Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The benefits of a fat tax
The benefits of a fat tax
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The benefits of a fat tax
Fat taxes have been experimented with in numerous European countries. There are many benefits such as boosting economic growth, improving health and elongating life expectancy. On the contrary if a fat tax is implemented into a weak economy it could cause the loss of jobs due to higher prices. These higher prices cause local consumers to begin to purchase their unhealthy products in different states or countries, causing the loss of business for local industries. France, Hungary and Denmark all have experimented with the enactment of a fat tax. All four countries experienced varied results with both positive and negative outcomes. The French, when implementing the “Junk Food Tax”, wanted to decrease unhealthy food eating habits and generate revenue geared toward supporting health measures. Sounds like the same goal that the American government has. The French found that taxing three different categories (cheese/butter, sugar fat products, and ready meals) would have the most effective impact on households’ caloric intake and decrease of saturated fats. It helps to tax numero...
The argument talked about how the American diet should be changed since it is unhealthy and can cause numerous problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. In light of this issue, Bittman proposed the idea of taxing unhealthy food and drinks while promoting vegetables. This plan could potentially kill six birds with one stone. The benefits would include less unhealthy food consumption, the decrease of diseases, and the decrease of public health costs. They would also include in making healthy food more available to the masses, the environment would improve, and it would save billions of dollars annually that could be raised for other places and activities. Americans should implement ideas from countries like Japan and Denmark to help with this problem.
“This Article constructively critiques the two arguments that public health advocates have made in support of anti-obesity soda taxes or junk food taxes. Part II discusses and critiques the first argument, an economic externalities argument that government should tax soda or junk food to internalize the disproportionately high health care costs of obesity. Part III discusses and critiques the second argument made by public health advocates, that government should adopt anti-obesity measures to improve population-wide health. Consider possible unintended consequences of anti-obesity proposals. Obesity policy debates present a conflict of fundamental values, such as health, fairness, efficiency, and autonomy. Part TV attempts to reconcile these values and responds to the "personal responsibility" objection to soda taxes and food taxes. Part V considers various factors that would affect behavioral responses to proposed soda taxes and food taxes and addresses concerns that such taxes would be regressive and thus unfair to low-income consumers. Part VI suggests the way forward for public health advocates, including a proposal to enact a tax on nutritionally poor foods and drinks, paired with a salient benefit. This Part also recommends enactment of a federal system of food classification, based on nutrient-profiling methods, along with a federal system of front-of-package nutritional labeling.” (Pratt)
Everyday Americans die from the diseases they carry from obesity. Many Americans over eat because their social problems or because they are hereditary. Many plans have been discussed but finding the solution is the problem. Junk foods and unhealthy beverages have corrupted children’s minds all over the nation and putting a stop on it could lead to other benefits. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and healthy foods should be advertised more to help prevent American obesity.
While nobody denies we have a problem with taxation in this country for food, beverages, and everything that we buy in general, I believe that we should have a fat tax to detour people from buying soda and other fattening foods. We should also ban sodas and other fattening foods from vending machines in schools, and replace them with more healthy selections.
Canada has a problem with obesity and a solution should be established. Junk food is easily accessible and because of this, low-income families are more likely to buy bigger quantities of it due to lower costs. Obesity can lead to diseases and serious illnesses, some of the most likely illnesses to get from obesity include Type 2 Diabetes, Uterine Cancer, and Gallbladder Disease. While these illnesses and diseases are bad, the population of people that have them can be decreased by decreasing the amount of sugary, carbonated, and high sodium foods humans consume. Junk food should be taxed because it will decrease consumption and reduce obesity rates as well as incidence of diseases, while the revenue generated by these taxes can be used to
“Woe to he who chooses to smoke cigarettes every day. Woe to she who buys large amounts of alcohol for her house. Woe to anyone who eats fatty foods or sugary drinks. Do not these miserable wretches realize how grotesquely unhealthy they are?” Presently, America’s government and citizens view these and other unhealthy behaviors as punishable sins. Whether this is due to a holier-than-thou complex, an overbearing concern for the well fare of every last one of America’s citizens, or a genuinely good-natured intent, it is impossible to say. However, the argument can be made that the taxes either already imposed or being deliberated onto these products are an absurd violation of our American freedoms.
