Effects Of Obesity On Unhealthy 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,”

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.

By imposing a sugar beverage tax, consumers will demand less of the good and drive demand downward. Similarly, the sugary beverage market is elastic to price changes ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). If the prices of sugar beverages increase, the demand will decrease ("Price elasticity of the demand for sugar sweetened beverages and soft drinks in Mexico"). However, a counterclaim does arise which argues that even if consumers of these beverages decide to stop purchasing a taxed good, they will purchase substitute goods that have the same satisfactory effect at a price that isn't affected by the tax. This idea was presented by Jason Fletcher from the University of Wisconsin. In his published research, Fletcher found that BMI remained constant or increased even when consumers are confronted with a beverage tax (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft 2009).

Consumers think that it is awful that they have to pay for someone else’s health care while that person may just as well be drinking twelve cans of soda daily and continually destroying their health. (“Should there be a”, n.d.) These consumers are hoping the soda tax will encourage people to stop abusing soda and at the same time lowering the obesity rate in our country, which now about 66% of our population. Some commenters also said that the government is doing the right thing to try and stop this

“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.

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

This memo is an application of some of the policy ideas Cass Sunstein has described in his book “Simpler,” to a proposed “soda tax” in Oakland California. The introduction of the tax, contained in “Measure HH” (as it appears on the ballot) has been met with stiff opposition by some members of the Oakland area while others have embraced the idea. Three ideas from “Simpler” will be tested in this California case.

Today, research asserts soda is one of the leading causes of poor health outcomes in the United States. People define soda as carbonated beverages, or soft drinks, or fizzy drinks. A significant relationship exists between the consumption of carbonated drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental caries in the United States (Gollust et al., 52). Tax on soda is considered as a government’s intervention to regulate the consumption of these kinds of drinks. In fact, soda should be taxed in the United States because it discourages the consumption of soda, makes people healthier, and raises government funds.

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

By carefully analyzing and breaking down the soda tax with considerations to all of Kass’s criteria, it can be determined that the soda tax passes all of the ethical considerations that are relevant to public health, and is thus ethically sound.

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

There are over 240,000 fast-food restaurants in the united and over 50 million consumers daily. Fast food appeals to so many because of the low price, great taste, and convenience. Most consumers are aware that what they are eating isn’t healthy. However, 52% of Americans believe doing taxes is easier than maintaining

“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.

An UFT in the US is likely to reduce consumption of unhealthy foods. A tax that has targeted a specific sector of the unhealthy food industry has been successful before, as seen by Mexico’s recently established soda tax. A contributing factor to the soda taxes’ outcome was the fact that it was applied as a higher price of soda opposed to the traditional method of adding money on after purchase. In one year, the soda tax caused soda sales to decline an average of 12%, and up to 17% with lower-income consumers (Sanger-Katz 1). This means that consumerism for sodas in some consumer groups fell almost one fifths of the original rate. Surely such numbers must suggest