The Debate Over Sugar Tax Essay

In their 2012 article, "The Toxic Truth about Sugar," Lustig et al argue that sugar, like alcohol, ought to be regulated by governments due to the harm it can cause to individuals' health and the public good. Their argument, at first glance, appears to be highly logical and virtually unassailable: alcohol is regulated because it is bad for health and causes other problems for society, and so sugar which is the cause of much greater and more pervasive health problems and is also detrimental to the social and cultural fabric of the peoples of the world in a variety of ways involving the agricultural industry and global development should also be carefully regulated and controlled. The researchers cite actions taken in other countries along the same lines as a further justification of their call for more control when it comes to sugar content and consumption, and clearly spell out some of the concrete harms that increased sugar consumption has had and will have on the world's population, not just in developed/industrialized countries but in all countries adopting similar diets. This adds up to a very compelling picture of the threat that sugar specifically and "junk food" (calorie-dense and nutritionally-lacking consumables) generally constitutes to the world population.

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.

Sugar is everywhere in our lives. When you eat, sugar is in the food such as hamburger, sandwiches, pizza, bread, etc. When you drink, sugar is in the beverage like soda, juice, coffee and even milk. Furthermore, sugar exists in snacks such as cookies, cupcakes, biscuits and so on. I cannot list everything with sugar here. Actually, when we eat, we eat sugar. Unfortunately, sugar is now considering a toxic to our bodies. It causes diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart attack and cancer, etc. As sugar threatens the public health, government is considering curb sugar consumption by taxes on sugar; restrictions placed on food production and even age requirements on purchasing sugary foods. For this research project, I decided to pursue the question, Should sugar be regulated? This question deserves to be examined because we need to make some change for life to reduce sugar intake but at the same time it’s controversial that whether the government should intervene and regulate sugar. I wonder how the government will take appropriate measures to regulate sugar as well as improve public health.

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.

On October 11th, 2016 Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago passed a one cent per ounce soda tax. Due to a lawsuit by the Illinois Merchant Association the new law did not even come into effect until August 2nd 2017. Now, due to a repeal, the law will cease to be in effect by December 1st, giving this law an effective life of about four months. The tax seems a no brainer with about 25% of United States boys and girls suffering from obesity. However the law had two major shortcomings. First, it had a bad start due to a poor implementation of the tax, since the tax was originally levied on producers instead of at the point of sale. This caused what is known as a double tax situation, soda companies were being charged two taxes in

“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.

Yes, because if you really think about it, if soda is not taxed then everyone would have diabetes if they drink soda.But the funny thing is that if you do tax soda it will not be effective,the tax soda will hurt people, and soda is unhealthy.

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,

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.

Sugar tax will not help to solve health or budget issues to reduce debt. Sugar has caused many problems such as revenue and health problems. Firstly, sugar drinks has a high cost on the society, and the overconsumption of sugar causes lots of health problems such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, tooth decay and heart diseases “Already we know that the burden of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases are greater among population of socioeconomic status “ (Riediger,year, para 14). Sugar is addiction and it mainly affects to people who have low incomes , not because they can’t buy , but they don’t have enough knowledge on how it might affect them back since they have a low literacy even though, dozen of cities and states have launched public

It would be irresponsible to say, that I do not want government to regulate. By recognizing the practical realities of given situation, which is that sugar is added in almost everything and is now dedicated to a rise in chronic disorder like Pancreatitis, hypertension, cardiac dilation to name few of them. The article states

Putting taxes, age limits, and also limiting the availability of sugar can be possible solutions to help regulate. These resolutions could make a huge difference in the general public. Lustig suggests that the government should limit availability of sugar in vending machines and set an age limit for foods and drinks with an excessive amount of sugar (Doheny,WEBMD). If this was to happen it could keep our adults and children of the nation more healthy, and communicable and noncommunicable diseases would become less common. Having taxes on soft drinks and other things with a high count of sugar, may limit the amount of sugar intake (Johnson, BBC NEWS).

Sugar; viewed as tasty, satisfying and irresistible treats to distract you from the toxic, addicting and deadly attributes it holds against you. It is so abundant in our everyday life. Our government must start a change. Taxing sugary products will reduce the physical effects of obesity, dental health and countless diseases caused from the simple ingredient of sugar. The potential impact of money gained from the tax is promising and will benefit a broad range of ages. Addiction is formed and sugar can become as deadly as drugs causing a vicious cycle of cravings. However, targeting one product will not change people's outlook, we need education, not tax gain alone to change their lifestyle.

In today’s society the common issue has been the abuse of sugar in the average person’s diet, but taking away or controlling the amount we are able to consume ignores the right to have freedom of choice, leads to an inconsistent way of taxing day to day foods, and practices a type of totalitarianism by the government’s choice. There are certain subjects and issues that should not be taken into the hands of the government, let alone be regulated only because of the authority they have among the issue. The idea of having to make a decision by default shouldn’t be encouraged, but challenged. People should be able to make an equal choice of taking a healthier route or a “taste preferred” route to whatever diet they pursue without the influence

When related to the tax on sugary drinks scenario, the first condition is the tax itself. The introduction of the tax purposely limits the autonomy as the subject has restriction to their mode of choice, the tax has not been