Taxing Sugar Sweetened Beverages and the Resulting Effects on Obesity Margot Sanger-Katz’s article “Yes, Soda Taxes Seem to Cut Soda Drinking” in The New York Times is an interesting, albeit brief, cross-examination of different research on the effects that the implementation of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has on obesity and weight gain in the population. It provides brief examples assimilated together in an attempt to discuss a highly important current public health event that unfortunately comes across as a sloppy journalistic interpretation of significant scientific progress in the public health field. Though poorly executed, this article does start an important conversation: should public health policies exist that limit access to certain foods, especially if one of public health’s biggest issues is the lack of access to certain nutritious foods for low-income areas? Furthermore, does this “soda tax” actually decrease the amount of soda consumption? Although it appears that the author has missed the point, Sanger-Katz provides a link to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine that actually answers both of these questions magnificently and insists that though thirty-three …show more content…
After analyzing a population and determining that there is indeed an epidemic occurring, it is in the public health’s best interest to address the concern immediately. One effective way to promote public health initiatives and remedy the situation is to create meaningful legislation that will positively impact the population it is concerning. The creation and implementation of a SSB tax to decrease the prevalence of obesity and weight gain in a population is an excellent example of such
In his article Are You Responsible For Your Own Weight?, policy analyst Radley Balko argues that the Government has no business interfering with what individuals eat. Kelly Brownell, a Yale Chairman, and Marion Nestle a New York University professor state otherwise by arguing that the Government should intervene to create conditions that lead to healthy eating. Balko has a strong argument led with in depth examples, logical support, and credentials to support his tone along with minor fallacies. Kelly Brownell and Marion Nestle fail to go more in depth about her argument, but rely heavily on trying to counter the claims given by the opposing side. The lack of rhetorical devices in her article and inadequate organization weakens her tone as well as the appeal to their audience.
Policy Analysis Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2017 Obesity in America is quickly becoming a serious health issue with more than one third of United States (U.S.) adults living with obesity. Obesity can lead to many devastating diseases such as heart disease, strokes and diabetes, many of these are leading causes of preventable deaths (CDC CITE). In an effort to combat obesity in the U.S. a legislative bill has been introduced to congress. H.R. 1953, also known as Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2017 was introduced to congress on April 4, 2017 and was sponsored by Rep Erik Paulsen (R- MN). More than seventy-six representatives eventually supported the bill.
When individuals choose to put down the greasy cheeseburger and pick up a refreshing chicken wrap instead, drastic positive transformations in general health, energy level, and quality of life begin to materialize. Although this metamorphosis requires consistency and time, the profits once achieved are invaluable. Countering Zinczenko’s claim of corporations being the culprits behind widespread national obesity is the dissemination of nutritional information and the logical enforcement of common
Women who are using food stamps are, on average, 5.8 pounds heavier than regular women. The author also educates that in 2008, almost 28 million people received food benefits from the government (Grabmeier). Food Prices and Obesity: Evidence and Policy Implications for Taxes and Subsidies written by Lisa M. Powell and Frank J. Chaloupka also agrees with these articles by notifying that the price of a calorie is cheaper in unhealthy foods. One possible solution that these authors propose is simply to lower the price of healthy foods or raise the price of unhealthy foods. Unlike Peralta and Grabmeier, Powell and Chaloupka also link obesity to tobacco use.
In the article “The Fat Tax,” Jonathan Rauch ironically discusses the new public policy concern with obesity. Although the article is a satire, it’s economic analysis is actually valid. In order to get his point across, Rauch uses sarcasm, appeals to logos, and degrades the issue of obesity to help Americans better understand the “big picture.” Moreover, if the diet of American consumers does not change then maybe advertising more exercise to lose weight will cut down the obesity rate; but to be just as effective, enacting the fat tax will improve health as well.
Radley Balko’s essay “What You Eat Is Your Business, in They Say, I Say, the author argues that the government should take more targeted initiatives in dealing with obesity. Within the last 15 years, the United States government has implemented numerous laws and initiatives to try to make America healthy again. However, are they working? The daily lives of Americans seem to revolve around food, whether it be eating healthy and following the food pyramid, or on the other end of the spectrum, eating fast food for every meal and snacking on junk food. There are larger issues that the government could be handling, yet they choose this obesity epidemic over pressing day-to-day problems.
