (and

accompanying health complications) in developed countries rise as soft drink

consumption rises.

Mustain does more than just provide links, however. His article gives us a two-

pronged argument. On the one hand, we are told that evidence is piling up showing

that soft drinks pose a great risk to our well-being, without providing much in the

way of benefit. On the other hand, he presents the case that the industrial giants

who produce those soft drinks are aware of the dangers, and are pursuing a

disinformation campaign to keep their consumers in the dark about those risks.

Mustain, acting as our guide, starts off with a simple statement: Cigarettes

used to be normal. That line appears on its own, sandwiched between an image of

an overturned coke can with grain sugar pouring out of the mouth, and a gif of Mad

Mens Betty Draper smoking in her car while her underage daughter sits in the
passenger seat doing the same thing. He lets that imagery do its work as you scroll

past the images to find the next line of text. If the reader has seen Mad Mens first

episode, that reader will surely remember that it dealt with an advertising agency

trying to come up with an ad campaign for a tobacco company in the wake of a

1960s Readers Digest article chronicling the deaths of smokers by lung cancer.

The ad executives and tobacco merchants argue over new marketing strategies

rather than recalls. Nearly everyone in the show chain smokes, regardless of the

setting. (Smoke) To todays viewers, it is shocking and even absurd, but Mustain

points out that at one time cigarettes were everywhere, and that even if smokers

were aware that cigarettes were not necessarily healthy, the normalcy factor kept

them from seeing the need to quit. The next paragraph is nearly a word for word

copy of the previous one, except that all mention of tobacco products have been

swapped out for references to soda products. Just like cigarettes used to be, today

soft drinks are inexpensive, ever-present, and viewed as completely normal.

Scientists, claims Mustain, have spent the last few decades revealing that the

American diet promotes obesity. He goes on to point out that, as a result of those

findings, the entire food industry has come under close scrutiny. This scrutiny, he

says, has revealed that many players in that field have been engaging in unethical

behavior that some find reminiscent of the tobacco industrys behavior a few

generations earlier.

The author does take a moment to address any lingering skepticism about the

parallels between Big Tobacco and Big Food. He quotes from a study that

investigated those parallels, in which the lead researcher states that there are some

obvious differences between the products of the two industries, namely that

smoking, unlike eating, is not necessary to survival. Mustain adds that the health
risks of soda are not as severe as those from smoking, but are still very real. He

follows that with more quotes from the same researcher, Kelly Brownell, who says

that, whatever difference exists between their products, the two industries

themselves behave in strikingly similar ways in response to accusations that their

products are unsafe. For an example, Mustain references a report by a British

agency called Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which catalogued a series of

abuses by the tobacco companies in which they denied that there were any health

risks associated with their products, while simultaneously developing new products

for a safe cigarette market. The carbonated beverage companies also deny that

their products contribute to obesity, and yet at the same time they created a new

market for diet and sugar-free sodas.

To counter any rival claims, Mustain has a look at some of the opposing

arguments. The American Beverage Association maintains a FAQ entitled Lets

Clear it Up, but Mustain shows that it is little more than a pro-pop propaganda

page. The myths that the page attempts to dispel, he says, are strawman

positions. The article gives an example of a myth that is busted on Lets Clear it

Up, that The obesity epidemic can be reversed if people stop drinking soda.

Mustain points out that this is not a position anyone in the health industry has

adopted, and suggests that the rest of the myths and facts are just as ill-

conceived and disingenuous.

According to reports that Mustain shares, the soda industry has also engaged in

a more proactive type of PR outreach. From Corporate Social Responsibility

campaigns (CSRs) aimed at pre-empting regulation, to industry sponsorship

campaigns that are nearly indistinguishable from bribery, the soda sellers are doing

their best to control the narrative on sugary drinks, just as tobacco producers before
them. The American Beverage Association has, according to the articles sources,

recently spent over $30 million to fight proposed soda taxes across the nation, taxes

which evidence shows would decrease soda consumption. One source that Mustain

found even reported finding out that the beverage industry has been paying

dietitians to post anti-tax tweets on their Twitter feeds. Patrick Mustain himself

indicates that he wrote an article a year ago exposing efforts by soda companies to

infiltrate municipal health programs, offering grants to mayors across the country

that emphasize active lifestyles, and which make no mention of reducing dietary

sugar.

There is enough evidence of this type of behavior, argues Mustain, that it

becomes clear that the industry is struggling to maintain market share, just as Big

Tobacco has had to do, but it remains to be seen whether their respective products

will share the same fate of being relegated to the dustbin of consumer history.

Mustain allows the research to do most of the talking for him, and the article

serves primarily to draw links between the various sources he cites to form his big

picture. This dedication to peer-reviewed sources serves to solve any problems he

might face regarding ethos, and the structure of the argument is one aspect of the

logos of the article. The main focus of his logos, however, comes in the form of the

repeated analogy between the two predatory industries, and several times he

presents two consecutive paragraphs that are nearly identical, save that one

paragraph makes a statement about tobacco, whereas the next makes the same

statement with respect to soda.

Perhaps to provide a token skeptic view, or to reconnect with any readers

who, at an early point in his article, may still be on the fence about the similarities
between the two industries in focus, Mustain takes a moment to quote a researcher

who looked at that exact question. In this way he addresses some objections to his

argument merely by acknowledgment, and then he swiftly moves past those

objections by doubling down on similarities. This is, I think, the closest this author

comes to making an argument rooted in pathos, and considering the medium, a

magazine dealing in popular science, this should be of no surprise. Cold, hard facts

take the day with SciAms readership.

I think that where Patrick Mustain succeeds here is where he presents a

sustained, rapid-fire assault on soda producers, throwing out point after point. Even

if one point is rejected, there are many more coming down the pike right behind it.

He never lets up, and the aggressive, relentless style makes it difficult to form a

quick and easy rebuttal.

If you were sucked in by the articles title, whether because you agreed, or

because you thought it was overblown hype, you keep reading for the proof, which

is plentiful. Mustain successfully demonstrates a pattern of media manipulation,

science denial, and a disregard for safety in exchange for profits that I feel is more

than sufficient to support that grandiose headline. But obesity isnt cancer. A brief

look at the trend of obesity in America reveals one striking fact: this is something

that we can accept and become accustomed to. Yes, soda manufacturers behave

like tobacco producers, but are the health outcomes for sugar overconsumption

frightening enough to make people quit, to make people support regulatory

legislation, to fight the industry in court? That seems considerably less likely.

Works Cited
Mustain, Patrick. If Soda Companies Don't Want to Be Treated Like Tobacco
Companies, They Need to Stop Acting Like Them. Food Matters. Scientific
American, October 19, 2016. Web. February 27, 2016.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/if-soda-companies-don-t-want-to-
be-treated-like-tobacco-companies-they-need-to-stop-acting-like-them/

Smoke Gets in Your Eyes. Mad Men, Season 1, Episode 1, AMC, July 19, 2007.
Netflix, https://www.netflix.com/watch/70143379?
trackId=13752289&tctx=0%2C0%2C93117f2f-045b-476f-9b52-62399666b1fe-
113427179
New Body Ethic. http://newbodyethic.com/