Obesity : The World Health Organization

Junk food is the go-to food when watching a movie or on a road trip. However, the research done suggests that Americans are satisfying their cravings with healthier alternatives these days. The article including this research states, “A 10 percent increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7.12 percent decrease in calories consumed from it, while the same increase in the price of pizza led to an 11.5 percent drop” (Fiore 2010). The numbers calculated in the study demonstrate a steady decrease in the consumption of junk food and drink. The decrease in consumption leads to a decrease in the intake of unhealthy and unneeded calories and sugar which are causing various health issues. A study done concluded that “An 18 percent tax on junk food would result in a 56-calorie decline in total daily energy intake . . . that would translate to about five pounds per patient per year, along with significant reductions in the risks of most obesity-related chronic diseases” (Fiore, 2010). America is not the only country that has thought of implementing a tax on unhealthy products, “More and more countries are adopting fat taxes in an effort to curb rising obesity rates. Both Denmark and Hungary have introduced a fat tax or junk food tax, and France is taxing sweetened drinks” (Sifferlin, 2012). These taxations are strongly

Two out of every three Americans are considered to be overweight or obese. The growing obesity rate has led to high cholesterol, and an increase in chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. Can a tax on sugar and fat laden “junk” foods curb over-consumption? This works in theory, but in reality there are solid reasons why this tax won’t work. There are a large number of Americans that live in “food deserts” with limited access to healthy foods. For an obese person to make wise food choices, they must first value their health. Raising the price of unhealthy foods won’t instill value on health. One of the main

The fat tax is a proposed tax on certain unhealthy foods that lead to the development of certain medical conditions such as obesity. As obesity is a growing concern of many Americans, arguments can be made about how effective a fat tax may be if implemented. The opposing group argues that the implementation of a fat tax would discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods, reduce costs of medical treatment, and obtain government funding. Although our opposition has some strong points, there are still unanswered questions that need to be addressed.

The nation’s focus on nutrition education in schools and through assistance programs has done little to affect the more than two-thirds of Americans with obesity. As a result, supporters of a controversial fat tax have called for the intervention of the government to reduce the number of obese Americans and the burden that obesity

“Obesity in the U.S. is now at epidemic proportions. As Americans have increased their girth, rates of obesity-related illness such as heart disease and diabetes have also skyrocketed. Children and teenagers are joining the ranks of the overweight and obese in greater numbers too. And they are at much higher risk than ever before for obesity-related diseases” (O’Brien 9). America is being attacked by fast food and sugary foods and to control this problem the government wants to regulate our wallets. A fat tax is a tax applied to unhealthy foods, such as candy, fast food, or soda, to discourage consumers from ingesting foods that are not good for their health. The problem with obesity is that unhealthy food is much less expensive than healthy food. Some individual’s might argue that everyone is responsible for what they consume and not the products. To encourage healthy eating, higher taxes should be imposed on unhealthy foods because the percentage of obese people in the U.S. has been increasing at an alarming rate, children are at risk of obesity and obesity is affecting the low-income population.

Should Junk Food be taxed more to discourage consumption? Junk Food should be taxed more for reasons such as Obesity, Diabetes, and High Blood Pressure, etc. These health risks are linked to the consumption of Junk Food, which is consumed every day by many Americans. “10 percent tax would reduce consumption of soda by 8 to 10 percent.” Even though some people believe that Junk Food Tax won’t curb the many diseases linked to it, Junk Food Taxes could decrease the risks of diseases, limit consumption due to prices and bring awareness to many common diseases like Obesity.

We live in a busy era. In a blink of an eye a week and even a month passes by. Time is precious, and people are trying to cut corners in order to get things done faster. Most families have both parents working. After a long working day there is no desire to spend another couple of hours by the stove preparing dinner. The convenience of fast food has replaced most family’s homemade meals. Because of this, many Americans, especially children, eat processed food every day. The usual menu consist of a sugary cereal for breakfast, a “hot dog” and chips for lunch, and chicken nuggets and fries for dinner. Such processed food has a little or no nutritional value, which is why it is often called “junk food.” But why would any parent feed junk to their children? Is the body a garbage disposal? Why do people choose unhealthy foods? The problem is that it is very cheap, tasty, and in most cases it does not require cooking, which saves people a lot of time and money. However, junk food should be taxed because of these three reasons. First, it causes people to be overweight which leads to many health problems. Second, taxing junk food will encourage people to choose a healthier diet.

