According to Agricultural Organization and UN Food, Mexico’s adult obesity rates are above that of the United States, with an obesity rate of 32.8% compared to the 31.8%. Junk food and sugary drinks have caused these rate to rise, which makes them negative externalities of consumption, which the private benefits to consumers of a good are greater than the social benefits of its consumption, in other words the good creates spillover costs on a third party. A tax, payment made by an individual or a firm to the government, has been imposed by the Mexican government to eliminate such negative externalities. The tax is expected to decrease demand for the good. The Cross price elasticity, the measure of the responsiveness of consumers of one good to the change in prices of another good , of fast food goods and healthier good gives us insight as to whether decreased obesity rates can be achieved.
Sugary beverages and junk foods are considered in this article as negative externalities of consumption, creating externalities such as increased public healthcare, which rollovers into the costs of the government. The issue faced is obesity and so the costs of consuming the good creates an issue of increased intake of fat, which creates other long term problems. In the diagram above we witness Marginal social benefit is less than the marginal private benefit. This shows that sugary beverages and fast foods are being over consumed relative to the social optimum. At the equilibrium of Qe the social benefits of consumption are less than the marginal private benefits and social costs which shows that society is benefiting less than the actual consumers of the good. Society would benefit where MSB = MSC, at this point we have eliminated the e...
... middle of paper ...
...ast food goods higher than healthy foods, we should expect an increase in the demand of healthier foods, which is a positive externality of production. This will lower the obesity rates in Mexico. In the case where one might want to argue against the imposition of a tax one could argue that this policy could hurt those less fortunate. Fast food goods are considered cheap goods and so the poor tend to purchase these good as opposed to expensive healthy goods. The corrective tax makes these goods a lot more expensive to them, therefore they struggle more so than before in regards to purchasing food. The producers of such goods also face losses due to their decreased surpluses. Producers not being able to make much profit are then forced to decrease output, which takes initiative when industries lay-off works. An increase in unemployment rates doesn’t benefit society.
Throughout the past years and more here recently obesity has become a fast growing problem in the United States and around the world. Since this has become such a problem certain authors are starting to take a stand in how they think the solution should be fixed. The solutions are discussed in the following articles: How Junk Food Can End Obesity by David H. Freedman and What You Eat Is Your Business by Radley Balko. Both articles have clear and distinct arguments, but the argument by Balko entices his readers and has a clear purpose and tone that allowed his article to be more effective.
“This Article constructively critiques the two arguments that public health advocates have made in support of anti-obesity soda taxes or junk food taxes. Part II discusses and critiques the first argument, an economic externalities argument that government should tax soda or junk food to internalize the disproportionately high health care costs of obesity. Part III discusses and critiques the second argument made by public health advocates, that government should adopt anti-obesity measures to improve population-wide health. Consider possible unintended consequences of anti-obesity proposals. Obesity policy debates present a conflict of fundamental values, such as health, fairness, efficiency, and autonomy. Part TV attempts to reconcile these values and responds to the "personal responsibility" objection to soda taxes and food taxes. Part V considers various factors that would affect behavioral responses to proposed soda taxes and food taxes and addresses concerns that such taxes would be regressive and thus unfair to low-income consumers. Part VI suggests the way forward for public health advocates, including a proposal to enact a tax on nutritionally poor foods and drinks, paired with a salient benefit. This Part also recommends enactment of a federal system of food classification, based on nutrient-profiling methods, along with a federal system of front-of-package nutritional labeling.” (Pratt)
Everyday Americans die from the diseases they carry from obesity. Many Americans over eat because their social problems or because they are hereditary. Many plans have been discussed but finding the solution is the problem. Junk foods and unhealthy beverages have corrupted children’s minds all over the nation and putting a stop on it could lead to other benefits. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and healthy foods should be advertised more to help prevent American obesity.
Obesity is one of the most major public health challenges in the world today. Obesity means that a person who is obese has a lot of body fat that might have a negative effect on their health. Some signs that might consider you as obese are your body weight. If your body weight is 25% high then it should be then yes you are considered obese. Obesity in United States has caused over 112,000 deaths that could have been prevented. Obese citizens all over the world are at high risk for multiple health issues such as high blood pressure, heart diseases, Type 2 diabetes, and High cholesterol, some type of cancer, Hypertension, and Cardio vascular disease. In the United States highest concern with obesity is the health risk within obese adults. In comparison to United States, Mexico shares the same problems. Mexico has more obese adults then America does. One of the main results of these issues in Mexico contains such behaviors with in society as a whole by drinking soda and eating snack foods.
