Have you ever thought about obesity in America and how to reduce it? Marlow and Shiers state in their viewpoint article, " Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta estimate that obesity now accounts for 9.1 percent of all medical spending-$147 billion in 2008 (Marlow and Shiers)." This means that nearly ten percent, 147 billion dollars, of medical spending in the whole United States is caused by obesity. Not only does it account for almost ten percent of the medical budget, obesity is rampant in children these days. For example, I have a four year old nephew that lives at home with me. When he is thirsty he says "Uncle Alex, can I have soda?" I tell him no and get him a glass of water. He isn't obese by any means, not even overweight, but if he continues to drink soda as he does, he may be one day. Many people argue that there should be a tax on sugary drinks saying it will help reduce obesity in consumers, reduce chances of heart disease and diabetes, make sports more competitive, and set better examples for children.
To begin with, “That's nearly $3 per case. Why so much? Because this tax, unlike the petty junk-food taxes of yesteryear, is designed to hurt. It's purpose is to discourage you from buying soda, on the grounds that soda, like smoking, is bad for you (Saleten 1)." This quote is in reference to the proposal of a penny-per-ounce tax on sugared beverages such as soda and juices. Lets do comparison math for a second. One twelve pack of sodas at your nearest grocery store is around two dollars. If the penny-per-ounce excise tax were enforced, that would mean there would be a one dollar and forty four cent increase in price. That being said, a twenty four pack of store brand water is around...
... middle of paper ...
...Page=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010785217
http://libweb.catawba.edu:2092/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010785216
http://libweb.catawba.edu:2092/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010380258
“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.
Have you ever thought if there was a way to improve our health. This article “Soda Showdown” by “Rebecca Zissou”, discusses whether we should tax all sugary drinks or whether we should not tax sugary drinks. There is two point of views in this article. One of the point of views say that we should tax sugary drinks, while the other side says we should not tax sugary drinks.
Canada has a problem with obesity and a solution should be established. Junk food is easily accessible and because of this, low-income families are more likely to buy bigger quantities of it due to lower costs. Obesity can lead to diseases and serious illnesses, some of the most likely illnesses to get from obesity include Type 2 Diabetes, Uterine Cancer, and Gallbladder Disease. While these illnesses and diseases are bad, the population of people that have them can be decreased by decreasing the amount of sugary, carbonated, and high sodium foods humans consume. Junk food should be taxed because it will decrease consumption and reduce obesity rates as well as incidence of diseases, while the revenue generated by these taxes can be used to
And though there are some teenagers that can be responsible there are also still the sorts of teenagers that just cannot help themselves from eating the fatty goodness. But that is where our government and other food-activist, health nuts should be helping and encouraging the people to not give in to their desires and to learn control. The anti-obesity groups shouldn’t just constantly attack the fast-food chains and keep asking them for what they call fat-taxing to discourage people to eat less. And although I agree with Zinczenko concerning the absurd amount of money that health care is using due to unhealthy food, I should point out that the reason why this is happening is also due to our own negligence of allowing the Government to use our taxes just for health care. Radley Balko, editor of the Huffington Post and columnist for FoxNews.com, would agree with me stating “this is the wrong way to fight obesity… our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our health and well-being. But we’re doing just the opposite” he says, “We’ll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health when someone else isn’t paying for the consequences of our choices” (pgs. 467-469). Because the Government is paying for our health care we lose our
The obesity epidemic is one of the most pressing issues at this point in both American society and U.S. public policy initiatives. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 35.9% of U.S. adults over the age of twenty are obese (CDC, 2013). The CDC further notes that 69.2% of U.S. adults twenty years of age and over are overweight (this percentage includes those who are obese). The obesity problem is not exclusive to the adults in the U.S. The CDC notes that 18.4% of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 are currently obese (CDC, 2013). These statistics illustrate the severity of the obesity epidemic in this country, but what can be done to address or even correct this problem? Many people have proposed solutions, but few are as radical as the proposal from Michael Bloomberg (the New York City Mayor) in 2012.
Drenkard, S. (2010). Overreaching on Obesity: Governments Consider New Taxes on Soda and Candy. Retrieved from http://heartland.org
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.
As a market failure, the obesity epidemic in America is costing the federal government billions of dollars annually. While most obesity prevention programs aim toward changing the rate of children who become obese, many fail, causing an inefficient allocation of government resources. Much of what 's already been done has proven to barely be a speed bump in the progression that is the obesity epidemic. Several solutions which can be explored to effective halt this progression. The taxation of certain unhealthy foods, government benefits and subsidies for organic produce farmers, and passing new legislation to regulate the amount of calories a fast food restaurant is allowed to serve you, just to name a few. These solutions, however, are only effective if they affect the lives of the majority of the population, therefore preventing obesity, whilst correctly allocating valuable government resources efficiently. ...
