Analysis Of Ronnie Cummins Tax On Junk Food

Obesity and diet related disease like diabetes are one of the biggest challenges today in America. The situation continues to worsen every day; obesity becomes a serious health crisis. Cities like Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are sounding the bell of danger by imposing a tax on the consumption of soda and sugary beverages to cutback sugar consumption; which is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Some people say that tax on soda and sugary drinks aren’t beneficial to society and don’t generate any positive effect on public health. Others say that it is a powerful weapon against the obesity epidemic invading the American population. I agree with the later. Taxes on sugary

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

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,”

There is an epidemic striking the United States. This epidemic, one of obesity, can contribute much of its growth over the last half century to one common link: junk food. Michael Thomas, correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, doubts the effectiveness of imposing a “junk food” tax in an attempt to curb obesity. With support from respected scientists in the nutrition field, like Dr. Oliver Mytton, Mr. Thomas could not be more wrong. While people like Thomas believe there is little hope to solve this problem, in reality a junk food tax is the best approach we can take. If the government intervenes with taxation on unhealthy foods, there will be a less consumer demand for this food group and would mark a significant step in controlling the obesity epidemic.

Junk food is the go-to food when watching a movie or on a road trip. However, the research done suggests that Americans are satisfying their cravings with healthier alternatives these days. The article including this research states, “A 10 percent increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7.12 percent decrease in calories consumed from it, while the same increase in the price of pizza led to an 11.5 percent drop” (Fiore 2010). The numbers calculated in the study demonstrate a steady decrease in the consumption of junk food and drink. The decrease in consumption leads to a decrease in the intake of unhealthy and unneeded calories and sugar which are causing various health issues. A study done concluded that “An 18 percent tax on junk food would result in a 56-calorie decline in total daily energy intake . . . that would translate to about five pounds per patient per year, along with significant reductions in the risks of most obesity-related chronic diseases” (Fiore, 2010). America is not the only country that has thought of implementing a tax on unhealthy products, “More and more countries are adopting fat taxes in an effort to curb rising obesity rates. Both Denmark and Hungary have introduced a fat tax or junk food tax, and France is taxing sweetened drinks” (Sifferlin, 2012). These taxations are strongly

In America’s present economic state, citizens are looking for one thing: convenience. The American lifestyle has evolved into a quick pace, overwhelming schedule with Americans looking to fulfill their needs through affordable and easily reachable means. There has been an increased approval in fast food and convenience store establishments that provide swift and stimulating products. It is the inexpensive and easy way to purchase these “goods” that is slowly deterring the well-being of our country. The reason behind the low prices of such unhealthy choices provided by fast food restaurants and convenience stores is attributed to the subsidizing of producers of companies making the junk food. These companies such as McDonald’s, Coke, Pepsi, and Burger King contribute to the amplified rates of diabetes and obesity. Therefore a sensible solution is to tax the companies’ goods to make them less attractive to consumers who sequentially will lead improved life in buying less expensive, healthier foods.

A bag of potato chips, for example, contains 10 grams of fat, 170 grams of sodium, and only 2 grams of protein. A whole pineapple, on the other hand, has 1.1 grams of fat, 9 milligrams of sodium, and about 5 grams of protein. The chips have about 10 times the fat, 18,889 times the sodium, and about half as much protein as the pineapple. Which is healthier? The pineapple, it is a no-brainer, right? Actually, 66.7 percent of the 18 people surveyed in a private poll would rather choose a $5.00 pineapple over a $2.50 bag of potato chips. Therefore, it would be smarter to raise the tax on junk foods, just like the government raised the tax on cigarettes. “Significant increases in tobacco taxes are a highly effective tobacco control strategy and lead to significant improvements in public health,” according to Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang, authors for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meaning, raising the tax on fatty foods would encourage people to choose healthier options, limiting the amount of junk food consumption. Just like increased taxes on cigarettes decreased the amount of smokers. Both are bad for you, so it would make sense. So, by increasing the tax, people would be even more inclined to purchase healthier

