Project: Analysis of the official

resolution to implement the IEPS

tax, to sugar beverages
1.- What are the arguments of the DOF article?

 The high consumption of sugar-added beverages contributes notoriously to

excess energy intake and is an important factor in the development of
overweight and obesity in Mexico.

 There is a high prevalence of overweight and obesity in Mexico that has

important impacts on the health of Mexicans, it is the main cause of chronic
non-communicable diseases.

 Public policies need to be implemented to help reduce this problem

gradually, mainly by changing eating and physical activity patterns.

 A fiscal measure will most likely contribute to the aforementioned purposes.

 Setting, at the producer and importer level, a specific rate of 1 Mexican peso
per liter of flavored beverages.

2.-Which consistencies or inconsistencies did you find in the document?

 Attribute only to sugary drinks the problem of overweight and obesity. Being
that it comes from a cultural issue; the bad feeding, the lack of basic
knowledge of nutrition, the sedentary life of this stage of capitalism, and the
lack of a culture of physical activity are more important factors than the
sugary drinks in impact to the health.
  To think that a tax of one peso per liter will change the cultural situation and
the needs of consumers is an absurd simplification of the problem. It is
simply a tax measure with a "socially acceptable" justification. These drinks
are inelastic for many people, it is known that a good part of the Mexican
proletariat uses soda as a source of calories for physical work, for an extra
peso they spend it will not lead to better options for their food, it will simply
lower their purchasing power for other goods.

3.-Which biases or errors did you find in the arguments (bad arguments, fallacies,
omissions, false inferences and deceptive statistics)?

 False Cause: They do not give exact figures of consumption, affectation or

impact that sugary drinks have and what would happen after implementing
the tax.

 Either or: They attribute obesity to only one product when the vast majority
of the foods in the diets of the common Mexican citizen are high in calories
and low in nutritional value.

 The straw man: Presenting a tax as a solution to a health problem as

complicated and complex as chronic diseases. Besides not analyzing the
type of good that sugary drinks represent for Mexicans.

4.-Can conclusions be drawn from the arguments?

According to the Critical Thinking methodology of this course, when drawing

conclusions from biased arguments, it is very likely that this will affect the depth,
veracity and analysis of the conclusions. So the answer would be no.
5.-Is the person’s point of view derived from his or her research?

Yes, I even worked on this topic in my career. The professors and several students
from the Faculty of Economics came to the conclusion that this tax was more of a
collection than a public health issue.

6.-How are you ordering your own arguments (to avoid being unfocused)?

I followed several of the ways of thinking that were expressed in the course. The
subject was approached from a holistic perspective as I had studied the case
previously and had been nourished by various opinions from peers and teachers.
An analytical approach as I generated databases to test arguments for the
justification of this tax. A systemic approach by knowing the deficiencies of the
collection system, and its implications on Mexico's public finances. And above all, a
reflective approach to be able to nourish my opinion from the diverse resources I
have. In addition, I tried to maintain autonomy, impartiality and humility, as there
was no conflict of interest with this proposal, in order to offer a more objective point
of view.