From morning muffins that contain as much calories as a cupcake, to chocolate bars that have more than 600 calories, In America is no doubt extremely easy to get overweight. Recently, Health researchers are seeking to take legal ways to curb obesity--to impose taxes on high-fat food such as candy, soda and chips, so that consumers can give up “unhealthy diets”. This kind of tax on “unhealthy food” is called “fat tax”, which has raised great controversy in America. However, in my opinion, the government should not impose tax on fattening food, because not all high-fat food are considered unhealthy, it raised the cost of sugar products, and we should solve obesity issues in America and China.
First, it is difficult to label an “unhealthy food”,
…show more content…
According to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, UK government should levy 24 pence on drinks above 8g sugar per 100ml. For example, a 330ml can of Coca-Cola contains 35g sugar, which will be levied at 72 pence (nearly 0.7 pound). In total, 520 million pounds will be imposed on sugar industry (Triggle, 2016, para. 3). Although some experts who embrace this policy expect that people would shift their diets to healthier ones, some farmers working in sugar industry may lose their jobs because the costs of ingredients such as soybeans, beet and sugar canes would increase due to the extra product costs. Consequently, it fails to improve sustainability and maintain healthy relationships between sugar farms and farmers. For example, Danish farmers and sugar companies complained about high fat tax costs on their businesses and planned on protesting on the street. Moreover, extra tax worsens financial situations of low-income families who eat more junk food, because healthy food like fresh vegetables, meat and fruits are comparatively more expensive, let alone the cooking utensils they need to
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
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
Within the city limits of Dallas, Texas, two different life scenarios are being lived out. On the outskirts of downtown Dallas, in what is often referred to as the ghetto, many adults and children struggle to receive their daily nutritional needs. Low-income families cannot always afford healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. In order to obtain some nutrition and meet their daily calorie intake, they are forced to consume hyperprocessed food that are healthy for one’s wallet, but not for their body. In place of fruit juices and milk, these low-income families are forced to drink sugary beverages that are conveniently sold at almost every store at a relatively cheap price. On the other hand, many families have sufficient funding, but choose to consumer unhealthy foods. These people have every opportunity to eat nutritionally rich foods and avoid junk food and sugary drinks, but they choose to use their freedom to do just the opposite. In the articles “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” by Mark Bittman and “Free to Be Fat” by Richard B. McKenzie, these two ideas are discussed in more depth. The essay “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” largely focuses on the effects of hyperprocessed foods on the body and its solution, while “Free to Be Fat” points out that our individual freedom in America plays a key role in today’s obesity problem. In the two articles, both Bittman and McKenzie utilize logos as a way to appeal to their audience; however, the articles differ in the way they use diction and tone.
Obesity rates are significantly increasing in Canada and are a major concern when considering the health of Canadians. Throughout the Society, Individual, and Medicine (SIM) lectures, we learned that a quarter of the Canadian adult population is obese (Imbeault, 2016). Dr. Imbeault (2016) emphasized that when obesity rates from 1981 and 2009 were compared, obesity doubled in most age groups regardless of gender, even in young children. These were shocking numbers and made me realize how important it is for physicians to advocate for healthy nutrition and physical activity. This final statistic that Dr. Imbeault mentioned made me realize that change is not an option anymore, but a requirement to maintain quality of life for future generations. He (2016) said 63% of obese children continued
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.
In the US from since the turn of the century, obesity has been a rising and very serious issue. In the 1980’s, western culture experienced a fitness surge, and the major food corporations began producing new products that were “fat free”, but the issue was fat free food did not taste as good so people would not buy it. To compensate the taste, the food companies replaced the fat with sugar.
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
Sugary soft drinks should be taxed in order to change people’s habit of drinking these towards the goal of
Everyday Americans die from the diseases they carry from obesity. Many Americans overeat because of 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 to it could lead to other benefits. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and healthy foods should be advertised to help prevent American obesity.
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.
It led to loss of jobs for many Danish people and it also increased the administrative costs for companies that fell under the tax (Vallgårda, Holm, and Jensen 224). The fat tax even led some native Danish people to run across the border to neighboring countries to get their favorite fattening foods at a lower cost than in Denmark (Khazan 2). These trips across the border led local businesses to go under because of lack of business (Vallgårda, Holm, and Jensen 225). So, although a fat tax would gain revenue for possible programs on eating healthier, it would increase unemployment and economic failures. The fat tax would harm future businesses leading many manufacturers to avoid dealing with the tax
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.
To my mind we have to deal with it; the ideal situation would be that this system- the system we invented at first only for a bit of help, but which has now come to replace our actual work- wouldn't be able to "work" without us, without human "touch". It should probably be a satisfactory combination of duty and pleasure: the duty you have towards the place where you work, and the pleasure consisting in having your work done easier with the help of your "friend" technology- the computer.
in any one aspect would be an unhealthy diet, in the same way that a
...k out of their home (Center n.d.). Modernization and development has left our working class people scrapping by to provide food for their families. To “solve” this, and increase their profits, corporations are now controlling the people’s nutritional needs. Since the development of the first sugar plantation businesses have been pumping sugar into our veins. We graciously accept this form of cheap nutrition because industrialization has left us inadequately prepared for survival in the fast paced consumer world. Simon Capewell, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Liverpool sums up the issue with sugar in modern time by saying, “Sugar is the new tobacco. Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.” (NHS Choices: Your Health, Your Choices 2014).