Fat Taxes Are Not The Answer

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

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

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

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.

The modern-day epidemic of obesity in America is destroying lives and bankrupting the government. Reuters reports, “Obesity in America is now adding an astounding $190 billion to the annual national healthcare price tag” (Ungar 2012). This number is so high due to hospital costs and prescription drugs. The number even exceeds the medical costs due to smoking. Fortunately for the government, smokers die earlier and save the government money on things such as Social Security, private pensions and Medicare. (Ungar 2012) However, obese people tend to live almost as long as those who have a healthy weight and require more medical care throughout their lives, which costs the government substantial amounts of money.

There is an epidemic striking the United States. This epidemic, one of obesity, can contribute much of its growth over the last half century to one common link: junk food. Michael Thomas, correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, doubts the effectiveness of imposing a “junk food” tax in an attempt to curb obesity. With support from respected scientists in the nutrition field, like Dr. Oliver Mytton, Mr. Thomas could not be more wrong. While people like Thomas believe there is little hope to solve this problem, in reality a junk food tax is the best approach we can take. If the government intervenes with taxation on unhealthy foods, there will be a less consumer demand for this food group and would mark a significant step in controlling the obesity epidemic.

One solution to excess weight is a tax on foods that contribute to obesity: sugary drinks and fast food.

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

Statistics have shown that even though Americans consume less calories, the percentage of overweight and obese Americans is still on the rise.4 Restaurants have also found that even though that the calories were posted next to the products that were being sold, that customers actually purchased even more calories since the changes were made to the menus.5 The country of Denmark was able to sustain the “Fat Tax” for a year before it was eventually repealed. While the “Fat Tax” was still being implemented by the Denmark government, citizens resorted to cheaper but equally as unhealthy junk food. As states tried to enforce the use of a “Candy Tax” the specific definition of what was candy varied greatly between store to store. Consequently, this led to store clerks not knowing what to tax and the inevitable failure of the “Candy Tax”.

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 in America; an attempt to improve the obesity epidemic using the legislature. The fat tax will not cure obesity in America however, one idea is it will be used as an incentive to help improve the eating habits of Americans. The revenue collected can be used to enhance education as well as implement programs to teach healthy lifestyle tips such as exercise, and even implementing gyms in places like community centers. Another suggestion is to reduce cost of healthy foods using some of the tax money. As a result of the healthy habits of the population, Medicare and Medicaid may be less stressed resulting in less expenses. This could lead to less government debt as well as a healthier population. The percentage of obese adults doubled in the last thirty years, and obesity in children tripled. The cost of obesity annually is 100 billion dollars due to medical issued.

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.

The current problem with overweight became more and more serious with sad effects on the nation 's health, especially for the young generation, that’s why the probability of implementing fat tax constantly increased in spite of the strong power of the opposition, such as McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC, Subway, Starbucks, and others. More than one-third of Americans have problems with overweight and obesity, the Fat Tax can be a way to pay more attention of society on the problem with obesity, promote a healthy eating lifestyle, improve public health and refill government budget, but it was important to make implementing slowly and thoughtfully for getting best results instead of collapsing and higher prices on products.