Do Soda Taxes Really Work

While Fletcher's argument holds merit, the study does acknowledge the weight loss contributing to a tax, even though they considered it a minuscule one (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft 2009). The fact is that sugary beverages are elastic goods that do

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

Did you know that of 39,000 people surveyed that drink sugary drinks 26% of those people are also obese. Also a full 42% of the annual $142 billion in health care costs attributable to obesity. One pro of taxing sugary drinks is it will raise money. Another pro would be deterring customers from buying so many sugary drinks and maybe instead buy something healthy. Some people say that taxing sugary drinks would only make customers buy sugary drinks different places so the tax is lower. Although people would buy them other places to get a lower price it would still raise money. These are reasons why sugary drinks should be taxed.

Wetter and Hodge, Jr. argue how childhood obesity is a vital issue that needs to be addressed as it puts children at risk for long-term health problems. The authors’ solution to lowering the rate of obesity is by taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. They relay information from the World Health Organization and make comparisons between other products that are heavily taxed in order to help support their argument. Wetter and Hodge, Jr. state that the World Health Organization declared that raising taxes on tobacco products was very effective in reducing the demand for tobacco use. They also discuss the legal components regarding sugar-sweetened beverages taxes. One of their ideas includes the sweeter the sugar-sweetened beverage is, the higher it

In addition, taxing sugary drinks will help collect more revenue for health promotion and economy deficit..

In addition, this tax for soda makes people healthier and stronger. Sometimes it also gets people that

Drinking sugary drinks is like a seed and grows overtime in your body until the tree tries to burst from your body. Mayor Bloomberg of New York tried to enforce the soda ban to lower obesity rates but there were many loopholes in his plan. The citizens of New York are able to pick whatever unhealthy food or “sugary drinks,” they want, regardless of the ban. The citizens can refill their drinks or order more than one. Additionally, bigger drinks with a certain amount of sugar or milk are exempt from the ban. With these loopholes, citizens will still be drinking unhealthy drinks; the ban is unnecessary. Many 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

Over the past few years the soda tax policy has become increasingly widespread, and several cities have taken a multifaceted approach to not only aim to improve public health, but to also raise total revenue to help these communities. These excise taxes are being imposed on cities like Philadelphia, which is “the poorest of the 10 largest US cities, and for many years, one of the unhealthiest” (Lavizzo- Mourey). Philadelphia’s mayor, Jim Kenney decided that a $1.5 per ounce soda tax would be efficient to restore the city’s economy and improve the public’s health. The city planned to raise approximately $92 million per year, with a goal of $7.6 million a month in tax revenue; however, city officials predicted that only $2.3 million will come through in the first collection (Vargas). A month after the tax went into full effect, the state of the economy went downhill and these communities and small

A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down, but what happens when it is thirty-three grams of high fructose corn syrup. What started out as pharmacists selling flavored mineral water has turned into a multi billion-dollar industry that fuels the United States’ obesity epidemic. Legislators have tried to manage this growing issue with promises of public health initiatives with little funding and insubstantial outcomes. The average American drinks a gallon of soda a week and the US Government continues to pay for it (Time 2010). Extensive research suggests that soft drinks are a significant contribution to obesity and increasing the price of soft drinks could curtail this effect. The US Federal Government should implement a modest excise tax on soda to increase the average retail price of soda and discourage consumption.

The government should have a special tax on sugary beverages because the soft drinks and foods have a high content of high-fructose corn syrup. The HFCS has to lead to obesity in schools all around the U.S. due to the large amounts of sugar. When kid and teens are eating this food they don’t know that it’s bad for them. Kids especially love junk food and beverages such as juice and sodas. The HFCS is in the snack food in the vending machine in most high schools and colleges in an America. Eating and drinking HFCS could lead to over consuming your daily calorie intake for the day. The person who just constantly have a daily routine of eating all this junk food and not exercising could gain weight.The special tax could go to making vegetable

Right now it is currently 12:42 am and I am craving a midnight snack so I drive to the nearest store that is open near me. I end up at AMPM a gas and food stop. I go in and head towards the snacks and purchase a bag of hot Cheetos, airheads, and a Large Sprite. Like most college students I do not eat healthy. So that is why I always choose to buy snacks because it is way more convenient and way more affordable it is basically a cheaper alternative. But unfortunately, Unhealthy eating has had a great big impact on society today. With Obesity and diabetes rates rising many lives are being taken. So due to this, our government would like to add a “Sin Tax” this is where the

The research shows a decline in use as soon as the tax was applied. The cigarette tax in particular could serve as a model for the outcome of a fat tax. For example “following a steep cigarette tax in the late 1990s which raised the cost of cigarettes 50%, smoking rates plummeted sharply. Today, less than 20 percent of Americans are smokers compared to the 42% in the 1960s before it was taxed. (…….) Although this tax would give our Government a considerable amount of power the results could transform our society substantially. “Economists generally agree that government intervention, including taxation, is justified when the market fails to provide the optimum amount of good for society’s well-being,” says Oliver Mytton, co-author of a recent report in the British Medical Journal. This is a controversial topic but a 2010 poll by the Quinnipiac University polling institute found that, “76% of New York residents favor a tax on soft drinks while only the remaining 22% are against the notion.

The sugar-sweetened beverage tax meets expectations in decreasing purchases. Estimates produced by one study claim that a nationwide penny-per-ounce tax on SSBs would reduce consumption by six to twenty-four percent in adults ages twenty-five to sixty-four (Wang). This suggests that the demand for SSBs is elastic, and thus, the quantity of product demanded can be adjusted by price changes. A study conducted in Berkeley after the passage of the tax, consisting of 15.5 million checkouts, found that “sales in ounces of taxed SSBs fell by 9.6%.” However, consumption of SSBs also increased in adjacent cities where the tax was not in effect

Considering that soft drinks are one of the most popular drinks to a lot of people all around the world, unfortunately, a lot of them love to drink it almost every day and may not live without it. Soda becomes addictive, preventing one from drinking what the body needs the most which is water. In the market, there is a infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, ranges from classic soda to diet soda. However, consumers do not recognize clearly the negative effect of soft drinks that have a high chance of eroding their health away. Some of these examples include dental erosion, energy intake, obesity and other health issues. Nowadays, people live a healthy life to avoid health problems, so taxes on soft