The main cause of the high percentage of people with obesity is unhealthy food. In this modern era, fast food can be found anywhere and is one of the most highly consumed foods as the prices are reasonable and prepared in a shot period of time. We may think of this as a solution because it saves up a lot of time to grab a proper meal but we have not come to a conclusion yet. Unhealthy food such as fast food is increasing the rate of obesity and also increasing the number of diseases such as heart attack and stroke. There should be a tax placed on unhealthy food to reduce the rate of obesity. This essay will outline the people who will be affected by the tax, how a tax can reduce the number of diseases and how a tax can encourage businesses …show more content…
Countries that already have a tax on unhealthy food are doing it wrong which is why obesity rates are high. Taxing food unhealthy food by their volume will not make a difference but taxing food based on their sugar levels will (Marron 2015). By taxing according to sugar levels, this will encourage businesses to reduce the sugar content in their foods making them healthier. There is no point in changing the volume of food and food businesses will have to reduce the sugar levels of their foods as high sugar content mean higher tax, which also means less customers (Marron 2015). If businesses do not reduce their sugar levels in their food, they will lose their customers because their products will be more expensive and consumers are not able and willing to pay for that price and start looking for other alternatives. Now businesses will introduce new products to customers which are lower in sugar content, making them switch to less sugary foods (Marron 2015). Because consumers have an improved diet, the rate of diseases will decrease hence improving the economy. The will be an improvement in the economy as there will be less lost productivity at work because there will be less people taking sick leaves, and will also reduce medical costs when there are not many patients with diseases (Economics Help 2007). Finally, the rate of premature death …show more content…
The number of people with obesity is rising and from my point of view, all of these problems are caused by unhealthy food. Fast food may be easy to be located, they may be for a reasonable price and they may be fast compared to a proper meal but the after effects have a larger impact on the people in a negative aspect. If the amount of fast food consumed by the people remain the same or increase, the rate of heart attacks and other severe diseases will not be reduced but increase to a larger number. Businesses will have to produce healthier foods with a lower sugar content, which will improve the diets of consumers. The money received from the tax by the government should be used for medical costs to the people and provide the poor and lower income healthier food. In my opinion, there should be a tax on unhealthy food to lower down the rate of diseases and at the same time improve the economy of the
“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.
Evaluate the view that the only way to reduce the UK’s growing obesity problem is to introduce a tax on fatty and sugary foods.
One out of every three Americans is obese and the majority of these obese people in the United States have eaten regularly at fast food restaurants. As the obesity rate increases, the number of fast food restaurants goes up as well. Although it is not certain, many believe that obesity in the United States is correlated to eating fast food. Since the United States has the highest obesity rate out of any country, it is important for Americans to monitor the fast food industry that may be causing obesity. With the pressure to get things done in a timely manner, fast food became a big necessity. However, when creating fast food restaurants, the industries were not thinking about the negative effects such as obesity. Other than obesity, other harmful effects exist as well. Fast food restaurants serve unhealthy products such as greasy foods and artificial meat that lead to dietary health issues in many adults and children. A recent study showed that “Young children who are fed processed, nutrient-poor foods are likely to become unhealthy teenagers, and eventually unhealthy adults. Now twenty-three percent of teens in the U.S. are pre-diabetic or diabetic, 22% have high or borderline high LDL cholesterol levels, and 14% have hypertension or prehypertension” (May, Kuklina, Yoon). The food that they provide is made to be eaten quickly, causing problems for the digestive system. Also, the health problems lead to the use for health insurance, which adds to the costs of Medicare. Health care costs will only worsen an already failing economy. Therefore, the government should regulate fast food restaurants in the United States in order to repair the deteriorating health and economy in America.
By adding a tax, people will stop buying unhealthy foods daily. Being able to decrease the number of unhealthy food people eat, will better our overall health, and will decline our obesity rates. A study done "as of 2003, US states without sales taxes on soft drinks or snack foods were 4 times as likely as states with a tax to have a relative increase in the prevalence of obesity" (Franck, Grandi, & Eisenberg, 2003). This is a good example of how taxing junk food will help the populations problem with obesity. With easier access to junk food, people are more likely to buy it because it is a cheap substitute for the pricey healthy
Research has shown that economic and other social factors are better predictor of health than individual behaviours or lifestyles (2). According to the McKeown hypothesis, many major improvements in population health was due to improving economic conditions (ie. improved nutrition, sanitation and social policies). Important determinants of health are upstream, such as those related to economic and social resources that promote living and working conditions, which result in healthy choices. These upstream determinants are mainly established through national economic, political and social welfare systems. Addressing obesity through regulations through a macro, top-down approach, such as law enforcement, is an effective way to make population changes. An important question to ask is: will this new policy help those who are at high risk of obesity-related diseases? The group of people associated with increased odds of obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and dislipidaemia are those of a lower social economic position (SEP)(3). Studies have shown that when it comes to purchasing fast foods, calorie labeling benefits higher social economic position neighbour hoods significantly more than lower SEP neighbourhoods (4). People in lower SEP may not prioritize calories when they are making choices on a menu. They are looking to get the most out of their dollar. Therefore, calorie labeling may help those of higher SEP, who have the privilege to make informed decisions about their health. However, calorie labeling may not be as beneficial to those of lower SEP who are at greatest risk of obesity related
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.
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 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.
Lastly a Solution around the problem. The convenience of healthy food is limited especially in New Zealand. Were McDonalds and other fast food restaurants run 24/7 and are available all the time. This makes It much more likely for people to go and buy these fast food items, as they are covenant and also cheaper, healthier food options need to be available all the time and are cheap and fast. The government has started to consider to tax sugary products. A tax on fizzy drinks could save millions of dollars for health programs all around New Zealand. It is estimated that a 20% tax on fizzy drinks could save 67 kiwi lives a year. Obesity needs to stop.
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. ...
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.
As we know, Government’s policies often will result in the change of price on agricultural products accordingly affect people’s dietary under their budget constrains; in order to promote healthy food to the public, government should set up price floor on certain agricultural products, such as corn and soybean. In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan raises the concern of obesity as a health risk to our nation. According to the surgeon general, “obesity today is officially an epidemic; it is arguably the most pressing public health problem we face, costing the health care system an estimated $90 billion a year (102)”. Cheap corn price is the main culprit that leads to this nationwide obesity. Food industries are willing to transform cheap corn into value-added consumer products, such as McDonald’s chicken nuggets and Big Macs, in order to maximize profits. This will make our dietary contains much more calories than before. In addition, the byproduct from corn, such as high-fructose corn syrup, has become the leading source of sweetness in food industries since it can provide same level of sweetness with a low cost. Simultaneously HFCS improves the taste of the foods, thereby increasing our consumption on those high calories foods. All these factors eventually lead us to a Republic of Fat. Government’s policies have put a very negative repercussion on people’s dietary. Because In 1970s, the US government embraced a cheap-food farm policy and dismantled the prevent overproduction policy (103). After that, American farmers were producing far too much corn, which directly causes the price of corn decreased in the next few years. As a result, the price of unhealthy foods and drinks decrease significantly since
One thing almost any American can relate to is fast food. Statistics show that every day, 1 in 4 people eat fast food. Also, over the past thirty years, the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases in the U.S. has risen sharply. Some consider that doing taxes is easier than eating healthy. Why is that? Has fast food taken over the health of America? Is the convenience of a McDonald’s restaurant on practically every street to blame? U.S. citizens should recognize what they are feeding themselves is hardly nutritious.
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).