The Benefits Of Food Values

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.

Consumers think that it is awful that they have to pay for someone else’s health care while that person may just as well be drinking twelve cans of soda daily and continually destroying their health. (“Should there be a”, n.d.) These consumers are hoping the soda tax will encourage people to stop abusing soda and at the same time lowering the obesity rate in our country, which now about 66% of our population. Some commenters also said that the government is doing the right thing to try and stop this

“Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” is an enticing article by Anna Gorman that focuses on the issue of taxing sugary beverages and the effect it will ultimately have on the health of the general population. She mentions that the tax could reduce the rates of obesity and diabetes in the affected areas. She also points out the counter to this claim, that soda taxes may not have any effect on obesity rates at all and may give the government too much power over the consumer choice. Overall, she seems to advocate that soda is an unhealthy beverage and should be cut down among consumers. Soda however, is not the only unhealthy options out there. There is a plethora of products on the shelves of supermarkets and sold at restaurants.

The debate on weather sugary drinks, especially soda, should be taxed or not has been a topic for years. Some people believe that they should be taxed for the improvement of health while on the other hand some people think that taxing the drinks won't do much and actually hurt people. Taxing sugary drinks is helpful to those who have a hard time with temptation for the drinks. In the article "Do Soda Taxes Really Work?" Sifferlin states that when researchers looked at Berkeley residents, they found that when taxing soda started "sales of sugary-sweetened drinks fell by close 10% and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%" (4) Just by the percent difference rasing prices on soda made people decide against buying the sweet drinks,

This memo is an application of some of the policy ideas Cass Sunstein has described in his book “Simpler,” to a proposed “soda tax” in Oakland California. The introduction of the tax, contained in “Measure HH” (as it appears on the ballot) has been met with stiff opposition by some members of the Oakland area while others have embraced the idea. Three ideas from “Simpler” will be tested in this California case.

Taxing unhealthy food and beverages is practiced internationally and was examined extensively in the 2011 United Nations summit as a means to encourage healthy dietary choices among individuals. As interest in this area grows, more research is needed to study the relationship between food taxation and an individual’s food choice, so informed policy can be created and successfully implemented. Economics plays an important role in persuading an individual to buy a product. As the price of a food product increases, theoretically,

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.

If done right the political side would be able to use this accurately, however it is not done right. The tax shouldn't be enforced because of the way obesity isn't drastically improved upon from these taxes. The people who don't want to pay high prices have alternatives available to them, so the taxes stopping obesity proves useless. The alternatives are going to be more tempting when consumers see the prices of the taxed drinks and still be consuming drinks that may not be healthy. This, on top of the political eye of the situation, are reasons that the tax can't be helpful to stop obesity; one of the main claims to stop the taxes being to stop obesity. Further support of this being that author Brian Gale points in his article, "What the Soda Tax Means for Consumers" that even with the drink's taxes reducing how much is being consumed, it is uncertain if it's changing the consumers' choices of unhealthy drinking choices. It is undeniable that gauging every singe persons drinking and health choices will prove difficult based solely on the taxing of sugary beverages, especially with the idea of multiple variables having an influence on the drinking habits of every

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.

As a reference by the Journal of Health policy 2008 Revenues (Chriqui, 2007) could be generated as a result of this tax. The results of their study were” One study estimated that a one cent national tax on an 12-ounce soft drink could generate an estimated $1.5 billion annually (Jacobson MF) that could be dedicated to obesity prevention and reduction efforts.’ These programs can support and educate

The SSB tax may need to be redesigned in order to be accurately applied to the many different kinds of sugar-sweetened beverages. Taxes that have been implemented in the United States are measured on a volume basis, such as the penny-per ounce tax in Berkeley, California. Accordingly, a high-sugar drink would be taxed the same as a low-sugar drink of the same volume. An example of this inconsistency would be apparent between two drinks: “12 ounces of Welch's grape juice contain 262 calories and 59 grams of sugar as compared to the 140 calories and 39 grams of sugar in a 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola” (DeSantis). It would be biased to charge the same tax for the two drinks despite one having higher sugar and caloric content.

Denmark’s soda tax in the 1930s has been influencing countries and cities worldwide. The increase in sugar sweetened beverage taxes, popularly known as soda tax, has become even more prevalent in the United States. Even though it is not nationwide, soda tax was introduced and passed in cities including Berkley, California and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since Berkley was the first city in the United States to pass this proposal in 2015, it worked as an experiment starting with a minimum of 1 cent per ounce tax on a sugary beverage to ensure its effectiveness. Influenced by California, a year later, Philadelphia’s mayor Jim Kenny proposed a soda tax of $1.50 per ounce of a sweetened beverage. This excise tax was designed to reduce the

“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.

Starbucks is a major reason why things have changed for Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co, they have emerged in the market with balancing their menu with gourmet, coffee beverages that offer sweet and sugary options for their customers. In 2016, the soft drink industry is in the middle of the growing policy debate in the United States regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. Therefore, it hasn’t been a great year for Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co, and Dr. Pepper Snapple due to the public’s concern on the health issues of sugary sodas. The health problems with the sugar content in soft drinks have increased political pressures, as well as slowed the growth of these giant beverage companies.

Considering that soft drinks are one of the most popular drinks to a lot of people all around the world, unfortunately, a lot of them love to drink it almost every day and may not live without it. Soda becomes addictive, preventing one from drinking what the body needs the most which is water. In the market, there is a infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, ranges from classic soda to diet soda. However, consumers do not recognize clearly the negative effect of soft drinks that have a high chance of eroding their health away. Some of these examples include dental erosion, energy intake, obesity and other health issues. Nowadays, people live a healthy life to avoid health problems, so taxes on soft