Should Soda Be Taxed Essay

"Nutrition Experts: Despite Ruling, Soda Ban Is Still a Great Idea - NBC News."NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2014.

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.

The soda ban is said to be a bad idea because it excludes diet soda and fruit juice which causes obesity and

Did you know that drinking sugary drinks is actually a smaller cause of obesity than genetics? Although the state of New York has tried to instate a ban on soda, they have not been successful. The soda ban of New York has not been a success because people would find a way around the ban. Also the ban would cost the state more money than it has to spend.

This law would have somewhat of a domino effect as it would also affect fast food chain restaurants as they wouldn’t make as much money with them losing money on the soda machines they purchase. On the contrary, the soda tax would help with “medical costs for overweight and obesity alone are estimated to be $147 billion or 9.1% of U.S. health care expenditures with half these costs paid for publicly through the Medicare and Medicaid programs”(Brownell). This quote means medical programs will invest that money into other people who have more severe conditions and not use them on some conditions that could’ve been prevented.

To begin, the soda ban is an extraordinary idea because it makes our society not suffer from as many health issues. According to the

On October 11th, 2016 Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago passed a one cent per ounce soda tax. Due to a lawsuit by the Illinois Merchant Association the new law did not even come into effect until August 2nd 2017. Now, due to a repeal, the law will cease to be in effect by December 1st, giving this law an effective life of about four months. The tax seems a no brainer with about 25% of United States boys and girls suffering from obesity. However the law had two major shortcomings. First, it had a bad start due to a poor implementation of the tax, since the tax was originally levied on producers instead of at the point of sale. This caused what is known as a double tax situation, soda companies were being charged two taxes in

He earnestly states “ The soda producers and distributors, as well as the Teamsters members who deliver the product, argue that the tax is a job killer…” Bittman uses this strategy as a vessel to communicate his enthymeme that the soda producers and distributors only care about the profit they make as they “..may spend as much as 10 million dollars to make that case.” however, Bittman believes that the health of the impoverished is more important than the tax being referred to as a “job killer”. This strategy is effective towards his audience because they now have a clear understanding of what Bittman is arguing. He states “ The logic of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages has been clear for a decade…” here in this quote he explicitly states that the tax is a logical concept in which if it is applied then it will yield great results. Such as, decreasing the percent of children with a threat of diabetes and other

“Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” is an enticing article by Anna Gorman that focuses on the issue of taxing sugary beverages and the effect it will ultimately have on the health of the general population. She mentions that the tax could reduce the rates of obesity and diabetes in the affected areas. She also points out the counter to this claim, that soda taxes may not have any effect on obesity rates at all and may give the government too much power over the consumer choice. Overall, she seems to advocate that soda is an unhealthy beverage and should be cut down among consumers. Soda however, is not the only unhealthy options out there. There is a plethora of products on the shelves of supermarkets and sold at restaurants.

One reason why schools should not be selling soda in their schools to the children because it could destroy a person’s insides such as their intestines. According

Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and

According to livestrong.com in 2015, “Drinking large amounts of soda may affect your brain health and alter your risk of certain diseases. Naturopathic physician Scott Olson says that several scientific studies suggest that a high sugar diet may increase your risk of schizophrenia, depression and anxiety,” (Adams, “Can Food Cause Chemical Imbalance in the Brain”). Sugar in soda can advance to permanent long-term damage to the brain. Additionally, the sugar in a person’s body can increase blood pressure and dilate pupils. While, this evidence had been scientifically proven precisely there are still people who don’t see the ethics in the soda ban. That’s why a state judge ruled against it. According to BusinessInsider.com in 2010, “A New York state judge struck down Mayor Bloomberg's controversial ban on large sodas on Monday, arguing that the restrictions on sugary sweetened drinks did not make sense, partly because the ban wasn't evenly enforced.” (Spector, “New Yorkers Will Be Significantly Fatter Because Of The Soda Ban Repeal”). Although the judge thinks the ban is inefficient he is inaccurate, the restrictions on the ban are based on scientific evidence. The ban will still make sense, even though it does not include diet sodas and fruit juices. Everybody knows fruit juice and diet sodas are better for people

The first question in Kass’s formulaic approach to the ethics of public health is “What are the public health goals of this program?” (Kass, 1777) By nature, the public health goal of any program is to essentially promote the overall health of a population through an organized and communal effort. In the case of the soda tax, the ultimate public health goal is simply to reduce the amount of morbidity & mortality and improve the well being of society. This begins by tackling the obesity problem, which is directly linked to morbidity & mortality. According to Brownell, “for each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%” (Brownell et al., 1599). It can be inferred that drinking soda is linked to obesity rates, but why should obesity rates matter? According to Sturm, “a higher BMI…is associated with increased mortality and increased risk for coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Even modest weight reductions can have substantial lifetime health benefits” (Sturm, 245). Obviously if someone is morbidly obese, he or she is at extreme risk for a myriad of

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.

“Sin” taxes have been proven as a way to curtail known unhealthy behaviors. Soda taxes are most accepted if taxes collected are earmarked for health specific programs (Chaufin et al., 2010). The cons are the consumers are the voters and taxing may equate to loss of votes, taxing may not be equitable to individuals that do not have the disease, and finally, an undue burden may be placed on lower socio-economic demographics as these groups often have limited access to food vendors that primarily sale what would be considered taxed foods. Though these sin taxes are proven to work well with tobacco and alcohol consumption, altering a persons’ diet needs to be more individualized and realistically approached. Lower socio-economic individuals should not feel added burden as a tax; which would be a negative impact (Kuchar et al., 2005). Legality issues are regarded as low, but would require state government support to enact. This would likely not be popularly accepted and have a minimal impact for any increase in tax rate.