Junk Food Tax

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.

According to the WHO (World Health Organization) the health of the people in the United States has not always been the greatest. With an obesity rate of 33.9 percent, which translates into over 106 million obese Americans, this has caused many problems to arise and impact the daily lives of Americans. Many have tried to help in regards to this issue by improving school foods or attempting to encourage more physical activity. Unfortunately, these may have helped but only in a small scale. However, a fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mark Bittman believes that he may have a definitive solution. On May 25, 2016, in “Taxing Sugar to Fund a City” New York Times food journalist, Mark Bittman, by using the taxing of sugary beverages in Philadelphia - America’s poorest big city - earnestly

In the essay by Mark Bittman “Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables Instead,” Bittman 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 of the people as to whether or not the people will purchase processed foods. With taxes on carbonated drinks and processed foods, profits from the proposal 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,” Barbara Ehrenreich

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

The main conflict in "Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables“ concerns the change of average Americans poor diet through economic encouragement. Mark Bittman's idea to put a high tax on unhealthy foods such as cookies, potato chips, french fries and soft drinks in order to subsidize healthy foods like vegetables is a great idea. As he points out, "A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion." This is why I’m fully on board with the program Bittman outlines because such a program can save people's health and the well-being of

In a society where diseases such as diabetes and obesity are pervasive, action must be taken to combat the diseases. In Canada, Statistic Canada found that almost a third of Canadians aged 5 to 17 is overweight or obese. According to the World Health Organization standards of measurement, 31.5% of 5 to 17 year old Canadians are classified as overweight or obese from 2009 to 2011. With the high rates of obesity in Canadian children, which many affect their quality of life in the future as many diseases will develop as an adult. Canadian doctors attribute to the fact that the food industry has made it easy for Canadians to gain calories. The Canadian government must impose a junk food tax to make sure that accessing junk food and gaining calories will be more difficult. With the junk food tax, the Canadian government will increase tax revenues, Canadians will be able to change their lifestyles and the risk of Canadians having diseases such as obesity and diabetes will be dramatically decreased.

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

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.

Marketing is a key factor in the increase of unhealthy snack options being bought. They should help encourage students and people by creating PSAs or commercials encouraging healthier habits. If we tax things like soda or french fries, things that are extremely fattening and bad for us then maybe we could use that money for making healthy food more affordable. (Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables, Paragraph 3) If we use that money to subsidize vegetables they can be sold for $0.50 a pound. We can make them as available as chips and candy bars. (Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables, Paragraph

Today, it is a rarity to see children and adults consuming nutritional foods. More often, they consume processed foods which contain high levels of sugar, salt, and fats. Because these delectable treats have little to no nutritional benefit, the public has deemed them “junk foods.” As junk food becomes more and more prevalent in society, the obesity rates are also rising among children and adults alike. The government proposed a tax on junk food to lower the consumption of junk food obsession and was met with disapproval from the public. Whether the government likes it or not, a tax on junk food will not lead to lower consumption or healthier people; it will only serve to anger the public even if it may benefit society. Therefore, they

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

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.

“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.