Taxation on Our Lives
Taxing sugary drinks has been a controversial national topic for a while now, most people can agree that the arguments regarding this topic started when New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to ban all outsized sugary drinks from restaurants and other eateries. This sparked great controversy and upset many people regarding Bloomberg and how he used his "power" as New York City's mayor to impose such a ban. Although Bloomberg's ban was not as successful as he wanted it to be, many states and people agreed with what he was trying to impose and started taking matters into their own hands. Cities and states started to slowly ease in their attempt to put a ban on sugary drinks and have people apart of their region follow their attempts. Like Bloomberg, these states are all correct; putting a tax on sugary drinks is a positive initiative that the United States government should work harder to impose.
Like many people who are all for taxing sugary drinks, there are also many whom are against putting a tax on all sugary drinks. For example, the American Beverage Association, who is against taxation of sugary drinks, argues that the government should let us make our own decisions and let us decide on whether or not we want to imbibe a sixty-four ounce Pepsi from the gas station or a glass of water from our very own home. Limiting people from being able to satisfy their thirst is like taking away their first amendment: Freedom of religion, freedom of the press, but most importantly freedom of speech. In the article "It's Your Choice", from the American Beverage Association themselves, they state that "anything that any politician dislikes or has an issue with will become a new target for a tax or ban" (ABA...
... middle of paper ...
...erg sparked up the controversy or whether the American Beverage Association despises the fact that taxing sugary drinks can happen in the near future, one thing is for sure. Taxing sugary drinks is the best alternative to the lifestyles that Americans are living in today's society. The benefits that not only the government, but us the people will get from this tax are too good to give up. The money that will be saved by the government can be used for things that actually need help, the number of people that will live healthier lifestyles is grand, and the amount of low income families that will be helped is significant. So whether you believe that taxing sugary drinks is a good or a bad idea, one thing that we can all agree on is that sugary drinks are bad for you and the only way that people can get rid of it in their lives is by self control or an implemented tax.
The article,“ Battle lines drawn over soda tax,” by Associated Press , the Press explains how there is an ongoing “national fight about taxing sugary drinks.” According to Associated Press, “ Health experts say the beverages contribute to health issues such as diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.” This quote demonstrates that sugary drinks can lead to health issues. Since sugary drinks leads to health issues, people are considering soda tax. This is because thirteen percent of adult minorities are diagnosed with diseases such as diabetes.
After reading "The Toxic Truth About Sugar" and "Banning the Big Gulp", I am not entirely convinced that government intervention is necessary. Lustig, Schmidt and Brindis' article practically clarifies the the dangers of sugar itself, while Bittman's article passionately discusses the temporary cessation of the decision to ban/restrict the sale of over-proportioned drinks. Although, as Lustig and his colleagues pointed out, sugar has potential for addiction and other long term detriment to health and economy, the authors failed to acknowledge the fact that people can still watch what they eat. For example, a 1.9lb (862g) bag of Sour Patch Kids contains approximately 550 grams of sugar; 26g per single serving of 16 pieces (40g). Lustig and his
The New York Soda Ban is a step in the wrong direction and efforts should be put towards making life better, rather than focusing on a movement that will have little to no effect. Realize that I am not stating the soda should be drank, because even I know that soda is harmful towards the body and is one of the leading causes of obesity. However, I believe that the soda ban will have little effect and that time and money should be applied somewhere where the act would have an effect of making life better. The reason I do not believe this ban will do as much good as stated, is because the ban is flawed. This brings me to my first point, which is, one cup of boysenberry juice has 256 grams of sugar, equaling to 225 calories. One cup of Cola only
It is sad. People from all races and backgrounds are obese. In a recent survey done at Henry Ford College, 43 percent of students were overweight. Whether it is because they do not follow a healthy diet or they inherited it from their parents. Being overweight is correlated with lacking exercise or physical activity and not watching what is on the plate. Obesity can cause many illnesses, including diabetes, which is very common. As the debate whether soda tax should take effect arises, critics say that the tax will help those with obesity-related illnesses. What about exercising and maintaining a healthy lifestyle? These two factors cannot be forgotten knowing they are the most important. Americans have consumed 12 percent of soda and become less active since 1970. 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.
