Essay about Benefits of a Tax on High Fat Foods, An Outline

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

According to the WHO (World Health Organization) the health of the people in the United States has not always been the greatest. With an obesity rate of 33.9 percent, which translates into over 106 million obese Americans, this has caused many problems to arise and impact the daily lives of Americans. Many have tried to help in regards to this issue by improving school foods or attempting to encourage more physical activity. Unfortunately, these may have helped but only in a small scale. However, a fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mark Bittman believes that he may have a definitive solution. On May 25, 2016, in “Taxing Sugar to Fund a City” New York Times food journalist, Mark Bittman, by using the taxing of sugary beverages in Philadelphia - America’s poorest big city - earnestly

The United States of America is known for having a high obesity level. According to David Frum from CNN, except for Mexicans, American citizens are more likely to become obese than any other nationality. Some obese countries have enforced an extra high tax on fast foods and other high calorie foods, and many people believe that the U.S. should adopt the fat tax as well. According to Dictionary.com, the fat tax is “a tax imposed on or proposed for high-fat or otherwise unhealthy foodstuffs”. Although a tax on junk food could reduce obesity, the low prices could protect low income families from going broke, and therefore a tax on junk food would not be beneficial to America.

The point is to hinder people from making poor food choices. To be healthier, would people agree to sign a fat tax bill? Seems unlikely, but for example, think about the reduction in smokers because of the limited public smoking areas, the Surgeon General’s warning on every pack of cigarettes and the sky rocketing prices. There are a lot less smokers now then before these changes. If the government can foster the same idea in food education, rather than just saying “eat healthy and exercise,” there may be positive results to the obesity epidemic. Now it is realized that something more drastic must be done.

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

In the United States, more than one third of adults are obese. One in five American deaths are now associated with obesity. The prevalence of obesity has increased at an alarming rate in the USA: in 1960 only 13% of Americans were obese. Obesity has become an epidemic and the number of preventable deaths from obesity-related diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease continues to rise. Despite the well-documented association between obesity and significant morbidity and mortality the American administration has not taken many steps to combat this problem. There have been attempts by government to try and stem this epidemic, but the food industry is so wealthy and influential that policies against obesity are very

Understanding the limitations of taxing the food industry in the treatment and prevention of obesity highlights the complexity of the childhood obesity problem in the United States and underscores the need for dietitians, physicians, advocacy groups, policy maker, and parents to search and create other practical solutions.

This however, is not what people believe to be the true reason behind the taxes given that politicians can sometime have the proclivity to lie or not be completely honest with citizens. It seems as if the people behind these taxes, who promote them to be a cause of lowering the rate of obese and diabetics, are using this view of helping out the citizens as an excuse to look good in enforcing the tax. Kelly Brownell and William Shughart further support the idea that the taxes are the politicians providing the public with the brightest points from the taxes by saying, "Citizens do not normally expect politicians to be truthful. If they want to impose these taxes, they should be honest enough to admit that they will not end obesity and diabetes, but rather will generate more of other people's money for state government to spend." (8). With this, Brownell describes the taxing as being used for government spending, and people don't trust the political imagery of it being prompted to stop obesity. The reality could be that the taxes will be used as money for the governments, but the politicians are insulting citizens by saying it will stop obesity when it really

The United States of America, a nation that is known for it’s power, independence, and obesity. In the past few decades, this country has been suffering from an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. The government should increase the sales tax on fatty and high-sugar junk food to encourage healthy eating and help the American people. The revenue raised could be used to support greater causes and pay for health care reform. This might be the solution this country needs.

Congress hereby finds and declares that the United States of America has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of obese people and the number of deaths caused by the symptoms of obesity. Obesity is the leading cause of preventable deaths and accounts for 18% of all deaths in America (Fox 2013); thus, a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages will decrease consumer rates and lower the obesity level. The rise in sweetened beverage consumption is parallel to the increase in obesity rates. Soda and other sugary substances are the largest contributors to sugar and calorie intake; soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks are considered the top most consumed beverages in America (Kickthecan 2014). The annual medical costs due to obesity and overweight Americans is also staggering. The proposed solution will not hinder the necessary diet and nutritional value of one 's meal, but rather improve it by reducing the amount of sugar American 's consume, especially since sugary beverages are a large factor of obesity that can be costly and life threatening.

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

Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. This fact is known that we need to do something about our health and obesity rate. An option that has been brought up time and time again is the Fat Tax. This would be a small tax applied to fatty and unhealthy food. Ideally, this tax would decrease consumption of things like fast food. Despite the well intentioned idea, things like this don’t always work. The Fat Tax would cause impoverish people to fall deeper into financial trouble and cost the government more on welfare as well as well as barely decreasing the actual obesity rate.

With a growing epidemic of obesity in America, some states and lawmakers have resorted to taking unconventional measures in order to counter the growing issue. Many legislators are debating the effectiveness of a “fat tax” would be on limiting the consumption of soda, high fat foods, and high sugar foods, and ultimately reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality due to obesity. The idea is that long term consumption of high fat, high sugar foods and drinks lead to many health problems, so making them more expensive and less accessible should decrease the health issues related to their consumption.

A fat tax would destroy people’s right of choice in a less than subtle bid from the government to tell us what to eat. Under the Constitution and the policies of Civil Liberties Australia, Australians have freedom of thought, the right to live freely and to be treated equally, as well as the right to share in the community. How can we uphold these basic, indisputable rights if we do not even have the freedom to choose what we eat?

Economic costs of obesity are increasing and will continue to do so if nothing is done. Healthy Communities for A Healthy Future state that the estimated annual health care costs related to obesity are 190 billion dollars. This is 21% of total health care costs. This includes direct costs, such as preventive and treatment services, while indirect costs include income lost to days debilitated or future income lost to death. On an individual level, an obese person will cost 42% more in health care than a person of healthy weight. A tax directly related to products known to cause obesity would offset the cost of health care, and hopefully result in less obesity in the Nation.