determine if imposing a tax on junk and fatty foods is the right thing to do. This report analysis both the pros and cons of imposing a tax, as well as a financial and ethical considerations when determining the final outcome. Both the pros and cons were analyzed but one decision seems to be the clear choice. Situation There has been an ever-increasing concern on obesity and overall health especially towards the next generation. There has been a steady increase in obesity from “2003 to 2014 with men obesity and overweight rate rising from 57.3 percent to 61.8 percent and woman 41.3 percent to 46.2 percent” (Ferrers, 2015). Due to this many scientist and the World Health Organization has proposed a tax on all junk food such as fast food and soda. Some people say that it is useless and won’t help while others are completely for it. There are four main concerns when deciding if we should impose this tax or not: • Benefits of the tax • Drawbacks of the tax • Financial consideration • Ethical consideration Benefits of Junk Food Tax The main objective of implementing a food tax would be to reduce the consumption of unhealthy foods, raise government revenues and to decrease the fatal affects of obesity. One of the benefits of imposing a food tax would be that “ By increasing cost of junk food we make it easier for people to make healthier …show more content…
Obesity has become a major health concern for many and needs to be tackled head on. If unhealthy eating, resulting in obesity continues to rise then we may fall into a bigger health and economic crisis. Imposing a tax on unhealthy foods can be the first step towards creating a healthier lifestyle for all of us. By giving incentives to eat healthy and helping people who may not have had the opportunity to make the healthiest choices we will take one step closer to curing the epidemic known as
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.
“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)
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.
Have you ever thought if there was a way to improve our health. This article “Soda Showdown” by “Rebecca Zissou”, discusses whether we should tax all sugary drinks or whether we should not tax sugary drinks. There is two point of views in this article. One of the point of views say that we should tax sugary drinks, while the other side says we should not tax sugary drinks.
American obesity is a widely known problem that keeps getting worse every year. People struggle daily between choosing to eat healthy or to find a quick and affordable meal to eat. The government needs to get more involved by making healthy food more accessible and more affordable in order for people to make healthy food choices.
Though sugary drinks are not the sole reason behind the obesity problem in the country, it is a significant contributor to the said problem. Similar to sugary drinks, junk food is also significant contributors to obesity among children, adolescents and adults. People make unhealthy choices in what they eat that is why they often choose junk food. Obesity as the studies show is a growing problem. The junk food available in the market continuously grows as well. The same with sugary soft drinks. This is why sugary soft drinks need to be taxed so that problems like obesity can be
It is sad. People from all races and backgrounds are obese. In a recent survey done at Henry Ford College, 43 percent of students were overweight. Whether it is because they do not follow a healthy diet or they inherited it from their parents. Being overweight is correlated with lacking exercise or physical activity and not watching what is on the plate. Obesity can cause many illnesses, including diabetes, which is very common. As the debate whether soda tax should take effect arises, critics say that the tax will help those with obesity-related illnesses. What about exercising and maintaining a healthy lifestyle? These two factors cannot be forgotten knowing they are the most important. Americans have consumed 12 percent of soda and become less active since 1970. A soda tax aims to stop consumers from buying soda to help those who are obese. This will not be effective. Therefore a soda tax will not be good public policy.
The government plays an important part in our safety, but many people think they take it too far. Recently, people have thought more and more about how much involvement the government should have when it comes to food regulations. Some people think the government's involvement in regulating food would greatly help obesity rates, and others think the country's obesity rates would show little to no improvement. Although no one cause of obesity exists, and no government regulations will likely alter someone’s lifestyle choices, the government should implement some regulations by implementing programs to educate and encourage citizens to lead a healthier life and by requiring companies to list a full disclosure of ingredients on their products.
As a market failure, the obesity epidemic in America is costing the federal government billions of dollars annually. While most obesity prevention programs aim toward changing the rate of children who become obese, many fail, causing an inefficient allocation of government resources. Much of what 's already been done has proven to barely be a speed bump in the progression that is the obesity epidemic. Several solutions which can be explored to effective halt this progression. The taxation of certain unhealthy foods, government benefits and subsidies for organic produce farmers, and passing new legislation to regulate the amount of calories a fast food restaurant is allowed to serve you, just to name a few. These solutions, however, are only effective if they affect the lives of the majority of the population, therefore preventing obesity, whilst correctly allocating valuable government resources efficiently. ...
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).
In the United States there has been an expanding issue of obesity since the 1990's; and only until now with the growing trend of gym memberships for personal fitness has the epidemic been mitigated. The wide availability of fast food and second kitchens has led to high obesity rates. However, the availability is only the product of intense consumer demands. Fast food manufacturers would only supply ridiculously unhealthy food if and only if the consumers had a high demand for such garbage. As was seen in the 1920's when alcohol was banned in the United States due to violence arising from alcoholics – the people that wanted alcohol still found ways to attain alcohol through the black market, the underground liquor market led my Al Capone. People are born free and thus behave free, a person's desires are ultimately innate, and fast food manufacturers only attempt to satisfy the implacable desire for fast food – not force the consumer into eating fast food or even buying it. Fast food manufacturers only sell the food, not shove it down people's throats; thus, fast-food chains and food manufacturers should bear no blame for the country's weight problem. There is much controversy however, the preface to “Does Advertising Exploit Children?” predicts that “banning fast-food commercials could trim down the number of overweight American children by 18 percent” (“Preface to...”). This statistic is only a prediction, and 18 percent does not sound promising. There is however a promising solution that requires Governmental assist; the article “We need a Fat Tax” advises that “The Government should implement a graduated tax system on foods high in fat to counteract the obesity epidemic” (Karlin). The suggestion is based on the premise that the ...
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
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.
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.
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).