The on going issue of battling obesity in America continues to haunt us. It has become a national epidemic and a major topic for controversy. The suggestion of implementing a junk food tax was proposed by several experts. The purpose of the tax was to decrease the consumption of unhealthy foods. This tax would also generate revenue earmarked for relevant causes, such as; improving diet, obesity prevention, and nutrition education. The underlying purpose is to focus on maximizing health benefits. It has sparked controversy on the levels of additional bureaucracy, interfering with personal liberties, and freedom of choice.

Obesity is a global problem. The results from population-based studies pooled across countries show an increase in the mean Body Mass Index (BMI) and prevalence of obesity between 1975 and 2014, with a higher increase in women (21.7kg/m2 to 24.2kg/m2 for men and 22.1kg/m2 to 24.4kg/m2 for women). Within the same period, there was also a corresponding increase in life expectancy (59 to 71 years). In the general sense, the increase in BMI and prevalence of obesity should correspond to a decrease in life expectancy. However, the global data shows the reverse, thereby creating the paradox that the world is getting fatter and healthier.

Recent years health experts have been warning people to control their weight and adopt a healthier lifestyle.Over time obesity is a still problem with our society today also, its rates have tripled especially in America.It is obvious we are losing the battle against obesity. Combating obesity and its numerous illnesses will not require more drugs to lower cholesterol, diet books. It will require rethinking our environment.Other measures need to be taken to tackle this international epidemic. Addressing this issue is no easy task,Several experts have suggested implementing a junk food tax by the government. This would provide funding to regulate junk food, it is advertising, and many other areas improving our health. This idea has sparked a wide controversy in regard to the obesity issue, the benefits of such a tax plan, and our cherished individual freedom that health is our own responsibility.

Obesity is a chronic complex diseased modified by environmental, genetic, behavioural, metabolic, and psychological component(52).

Obesity continues to be a growing problem in the U.S. with diet and lifestyle as two major contributors. Americans are becoming less active and eating more unhealthy foods that are easily accessible. Diet and lifestyle seems to be the more obvious causes for obesity, but there are many different factors that play a role in the continuing rise of this epidemic. Other factors include: environment, inactivity, genetics, socioeconomics, stress, medications, and illness such as hypothyroidism. Obesity may cause life threatening health risks such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes,

By implementing any kind of tax, some will argue that it creates too much government intervention into an individual’s choices. Every individual should be able to choose what they want to eat as they have since mankind began. In fact, history itself plays a role in the obesity epidemic. Early mankind was composed of hunter-gatherer clans that worked together to feed, protect and strengthen each other. The weaker members would gather fresh roots, seasonal berries and plants while the stronger members would hunt for meat. Sometimes it would take days for the stronger members, usually men, to tire a single animal enough that they could kill them. Subsequently, the clans food cycle went from a feast to famine sort of cycle. Their bodies would store the excess fat when there was an abundance of food and use it when there was not. Unfortunately, we have inherited this genetic type of nutrient storage system, except that society today has an extreme abundance of food choices available - we are always in ‘feast mode‘ and the easily available food is stored as excess fat. By taxing unhealthy foods, opponents argue freedom of choice has been taken away. Instead they suggest stronger educational programs about healthy food choices.

Raising food taxes is the topic of the editorial article “Slapping a tax on junk food is still a bad idea” by the Globe and Mail. The writer states that raising taxes is not the answer to decrease high obesity rates and instead suggests that moderation and lifestyle are key to enjoying food. The editorial also acknowledges the increasing amount of attention we give to this problem now that it has grown larger and more complex. Also, an increase of taxes ultimately allow the consumers to have the last say in what they consume. The writer argues that an increase of taxes on junk foods is not necessary for society; my research will focus on whether this is true or not.

Obesity is a chronic, widespread disease that is affecting more children, adolescents and adults than ever before. In America, obesity rates in children have doubled and tripled in adolescents since 1980 and additionally, 15 percent of children between 6 and 19 are overweight and more than 60 percent of adults are overweight are obese. Additionally, the prevalence of a BMI greater than or equal to 40 had quadrupled from 1986 and 2000 and clinically severe obesity is become prevalent at a faster rate than regular obesity (Griffin, Morgan). This is a major problem that needs to be addressed because health care professionals have observed obesity-related health risks like early onset of Type 2 diabetes, respiratory problems, cancer, depression, and cardiovascular disease and the longer someone is obese, the more serious these factors become. The USPIRC article mentions that 85% percent of people with diabetes have type 2 and 90% of those people are obese or overweight (“Stop Subsidizing Obesity”). Additional health risks include infertility, skin problems, chronic musculoskeletal problems, and osteoarthritis, a primary cause of disability in adults. This affects people of all ages and since obesity is difficult to treat and is associated with chronic diseases, the prevention of it is very vital (Wilding, John). As a country, we need to work towards eliminating obesity because people will be healthier, more productive, and it will save lots of money