In the article, What You Eat Is Your Business by Radley Balko, published by Cato Institute, Balko discusses obesity. He discussed how obesity was a public health issue instead of being a personal health. Although the author discusses obesity in terms of public health, he argues that the resolution for obesity should be a personal responsibility. The author draws the reader’s attention when he talked about the government anti-obesity initiatives, by prohibiting junk food from vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, restrictive food marketing to children, and prodding the food industry into more responsible behavior.
It is believed that many of the soft drink companies are the main reason for the rise of obesity in America. As stated in the article Coca-Cola and the fight against the global obesity epidemic, “The soft drink industry as a whole, and Coke in particular, has received harsh criticism for contributing to the global obesity epidemic. ”(Gertner 15).This suggests that as soft drinks and other processed foods are becoming more popular it is heavily contributing to the recent rise in people becoming overweight. Before fast food and soft drinks were popular, less people were obese which leads to the speculation that it is a cause for the problem. On the other hand there are studies that reveal that dietary factors don’t always affect a person’s weight.
America is growing as a nation, and its citizens are growing in pant size. Obesity is a growing problem in America for children and adults; therefore, steps need to be taken to promote healthy foods to stop future health problems. In hopes of decreasing obesity rates, some political leaders like New York Governor David Paterson, have proposed a tax on caloric sweetened beverages (soda tax). This will reduce the consumption of sweetened beverages, thereby reducing the weight of the individual. The money collected from this tax could be returned to communities to support programs promoting wellness.
In “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko tackles the issue of who is responsible for fighting obesity. Balko argues that the controversy of obesity should make the individual consumers culpable for their own health and not the government (467). As health insurers refrain from increasing premiums for obese and overweight patients, there is a decrease in motivation to keep a healthy lifestyle (Balko 467). As a result, Balko claims these manipulations make the public accountable for everyone else 's health rather than their own (467). Balko continues to discuss the ways to fix the issue such as insurance companies penalizing consumers who make unhealthy food choices and rewarding good ones (468).
My aim was to be humorous yet sarcastic, and always keeping to the idea that “sugar tax won’t work” on its own. There are so many other avenues to explore to completely eradicate this epidemic of obesity. BBC News was the most effective resource for this, although I didn’t agree with all their findings. While searching for other resources, such as www.economicshelp.com I did find myself reading a lot of contradictions, a lot of what they had stated in previous reports by the BBC claiming to be fact, in actuality turned out to be nothing more than opinion with big words and razzle dazzle.
¨Several critics questioned why the city was making proposal on sugary drinks a priority when some city schoolchildren have no physical education classes.¨ (Washington TImes) In New York, Mayor Bloomberg placed a law on the sizes of soda citizens are allowed to get. However, this caused a lot of controversy on whether the ban was good or bad. Despite the amount of people supporting the ban´s choice, the ban does have some downsides on it. It is not a good idea to limit the amount of a soda a person can purchase (or propose the ban) because it's not applying to all, it's taking rights away from people, and itś not a big deal.
This is not accurate because it is not one product that is causing these health problems such as diabetes and obesity. Getting rid of just soda will not take away health issues. The soda ban is a bad idea because it limits people's opinions. ¨Ban the Ban!¨ the opinion piece by SidneyAnne Stone quotes, ¨When you take away my option to order a soda a certain size, you have now removed my opinions.¨(Stone pg. 288). This represents that the soda ban will limit people's choices and their opinions.
We speak for the foundations of the country when we say, “The government should not be allowed to control what people do or do not buy with food stamps.” We believe the foundations of freedom, the definition of junk food, and the purpose of food stamps all contribute to our reasoning. Ricardo Lopez argues, "Obesity is a national problem…. We don 't want to contribute to that." As a committee we would like to formally disagree with his statement.
Did you know that 60% of adults and one in four children in Australia are overweight or obese, making us one of the most overweight developed nations? Almost half of our population comsumes a sugary drink each day. I believe that it is about time we do something about this. With sugary drinks and weight related health problems closely linked, leading experts from the cancer Council, diabities Australia and the Heart foundation say the sugar tax would be a great solution.