People are going to argue that adding taxes to junk food is not going to decrease the amount of consumption, and they are going to argue there is not is not going to be any proportional change in the consumption if it is taxed. Even if “Observational data suggest that food consumption is relatively insensitive to price changes, the proportional change in consumption being less than the proportional change in price” (Mytton, Clarke, & Rayner, 2012). The argument against adding taxes to alcohol and tobacco had the same issues. However, it is suggested that “market failures for food include a failure to appreciate the true association between diet and disease, time inconsistency (preference for short term gratification over long term well-being) and not bearing the full health and social costs of consumption” (Mytton, Clarke, & Rayner,
Research has shown that economic and other social factors are better predictor of health than individual behaviours or lifestyles (2). According to the McKeown hypothesis, many major improvements in population health was due to improving economic conditions (ie. improved nutrition, sanitation and social policies). Important determinants of health are upstream, such as those related to economic and social resources that promote living and working conditions, which result in healthy choices. These upstream determinants are mainly established through national economic, political and social welfare systems. Addressing obesity through regulations through a macro, top-down approach, such as law enforcement, is an effective way to make population changes. An important question to ask is: will this new policy help those who are at high risk of obesity-related diseases? The group of people associated with increased odds of obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and dislipidaemia are those of a lower social economic position (SEP)(3). Studies have shown that when it comes to purchasing fast foods, calorie labeling benefits higher social economic position neighbour hoods significantly more than lower SEP neighbourhoods (4). People in lower SEP may not prioritize calories when they are making choices on a menu. They are looking to get the most out of their dollar. Therefore, calorie labeling may help those of higher SEP, who have the privilege to make informed decisions about their health. However, calorie labeling may not be as beneficial to those of lower SEP who are at greatest risk of obesity related
A reason why increasing taxes on unhealthy food alone will not lower the obesity rate in the United States is the affordability and availability of junk food. Although the government keeps pushing for more healthy alternatives while taxing “fat” o...
Every month, at least ninety percent of Americans visit a fast food restaurant and about forty- five percent of them make it a weekly occurrence. These statistics make it safe to say Americans are obsessed with fast food, but why are Americans addicted to these restaurants? Is it the low prices, quick service or the taste of the food? According to Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side off the All-American Meal, he believes “It’s easy, it's filling, and it's convenient and inexpensive.” Therefore, the consumption of fast food is now directly correlated to the obesity epidemic in America. Consequently, the recent obesity increase in the United States has labeled America the fattest country.
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
Policies implemented by the government have the potential to greatly impact the issues faced by Americans because of their food. One of the most serious epidemics to face Americans is obesity; a direct result of a lack of access to healthy, whole produce. The government has several options in solving this problem including food taxes, public education programs, and mandatory physical education in schools. A food tax on items high in process ingredients and low in nutrients should have a higher tax than whole foods. Much like the Cigarette Tax, a Processed Food Tax will persuade consumers to shy away from these nutrient-void foods and incorporate more healthy foods into their diet. Another solution to combating obesity is a series of public educational programs. By educating the public and even kids in school on the difference between processed and whole foods, individuals will be better able to distinguish between beneficial and non-beneficial foods. And finally, the most attention grabbing policy the United States government should be enacting is mandatory physical education. Including, but not limited to Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, the government should require mandatory physical education classes in schools because they found increased PE time raised the amount of time students were exercising or "engaged in strength-building activities" but lowered the amount of time spent in
...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.
...ich sets a standard for the quality of food that can be served at food establishments and grocery stores.The spill over effects coming from such solutions would negate the negative externalities created by fast food and obesity in the market. The entirety of the market of obesity is one completely funded and semi-regulated by the federal government. Only through the re-allocation of our governments resources, those being subsidies and grants, to a more prominent solution, will we see a decrease in the rates of obesity throughout the country. This will create a spillover effect which will in turn decrease the negative externalities insisted upon the average non-obese consumer and rest of the country. This negative externality, being the over abundance of obesity reversal programs, and reckless amounts of tax dollars being spent, has shown to be inefficient.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), obesity now ranks as the 10th most important health problem in the world (“Obesity Seen as a Global Problem”). Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years. Centers for Disease Control and Protection estimates that obesity contributed to the deaths of 112,000 Americans in 2000 (“Obesity in the U.S. Fast”). It is estimated that annual medical care cost of obesity are as high as $147 billion (“Obesity in the U.S. Fast”). Government-provided food stamps are often expended on junk or fast food, because it tends to be less expensive than fresh or cook food. Governments fund producers of meat and dairy products to keep prices low. For now, governments are taking a smarter and more productive approach through regulation, and by working with manufacturers.
As we know, Government’s policies often will result in the change of price on agricultural products accordingly affect people’s dietary under their budget constrains; in order to promote healthy food to the public, government should set up price floor on certain agricultural products, such as corn and soybean. In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan raises the concern of obesity as a health risk to our nation. According to the surgeon general, “obesity today is officially an epidemic; it is arguably the most pressing public health problem we face, costing the health care system an estimated $90 billion a year (102)”. Cheap corn price is the main culprit that leads to this nationwide obesity. Food industries are willing to transform cheap corn into value-added consumer products, such as McDonald’s chicken nuggets and Big Macs, in order to maximize profits. This will make our dietary contains much more calories than before. In addition, the byproduct from corn, such as high-fructose corn syrup, has become the leading source of sweetness in food industries since it can provide same level of sweetness with a low cost. Simultaneously HFCS improves the taste of the foods, thereby increasing our consumption on those high calories foods. All these factors eventually lead us to a Republic of Fat. Government’s policies have put a very negative repercussion on people’s dietary. Because In 1970s, the US government embraced a cheap-food farm policy and dismantled the prevent overproduction policy (103). After that, American farmers were producing far too much corn, which directly causes the price of corn decreased in the next few years. As a result, the price of unhealthy foods and drinks decrease significantly since
In America over 300,000 people are obese and that number continues to grow because the about of junk food that is being consumed. This cost the economy one hundred billion dollars. That more damage done than smoking or drinking. (Crowley, Michael 5) There are other health problems, such as heart diseases, chronic diseases, and type-two diabetes that occur because of junk food. Increasing the price of junk food, by adding tax, researchers hope that this will prod people to reject unhealthy foods. Taxes will also encourage a healthier lifestyle, even in low-income families (Franck, Caroline 2).