Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Proposals to stop obesity
Obesity is a public concern
Obesity is a public concern
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Proposals to stop obesity
Increasing unhealthy food and drink taxation could reduce the incidence of obesity and related diseases
In the last years, an increasing number of people experienced the obesity problems and the minimum age of overweight tends to decline year by year. In fact, most researches show that nearly one fifth child ages 6 to 11 are overweight, even the number of obese children as nearly doubled in the last 20 years (Henshaw. 2011). Children developed a bad habit like having unhealthy food and drink for a long time. How to control this condition is becoming an urgent thing required people to take actions. The taxation of unhealthy diet could improve to limit their intake and reduce cases of obesity or other related diseases, for example, diabetes
A consequence of this is that the tax increase inhibition of the production produces even affecting business’ competitions (Williamson. 2008). In economics and related fields, a transaction cost is a cost incurred in building an economic exchange. When the unhealthy food and drink taxation rise, producers should improve more cost than before. As a result, they do not have willing to produce the same quantity and quality as usual. It would have a negative influence on the development of those unhealthy diet businesses. So that the unhealthy production decline, affecting the competitiveness of enterprises. In addition to this, if the balance in this manufacture has been broken; producers which want to keep the market covers could initiate to change the way of production, producing more healthy food. Barasi thinks that it is a strength way through public health policies to improve nutritional status (2003). Limiting products from a legal point in original materials, production and sales. And the government will subsidize encourage the businesses produce more productions and research them focus on healthy food and defense-related diseases, which is not cut corners for ensure their own profits, it is an advance for the producers a long-term sustainable development path. Furthermore, nowadays, it could be found fast food restaurants everywhere in developed
According to the financial leverage principle, which is one of the most important principles in Economics, consumers could be affected by taxation directly and it would provident them away from obesity and related diseases. The leverage theory is defined as total long-term funding under the same conditions, the cost of debt paid by enterprises from operating profit is fixed, while operating profit increased or decreased, the cost of debt for every dollar of business profits will be correspondingly reduced burden little or increased, leading to additional gains or losses per ordinary share (Nicholson. and Snyder. 2011). By the element, taxation of unhealthy food and drink increasing; the cost of producer would improve and be constrained raise prices of productions; declining purchasing power and reducing individual unhealthy food and drink intake to subside the likelihood of disease occurrence (Ogden, 2010). Also, it can be inferred from this element, as the guidance of the government, consumers change their eating habits, thus speeding up the unhealthy foods withdrawn from the market by producers. It means that people would be changed with the taxation’s changes into healthy food and drink habits. In addition, If the business in a relatively stable industry occupies a more favorable position in the market, then the
The argument talked about how the American diet should be changed since it is unhealthy and can cause numerous problems such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. In light of this issue, Bittman proposed the idea of taxing unhealthy food and drinks while promoting vegetables. This plan could potentially kill six birds with one stone. The benefits would include less unhealthy food consumption, the decrease of diseases, and the decrease of public health costs. They would also include in making healthy food more available to the masses, the environment would improve, and it would save billions of dollars annually that could be raised for other places and activities. Americans should implement ideas from countries like Japan and Denmark to help with this problem.
T., Kraak, V. I., 2005, p.153). The book will be used in the sections where food industry and advertising could change their marketing toward healthy choices to help reducing and preventing
A national epidemic is occurring, the war between food and people. In the United States, about “32% of children (from 2 to 19 years old) are obese” (Bernadac 1). As the years continue to go on the rate of obese children are increasing as well. In the past the problem did not have much consideration due to a low rate of affected children. Now families are suffering the long-term consequences of having an obese child. Some of those health effects are “Heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer and osteoarthritis” (CDC 1). A problem with this type of drastic effects may have a solution; method prevention for the future generations and correct treatment for those who are already obese can lower the rate.
In the UK as well as in other developed countries, obesity is becoming a growing problem this puts pressure on health services and affects individuals’ ability to work, and contribute to the economy. The government feels the pressure to act by taxing unhealthy foods and drinks, and by setting up educational campaigns, (Stephen Adams, 2011).
Though sugary drinks are not the sole reason behind the obesity problem in the country, it is a significant contributor to the said problem. Similar to sugary drinks, junk food is also significant contributors to obesity among children, adolescents and adults. People make unhealthy choices in what they eat that is why they often choose junk food. Obesity as the studies show is a growing problem. The junk food available in the market continuously grows as well. The same with sugary soft drinks. This is why sugary soft drinks need to be taxed so that problems like obesity can be
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.
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.
