Chocolate, ice-cream, cake, brownies, chips, cookies, fries, and soft-drinks... Junk foods, something that we are all familiar with whether it be because we were huge fans of them growing up or because they were the sweet forbidden fruits in our minds. Some of the world's most convenient, cost efficient and tasty foods, but also one of the two leading causes of obesity. The heavily processed foods are high in sugar, salt, and fats, as well as lacking in fibre and carbohydrates.
The UK has recently been debating whether junk foods should be taxed to decrease consumption to control the rise of obesity. Public health experts predict a 20% rise in heart diseases and a 70% rise in Type II Diabetes by the year 2050 if the amount of junk foods consumed is not reduced. The UK, the nation with highest overweight population in Europe, with 30% of children overweight and 60% of adults overweight, is looking for a viable solution. The government has proposed to step in to help control junk food consumption by raising taxes on junk foods in the UK.
The logic behind this concept is that the government will help regulate junk food consumption as attempts at promoting self-responsibility in regards to food have been in vain. Because people find it hard to kick the habit of picking up junk food items as they do not require preparation to serve and are cheap, the government has planned to take action to help people resist the temptation of junk foods. It seems only logical that a higher authority takes control of the issue at hand. Although taking action may very well have an emotional impact on junk food consumers, some who would likely be infuriated by the government's interference, the reasoning seemingly justifies the actions taken to prevent obesity. After all, preventing an increase in the percentage of overweight people will increase general health. The purported intentions are for the well-being of the general population.
Researchers are turning to Denmark, where tax on junk foods has been raised, as an example and are debating whether or not taxing cheaply processed junk foods is a good way to increase the public's health. In Denmark, exercise and healthy eating are being promoted. People are encouraged to ride bicycles as a mean of transportation, and taxes on junk foods have been raised. The action that the Danish government has taken seems to be decreasing the junk food consumption. The percentage of overweight children is starting to decline for the first time in over 60 years.
When a Danish couple was interviewed about the issue, they supported the government's decision. Because the couple themselves have struggled with obesity, they do not wish for their three children to go through the same process as they know that it is a hard habit to kick. The family appreciates the government's efforts to prevent the spread of obesity. On the other hand, a local chocolate manufacturer argues that raising taxes decreases business and that companies were already tailoring chocolate to fit the caloric needs of the population.
The knowledge issue involved pertains to human science. How is the government or any researcher supposed to know what is causing obesity? They can only base their judgements on hypotheses, survey results, and "scientific findings". These scientific findings, although must be true to some extent if results lean towards the same general trend, are not necessarily correct. Even then, scientific studies that are replicated are subject to the decline effect. There is no possible way to know whether a set of results stops deviating from the average because it has been repeated so many times that there is a decline in the deviation. Contrary to the government's beliefs, there have been studies that have highlighted the important role that genes play in obesity. Studies have shown that obesity is not a personal choice. Food and dietary composition can only account for 10 pounds of weight on the average person. Some people are just prone to having a larger sized body; it is out of their control as they have inherited genes that increase their disposition in storing body fat.
What is also being debated in this issue is human rights and whether or not the government should be able to dictate what the "right" way to live is. While some argue that the "right" way to live is to prolong life, others may argue that the "right" way to live is to live with no regrets. There is a wide spectrum of opinions on this issue. There is no way to determine which of these opinions is correct, as they are based on personal perception. Someone who has been through a near-death experience may perceive life as a gift that should be treasured for as long as possible, whereas someone who knows that they do not have much time left may think that life should be lived to the fullest regardless of the health consequences. The government's action would then be unjust as it is not the people's fault for being overweight. The government banning the junk foods from these people would be taking away their freedom of choice. As humans, we ostensibly have the freedom to choose what we want to do with our bodies as long as we take responsibility for it. By banning junk foods, the government is violating human rights as some people may not have the economic ability to afford junk foods as a "luxury".
In my opinion, junk foods should not be taxed, but should be made to be healthier. Although the magnitude of society's addiction to junk foods could be potentially harmful to health, it is ultimately one's right to choose to enjoy the food at his/her own risk. Governments may tackle this problem from the logical side by advertising a healthier life style or making health programs compulsory, but they should not be allowed to take away the the rights of the people. For now, the government is tackling the problem in the right way by promoting healthier lifestyles to facilitate action from individuals.
