The Importance Of A Fat Tax In The United States

With obesity rates increasing at an exponential rate, a tax on fat foods and specifically high sugar beverages of 20% or about 1 cent per ounce could reduce obesity rates by 3.5%, bringing the rate down to 30% among adults (Kalaidis). While 3.5% may not sound like a lot, if you take an approximate U.S. population of 350 million people, suddenly that mere 3.5% turns into over 12 million Americans who would no longer be considered obese. Marion Nestle, a well-respected expert in food policy, recently conducted a study investigating the impact of a junk food tax through predictive modeling. Her study revealed that 2,600 deaths, 9,500 heart attacks, and 240,000 new cases of diabetes could be prevented with a simple 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages (Satran). A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare

There is what has been referred to as "obesity epidemic" in Australia today. This trend affects everyone it the society; whether it be directly or indirectly. One particular concern within the "at risk" segment is children. The young in our society do not have the capacity, either mentally or the physical resources, to make their own informed decisions about their dietary consumption. Children are generally dependent upon their parents or institutions to provide them with the foods that they consume. Therefore, this group above all others deserves some level of protection against a lifestyle that can potentially have negative consequences for their health that can stay with them for a lifetime.

Obesity in Mississippi has caused the state to get a bad wrap for the healthiness of the state. The obese population in Mississippi is so large due to the fact that the

* 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

We as a state have a problem Mississippi is the state full of the most obese people in the country. It is recorded that 35.1% of the people living in Mississippi are overweight, that being said we have to make a change to our state in some way. I don’t entirely blame the people of Mississippi for being overweight; I think our state is to blame to. It is not our fault there is not much to do; the state needs to find more activities for kids and adults. I think that is why people in other states are not as obese as the people in Mississippi.

One of the main groups that would be negatively affected by a fat tax are the diabetics. Those who fight hypoglycemia occasionally need candy or soda to raise their blood sugar levels. Why should diabetics have to pay more for something that could potentially save their lives? They already have to pay extremely high costs for their insulin to keep their glucose levels from reaching too high. At Diabetic Care Services and Pharmacy, a box of five Humalog pen Kwikpens cost $339.29, which is extremely expensive, especially if the buyer does not have health insurance. The cost of living is very high for someone with diabetes and they might have very little money left out of each paycheck, after taxes and medical bills, for groceries. “Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and

As an American I love my fair share of greasy foods. Like most Americans I enjoy eating at food fattening restaurants like Chick fil- a, Sonic Drive-in, and not to forget Mc Donald’s. Almost every other week would be spent at Mc Donald’s where I would usually get the 10 piece chicken nuggets with medium fries, a sprite, and five different dipping sauces. Many people who follow the same routine do not suffer from high blood pressure or obesity, which brings me to the issue that taxing obese people for being overweight is an idea, but may need to be reevaluated as a solution. After looking into the article “The Fat Tax: A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Rauch from The Atlantic he mentions the fact that many fast food companies are increasing the rates of being obese by instituting larger cups, food portions, and serving more buttered bread.

The point is to hinder people from making poor food choices. To be healthier, would people agree to sign a fat tax bill? Seems unlikely, but for example, think about the reduction in smokers because of the limited public smoking areas, the Surgeon General’s warning on every pack of cigarettes and the sky rocketing prices. There are a lot less smokers now then before these changes. If the government can foster the same idea in food education, rather than just saying “eat healthy and exercise,” there may be positive results to the obesity epidemic. Now it is realized that something more drastic must be done.

If less people eat junk food, there will be fewer diseases and medical costs will decline. The government will save a lot money by adding taxes on junk food, but also will save many peoples’ lives which is more important and trough this policy the government will interfere in peoples’ food choices in a good way.

Imagine seeing your mother or father on a hospital bed for weeks after having a heart attack. I’ve been through it before, and trust me, it’s not fun. Up to 80% of heart disease in Canada could be prevented by adopting a healthy lifestyle and this is why the government should do everything in their power to increase healthy living in Canada (Statistics). One way of doing so is by putting a tax on fast food restaurants. To start, many would argue that giving people education about healthy eating would be easier, but that already exists and humans tend to only change if something has affected them directly, such as a change in how much you spend at McDonald’s. Also, this tax money can be used for something more beneficial than heart disease,

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.

A fat tax would plague producers and outlets. Such was the case with the world’s first fat tax introduced in Denmark. This tax on foods high in saturated fat was dismissed after less than a year and left many consequences in its wake. It has been guilty of “increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies' administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk," as stated by the Danish tax ministry. As a result, the planned sugar tax has also been abandoned. As well, the tax was a costly procedure and failed to change the eating habits of people in general. A fat tax on fast food would have the same limitations and ultimately lead to failure.

Economic costs of obesity are increasing and will continue to do so if nothing is done. Healthy Communities for A Healthy Future state that the estimated annual health care costs related to obesity are 190 billion dollars. This is 21% of total health care costs. This includes direct costs, such as preventive and treatment services, while indirect costs include income lost to days debilitated or future income lost to death. On an individual level, an obese person will cost 42% more in health care than a person of healthy weight. A tax directly related to products known to cause obesity would offset the cost of health care, and hopefully result in less obesity in the Nation.

“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.

* Discourage consumption of poor foods through a "fat tax," earmarking the funds for nutrition and recreation.