A Brief Note On Unfair Taxing Of Food

With obesity rates increasing at an exponential rate, a tax on fat foods and specifically high sugar beverages of 20% or about 1 cent per ounce could reduce obesity rates by 3.5%, bringing the rate down to 30% among adults (Kalaidis). While 3.5% may not sound like a lot, if you take an approximate U.S. population of 350 million people, suddenly that mere 3.5% turns into over 12 million Americans who would no longer be considered obese. Marion Nestle, a well-respected expert in food policy, recently conducted a study investigating the impact of a junk food tax through predictive modeling. Her study revealed that 2,600 deaths, 9,500 heart attacks, and 240,000 new cases of diabetes could be prevented with a simple 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages (Satran). A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare

Eating healthy has become a thing of the past. In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead” offers an idea on how to change the Standard American Diet: making healthy food cheaper and fast, processed food more expensive. Calculating the tax to increase one penny would make a difference in the price and the decision for the people as to whether or not the people are will purchase processed foods. He explains that taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods should increase due to the amount of money it would bring into the government, and the benefits of a healthier American. Bittman’s results remove chronic health diseases that reinvent the way we eat. In “Nickle and Dimed on Not Getting by in America,”

Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.

Taxing junk food isn’t as bad as people may think. “ In 1972, U.S consumers spent $3 billion a year on fast food; today we spend more than $110 billion.”, said Cummins . If only we put a tax on junk foods this number would go up and the tax money could be used for all of the collateral damages it causes. Another reason why taxing junk food isn’t as bad as people may think is because “ junk food kills”, stated Cummins. The junk food industry is in a similar position that the tobacco industry was once. After many decades the truth is finally becoming crystal clear.

Even if consumers stop buying a certain type of junk food, they will move on to something else that all before wasn’t considered “unhealthy” until people started gaining weight from it. With having that opinion, to me there is no need to even put a tax on junk food in the first place.

Obesity has dangerously increased over the years. Its consequences can be fatal for the human immune system. Some of the complications of overweight are: heart disease, diabetes, malnutrition, cancer, and even death. However, the cost of healthy food is twice or three times more than the price of junk food. Everywhere healthy options are more expensive, even water costs more than sodas. Making healthier food more affordable, will contribute to having healthier population. I think healthy food options should be more affordable because cheaper prices for junk food promotes obesity and other severe health issues, and families with low income can’t afford the costs of a healthy lifestyle.

In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead,” Bittman offers an idea on how to change the Standard American Diet: making healthy food cheaper and fast, processed food more expensive. Calculating the tax to increase one penny would make a difference in the price and the decision of the people as to whether or not the people will purchase processed foods. With taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods, profits from the proposal should increase due to the amount of money it would bring into the government and the benefits of a healthier American. Bittman’s results remove chronic health diseases that reinvent the way we eat. In “Nickle and Dimed on Not Getting by in America,” Barbara Ehrenreich

Who has not eaten junk food at least once? I did it, and to me, as to many Americans, the junk food is the most delicious type of food. However, I know it is the unhealthiest food and the main cause of obesity in the United States. On the other hand, the U.S. government feels that is important to intervene in junk food lover’s lives to help them to improve their health and their food choices. In order to combat the obesity and other health problems that junk food causes, the U.S. government has been looking for many ways to prevent and decrease the number of obese people in the country. They believe that adding taxes to the junk food is a great idea that might help people to

Imagine seeing your mother or father on a hospital bed for weeks after having a heart attack. I’ve been through it before, and trust me, it’s not fun. Up to 80% of heart disease in Canada could be prevented by adopting a healthy lifestyle and this is why the government should do everything in their power to increase healthy living in Canada (Statistics). One way of doing so is by putting a tax on fast food restaurants. To start, many would argue that giving people education about healthy eating would be easier, but that already exists and humans tend to only change if something has affected them directly, such as a change in how much you spend at McDonald’s. Also, this tax money can be used for something more beneficial than heart disease,

Eating unhealthy foods is one of the major causes of obesity today; but should there be a higher tax on all soft drinks and junk food? Should people be punished for eating what they want? Yes, there are health risks involved with an unhealthy diet but is a higher taxing on these foods the right alternative? With the price of healthcare raising maybe the extra tax could help alleviate it, maybe not. Perhaps the higher tax will turn people away from buying unhealthy foods and drinks. Consuming unwholesome food can lead to clogged arteries, heart attacks and many other fatal illnesses. Buying the healthier substitute may help our

This would in turn effect Famous Brands negativley as Famous Brands will now have to pay a higher tax on sugary products in order to buy them forcing them to raise the costs of their end products sold to consumers meaning that the end products that consumers are now buying are going to be more expensive and taking away a competitive advantage from Famous Brands as they now have higher product prices making it easier for competitors to compete against

Paying taxes is something everyone does. We pay taxes on cars, property, and on our income. What about the junk food we consume? This has been debated for years that it will or will not work. How do we educate the public? Why should we do it? Where will the money be going? What groups will it serve? Prices are already high, so where is the money coming from? Everything that is done must be motivated because if not, it becomes a fad - here today and gone tomorrow. Only things that are done repetitively are made into habits. As a person, all things can be done if we have a desire and a need. Taxes on junk food and soda will not work unless everyone is educated on the utilization of revenues, health advantages, and motivated sufficiently to make a more healthy change.

Finally, admittedly some people call that food policy, such as restrictions (portion size, removing candy bars from checkout lines, etc.), taxing a food group or product (soda, snacks, energy drinks) or taxing on some ingredients (sugar, salt, fat, and additives) are bad ideas. They argue that food policies are regressive and “penalize” individuals and families on low incomes. They also feel that food policy would restrict the freedom of people to make their own dietary choices. For example, they grant the government the right to make those choices for people and effectively, it treats adults as children who can neither be trusted to make their own choices or be held responsible for those choices (824). However, these opponents fail to see

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider that people just might eat healthier if they simply had the money to do so? It would be interesting to consider that the people who usually have bad eating habits, are the ones who actually can’t afford to eat healthy. America has the highest obesity rate in the world, but who knows where we could be if the healthy food was more affordable and the junk food wasn’t reasonably cheap. Illnesses and diseases have become common too in people, many that come from just unhealthy eating that has taken a negative toll on the body. Not to mention, people living in low-income areas where in those areas, the main thing around them are fast food restaurants. The promotion of healthier eating and a healthier lifestyle, though, isn’t completely hidden from the public, though more ads about tasty junk food are on televisions, billboards, and so on, more than food that will benefit your body and general health. These things are all played into the fact that people already have a terrible diet, and the prices of foods that can make someone’s diet healthier are too high for most to even include them in their diet regularly. Healthier foods should cost less because it can help lower the high obesity rate in America, it will promote a healthier lifestyle to people to do things like exercise more, and it can help prevent life-threatening illnesses caused by unhealthy eating.

This will be similar to the last as the increase in taxes from the producers will result in increased prices to the consumers. Unless this effort is nationwide, it is not believed to be worthwhile as it would not change the landscape of food production. The price increase is likely but not guaranteed depending on how manufacturers decide to absorb the impact. Pros and cons would be very