The UK has an ever-growing problem of obesity within the nation, especially within youths. The proposed solution to the problem Is a sugar tax however that is blatantly wrong. The only reason the tax has been passed by the government is to bring in more money to the UK, which is being promised to be spent within the health and education sectors. These areas are without a doubt in need of the expected 800 million pounds that the tax will bring in, however, the problem of obesity will still be there no matter how much the government decide to tax sugary drinks.
In essence, the sugar tax on drinks in the UK is a feeble attempt to lower obesity rates. This tax is like trying to fight off an aggressive Grizzly Bear with a twig. The sugar tax has many flaws so this is why I would propose a ban on all drinks that fall into the highest tax bracket of the sugar tax, even though these drinks are not the leading cause of obesity they do contribute to many greater risks such as heart disease, liver failure and Metabolic Syndrome. The leading cause of
…show more content…
So what does that tell you? Presumably, those sugary drinks are not the cause of obesity." Dr Gigi Foster, UNSW business …show more content…
The tax has a few exceptions which could be exploited by the public and the tax would not have the desired effect on the public and obesity rates. The truth is that no one knows what will happen after the tax is put into place, there have not been any studies carried out to see what alternatives the public will go for. It is more than likely that they will continue buying the drinks they have loved all their lives. The tastes of a nation do not change overnight. They take years, or over decades to
. . . In this issue of the JCI [Journal of Clinical Investigation], Stanhope and colleagues demonstrate that consumption of fructose-sweetened but not glucose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks increases de novo lipid synthesis, promotes dyslipidemia, impairs insulin sensitivity, and increases visceral adiposity in overweight or obese adults” (Abstract). Fructose sweetener is another way to say high fructose corn syrup. This study proved that fructose sweetened drinks caused harm to the body and signaled a starting point for diseases such as metabolic syndrome, obesity, insulin difficulties, high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and ultimately coronary heart disease. Not only does high fructose cause stress on the body, but fructose can also cause serious
When the 1970s introduced High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), a cheap sweetener alternative to sucrose in a fructose-glucose liquid form (fifty five percent fructose, forty two percent glucose, and three percent saccharides), it brought extensive numbers of health problems with it (Bray, 2004 & Johnson, 2010 ). Prior to the 70’s, on average, sugar contributed to four percent of daily caloric intake, however over the past four and a half decades, this statistic has increased to whopping sixteen percent, leading some scientist to consider it an “addiction” as they observe the sugar substitute wreak havoc on humans’ bodies worldwide (Butler, 2011). Along with hooking those who indulge sweets to it, High Fructose Corn Syrup also leads to obesity:
Did you know that Americans spent $76 billion dollars on soda or energy drinks in 2013? Teens today consume too much sugar from sugary drinks. The youth today are more unhealthy than previous generations and need to reduce their sugar. The article,”Soda Showdown”, written by Rebecca Zissou, presents two perspectives about taxing sugary drinks. One perspective is that there should be a tax on sugary drinks.
“New York City’s Board of Health today passed a rule banning super-sized drinks at restaurants, concession stands and other eateries.” (Doc A). Individuals in the United States are overweight because they do not know how to limit themselves. If the government were to control one of the main reasons people are obese, then several people would not be overweight because the government would take care of the problem. Banning sugary drinks over 16-ounces would help people lower their sugar intake, which would help people stay in excellent health.
Asthma, diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, depression, and even death are all effects of a deadly epidemic that is surging through the adolescents of America (Johnson). This epidemic is known as obesity. It has become the second leading cause of death in America, simply because it can lead to so many other health problems (Johnson). This devastating epidemic needs to be taken seriously. This can be done by examining the problem itself, the causes and effects of obesity, and figuring out some at-home and overall solutions.
