For a will, sugar-sweetened drinks have been taxed and are improving people diet and there is a lot of research on junk food being taxed and how it can also improve people diet. In places were sweetened drinks have been taxed the people are paying the taxe but for junk food researcher have found that taxing the people will have no impact. If people are not taxed than manufacturers should be taxed, and studies have shown, when manufacturers are taxed than they are more likely to increase prices which will stop people from buying junk food and make people look for healthier food. Junk food has caused an increased rate of obesity and one way the government is trying to fight this is by having fat taxes which tax unhealthy food and sugar-sweetened …show more content…
When manufacturer get taxed they are given the choose to improve there produce or increase their price, when price is increased it helps the community because there is less by junk food. A tax that may affect manufacturers is the fat tax that is just made for unhealthy food and drink and categorize junk food so that people know what they are eating. This tax may affect manufacturers by having them follow guide line that limit their ability to make sugar filled food. In America the city that are taxing sugar drink are focusing on taxing consumer, but it is not affect because in some place consumers are not even being taxed and evidence of obesity deceasing can not be seen until ten years after the starting of the taxing of sugar drinks, so it is not clear if taxing consumers is the best idea. In a country like Hungry and Denmark taxing manufactures has been successful. When taxing manufacturers consumers are more likely to stop buying unhealthy food and replace it with healthy …show more content…
When the nutrition label is changed it will help in the taxing junk food because when the nutrition label is improved people will understand why that type of food is being tax. When the nutritional label improves then the manufacturer will have product that need to show how much sugar the product and will discourage people from buying that product. When the government changes that nutritional label they are showing that they think that junk food should be taxed and that sugar is hurtful to the human body like stated in the article Some Progress on Eating and Health, "But by including “added sugars” on the label, the F.D.A. is siding with those who recognize that science shows that added sugars are dangerous. This is an acknowledgment by the agency that sugar is a big problem.” This shows that taxing junk food when the nutritional label is changed is easier to improve
While nobody denies we have a problem with taxation in this country for food, beverages, and everything that we buy in general, I believe that we should have a fat tax to detour people from buying soda and other fattening foods. We should also ban sodas and other fattening foods from vending machines in schools, and replace them with more healthy selections.
...e a tax on pie when majority of the American population can make it on their own? It makes one look is this tax even necessary at all, when the nation has availability of multiple food items that do worst effects than sugary beverage.
As Carden explains, each individual is responsible for his own diet, health and body, sugar taxation may work for a while, but when people want something, they get it ,no matter how, where or the cost. So the government would invest a lot of money and other resources to reduce sugar consumption, but at the end people would continue consuming sugar. It would be a waste of time, resources and money. Carden is absolutely right in that point, it may sound a bit selfish, but it is true.
Sugary soft drinks should be taxed in order to change people’s habit of drinking these towards the goal of
“Woe to he who chooses to smoke cigarettes every day. Woe to she who buys large amounts of alcohol for her house. Woe to anyone who eats fatty foods or sugary drinks. Do not these miserable wretches realize how grotesquely unhealthy they are?” Presently, America’s government and citizens view these and other unhealthy behaviors as punishable sins. Whether this is due to a holier-than-thou complex, an overbearing concern for the well fare of every last one of America’s citizens, or a genuinely good-natured intent, it is impossible to say. However, the argument can be made that the taxes either already imposed or being deliberated onto these products are an absurd violation of our American freedoms.
A soda tax aims to stop consumers from buying soda to help those who are obese. This will not be effective. Therefore, a soda tax will not be good public policy. A soda tax is a tax that will add an extra cent per ounce to a bottle or can of a sugary drink, including juice, tea, coffee, energy drinks, and soda.
By adding a tax, people will stop buying unhealthy foods daily. Being able to decrease the number of unhealthy food people eat, will better our overall health, and will decline our obesity rates. A study done "as of 2003, US states without sales taxes on soft drinks or snack foods were 4 times as likely as states with a tax to have a relative increase in the prevalence of obesity" (Franck, Grandi, & Eisenberg, 2003). This is a good example of how taxing junk food will help the populations problem with obesity. With easier access to junk food, people are more likely to buy it because it is a cheap substitute for the pricey healthy
Obesity has continued to grow and affect not only the lives of the individual with obesity and their families but also the society around them. We have learned that from the growth of obesity money problems arise and the price of health care has risen. I believe that because of this problem nutrition labels are an important part of food for consumers. People should be watching what they eat if necessary and nutrition labels should be trustworthy and looked at wisely. Since this is important I feel that the government should have a say to what goes on the labels and making sure that they are informative to the American society. The FDA, which is the US Food and Drug Administration, are part of the US government Department of Food and Health. Their goal and slogan is “Protecting and Promoting Your Health.” The FDA has a very important role in nutrition labels and the protection of helping people become aware of what they are eating. Since their role is important the government should definitely continue to regulate what goes on the labels and how they can continue to help bene...
The government plays an important part in our safety, but many people think they take it too far. Recently, people have thought more and more about how much involvement the government should have when it comes to food regulations. Some people think the government's involvement in regulating food would greatly help obesity rates, and others think the country's obesity rates would show little to no improvement. Although no one cause of obesity exists, and no government regulations will likely alter someone’s lifestyle choices, the government should implement some regulations by implementing programs to educate and encourage citizens to lead a healthier life and by requiring companies to list a full disclosure of ingredients on their products.
Messerli, Joe. "Should Products Which Contribute to Obesity (Such as Big Macs and Krispy Kreme Donuts) Be Taxed?" BalancedPolitics.org - Fat Tax (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages). N.p., 11 Aug. 2011. Web. 20 May 2014.
...nd, a fat tax also brings some disadvantages which affect consumers and the economy. A fat tax can confuse customer who think a higher price mean high quality not high fat. Some customers migh misunderstood and choose the wrong product which is pricey and makes them angry. Further evidence that government classify which food would face the tax (good fat like salmon is exempted). This stage takes times and costly. A fat tax puts people from the lower class in financial dificulty, if many people are unemployed then it is impossible to pay all their bills and extra fat tax.
It is also significant to consider federal food policy, which accounts for why junk food is
Governments would just be continuing to cause problems because another huge problem in America is there are already way too many people without jobs. When going to the store to get a soda, is there really much to think about when drinking sweetened goods has become a part of an everyday lifestyle. Why would someone suddenly put a tax on something which so many have loved and became addicted to. If there was a tax put on everything people have come to love there would be a huge tax for everything. Bittman does not think that putting a tax on sugar sweetened beverages would affect the jobs of people because he believes it would get made up by the selling of their other products. However it is important to realize that most places would not be passing this until 2018. Although, people really do need to realize what these sweetened products are doing and the reason why taxing for these goods is not looking so
Bittman, Mark. "Bad Food? Tax It." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 July 2011. Web. 31 Jan. 2014.
Manitoba, a place knew for adoring new and high taxes, refused to add junk food taxes because they knew that it was going to be a waste of time and there would not be any positive results (5). The many studies of junk food taxes have soon other countries that it is not going to work. People will find other alternative to get the sugary high they need. A study in a small city showed that soda intake decreased for a small amount of time and then it increased again, as well as the sales on beer increased (Luciani P.