Costs and Benefits of Increasing Junk Food Taxes Raising food taxes is the topic of the editorial article “Slapping a Tax on Junk Food is Still a Bad Idea” written the Globe and Mail. The writer states that raising taxes is not the answer to decrease high obesity rates and instead suggests that moderation and lifestyle are key to enjoying food. The editorial also acknowledges the increasing amount of attention we give to this problem now that it has grown larger and more complex. Also, an increase of taxes ultimately allow the consumers to have the last say in what they consume. The writer argues that an increase of taxes on junk foods is not necessary for society; my research will focus on whether this is true or not. Disadvantages of Increased Junk Food Taxes Tax increases have rippling effects that continue on for generations. The article “Taxing Junk Food” by Franck, Grandi & Eisenburg (2013) explains that, “The fat tax alone will be ineffective in addressing the obesity epidemic” (p. 195). There are different areas that impact obesity, such as socioeconomic status, genetics, negative stress and education level. These areas need to be understood in order for society to tackle obesity, making it critical to look at obesity as a topic with multiple levels. This way we will have a better chance to intervene without needing to raise taxes. According to Schroter, Lusk & Tyner (2008), “Income has a major impact on obesity. Compared to high income households, low income earners tend to consume lower quality diets, therefore problems with obesity commonly occur” (p 47). As previously mentioned, the lower the income, the less freedom families have in terms of food consumption. Increasing junk food taxes will supposedly help decrease obesity rates and help turn this epidemic into healthier lifestyles, yet for many underprivileged families, it will mean paying a lot more but having less food to
Mark Bittman’s article “Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?” tells about how people are not really getting their money’s worth when it comes to consuming junk food. He does this by showing the differences between ordering a meal at McDonald’s and cooking a meal at home. The twenty-eight dollars that is spent to feed a family of four at McDonald’s can be put to use making a meal that could last for a couple of days and feed more than four (Bittman 660). Engineered to be addictive, hyper-processed food has a taste that makes people wanting more. Lastly, Bittman addresses the convenience of junk food provides nowadays. Therfore, the cost of junk food is not really cheaper in comparison to a home cooked meal.
Throughout the past years and more here recently obesity has become a fast growing problem in the United States and around the world. Since this has become such a problem certain authors are starting to take a stand in how they think the solution should be fixed. The solutions are discussed in the following articles: How Junk Food Can End Obesity by David H. Freedman and What You Eat Is Your Business by Radley Balko. Both articles have clear and distinct arguments, but the argument by Balko entices his readers and has a clear purpose and tone that allowed his article to be more effective.
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.
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
Everyone loves fast food, surgery desserts and indulging in sweet and salty snacks covered in chocolate. What people rarely think of is how unhealthy they may be eating and what they’re putting into their bodies. The consequences can be life threating if not taking the right procedures to maintain a healthy lifestyles. As we continue these unhealthy lifestyles they can be taken after by our children and their grandchildren. Children that continue in their parents footsteps or start these habits soon learn the finances as adults such as health costs. Radley Balko criticizes Americans in “What You Eat Is Your Business” for not taking their own responsibility regarding be overweight and how it’s become a public issue. He says the government is not
In the UK as well as in other developed countries, obesity is becoming a growing problem this puts pressure on health services and affects individuals’ ability to work, and contribute to the economy. The government feels the pressure to act by taxing unhealthy foods and drinks, and by setting up educational campaigns, (Stephen Adams, 2011).
Obesity has become an epidemic in today’s society. Today around 50% of America is now considered to be over weight. Fast-food consumption has been a major contributor to the debate of the twenty-first century. Chapter thirteen, titled “Is Fast-Food the New Tobacco,” in the They Say I Say book, consists of authors discussing the debate of fast-food’s link to obesity. Authors debate the government’s effects on the fast-food industry, along with whether or not the fast-food industry is to blame for the rise in obesity throughout America. While some people blame the fast food industry for the rise in obesity, others believe it is a matter of personal responsibility to watch what someone eats and make sure they get the proper exercise.