In order to ensure a healthy eating lifestyle for citizens the government should impose taxes on junk foods and drinks that are that are less in nutritional value than what is recommended to be consumed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). The extra money from junk food taxes can be used to subsidize actual healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables that seemed to be high priced. Unhealthy foods tend to lead to obesity and health risks. According to Alexandra Sifferlin, (a reporter for TIME who covers health-related issues) “42% of the population will be obese by 2030, which is based on a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”. Many problems will accompany obesity, such as Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes and other health risks. While this proposal seems purely beneficial, it is not that simple to just impose a tax on what is deemed healthy in order to benefit the vast majority of people in the United States. There are many variables and factors that have to be considered if this proposal is to be put into effect.
In the United States there has been an expanding issue of obesity since the 1990's; and only until now with the growing trend of gym memberships for personal fitness has the epidemic been mitigated. The wide availability of fast food and second kitchens has led to high obesity rates. However, the availability is only the product of intense consumer demands. Fast food manufacturers would only supply ridiculously unhealthy food if and only if the consumers had a high demand for such garbage. As was seen in the 1920's when alcohol was banned in the United States due to violence arising from alcoholics – the people that wanted alcohol still found ways to attain alcohol through the black market, the underground liquor market led my Al Capone. People are born free and thus behave free, a person's desires are ultimately innate, and fast food manufacturers only attempt to satisfy the implacable desire for fast food – not force the consumer into eating fast food or even buying it. Fast food manufacturers only sell the food, not shove it down people's throats; thus, fast-food chains and food manufacturers should bear no blame for the country's weight problem. There is much controversy however, the preface to “Does Advertising Exploit Children?” predicts that “banning fast-food commercials could trim down the number of overweight American children by 18 percent” (“Preface to...”). This statistic is only a prediction, and 18 percent does not sound promising. There is however a promising solution that requires Governmental assist; the article “We need a Fat Tax” advises that “The Government should implement a graduated tax system on foods high in fat to counteract the obesity epidemic” (Karlin). The suggestion is based on the premise that the ...
America offers a culturally diverse diet. With restaurants that serve foods such as Chinese, Italian, and Mexican to fast food chains such as McDonald’s, Panda Express, and Taco Bell. This just a small example of the large selection of restaurants, stores, and fast food chains the average American has the potential run into every day, and these choices are openly available in most cities, states, and some on every street corner. With this kind of freedom to enjoy a diverse diet it is no secret that America loves fast food because it is cheap, fast, and is easily accessible. Fast foods easily fit into the fast-paced lives people take on every day and now fast food accounts for “eleven percent” (FFS) of the average American diet and “forty-four percent” (FFS) reported eating fast food at least once per week. These calorie packed meals are contributing the rise in obesity in adults, teens, and children. The CDC states that “more than one-third of U.S. adults (that is thirty-five and a half percent) are obese” and “approximately seventeen percent (or twelve and a half million) of children and adolescents aged two through nineteen years are obese” these shocking statics have caused many people to rethink their everyday diet. The news has even reported places like New York attempting to impose a high “sugar tax” also known as the “fat tax” to combat the rising epidemic of obesity by limiting the sugar intake of consumers in New York. The fat tax heavily taxes those who do choose to intake the sugary beverages, sweets, and other unhealthy goods with the possibility of the government stepping in to take out, limit, or even tax the places that these “unhealthy foods”. Even with obesity on the rise should government have a say in American ...
It is said that fast food advertising is linked to rising childhood and teen obesity. The childhood obesity epidemic is a serious public health problem that increases morbidity, morality, and has substantial long-term economic and social costs (opposing viewpoints). Approximately 20% of our youth are now overweight with obesity rates in preschool age children increasing at alarming speed (opposing viewpoints). U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, “obesity is the fastest-growing cause of illness and death in the United States.” When I read this I was shocked. This is something that can change, but its up to ourselves to make that commitment. No one else has the power to do so but us. Did you know that treating obesity-related problems cost Americans $117 billion annually, that’s $420 per person (CQ Researcher).
As the consumption of sugary drinks has increased over the years, they have become an integral part of an American’s diet. However, this has also brought about an increase in obesity while also costing Americans precious tax money. According to Richard F. Daines, the costs of obesity will continue to absorb our taxes while it chips away at our health (633). By reversing this process and taxing sugary drinks we can ultimately reduce the immediate cost to tax payers, improve overall health and wellness for Americans, and combat our growing addiction to poor lifestyle choices over time.
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).