Taxing Junk Food

With the ever fast pace of our daily American lives, we as Americans look for one concept--convenience. The economic state of the U.S has evolved into overwhelmingly fast paced schedules. This leads to Americans looking for a means that are affordable and easily accessible. With the demand of quicker and cheaper products, fast foods and convenience store establishments have seen an upsurge of popularity as the aforementioned demands are increasing. Purchasing a soft drink is as instantaneous as pulling in the drive-through. With that, this leads to faster products, but the decrease of health in our country. These low prices, caused by subsidizing of producers to the companies making the junk food, leads companies such as McDonald’s and Burger
Before starting with policy ideas, establishing what foods can be in this “junk food” category needs to be first determined. According to Renee Loth, a Boston Globe journalist, “edible items with high caloric substances with little to no nutritional value” can be considered “junk food.” So why are alcohol and cigarettes similar? Well all of these are harmful to your health. Not to mention, there are plenty of other activities: foods, drinks, and so on, which could meet this standard, but these three have some of the highest causes following unhealthy lifestyles (Fuller). In fact, all three have the highest addiction rates. Just about with any policy, the main question is “how can this actually be placed into a policy” (Jalonick). Well, Mexico has already placed a 10 percent tax increase on just sugary drinks and this led to a six percent drop in purchases during the 2014 year, according to Stephanie Nebehay--Interviewer of World Health Organization (WHO) for the Reuters Media. The 20 percent increase could also reduce consumption of sugary drinks by the same proportion as well. With that said by the WHO, placing these taxes on overall junk food can lead to fewer consumptions which will then lead to the consumers opting for healthier choices (Nebehay). The sin taxes placed are not an indication to completely ban unhealthy food, but merely reduce the amount expended--just like alcohol and
Similarly, the arguments proposed by the opponents of taxes commonly say that these sin taxes are an imposement of a nanny state (overprotective government interfering unduly with personal choice) while punishing those who eat junk food in moderation. With those claims made, the taxes on junk food does not necessarily impose a nanny state; for it to be claimed as such, the tax has to truly interfere with the personal choices of the con-junk-food tax status. These taxes could merely be an extra 10-50 cent's (depending on the size of the beverage) like Mexico’s sin tax. Yes, overtime this can add up, but the point of these taxes is so that the choices made by the consumer will not cause gradual effects that can harm your health. After all, paying for insulin expenses caused from diabetes developed by these junk foods will be much pricier than any sin tax ever placed (Choi). And to those who eat healthy, this new rule will have hardly an effect. In addition, eating healthy may not be ideal or loved by consumers, but the taxes are placed to help the misguided consumer in choosing healthier, and definitely tastier, food without breaking the bank