The United States is currently under attack by a commanding disease that is seeking to bring this great nation to an early demise. This disease sucks the energy out of many individuals and takes control of the body by sparking heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, and even cancer. With the help of major junk food companies, this outbreak continues to claim thousands of lives each year. In our country today, this epidemic trails tobacco use in the second leading cause of preventable death. Many researchers have studied this horrible plague, and the only cure is the motivation to live a healthier lifestyle. Although the profits from major junk-food companies contribute significantly to America 's economy, the nation is blind to the

Obesity has been a problem in the United States for far too long, and it is time for the government to take action and protect the health of its citizens. This could be accomplished by taxing junk food and subsidizing healthy food, such as fruits, vegetables, and meats. The easiest foods to find and the cheapest foods to buy are foods that contain large amounts of calories and few nutrients (“What’s Behind the Obesity Epidemic”). This means that obesity disproportionately affects poor families (Mitchell, Catenacci, Wyatt, & Hill). In order to redress this issue, the government should put extra taxes on foods with high amounts of calories with few nutrients to act as a deterrent and keep people from buying them. The money gained from the taxes

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

Article Number 2 spoke of a 20% increase in price would create a 20% decrease in consumption, and it was also mentioned that the saving of junk food by mass order from schools, the money could be returned to communities or even other programs at the school, since out of the $9 billion spent for school meals, the average amount of money will cost about 20 cents a meal. Regardless, the taxing of food is around the same throughout all three articles. Money-wise, integrating a one percent increase in tax will save about $1.5 billion a year, and a penny-tax increase would save $3 billion on health care and prevent 37,000 cases of diabetes (page 160, paragraph 26) as said by Y. Claire Wang, an assistant professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. Each article brought in an expert to further prove their case and were brought back to the point that taxing unhealthy foods, while it is not capable of happening overnight, it may decrease the ever-growing rate of diabetes and obesity that is not only prevalent in the United States but also evident on a global scale, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The proposition of adding a much need tax on unhealthy could possibly lower low-income obesity rates, as noted Mark Bittman in the first article.

One major question that is asked today is whether or not the eating habits of kids and teens be regulated by the state? This is a big problem today with young ones. No young teenager or child has ever grabbed an apple over a snickers bar for a snack. Although a snickers bar once in a while is not a bad thing, every day consumption of products like this creates a long-term problem. In the article Junk Food Nation: How Parents are Ruining Kids’ Health, there are a couple different standpoints from select individuals on why or how to solve this problem. The main issue is whether or not parents are doing a good enough job teaching their children to make health food choices.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2011, the average American consumed nearly one ton of food, 1,996 pounds of food a year. That means that, a minimum of 1 in 4 people include some type of fast food in their menu on a daily basis. Junk food is a poison to health. Fat food is high in fat and sodium, which increase obesity risk and the possibilities of a stroke, diabetes and a coronary artery disease. Many people might be aware about the physiological side effects presented when eating fast food. However, the hidden truth about the real cost of cheap food does not only includes esthetics and evident things to sight, it goes far beyond to affecting our biosphere

Schools should not sell junk foods due to their need of money. “(Wealthier school districts tend to receive less meal funding in the first place, because they have fewer low-income students who qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches.) In addition, school districts decided that they could actually make more money by selling popular, unhealthy foods.” (Junk Food in Schools: Should schools restrict the sale of junk food?).In addition, I get the fact that students go hungry and need more food to eat because they don’t have enough to eat but schools should have more food per serving.“Indeed, high school students who drive can easily pick up snacks and soda on the way to and from school, opponents argue. The only difference is that revenue that could have gone to the school goes elsewhere, they maintain.” (Junk Food in Schools: Should schools restrict the sale of junk food?). Even though older student like beverages but they could get a smaller size with a salad instead of getting a unhealthy meal. But anybody can make it healthy for them or else they can make if unhealthy. Adults and many so do have their way of eat and their ways of getting junk foods, but they choose their own path. Younger adults don’t have to do the same, they could inspire them not to waste their money on junk food and help people who don’t have