The soda ban is a defective idea in itself because of the loopholes in the plan. As Karin Klien talks about the problem in her article “Sodas a Problem but…”, “Convenience stores such as 7-Eleven are overseen by State and would be exempt , but a Burger King across the street would be restricted” (Klien, 288). In addition, there isn’t a need for this soda ban because it makes no sense for a customer at a fast food restaurant (like Subway) to walk across the street and go to a 7-eleven, which is a state-ran store that has drinks that are over 16oz., and even over 64oz. People could even go to a grocery store and buy a 2-liter bottle of the sugary drink because it isn’t run by the city. Another way the soda ban contradicts itself is because of how you’d get the same amount of sugar if you were to drink a drink from a smoothie
In 2013, Mayor Bloomberg established the soda ban in New York City and it was restricted to 16 oz bottles. In the article “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” by Sarah Conly stated that the soda ban was needed to help people because we don’t always make the best decisions however, In “ Ban the Ban! By SidneyAnne stone she explains why we don’t need the government to restrict our options and control us in addition to “Soda’s a Problem but…” by Karin Klein she also states that the government should not be allowed to restrict our options on soda when there are far worst problems in the world the government needs to fix. Overall, Karin Klein's statement was much more reasonable saying that she believes that the government should not be able to control us and we believe that we can do things on our own but need options and they should not be able to strip our options away.
The first attempt and success to climb Mt. Everest occured in 1953. Since then, almost 4,000 people have been able to scale the mountain, but over 230 people have not been able to climb it successfully. There is a chance of accident or death when climbing this mountain or any dangerous activity. All people should should have the right to rescue services even if they knowingly put themselves at risk because there is always a chance of an accident happening, rangers are there to save people in danger, and there are rescue vehicles being produced to be used in case of an emergency.
The French and Indian War left England with a debt of £130,000,000. To help pay off the debt Britain set up taxes, to collect money, on frequently used products by the colonists. The Molasses Act put a six pence tax on every gallon of molasses. The colonists thought this was a lot of money to pay so they did everything to avoid it. This act was not really enforced and the colonists did not really obey this act.
Furthermore, Cigarettes affect more than one person. The Soda Ban is something we shouldn't be worried about if we have another problem possibly killing someone faster and quickly. Despite the mentions of it reducing health issues, the ban still does not deserve to be put in place since there are other severe problems that should be discussed
That is why many propose regulating the purchases of carbonated drinks pact with sugar, or more commonly known as soda. One can of soda contains about 2.5 tablespoons of sugar, and on average, 9% of the daily calories consumed per person is from soda. Due to the high numbers of obesity in America, soda’s and other drinks high in sugar, should be regulated. Obesity can lead to many health problems. Some issues that can potentially occur because of what the person is eating include diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, body pains, and potential death (in fact, one article in The New York Times claimed sugar, more particularly soda, to “might just be the biggest killers via preventable disease in the country”
Although if we had a tax on sugar we would be able to afford better education about exercise and balanced diets. Other people also say that tax on soft drinks would do little to reduce obesity and will only hit Australian families where it hurts most – their pockets. I think if the sugar tax was introduced it would encourage people to drink more water from the tap and so they would save money by not drinking soft drinks. I support the sugar tax to help the countries escalating soft drink crisis. The university of Queensland public health school study showed that if a 20% sugar tax was introduced over 25 years there would be 4400 fewer cases of heart disease, 1100 fewer strokes, 1000 less cancer cases, it would raise $250 million a year, the reduction on annual health spend would be $29 million and it would help stop escalating weight gain.
Cannibalising standard variants: Rising awareness of soft drinks-related health issues, in particular sugar levels, has sparked a trend for “better for you” beverages globally. As for Coca-colas’ carbonates, some countries saw standard cola are being cannibalised by low calorie colas and this represents a challenge. Coca-cola must continue to sustain growth in standard cola and expand low calorie
Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which include soft drinks, fruit drinks, ice tea, energy and vitamin water drinks across the globe. Regular consumption of sugary sweetened beverages have been associated with weight gain, obesity and diabetes. The role of sugary sweetened beverages in the development of related chronic metabole diseases such as metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes, has not been quantitatively reviewed . How is consuming sugary beverages harmful to the body ?
For a will, the sugar-sweetened drink has been taxed and are improving people diet and there is a lot of research on junk food is taxed and how it can also improve people diet. In places were sugar drinks have been taxed the person paying for there drink is taxed but for junk, food researcher has shown that taxing the people will have no impact. If people are not taxed than manufacturers should be taxed, and studies have shown when manufacturers are taxed than they are more likely to increase prices which will stop people from buying junk food and look for healthier food. Junk food has caused an increased rate of obesity and one way the government is trying to fight this is by having fat taxes which tax just unhealthy food and sugar-sweetened drinks. When junk food is being taxed than people will more incline to buy healthy food and drinks, this is only possible when the manufacturers are taxed.