Along with the junk food taxing issue, there are many other issues that are in similar situations including LASIK eye surgery. Because the long term risks of the procedure is unknown, it poses a danger to people in the future. However, the government permits this procedure to be carried out as long as people agree to get it done at their own risks. The people who choose to get the procedure done are also choosing to indulge in something that they can live without as glasses function just as well as tools to help eyesight.
When I was reading your article, another case instantly came to mind (for whatever reason). In California, there has been a movement to try to ban the circumcision of infants because it is believed to be harmful to baby boys. One of the similarities between this and your article on taxing junk foods is the question of human sciences. In both instances there is a grey area in which we are not entirely sure if the activity in question is the cause of harm or is harmful towards individuals (I argue my case for obesity because in every country what is defined as obese is slightly different). There is no concrete evidence for either side that what is being done is the "right" decision, or the one that will benefit the populace the most.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings yet another similarity in issues: human rights. One of the largest opponents to banning circumcision is the Jewish community, which practices circumcision on their boy shortly after birth. What they argue is that banning the medical procedure would be infringing upon their freedom of religion. However, others argue that the procedure is harmful (there is an element of the rights of the child vs the rights of the parents, but for this instant let's suppose that they are the same). A question comes up on whether or not the government should have the ability to draw the line on personal practices if they believe that it harms the individual.
Going off on a tangent, I think there is a question of language that the article you read did not very clearly address (that or I'm nitpicking). What constitutes as "junk food"? Is there a universal standard to define what is considered healthy or not?
The part in your article about whether the government should have the right to dictate how we live reminded me of the CCTV issue in the United Kingdom. The UK has the most CCTVs out all of the countries in the world. The rationale behind installing them is that it will protect the people; essentially that they are for the safety of the general population in the UK. However, being monitored for most of your day by someone you don't know (which pretty much sounds like stalking) is an infringement of human rights. However, the candy/snacks taxing and CCTV policies are implemented for purpose of protecting the citizens to the fullest. Though this intent is hard to disagree with, I think that there is a limit to how much the government has the right to decide what's best for each individual in the country.
ReplyDeleteI think the only thing I have against it is healthy foods such as organic foods are already overpriced (at least in America) and expensive and so some people who can't afford it turn to the less expensive food, which is almost always junk food or at least less healthy foods that contain more fat. This would be a very difficult task, but if they can't tax junk food, at least lower the prices of healthier food. To some people, there are some foods that are healthy and delicious, but the fact that they are expensive discourages them from buying it, which could be one cause of obesity.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think I am leaning more towards taxing junk food. It's not *banning* junk food, but it still does discourage people from buying it. I know there are times when I crave junk food, and since it's got the "best of both worlds" (cheap AND good!) it makes me want to buy it even more. If I knew there was a higher tax on junk food, it would discourage me from buying it - just as expensive prices on healthy foods would discourage consumers from buying it. It should not be a very high tax, because think of the psychological part of it - hearing that there are "higher taxes on junk food" would probably already make less people want to buy junk food, even if they don't know how much was really increased. I also feel as if people would be less likely to buy junk food in this way than if they were just verbally encouraged to exercise more through health campaigns.
Making junk food "healthier" would be very difficult and probably not realistic. There are tons of different kinds of junk food, and it would be impossible to make all of them healthier. Even if the government tried to make some junk foods healthier, I'm sure that would still result in disagreements. What if making it healthier changed the taste? What if still made it even more expensive in the end? And, if somehow all junk foods became healthier, it might not become junk food anymore and maybe newer companies would come out with a new version of junk food.
Sure, people have the right to make their own decisions and therefore face the consequences no matter what they are, but I think allowing the people to do whatever they want isn't going to end very well. Just last month, the New York Times reported that global rates of obesity doubled in 30 years. Imagine what it will be like in a few decades if the people keep on being allowed to eat whatever they want. The government isn't even banning junk food or taking it away. The people can still access it. The people have to realise that the government is doing it for their own good.