Sugar is one of the most addictive things in the world. On average you should have consumed around about 35.4kg of sugar when I reality you have consumed 163.5kg. That is about 4.5 times the recommended 6 teaspoons per day. Personally, I believe that the sugar tax should not be introduced to Australia. Sugar taxing could be beneficial however there is more reason for why it’s not. Australia is already so addictive to sugar that 60% of Australian adults and 25% of Australian children are considered to be overweight or obese. I believe that adding a few more dollars on existing retail prices of sugary drinks is not the answer. The sugar tax is not fair to those who are of low income, the sales of soft drinks are quickly decreasing and deciding what drinks are taxed is too complicated, and soft drink consumption is already falling so what is the point
Regulating our consumer decisions to prevent the overconsumption of unhealthy drinks is out of the government’s place. Jonathon S. Tobin, senior editor of the Commentary magazine
...drink make the choice to consume these products so why should they be punished by having to pay a higher price? Sin tax has been around as long as anyone can remember and it has never ended well but does that stop the government from implementing them over and over again? No, it does not! We all understand that smoking and drinking are bad for us and possibly, sometime in the future, we may need to have long term care because of using these products we should also have the option of putting the money in to a government fund to help us in the future if needed.
Imagine reducing something severe like obesity by taxing a simple coke. That would mean saving a life for a few more cents. People would be more aware with the large amount they consume into their body. Taxing sugary drinks can help reduce the average obesity percentage. The fact that obesity and diabetes are the most expensive diseases to treat, raising the taxes can raise revenue and decrease consumption. Scientific studies have shown that soft drinks are directly related to weight gain, and weight gain is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, strokes, heart-attacks, and cancer. Drinking alot of sugary drinks can also cause dental problems
Surveys have shown that sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary source of added sugar in our diets. According to a Coca-Cola history website, the soft-drinks’ bottle sizes have been enlarged drastically over the past 40 years, basically meaning that we are drinking more soft drinks than ever. As an example, half of the population in the US consume sugary drinks every day, in which about 25 percent gain at least 200 calories from these drinks. Sugary drinks are also the top calorie source in teen’s diets, increasing the risk of diseases such as obesity, diabetes and heart problems from an early stage. It is a significant factor that leads to obesity, so I believe resisting these sugary drinks and promoting healthier products could definitely assist the goal of elevating the number of a healthy
Furthermore if we put this into effect on the whole nation would save billions and billions of dollars and in addition many lives will be saved. Altogether that is why the government should limit the intake of sugar for
Would you drink something that is associated with health problems and even death? Well energy drinks are highly caffeinated beverages that many people have become depended on to get through certain things that need done. They are used to give individuals a quick energy boost to get things done. Today many people question how safe energy drinks really are for the quick energy they supply. In fact, a sixteen year old girl died of cardiac arrest just after ingesting an energy drink, while on vacation with friends. Almost everyone who enjoys drinking energy drinks, knows that high levels of caffeine are in these beverages, and they continue to drink the ignoring the risks. But some people are fine with the high levels of caffeine and just drink them because it makes them feel energized. They seem to accept the shocking circumstances because it helps them gets things done when they need the most energy. On the other hand, some people disagree and think that it is not only bad for individuals
Athletes and students everyday have energy drinks to “help” them stay up and be attentive in class. Energy drinks are destructive to students athletes’ mind, body and performance. Students and athletes should not drink energy drinks. They are negatively affecting athletes’ health and performance in sports, school, and activities they do on a regular basis. There are many statistics out there about how energy drinks are negatively affecting athletes’ mind and body.
Reducing sugar is the monosaccharide of carbohydrate which is form in aldehyde in the presence an alkaline solution. Examples of reducing sugar are glucose, lactose and glyceraldehyde. The reducing sugars that contain aldehyde group act as reducing agent during oxidation because it will oxidize to carboxylic acid. Benedict solution is used to test the presence of the reducing sugar in the solutions. Benedict solution is made from anhydrous sodium carbonate, sodium citrate and copper (ii) sulphate. In this experiment glucose solution is poured into the Benedict solution and let them in the water bath about maximum 2 minutes. From the experiment, we can observe that the blue color solution turn to green and red or dark brown. This change of color refers to the level of the sugar inside the solutions. If there is no reducing sugar inside, the color of the solution remain blue. If there has a little sugar inside, the color changes from blue to green. If there is a lot of reducing sugar, so that the color of the solution changes from blue to red or dark brown. How the color of...
Refined sugar can be very addictive. When you eat refined sugar, it can cause a huge release of dopamine (a brain chemical that helps us feel happiness or pleasure) in the reward centre of the brain. Nutrient-rich foods such as fruits and vegetables may not contain, or cause the brain to release, large amounts of dopamine. It is also important to understand that the “happy feeling” you get from eating refined sugar can override the “I’ve had enough to eat” mechanism from other digestive hormones. This means that you can be at greater risk of eating more than what your body actually needs.