Fat Tax Case Study

According to the WHO (World Health Organization) the health of the people in the United States has not always been the greatest. With an obesity rate of 33.9 percent, which translates into over 106 million obese Americans, this has caused many problems to arise and impact the daily lives of Americans. Many have tried to help in regards to this issue by improving school foods or attempting to encourage more physical activity. Unfortunately, these may have helped but only in a small scale. However, a fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mark Bittman believes that he may have a definitive solution. On May 25, 2016, in “Taxing Sugar to Fund a City” New York Times food journalist, Mark Bittman, by using the taxing of sugary beverages in Philadelphia - America’s poorest big city - earnestly

As an American I love my fair share of greasy foods. Like most Americans I enjoy eating at food fattening restaurants like Chick fil- a, Sonic Drive-in, and not to forget Mc Donald’s. Almost every other week would be spent at Mc Donald’s where I would usually get the 10 piece chicken nuggets with medium fries, a sprite, and five different dipping sauces. Many people who follow the same routine do not suffer from high blood pressure or obesity, which brings me to the issue that taxing obese people for being overweight is an idea, but may need to be reevaluated as a solution. After looking into the article “The Fat Tax: A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Rauch from The Atlantic he mentions the fact that many fast food companies are increasing the rates of being obese by instituting larger cups, food portions, and serving more buttered bread.

There is what has been referred to as "obesity epidemic" in Australia today. This trend affects everyone it the society; whether it be directly or indirectly. One particular concern within the "at risk" segment is children. The young in our society do not have the capacity, either mentally or the physical resources, to make their own informed decisions about their dietary consumption. Children are generally dependent upon their parents or institutions to provide them with the foods that they consume. Therefore, this group above all others deserves some level of protection against a lifestyle that can potentially have negative consequences for their health that can stay with them for a lifetime.

The Health Star Rating system was devised to address Australia’s health “epidemic” by encouraging consumers to make smarter choices when purchasing their food through the implementation of an interpretive labeling system (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2014, page 6). PriceWaterhouseCooper’s cost benefit analysis of the system outlines health trends and draws conclusions around the need for implementing such a system for the Australian food industry (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, page 6). According to the report, the benefits of a preventative system far outweigh the costs of focusing on treatment for those already diagnosed with obesity (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, page 4). Having an increasingly high percentage of overweight and obese people within our community has well-documented health implications, and also has a burdening effect on the economy. In 2008, the total

Obesity is the 21st centuries plaque. It is a disease spreading at a rapid rate, taking over our society; affecting us from the grass roots up. Obesity, defined as excess fat/weight causing health issues is a multifactorial issue that needs to be addresses. There are too many consequences presented by the disease, both physical and mental to allow it the continual power to destroy the lives of many, too many Australians. The alarming rate at which this disease is spreading must become a topic of conversation for our whole society. Change needs to be seen at every level.

The rate of junk and fatty food consumption has grown in the United States compared to the past few decades. Lifestyle reports indicate that one of the primary issues that were altered is the type of diet that people consume. Currently, it seems like many people eat junk foods almost daily. Junk food refers to any diet that has insufficient nutritional value and unhealthy ingredients. The U.S. government should add extra taxes to junk foods to promote a healthier society. Authors Leicester and Windmeijer note that “whilst there is no ‘fat tax’ operating in the world at the moment, the idea is under active consideration in Ireland, where around 60% of people are overweight or obese” (8).

If you take one look at an average adults daily sugar consumption that is encouraged by these companies, you will soon be raising your eyebrows too. 14.6 kilograms…. That’s how much sugar the average Australian soft drink lover is consuming every year from soft drinks alone, this is equivalent to indulging in three bags of potatoes, instead filled with pure sugar. This huge amount of sugar intake is leading to high rates of overweight and obesity which intern lead to type two diabetes, heart disease and cancers. But there’s a simple way to reduce sugary drink consumption and that’s by increasing the price through a 20 percent tax on sugar drinks. This would decrease the consumption of sugary drinks and also reduce the rates of overweight and obesity, therefor reducing the amount of Australians with type 2 diabetes, heart disease and

In the article ““Why a Fat Tax is Not Enough to Tackle the Obesity Problem,” written by Suzie Ferrie, I was able to process her thoughts, and understand her viewpoint upon the topic. Ferrie begins the article by asking the reader a question, “Is cost really the most powerful determinant of what food

Obesity and diet related disease like diabetes are one of the biggest challenges today in America. The situation continues to worsen every day; obesity becomes a serious health crisis. Cities like Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are sounding the bell of danger by imposing a tax on the consumption of soda and sugary beverages to cutback sugar consumption; which is a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Some people say that tax on soda and sugary drinks aren’t beneficial to society and don’t generate any positive effect on public health. Others say that it is a powerful weapon against the obesity epidemic invading the American population. I agree with the later. Taxes on sugary

With obesity rates increasing at an exponential rate, a tax on fat foods and specifically high sugar beverages of 20% or about 1 cent per ounce could reduce obesity rates by 3.5%, bringing the rate down to 30% among adults (Kalaidis). While 3.5% may not sound like a lot, if you take an approximate U.S. population of 350 million people, suddenly that mere 3.5% turns into over 12 million Americans who would no longer be considered obese. Marion Nestle, a well-respected expert in food policy, recently conducted a study investigating the impact of a junk food tax through predictive modeling. Her study revealed that 2,600 deaths, 9,500 heart attacks, and 240,000 new cases of diabetes could be prevented with a simple 1 cent per ounce tax on sugary beverages (Satran). A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare

Economic costs of obesity are increasing and will continue to do so if nothing is done. Healthy Communities for A Healthy Future state that the estimated annual health care costs related to obesity are 190 billion dollars. This is 21% of total health care costs. This includes direct costs, such as preventive and treatment services, while indirect costs include income lost to days debilitated or future income lost to death. On an individual level, an obese person will cost 42% more in health care than a person of healthy weight. A tax directly related to products known to cause obesity would offset the cost of health care, and hopefully result in less obesity in the Nation.

“If and when the public chooses to use government power to offset the factors that promote obesity, we can do so. A day may come when we decide to limit advertising of unhealthy food, strengthen lifestyle teaching in schools, and create stronger financial incentives to adhere to lifestyle recommendations. The more eager we the people are to fight the obesogenic environment, the more responsive and effective our governments will become” (Medscape General Medicine, vol. 9, no. 4, 2007).

In recent years, obesity in Britain is increasing. The Government believes that reducing fast food and soft drink calories in the market,

With a growing epidemic of obesity in America, some states and lawmakers have resorted to taking unconventional measures in order to counter the growing issue. Many legislators are debating the effectiveness of a “fat tax” would be on limiting the consumption of soda, high fat foods, and high sugar foods, and ultimately reducing the rate of morbidity and mortality due to obesity. The idea is that long term consumption of high fat, high sugar foods and drinks lead to many health problems, so making them more expensive and less accessible should decrease the health issues related to their consumption.

Following on, as Australia’s GST policy exempts fruit and vegetables from having a tax placed upon them, abolishing this policy would have serious negative health implications on the Australian citizens. Obesity is a result of environmental factors, the government must create positive food environments as it is a crucial factor in reducing the risk of obesity and is why there should continue to be no GST on fresh fruit and vegetables (7). Studies conducted by The University of Queensland hs estimated that if the GST