Fat Tax: Unintended Consequences Of Obesity

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

Kyrillos, J. (2014) Obesity in America, A Growing Epidemic. Workplace Strategies and Solutions. Health Advocate.

The overconsumption of inappropriate foods containing trans-fats and large serving portions has caused many to become obese hence developing heart disease, and diabetes among other preventable disease. Currently over 500 million of the world population is obese and one and half billion people in the world are overweigh”. Every year about 2.5 million deaths are related to obesity (WHO) and children seem to be the most affected. Furthermore, obesity has continued to increase and currently there are more obese people in the world than underweight. Amazingly, the United States a country with ample resources has the higher rate of obese

There is what has been referred to as "obesity epidemic" in Australia today. This trend affects everyone it the society; whether it be directly or indirectly. One particular concern within the "at risk" segment is children. The young in our society do not have the capacity, either mentally or the physical resources, to make their own informed decisions about their dietary consumption. Children are generally dependent upon their parents or institutions to provide them with the foods that they consume. Therefore, this group above all others deserves some level of protection against a lifestyle that can potentially have negative consequences for their health that can stay with them for a lifetime.

According to the media article, Whose Fault is our Fat? Obesity solely stems from Americans not participating in enough physical activity. On the other hand, Family Stressors and Child Obesity, attributes the stem of childhood obesity to stressors, particularly family stressors. Another possible explanation for obesity, other than Americans not getting enough physical activity or stressors, comes from the movie, watched in lecture, The Weight of the Nation. This movie makes the connection of rates of obesity to living in poverty areas. The movie also firmly believes that Americans are turning to quick, processed, and readily made meals, instead of healthy food options.

One of the main groups that would be negatively affected by a fat tax are the diabetics. Those who fight hypoglycemia occasionally need candy or soda to raise their blood sugar levels. Why should diabetics have to pay more for something that could potentially save their lives? They already have to pay extremely high costs for their insulin to keep their glucose levels from reaching too high. At Diabetic Care Services and Pharmacy, a box of five Humalog pen Kwikpens cost $339.29, which is extremely expensive, especially if the buyer does not have health insurance. The cost of living is very high for someone with diabetes and they might have very little money left out of each paycheck, after taxes and medical bills, for groceries. “Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and

As an American I love my fair share of greasy foods. Like most Americans I enjoy eating at food fattening restaurants like Chick fil- a, Sonic Drive-in, and not to forget Mc Donald’s. Almost every other week would be spent at Mc Donald’s where I would usually get the 10 piece chicken nuggets with medium fries, a sprite, and five different dipping sauces. Many people who follow the same routine do not suffer from high blood pressure or obesity, which brings me to the issue that taxing obese people for being overweight is an idea, but may need to be reevaluated as a solution. After looking into the article “The Fat Tax: A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Rauch from The Atlantic he mentions the fact that many fast food companies are increasing the rates of being obese by instituting larger cups, food portions, and serving more buttered bread.

Yet the problem lies in, not the idea, but the practicality, application, and implications of such a tax. The tax on these "fatty foods" would face many questions such as which foods would be considered fatty. Considering that the foods that would be taxed would be those high in fat, the type of fat would be another question which arises. According to Laura Salahi, foods such as nuts that are high in unsaturated fat provide many benefits such as the lowering of blood pressure and the reduction in the risk of heart disease, while Dr. Walt Willett further stated that unsaturated fats eaten in moderation may even help lead to healthy weight loss. Additionally, the failure of a fat tax can be seen in a country such as Denmark who instituted their fat tax on saturated fats

The rate of junk and fatty food consumption has grown in the United States compared to the past few decades. Lifestyle reports indicate that one of the primary issues that were altered is the type of diet that people consume. Currently, it seems like many people eat junk foods almost daily. Junk food refers to any diet that has insufficient nutritional value and unhealthy ingredients. The U.S. government should add extra taxes to junk foods to promote a healthier society. Authors Leicester and Windmeijer note that “whilst there is no ‘fat tax’ operating in the world at the moment, the idea is under active consideration in Ireland, where around 60% of people are overweight or obese” (8).

While some believe that creating a calorie tax will promote healthy eating lifestyles and decrease obesity rates, the idea of imposing a tax on what people eat is very irrational due to there being better alternatives, many consequences and reverse effects, and also this tax was meant to target obese people, not average weight people. Calorie taxes are being introduced to the US because it can potentially help people save money, reduce calorie consumption, and also it can decrease obesity rates. Sadly this calorie tax also has many flaws, there are many other alternatives to this and also there being no drop in obesity rates in several years. Also, this calorie tax can actually increase calorie consumption rather than decreasing it, not only

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 plague producers and outlets. Such was the case with the world’s first fat tax introduced in Denmark. This tax on foods high in saturated fat was dismissed after less than a year and left many consequences in its wake. It has been guilty of “increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies' administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk," as stated by the Danish tax ministry. As a result, the planned sugar tax has also been abandoned. As well, the tax was a costly procedure and failed to change the eating habits of people in general. A fat tax on fast food would have the same limitations and ultimately lead to failure.

The fat tax would encourage a healthier diet. Due to the rising price of unhealthy food, people would rather choose a healthier diet. This would lead to better health and reduce food related diseases. The fat tax would also encourage people to get food that are lower in sugar and fat. Fast food places would also give more of a wider range of food options.

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.

Although Fat taxes could discourage consumers from eating foods that aren't good for them, they should not be implemented. Making citizens pay unnecessary taxes is most definitely not the answer. Reality is that obesity can be caused by many different factors other than the consumption of unhealthy foods. Factors such as genetics, mental health, lack of exercise and poor portion control, play a far more important part in maintaining a healthy weight. Therefore, losing weight is an individual process that can’t be tackled with such a simplistic approach.