Analyzing Message in Sugar substitutes: Health controversy over perceived benefits

Analyzing Message in Sugar substitutes: Health controversy over perceived benefits

In this blog post, I am going to analyze the message in Sugar substitutes: Health controversy over perceived benefits. 

Out of all the bullet points listed for "Message and Purpose" on page 181, which two or three seem most relevant to the goals of your text's author/s? Why?

The bullet "Inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood?" seems relevant to the goals of the author because many people perceive artificial sugars as beneficial. They have no calories and have a low glycemic index. However, they are really harmful to people because they cause tooth decay along with many other negative health effects.

The bullet "Persuade an audience of something" is relevant to the goals of the author because he wants to reader to believe that artificial sweeteners are harmful for our health. The author does not want the reader to believe only in the perceived benefits of fake sugars.

The bullet "Move the readers to feel a certain way?" is relevant to the goal of the author because he wants the people to feel compelled not to eat artificial sugars because they are harmful to our health. If more people felt this way, then less people would be consuming fake sugars.

 Faanes, Einar. "Communication_sender-message-receiver.png." 1/23/06 via Wikimedia Commons.
GNU Free Documentation License.

Which bullet points do NOT seem relevant to the goals of your text's author/s? Why not?

The bullet "Advocate for change?" is not relevant to the goals of the text because the author is not telling everyone to just not eat fake sugars. He presented the information to them in hopes of making them want to change, but he never specifically says he thinks that they should change their ways.

Also, the bullet "analyze, synthesize, interpret?" is not relevant to the goals of the text because the author is not analyzing the data or interpreting it. He merely tells the reader the information about the harms and the benefits, but he never says anything very analytical about the topic of artificial sugars.

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author(s)/speaker(s) is/are trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

I do not think that there are any nuances to block the messages he is trying to get across because the majority of his writing discusses the harms of the chemicals that in artificial sweeteners.