Sugary Drinks Case Study

Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.

because It could raise money to help get things fixed around the building students will be satisfied. It would increase the amount of students that will buy candy and sugary soft drinks. Although selling candy and sugary soft drinks may be unhealthy, It could also brighten up student’s day. It could also increase how much money the students are giving for the candy and sugary soft drinks.

In our daily life, we all have tasted sugar probably more than you think. Sugar is something we enjoy without having much concern, in fact this can be problematic. With the amount of sugar we take in, it can affect our health in the future. Therefore, the US government should create strict sugar regulations, in order to prevent future health problems of its citizens. The regulation can hopefully help prevent the increasing rate of diabetes, more risk of liver issues, and reduce people’s sugar addiction. Most people are unaware of these problems and it’s up to the US to make a change in people's health with a strict sugar regulation.

The soda industry has been influential since its breakthrough such as companies like Coca-Cola “giving money to and maintaining a cozy relationship with the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit that promoted exercise over diet to combat obesity, the financial relationship between soda companies and public health groups have been scrutinized” (Blackmore). The city of San Francisco is bringing back the soda tax proposition which will add 2 cents on soda per ounce. Last time around it wasn’t as successful only getting half of the votes when they needed, at least, seventy-five percent. This time around they will only need the half of votes they got the last time. San Franciscan's should pass the soda tax because it would discourage people

Coke or Pepsi? Diet or regular? These are questions that many of us hear on a regular basis when making choices about what we want to drink. But if a new law has its way this variety of drink choice could be no more, which is largely because soda and sugary beverages are contributing to the staggering increase in obesity rates in recent years in the United States. Obesity is defined as an abnormal accumulation of body fat that is usually 20% or more over an individual’s ideal body weight for their specific height, age and gender (Free Medical Dictionary 2007). Body weight and obesity risk are a result of genes, metabolism, behavior, environment, culture and socioeconomic status, wherein behavior and environment play two of the largest roles (University of Drexel 2015). People make decisions based on their environment or community which influence their health decisions and due to this it is essential to create environments that make is easier for people to engage in physical activity and eat a healthy diet (University of Drexel 2015). This is a problem that is particularly persistent in low-income populations causing them to suffer higher rates of obesity and the adverse health consequences that follow as a result of these poor diets. This is due in large part to their poor economic state but also their environment because they are surrounded by people that are in similar situations and dealing

The documentary “Fed Up” provides some important and disturbing details of the food industry. The 1977 heart disease and diet study known as the McGovern Report warned that the obesity rate was increasing rapidly due to American diets in fatty meats, saturated fats, cholesterol, and sugar. The food industry vehemently denied these claims, but the American people still demanded lower fat food products. The food manufacturers found that the fat removal made the food bland and unpalatable so to address this they replaced the fat content with sugar. Both the documentary and the Harvard Nutrition Source discuss the role sugar has in health conditions such as obesity and type 2 diabetes. They both link the consumption of sugar as the causality for

In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."

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 documentary film “Fed Up”, sugar and the sweeteners in our food or beverages is featured to be the prime ingredient that is making the most of our adolescents obese. It tells of a few families struggling with obesity, and how these families have been trying to do everything they can to help their children lose weight. It shows what kind of food that they are eating at home and the weight problem that most of the family is struggling with. The food that is being served at schools and also the thousands of products that contain sugar, everywhere groceries are bought; sugar is the main cause for obesity. It tells that low wage earners have no choice, but to buy unhealthy food, because healthier food cost more. “The bottom line: cheap, unhealthy foods mixed with a sedentary lifestyle has made obesity the new normal in America. There is no single, simple answer to explain the obesity patterns in America, says Walter Willett, who chairs the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health” article in the U. S. News. Although it does cost more, a school of public health wrote in an article, “While healthier diets did cost more, the difference was smaller than many people might have expected. Over the course of a year, $1.50/day more for eating a healthy diet would increase food costs for one person by about $550 per year. On the other hand, this price difference is very small in comparison to the economic costs of diet-related chronic diseases, which would be

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

When most people think about sugar, their first thoughts are not: heart disease, addiction, or slow and painful death; yet, unfortunately, these conditions are very real consequences of the unregulated and excessive consumption of sugar. In Nature’s article, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” (2012), Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist; Laura Schmidt, Professor of Health Policy at UCSF; and Claire Brindis, Professor of Pediatrics and Health Policy at UCSF, evaluate the world’s ever-increasing and toxic struggle with the substance sugar – also discussing counter measures to promote healthier diets amongst American’s and other societies. Lustig and his colleagues develop their argument using statistical evidence as they address the global impact of sugar, refuting minor oppositions, before dissecting each harmful aspect of the substance – even comparing it to substances more known for their toxicity. Eventually, presenting readers with possible routes of regulation, the authors firmly suggest government intervention in the production and sale of sugary foods. Although the argument is well executed, I remain unconvinced that government intervention is actually necessary.

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

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.

It is claimed that sugar is an ‘invisible murderer’ claiming the lives of many people every day and thousands every year, but it can be stopped. To add a sugar tax it would help to prevent serious health risks such as obesity, diabetes and being overweight which in turn lead to many further health risks such as heart disease. Reducing the amount of sugar we in take are a far better alternative than the risks it creates. In my experience, I’ve grown up on sugary foods and drinks – which if I didn’t stop could result in serious disadvantages and health risks in the future. According to the Ministry of Health; ‘Almost one in three adults is obese (31%) and a further 34% are overweight’ also ‘1-9 children were obese (11%) and a further one in five

“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.