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
Policies implemented by the government have the potential to greatly impact the issues faced by Americans because of their food. One of the most serious epidemics to face Americans is obesity; a direct result of a lack of access to healthy, whole produce. The government has several options in solving this problem including food taxes, public education programs, and mandatory physical education in schools. A food tax on items high in process ingredients and low in nutrients should have a higher tax than whole foods. Much like the Cigarette Tax, a Processed Food Tax will persuade consumers to shy away from these nutrient-void foods and incorporate more healthy foods into their diet. Another solution to combating obesity is a series of public educational programs. By educating the public and even kids in school on the difference between processed and whole foods, individuals will be better able to distinguish between beneficial and non-beneficial foods. And finally, the most attention grabbing policy the United States government should be enacting is mandatory physical education. Including, but not limited to Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, the government should require mandatory physical education classes in schools because they found increased PE time raised the amount of time students were exercising or "engaged in strength-building activities" but lowered the amount of time spent in
The obesity in the UK is the highest in Europe and according to dozens of researchers the rate would possibly increase sharply in the next few years. Obesity is due to an unhealthy lifestyle, too much junk food and lack of activity. Poor health leads to many diseases such as high blood pressure heart disease, cancer, etc. Obesity impacts people’s living standard and also effects wider society. With the aim of preventing the rise of obesity, governments have taken action by introducing a new fat tax, a tax which is focused on high sugar content food. In this essay I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of fat tax, and conclude with my opinion.
The government must have a say in our diets. Because the issues of obesity have already reached national scales, because the costs of obesity and related health issues have gone far beyond reasonable limits, and because fighting nutritional issues is impossible without fighting poverty and other social issues, the government should control the range and the amount of available foods. The cost of healthier foods should decrease. The access to harmful foods should be limited. In this way, the government will be able to initiate a major shift in nutritional behaviors and attitudes in society.
Obesity is a major problem in the United States. Fatty foods in our society are viewed as cheap and convenient but these foods are costing the nation billions of dollars. According to the Center of Disease Control (CDC) more than one-third (34.9%) of adults in the United States are obese. The cost of obesity to the United states is estimated to be 147 billion dollars. The yearly medical bills for obese individuals is $1,429 higher than a person of normal weight in the United States. Obesity leads to various illnesses such as diabetes, heart attacks and can even cause death. Fatty foods and obesity produce many spillover cost for the government and society. Some of the spillover costs of obesity include; increased healthcare costs, loss of productivity, low self esteem, and wasted taxpayers dollars.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), obesity now ranks as the 10th most important health problem in the world (“Obesity Seen as a Global Problem”). Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years. Centers for Disease Control and Protection estimates that obesity contributed to the deaths of 112,000 Americans in 2000 (“Obesity in the U.S. Fast”). It is estimated that annual medical care cost of obesity are as high as $147 billion (“Obesity in the U.S. Fast”). Government-provided food stamps are often expended on junk or fast food, because it tends to be less expensive than fresh or cook food. Governments fund producers of meat and dairy products to keep prices low. For now, governments are taking a smarter and more productive approach through regulation, and by working with manufacturers.
In order to ensure a healthy eating lifestyle for citizens the government should impose taxes on junk foods and drinks that are that are less in nutritional value than what is recommended to be consumed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). The extra money from junk food taxes can be used to subsidize actual healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables that seemed to be high priced. Unhealthy foods tend to lead to obesity and health risks. According to Alexandra Sifferlin, (a reporter for TIME who covers health-related issues) “42% of the population will be obese by 2030, which is based on a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”. Many problems will accompany obesity, such as Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes and other health risks. While this proposal seems purely beneficial, it is not that simple to just impose a tax on what is deemed healthy in order to benefit the vast majority of people in the United States. There are many variables and factors that have to be considered if this proposal is to be put into effect.
It led to loss of jobs for many Danish people and it also increased the administrative costs for companies that fell under the tax (Vallgårda, Holm, and Jensen 224). The fat tax even led some native Danish people to run across the border to neighboring countries to get their favorite fattening foods at a lower cost than in Denmark (Khazan 2). These trips across the border led local businesses to go under because of lack of business (Vallgårda, Holm, and Jensen 225). So, although a fat tax would gain revenue for possible programs on eating healthier, it would increase unemployment and economic failures. The fat tax would harm future businesses leading many manufacturers to avoid dealing with the tax
Manitoba, a place knew for adoring new and high taxes, refused to add junk food taxes because they knew that it was going to be a waste of time and there would not be any positive results (5). The many studies of junk food taxes have soon other countries that it is not going to work. People will find other alternative to get the sugary high they need. A study in a small city showed that soda intake decreased for a small amount of time and then it increased again, as well as the sales on beer increased (Luciani P.