For years, the United States government has been trying to find a way to lower the obesity in the country. However, the approach it is using, i.e. taxing unhealthy food, is not the most effective one. People are going to purchase whatever products they wish, whether the price is increased a few cents or not. Junk food options are already set at a more reasonable price than healthy foods, enticing people to buy these less expensive goods. Even though putting a tax on other products, such as tobacco, has served the intended purpose, food is a necessity humans must have for survival. Society is used to consuming foods they want, and will continue to do so. Putting a tax on unhealthy food will not necessarily lower the obesity rate because there are other factors that contribute to this problem. Moreover, taxing measures are usually intended for the collective benefit of society rather than the individual. They are usually perceived as another way the government uses to take money out of the citizens’ pockets. Ultimately, thinking that higher taxes on unhealthy foods will help curb down the obesity rate in the country would be similar to say that cost is the sole contributing factor to this public health problem. Imposing taxes will not help lower the consumption level because these foods will still have lower prices than healthier choices. Taxes do not impact the nutritional value of foods, and their only predictable effect is to help in generating additional revenue for the government.
Does low socioeconomic status bear a significant role in the obesity epidemic? A national survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) estimated that more than two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese (body mass index of over 30), and the percentage is escalating. The Census Bureau (2011) reported 46.2 million people in America are currently living beneath the official poverty line. The official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent; up from 14.3 percent in 2009; this was the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate (Census Bureau, 2011). One might assume that obesity and poverty are not associated, but this is not accurate. The correlation between poverty and obesity can be witnessed in the vast majority of the low-income communities amidst the country. Low socioeconomic status influences patterns of eating (food insecurities), and restricts access to healthy and affordable nourishment linking poverty to the soaring obesity epidemic; solutions to lower the risk for obesity in low socioeconomic individuals includes: changing the dynamics of low income communities and second solution is to increase the benefits and participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
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
We make personal choices about what and where to eat. The government is not going to eliminate the unhealthy food because we think it is the cause of obesity. Ultimately, we must decide to either stay away from unhealthy food or eat them in moderation. Despite all the efforts of education, media and guidance it doesn’t prevent us from grabbing that cheeseburger with fries on the way to work. In his essay “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that society should take full responsi...
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.
It became so clear that junk foods lead to a punch of catastrophic diseases like obesity, type two diabetes, vascular diseases and cardiac disorders. Those kinds of diseases cost more than $150 billion annually, just to diagnose, treat people who suffer from them. That disease is chronic and leads to many health-related issues, for example, obesity considers a risk factor for type two diabetes, and high blood pressure, joint disorders and many others (The Denver Post 2012). The key of preventing many chronic problems is nutrition. Low income plays an important role of limiting most people to buy and eat a healthy diet and in the other hand, it is easy for people budgets to purchase junk foods. So controlling the prices of healthy foods to be suitable for all people make good nutrition available for everyone. Adequate diets mean decreasing the epidemic of those serious diseases, and stopping the spread and break the bad sequences that may happen. Long-term exposure to junk foods that are full with chemicals like additives, preservatives have led to chronic illnesses difficult to treat. Also, the chemical added to junk foods are tasted unique and made millions of people becoming addicted to them and are available everywhere for example in restaurants, cafes, lunchrooms (The Denver Post
In America over 300,000 people are obese and that number continues to grow because the about of junk food that is being consumed. This cost the economy one hundred billion dollars. That more damage done than smoking or drinking. (Crowley, Michael 5) There are other health problems, such as heart diseases, chronic diseases, and type-two diabetes that occur because of junk food. Increasing the price of junk food, by adding tax, researchers hope that this will prod people to reject unhealthy foods. Taxes will also encourage a healthier lifestyle, even in low-income families (Franck, Caroline 2).