I understand your stance on the idea of taxing junk food; however, there are reasons why junk food is cheap from the start. Since they require very little effort to process, most products are made in bulk. Healthy food is a lot more time consuming and require much more time which is why they are, in comparison, more expensive. Nevertheless, vegetable and fruit's health benefits outweigh the negative aspects . In addition there are 'healthier' junk food options but most of are just marketing scams. Because big corporate companies are aware of the consumer's desire to eat healthier, they start to label their products as 'all natural'. However if you read the labels carefully, these new and improved products are just as detrimental to our health.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, if there has been so many 'studies' which are set on showing the negative side effects of junk food, do you still believe that it is a luxury? Yes, it may taste great and give us an immediate satisfaction, but in the long run, these scientific findings show that they really are not that beneficial for our health. There is a reason why scientists aren't spending their time researching negative side effects of eating fruits and vegetables. Since most packaged goods are made synthesized ingredients, there seems to be no clear health benefit when eating junk food. Humans, by design, are supposed to eat foods which are 'naturally' occurring.
This argument could almost relate to the addiction of 'drugs'. By raising the price of whatever the desired item is, it draws the line between people who are buying it because they truly enjoy it and people who buy it out of 'boredom'.
Also, you argue that the government raising the price of junk food is a form of intrusion on our freedom of choice. But you fail to understand that the two parts are not actually interrelated. The junk food is still there; people can still purchase it but it just comes with an extra cost. People who are willing to buy it, will and people who aren't willing to buy it, won't.
This blog brings up a good point, in that the government's power in this case should be limited to 'encouraging' healthy eating habits rather than limiting the freedom of individuals to eat certain food, because of the tax. I agree with this. It is too complex and too broad of an issue to say that the government should have the power to deny individuals certain freedoms. In defense of this statement, it can be said that the government is responsible for public health. However, on the other hand, the government is also responsible to protect individual freedoms and also to protect and encourage industry. In this case, it was the chocolate shop owner who claimed that the taxes were hurtful to industry. This is definitely a two sided issue.
ReplyDeleteI think that this issue can be applied in a very broad sense to the responsibility of the government toward individuals in society. Should an individual be allowed to hurt himself? Is it the government's responsibility to protect individuals from themselves? If one considers obesity, it seems reasonable to argue that individuals should have the 'freedom' of choice in their diets. After all, they are technically not hurting anyone else. If one considers an issue like suicide, however, it becomes more difficult to defend this point. Is the government's responsibility to institutionalize individuals with suicide risk, in order to protect them from themselves? When applied more broadly I find it more difficult to choose a side in this debate. After all, the research tells us that obesity is really just a very slow suicidal process because of things like blood pressure and increased risk of heart disease. To what extent should the government be able to intervene in the lives of individuals in order to protect them from their own undoing? From this point of view it suddenly seems reasonable to tax junk food in order to 'protect' individuals. It also seems very neglectful if the government does not do what it can to save individuals from themselves.
This article about taxation on junk food reminds me of the attempt at raising tax for obese people in United States of America to compensate for their higher usage of government medical supplies due to the many health issues that accompany obesity. I believe that it is wrong to tax the people, instead it will be more appropriate if the government taxed the junk food that causes the obesity. This way, the obese will feel less targeted by the state, and also helps to keep other consumers away from the junk food that creates obese people. Also, this move will stem the problem at its main source, which is junk food. However, there is one issue for this taxation; is it high enough to convince their consumers to stop the consumption of junk food?
ReplyDeleteBut is it right to tax junk food? It is restricting our freedom by making certain foods much more expensive than it needs to be. Instead, I think that obese people should be charged more on medical fees if they are sick due to their obesity; the state shouldn’t pay for the mistakes of others, when it could be used on other projects.
Chocolate releases dopamine and releases joy. Junk food isn't a complete negativity towards our bodies, but I see why the government would want to make this decision. This reminded me of the article where the government want to charge more for plane tickets for people with obesity because more weight would cause more oil usage for planes. I'm Yay towards charging more for fat(ter) people on plane tickets for a greater good. Being overweight also makes people have higher risks of getting heart disease, which would require medical care and thus coming back to tax payment. So it might be a good idea for the government to add tax for junk food even though there's no immediate direct effect to the society.
ReplyDelete