Research Paper On No Gst On Fresh Fruit And Vegetables

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,”

* There is speculation over the government introducing a new ‘fat tax’ on fast food served over a counter. This will add on another 20% to the current price in taxes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect

Contemporary debates regarding the increase of obesity are dominated by a personal responsibility frame. However, the most impacting factor for obesity in the United States is income. With farm subsidies, the price of soft drinks decreased by 23% between 1985 and 2000, meanwhile the cost of fruits and vegetables increased by 40% (SG5 Lecture Notes, 11/8/16). Based off the Bureau of Labor Statistics the cost of unhealthy foods has dramatically fallen while the price of fruits and vegetables has inflated.

Introduction According to statistical data, Australia is currently more obese than America. Obesity in Australia over the past few years has been described as an ‘epidemic’ which is ‘frequently expanding’ (Ryan, 2009). Professor Jimmy Bell from the Imperial College in London who is an obesity specialist says that "Genetically, human beings haven't changed, but our environment and our access to cheap food has. We’re being bombarded every day by the food industry to consume more and more food and we are slowly losing the war against obesity.”

There are better alternatives for preventing obesity than a fat tax. The policy-improving RAND Corporation examined twenty international programs which offered subsidies for fruit and vegetables. Study author Ruopeng An wrote: “All but

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 2 in 3 adults are considered to be overweight and 1 in 3 are considered to be obese. That’s approximately 36% of the American population being obese and 74% being overweight. There are many causes to why this can be the case and some medical causes, such as diabetes and high blood pressure. However, the prevalence and widespread acceptance of junk food has made the problem of obesity worse. The government should start regulating junk food as it does with products such as alcohol and cigarettes, which in turn may prevent some people from abusing it or at the very least slow down consumption. Although a tax on junk food realistically won’t cause intake to stop entirely, the revenue gained by the government from this tax could help with health care costs related to the problem, such as treatments for diabetes and obesity, as well as help offer healthy snack alternatives at cheaper prices and make them more readily available.

According to Moody (2015), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) makes a statement that the increasing of Britain’s obesity rate has been a crucial issue. There are a quarter of British adults were overweight. The growth of British obesity rates causes cardiovascular disease which is dangerous for human’s life. Therefore, some measures must be taken. It could be argued that the taxation of unhealthy and drinks could reduce the death rate. In terms of faulty eating habits, the sugar taken by Britain is far beyond the normal level. As a result, British doctors highlight the urgency of controlling the consumption of unhealthy food and recommend government to impose a 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) shows that there were 20% increasing of taxation could result in a reduction of obesity epidemic by 1.3% in the British (Briggs, et al., 2013). Undoubtedly, the taxation of unhealthy food and drinks could enhance people’s awareness of a healthier diet. Furthermore, it might contribute to the reduction of children obesity and related diseases. Many might argue that there are some indirect factors could cause obesity and related diseases. It is hard to define whether there are a positive or negative relationships between the taxation and the obesity and related diseases.

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

Obesity has become an extremely concerning problem seriously needing to be addressed by the United Kingdom government. Some argue that a tax increase on unhealthy food should be implemented by the government in order to increase health levels across the UK, particularly those of children- for whom the current nationwide obesity problem is the most worrying. However, it is not certain whether implementing this tax will be economically viable. By evaluating the repercussions of introducing this tax on welfare and efficiency, this report will assess whether or not this tax is economically justifiable.

Today, consumers think of fruits and vegetables as foods they should eat, but refuse to purchase because of the “whole paycheck” price. However, in a paper recently published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it appears that buying fruits and vegetables may be cheaper than consumers think. Some key findings include:

Firstly, they need to address the issue of access and affordability – The problem being that low quality food is extremely cheap and convenient, whereas fresh, organic produce can be very difficult to find and expensive to buy. This means that people who are unable to afford the cost that comes with a healthy lifestyle are resorted to buying non-nutritional, unhealthy food, such as take-away and junk food. It is the government’s responsibility to make sure that Australians have access to fresh, nutritious foods, and currently, they are not fulfilling that responsibility. The Australian government should make fresh food more affordable and accessible, so that parents and young adults can buy good food for themselves and their children. The government should also put a tax on junk food such as soft-drinks and chips. In England, the government has just put a tax on soft drinks. This is great initiative, so that parents will be more inclined to buy healthy food rather than soft drink, as it is a great dis-incentive. It is simply disgraceful how a bottle of coke is cheaper than a bottle of water less than half the size, where instead water should actually be free. Taxes on junk food and more affordable nutritious foods will encourage parents to purchase healthy food rather than junk-food for their

The role of a government is to protect its people and their rights. This includes looking after the general health of the population. A study conducted by the Ministry of Health shows that in New Zealand, almost a third of all adults suffer from obesity, and a further third are overweight. Many countries around the world are considering taxing foods and drinks with high sugar content - a substance some say leads to weight gain - in order to curb this growing epidemic, however this would deprive them of their freedom of choice. This essay will argue against a sugar tax as it will do nothing to benefit the health of New Zealanders.

On average, a household spent $235 a month for groceries in 2009. Within this amount, 4.6% of their spending was on fruits. In 2010, the average spent monthly on groceries was $219. Within this amount, 6.2% of their spending was on fruits. Although families were spending less on groceries, they were still getting some fruits within their budget. Vegetable spending grew in total from 5.4% to 6.3%. In both 2009 and 2010, the most purchased vegetables were fresh and canned types (e.g. ketchup and pickles). 60% of vegetable purchases were fresh vegetables. According to Table 1, other vegetables (e.g. celery, mushrooms and olives) accounted for 40% of all purchased vegetables in 2009 for WIC households based on cup-equivalent servings. There was a similar expenditure in 2010 of vegetable purchases among WIC participants. Before WIC’s revisions, WIC had a very limited set of vegetables available.

To protect individual health problems New Zealand authority would have introduce sugar tax, and it is important for the health community in the whole nation.

Numerous problematic aspects were shown throughout this film that needed to be resolved as quick as possible. It was mentioned that there are no seasons in the supermarket which is a very valid point that not a lot of people notice. All year round fruits are placed on shelves in our supermarkets. Since we are used to seeing this, we never realize that this is odd. For instance, Food, Inc. claims individuals can get tomatoes any time of the year. They are picked when they are green and ripened with ethylene gas. This is similar to apples that are sprayed with thiabendazole which causes birth defects. In order to resolve this is to stop buying conventional fruit. If there is a decrease in sale of these injected fruits it will lead to a decrease in production. A company is not going to continue releasing an item if they are not getting any sales.