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.
First of all, what is considered to be healthy food? In order to execute a tax on junk food there must be a scale of what is considered nutritional and what is deemed unhealthy. Unfortunately, food has many nutritional elements that make it what it is and to impose a tax on certain food would be a difficult since most foods contain the same forms of nutrition groups just different quantities. According to Nutritiondata.self.com (a website that will list the nutritional value of any food you input) within an apple there are many vitamins and minerals such as vitamin A, B1, B2, B6, C, E, and minerals such as Calcium, Copper, Iron, Magnesium, Manga...
... middle of paper ...
...oods high in sugar, fat and salt even though it has proven to be a bit difficult politically.
If the nation is to ever improve the health of its people it will need to first improve the ingredients of the food and make unhealthy food becomes harder to obtain. Most people don’t know what is in the packaged food they are buying so first the awareness of the public on this issue must rise, and they must take action towards these unhealthy ingredients by refraining from buying them so the food companies change them. Taxing junk food and subsidizing healthy foods will surely be a step forward in improving the health of the country. It will be a process that will have many complications but in the long run hopefully the people of the United States can improve the projected obesity and health diseases rates and incorporate a much healthier lifestyle in the process.
It could also completely crush the stereotypes of Americans who are “all overweight and obese”. It could also set this country up for a healthier, and more fit generation. But, it also doesn’t have to be done all at once. Not every American can just be thrown into eating right. “Government intervention on our nutrition may not be as controlling as we think. Simply reducing the amount of vending machines on college campuses, or portion sizes in high school cafeterias are small acts that can do a great deal in the long run.” (Knell). This shows that the government could slowly infuse slight changes over period of time to help every American to get into the right pace of eating healthy. But it’s not just eating healthy in general that turns many people away: it’s the insane cost of healthy food. “Over the course of a year, $1.50/day more for eating a healthy diet would increase food costs for one person by about $550 per year.” (Dwyer). The government should make it so that unhealthier foods are more expensive so that more people are not inclined to buy them and are more inclined to by the cheaper and healthier
In the argument “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” by Mark Bittman, it talks about taxing unhealthy food and promoting vegetables. With the use of different strategies like emotions, credible research, solutions to problems, and much more he effectively assures that a diet change is what Americans need and will benefit from.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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 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.
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. ...
Hesiod’s Theogony and the Babylonian Enuma Elish are both myths that begin as creation myths, explaining how the universe and, later on, humans came to be. These types of myths exist in every culture and, while the account of creation in Hesiod’s Theogony and the Enuma Elish share many similarities, the two myths differ in many ways as well. Both myths begin creation from where the universe is a formless state, from which the primordial gods emerge. The idea of the earth and sky beginning as one and then being separated is also expressed in both myths.
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.
We can choose what kinds of food to put into our bodies, and junk food is part of our culture. For example, according to a food professional and writer of an article called, “Junk-Food Taxes Would Be Unfair and Ineffective,” Pamela Parseghian explains that, “No matter how well funds are invested for improving society, the suggestion of adding federal fat tax is ridiculous.
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).