Childhood obesity epidemic, one of the most detrimental disorders, has maximized social and economical challenges faced by Americans in the 21st century. The United States of America has been always placed in the top-10 most obese countries, a list not be so proud about. Poor dietary habits at school due to consumption of competitive, unhealthy foods have resulted in escalating obesity thereby influencing a student’s performance in and outside school. As a major problem’s solution lies within finding its root, schools with the aid of governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, and institutions, have started to provide valid solutions in an attempt to reverse this epidemic. For instance one major attempt, by the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and the State Board of Education, to alleviate this problem in schools was the introduction of ‘sin-tax’. Schools’ taxed students on purchasing sugar-sweetened beverages but that was not quite successful, as it did not stop the affluent students to purchase high calorific beverages and only targeted students with a low socio-economic background. Thus, the most influential solution implemented by these governmental organizations’ that is responsible for decreasing childhood obesity by quite a large factor is improving school meals by increasing the nutrition standard. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has taken mandatory mediation steps that involve eliminating the sales of competitive fast food and increasing the supply of high organic nutritious food that meets the USDA requirement thereby improving the nutrition standard. I believe schools, with the intervention of governmental agencies like the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SND...
Because obesity has many causes, people do not think the government implementing regulations on food will influence healthy decisions. In Charles Baum's article, “In Fight With Obesity, a Bigger Government is the Wrong Weapon,” he tells reasons why the government would not help obesity rates go down by making regulations on food. In the article, he states, “Obesity is the result of overconsumption of calories. And as our research demonstrated, people find a variety of ways to do this” (Baum). Baum says that other causes of obesity like people quitting smoking and lacking regular exercise will keep obesity rates high even if the government puts regulations on food. However, having easier, healthy food and exercise choices could increase people’s healthy behaviors. In the article, “The Experts: What Role Should Government Play in Combating Obesity?” many experts discuss their thoughts on how much involvement the government should have in fighting obesity. Cassella states that the government sho...
With this concept in mind, I am going to analyze the Guardian online 2012 article “Why our food is making us fat,” by Jacques Peretti. The article mainly speaks about the rapid rise in obesity and the main contributor to it, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). The article also points out some of the economic and political influences behind HFCS. HFCS is used for almost every food product in the food industry. However, if we look at HFCS from a limited point of view, we just see it as something present in our food and not the health factors behind it.
The fact is that in our country, any government intrusion looks undesirable. We are so used to making free choice and to having access to everything we need and want that we have already forgotten the value and usefulness of the government control. No, that does not mean that the government must control everything and everyone. What I mean here is that the government control should be balanced with the freedom of choice. Unfortunately, plentiful foods do not lead to improved health conditions. We cannot always make a relevant choice. Our hurried lifestyles make us extremely fast, and eating is not an exception. We eat fast, but fast does not always mean useful. I believe, and in this essay I argue that the government must have a say in our diets. Because there are so many obese people, because obesity is an expensive disease, and because very often it is due to poverty that people cannot afford healthy foods, the government must control the amount and the range of foods which we buy and eat. Healthy foods must become affordable. Poor populations must have access to high quality foods. The production of harmful foods should be limited. All these would be impossible if the government does not take active position against our diets.
Parents are not teaching children how to eat healthy. They feed them cheeseburgers, chicken fingers, and fries. Kids are not being exposed to a regular diet of health fruits and vegetables. Now some people are just naturally overweight, but being “overweight” is not the same as being “obese.” Someone who is overweight has reached a maximum weight limit for their height. When someone goes beyond this maximum limit, then they are considered “obese” (Kiess 1). Research shows that “obesity is generally defined as the abnormal or excessive accumulation of fat in adipose tissue” (Kiess 1). The increase in childhood obesity today is mainly the fault of the parent because they are unable to tell their children “no” when it comes to junk food (Kiess 104). Parents are the one buying all the food that comes into the house. They are the ones buying the sugary drinks and chips. They are the ones allowing the children to “have what they want.” Because parents are not teaching their children how to eat healthy, we will continue to see childhood obesity increase. Unfortunately, overweight children will be the ones who suffer because statistics show children who are overweight are more likely to become obes...
We all know it is no secret that junk food makes you fat, but studies have shown that over the past ten years, obesity has doubled to 8.5 percent among six year olds and trebled to an astonishing 15 percent among 15 year olds. If we do not do anything about it then this generation of children could be the first to live shorter lives than their parents. (Dame Suzi Leather, the Daily Mail 1, page 2)
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).
It became so clear that junk foods lead to a punch of catastrophic diseases like obesity, type two diabetes, vascular diseases and cardiac disorders. Those kinds of diseases cost more than $150 billion annually, just to diagnose, treat people who suffer from them. That disease is chronic and leads to many health-related issues, for example, obesity considers a risk factor for type two diabetes, and high blood pressure, joint disorders and many others (The Denver Post 2012). The key of preventing many chronic problems is nutrition. Low income plays an important role of limiting most people to buy and eat a healthy diet and in the other hand, it is easy for people budgets to purchase junk foods. So controlling the prices of healthy foods to be suitable for all people make good nutrition available for everyone. Adequate diets mean decreasing the epidemic of those serious diseases, and stopping the spread and break the bad sequences that may happen. Long-term exposure to junk foods that are full with chemicals like additives, preservatives have led to chronic illnesses difficult to treat. Also, the chemical added to junk foods are tasted unique and made millions of people becoming addicted to them and are available everywhere for example in restaurants, cafes, lunchrooms (The Denver Post