Junk Food Tax

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

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.

Even if consumers stop buying a certain type of junk food, they will move on to something else that all before wasn’t considered “unhealthy” until people started gaining weight from it. With having that opinion, to me there is no need to even put a tax on junk food in the first place.

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.

It should seem obvious that when a tax on any item is increased that it will agitate the part of the population that enjoys that item or

It can ultimately do damage to low income households and the free market economy. Instead of attacking unhealthy foods, healthy foods could be marketed more heavily instead. Supporting education of health and nutrition will help people understand what their better options are and then putting them up as much, if not more, than unhealthy food advertisements, could give the same effect as a tax without all the ill effects. If it could be more about actually helping people and less about making more money, then actual progress could d be made on eradicating the obesity epidemic that plagues the human

The government can make money by taxing unhealthy fast food and use it for education and less expensive gym memberships. If there was money invested in more education about healthy eating, young adults would have a better understanding of what is healthy. The teachers could teach the class on how to eat healthy and what kinds of healthy foods there are. The extra money could be used for a nutritionist or a chef that specializes in healthy foods. The less expensive gym memberships would mean that more people would afford to join. The nutritionist expert believes that putting in more money into school programs would increase the healthy food intake. Mark Bittman, author of Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables states, “Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks” (35). Most would believe that unhealthy food should be taxed rather than healthy food. If the the government wants the people to eat healthy, then start taxing the unhealthy food, so the healthy food is cheaper. A hamburger cost $1 and a salad costs about $5. Which one would the people want to buy? The hamburger because it is cheaper and delicious. The salad may be healthier, but the hamburger is way cheaper. A study has shown that a penny-per-ounce tax on unhealthy food would generate about billions of dollars in income and it

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

A bag of potato chips, for example, contains 10 grams of fat, 170 grams of sodium, and only 2 grams of protein. A whole pineapple, on the other hand, has 1.1 grams of fat, 9 milligrams of sodium, and about 5 grams of protein. The chips have about 10 times the fat, 18,889 times the sodium, and about half as much protein as the pineapple. Which is healthier? The pineapple, it is a no-brainer, right? Actually, 66.7 percent of the 18 people surveyed in a private poll would rather choose a $5.00 pineapple over a $2.50 bag of potato chips. Therefore, it would be smarter to raise the tax on junk foods, just like the government raised the tax on cigarettes. “Significant increases in tobacco taxes are a highly effective tobacco control strategy and lead to significant improvements in public health,” according to Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang, authors for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meaning, raising the tax on fatty foods would encourage people to choose healthier options, limiting the amount of junk food consumption. Just like increased taxes on cigarettes decreased the amount of smokers. Both are bad for you, so it would make sense. So, by increasing the tax, people would be even more inclined to purchase healthier

In America’s present economic state, citizens are looking for one thing: convenience. The American lifestyle has evolved into a quick pace, overwhelming schedule with Americans looking to fulfill their needs through affordable and easily reachable means. There has been an increased approval in fast food and convenience store establishments that provide swift and stimulating products. It is the inexpensive and easy way to purchase these “goods” that is slowly deterring the well-being of our country. The reason behind the low prices of such unhealthy choices provided by fast food restaurants and convenience stores is attributed to the subsidizing of producers of companies making the junk food. These companies such as McDonald’s, Coke, Pepsi, and Burger King contribute to the amplified rates of diabetes and obesity. Therefore a sensible solution is to tax the companies’ goods to make them less attractive to consumers who sequentially will lead improved life in buying less expensive, healthier foods.

Imagine seeing your mother or father on a hospital bed for weeks after having a heart attack. I’ve been through it before, and trust me, it’s not fun. Up to 80% of heart disease in Canada could be prevented by adopting a healthy lifestyle and this is why the government should do everything in their power to increase healthy living in Canada (Statistics). One way of doing so is by putting a tax on fast food restaurants. To start, many would argue that giving people education about healthy eating would be easier, but that already exists and humans tend to only change if something has affected them directly, such as a change in how much you spend at McDonald’s. Also, this tax money can be used for something more beneficial than heart disease,

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

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.

Although we all pay taxes is it right to tax junk foods and sugary beverages. Politicians has debated this for years. Taxation is an excellent form of raising money for governmental usage. This type of taxation should reach about 90% of the public. Hopefully it will be able to benefit these same people as well.

This will be similar to the last as the increase in taxes from the producers will result in increased prices to the consumers. Unless this effort is nationwide, it is not believed to be worthwhile as it would not change the landscape of food production. The price increase is likely but not guaranteed depending on how manufacturers decide to absorb the impact. Pros and cons would be very