Abstract
The number of obesity cases continues to rise globally, owing to the rising number of people who have ventured into unhealthy eating while at the same time ignoring the impact of exercising on their health. As a result, countries such as the US have established mechanisms, which they deem to have the capacity of reducing the levels of obesity. One of such mechanisms entails the introduction of higher taxes on junk foods and soft drinks that are mainly associated with obesity.
Such levies, specifically referred to as fat taxes, are meant to reduce the number of people who can afford to purchase high fat-content foods. However, although poverty-stricken families regard such fat taxes as regressive since they end up adding the burden of cost to their already strained income, the paper defends the position that the levies are a practical means through which cases of obesity can be significantly reduced in countries such as America.
Introduction
America has shocking details concerning the level of obesity in its population, a situation that threatens the future of this country following a report that almost 75% of the US adult population may be obese by 2020 (CDC, 2017). Currently, according to the CDC (2017) findings, almost 37% of the American population suffers from obesity due to the lack of exercise or poor eating habits. Low-income families view the move as regressive since they spend most of their finances on food.
However, this study confirms that the strategy is equity neutral since a reduction of other regressive levies will leave their financial positions unaffected. Although obesity results from several other factors such as the lack of exercise and even genetic aspects, this paper argues that the introduction of fat taxes not only has the potential of minimizing the number of newly reported cases of obesity but also relieves a country of the expenses incurred in managing obese patients.
Junk Food Consumers Pay for their Poor Eating Habits
One of the advantages that fat taxes have is that they force lovers of junk foods and sugary drinks to cater for the social expenses of their poor feeding habits. It is crucial to point out that countries invest a substantial amount of money in obesity treatment. According to CDC (2017), the “estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars, meaning that the medical costs for people who have obesity were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight” (para. 3).
MacEwan, Alston, and Okrent (2014) concur with the above findings by pointing out that a single-unit rise in the BMI of all American citizens has the impact of elevating the country’s yearly expenditure on obesity by more than USD60 billion.
The UK also has alarming records of the cost it incurs treating obesity-related cases. According to Gregory (2014), “Obesity is costing the UK £47billion every year – and is now a bigger burden than war and terrorism” (para. 2). Hence, it is crucial to realize the pivotal role that fat taxes seek to play when it comes to cutting the above costs. Besides, having few obese people implies a reduced number of deaths that result from obesity-related cases such as diabetes or hypertension.
Hence, with individuals incurring extra costs to finance their obesity treatment, it is possible that fat taxes will end up reducing the number of people who can purchase such foods due to the heavy taxes attached to them. In other words, this strategy presumes that eliminating the level of purchasing such unhealthy items or the frequency of visiting eateries that sell fast foods will equally imply a decline in the number of people acquiring obesity.
Enhancing Organizational Productivity
Fat taxes also seek to address the amount of time that is wasted in organizations in the process of attempting to solve obesity-related matters. Obese employees are at the risk of experiencing stroke (CDC, 2017), which means that the respective organizations have to spend extra time and money availing first aid to the affected workers. Time in business matters a lot when it comes to influencing the productivity of a company. In other words, wasting time addressing problems that relate to obesity may equally lead to lower returns for the particular organization.
According to Lankford (2013), some of the problems may never be fully addressed, a situation that leaves company bosses with no other option other than firing obese individuals who cease to be fruitful in their companies. The implication here is that more time and finances will be spent in hiring new staff members. Such resources would have been spared to address other productive issues in an organization (Lankford, 2013). Hence, with fat taxes in place, these happenings would be minimal or nowhere to be recorded since few people would be associated with them.
Enhancing Healthy Eating
Another con that is associated with fat taxes is that they persuade people to purchase healthy foods. According to Franck, Grandi, and Eisenberg (2013), the implication is that those who are already obese will record an improved health while those who would have joined the class of overweight individuals would save the finances that may have gone to addressing related ailments such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and stroke among others.
Besides, with fat taxes in place, manufacturers of various products would focus on low-calorie foods that would consequently reduce cases of obesity (Franck et al., 2013). Similarly, fast-food eateries would have room to offer a wide range of other healthy foods to their clients, thereby contributing positively to the fight against obesity and the associated ailments. In addition, according to MacEwan et al. (2014), fat taxes offer a platform for countries such as the US to collect funds that may be deployed in counterbalancing other levies, for instance, reducing the VAT charges imposed on other basic wants.
Equity Neutral Rather than Regressive
Low-income families invest most of their hard-earned finances in purchasing food items. Owing to their poor financial backgrounds, any slight increment in the amount that is charged on food has a heavy impact on their income. In other words, to these families, such taxes are viewed as regressive. As a result, Chudá and Janský (2016) assert that the introduction of fat taxes on foods ignores the situation of low-income people who have to spend extra dollars to avail food on the table.
However, while this claim may be true, it is crucial to realize that the overall impact on these families is almost insignificant, owing to the possibility of such fat levies being equity neutral. In this case, an increment on the price of some foods may be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the cost of equally important other items, which such low-income families rely on daily, meaning that they will end up spending the same amount of money on an average day.
Conclusion
Conclusively, cases of obesity have been on the rise in virtually all countries around the globe. Therefore, it is crucial for governments to put in place measures that can reduce or eliminate the menace posed by obesity. While several other factors are associated with obesity as discussed, this paper holds that the introduction of fat taxes may be a sure way of addressing the issue of unhealthy feeding habits, hence reducing cases of obesity.
References
CDC. (2017). Adult obesity facts. Web.
Chudá, T., & Janský, P. (2016). The impact of a fat tax: Progressive in health, but regressive in income? Prague Economic Papers, 25(4), 445-458.
Franck, C., Grandi, S., & Eisenberg, M. (2013). Taxing junk food to counter obesity. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 1949-1953.
Gregory, A. (2014). Obesity costs UK taxpayers £47billion and is a bigger burden than war and terrorism. Mirror. Web.
Lankford, T. (2013). Workplace health: Engaging business leaders to combat obesity. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(1), 40-40.
MacEwan, J., Alston, J., & Okrent, A. (2014). The consequences of obesity for the external costs of public health insurance in the United States. Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy, 36(4), 696-716.