Viewpoint one talks about how in San Francisco and Chicago, politicians allowed sugary drinks to be taxed. The newfound movement of taxing junk food is supported by the mayor of New York. However, big soda companies do not see this as a big deal. In fact they are use to these taxes popping up every so often. Currently, seven cities have a tax on soda or juice including Philadelphia. There are not any studies that prove that placing taxes on soda will decrease obesity. Lately, many cities and states are contemplating whether or not to add these taxes. Hillary Clinton agrees with the tax, but Bernie Sanders opposes it. Soda Companies think that using commercials and making healthier drinks will be better than taxes them. Taxing unhealthy drinks is a way to reduce America’s obesity level.
Viewpoint two talks about the controversy on whether soda such be taxed. One side states that the taxes on drinks could lower diabetes. The other side states that the taxes would not decrease people buying soda. Kelly Brownell agrees with taxes because she believes that it will reduce obesity. She says that as a result of taxing cigarettes, smoking has decreased. In comparison, taxing soda will lower obesity. She also says that these taxes will lower the Medicare cost for American citizens. However, William Shughart state that the
…show more content…
Everybody knows that junk food and fatty snacks are not healthy. They are, in fact, harmful to human body. Eating unhealthy foods increases obesity, early death, and other diseases. So, placing taxes would discourage people from eating unhealthy food. It may not stop people eating fatty foods completely. However it will definitely reduce it to a significant amount. Secondly, healthy food will be made more affordable. By making junk food more expensive, healthy food will be cheaper in comparison, which would result in more people picking healthier
How Junk Food Can End Obesity David Freedman In the article, “How Junk Food Can End Obesity,” David Freedman believes that food from health food restaurants and grocery stores can have the same amount of calories and fat that is in fast food. He also states that fast food is making healthier options for those people who can’t afford the healthier food at the restaurants and grocery stores. Many of the fast food restaurants have made changes. I think that is what Freedman is trying to get across.
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.
Mark Bittman a columnist for the New York Times and author of “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables” “July 23, 2011”, argues that people should open their eyes and fight to decrease obesity by going against the processed foods industries that make the bad foods. Bittman supports this thesis by saying how the food industry is incapable of marketing healthier foods, that instead of subsidizing production of unhealthy foods they should be taxed and make healthy food more affordable and available, then he goes on by saying how much money can be saved by taxing per ounce of sugar in sweetened beverages by one penny lastly Bittman claims how our society is profiting off of foods that make us sick and obese and how America could make a program
“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.
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
How Junk Food Can End Obesity Society has being trying to solve the problem for obesity and has yet to find a solution. David H. Freedman found a solution to this problem and as crazy as it may say sound, his answer is Junk Food. Healthy foods and drinks can be expensive and frankly don't taste the best, so the question arises why do people consume them? The answer is easy, people want to consume things that are labeled as healthy because it looks pretty good holding a healthy snack or drink. When people look good they feel pretty good about themselves.
As the New York Mayor Michal Bloomberg is taking action against a soft drink industry. Mayor says that a ban is imposed on it because it has a big sugary drink. The mayor behavior could be considered biased towards specific company or product. There are lots of other, he should not ignore others. Everyone knows that lots of sugar are becoming the cause of problems in people like we drink almost daily like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other major soft drinks.
In conclusion, food stamp users should be able to buy junk food. If the state takes it away for those, they should take it away for these who buy their groceries. Some people need junk food to live. Obesity is not going to decrease by taking away the opportunity and right to purchase junk food for the food stamp users, nor will it increase much if at all.
¨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.
The soda ban is a bad idea because it was not fairly put into law. According to Karin Klein in the opinion piece “ Soda a problem but…” states “...New York Michael R. Bloomberg may be laudable, but is wrong for one man, even an elected official and even a well-meaning one at that, to dictate to people how big a cup of surgery soda they’re allowed.” (Klein pg. 288). This shows that the soda ban is wrong because one person should not be allowed to make a decision on his own.
Student’s would choose to eat school lunches, if junk food was available to them, because they will actually like the food they have been served and they would eat it instead of pushing it aside, like they do the healthier food, that is required to
Each year, billions of gallons of soda are sold in the United States alone.” Soda must be allowed to middle schoolers during school hours. Soda should be allowed because kids need more of a choice at school and soda is not the cause of all the bad stuff. Soda must be allowed at middle school because kids need more of a choice at school. At many schools the only things to drink are milk, water, and a few other juices you have to pay extra for.
A sugar tax or soft drink tax is a tax or surcharge on soft drink specific to the reduction of overall sugar consumption. In most forms the tax is designed to discourage the drinking of soft drinks, cordials, flavoured mineral waters and sports and energy drinks, with high levels of added sugar. The first reason I strongly believe that the sugar tax should be introduced is to address the quickly growing rate of obesity in Australia.
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.
So if you went to the store and bought a soda for a dollar you would pay a total of $1.07. But if the sales tax percent went down to 5, then you would only have to pay $1.05. This may not seem like a big deal to you all because after all there was on a two cent difference, but on larger scale that 7% tax paid makes a huge difference.