SAY GOODBYE TO OBESITY
Over the last couple of years, obesity has developed into a big problem in the United States of America. “The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to obesity among US adults is approximately 280,000” (Allison et al, 1999). A solution has to be proposed to decrease these high numbers of unnecessary unhealthy people, reason being that obesity limits freedom (of movement) and that it can evolve into a life-threatening disease. Furthermore, being obese shortens lives. A lot of solutions for obesity have been proposed, one of them being the stimulation of more active lives and giving people courses on how to make fresh, healthy and delicious meals. It has also been argued that children should get healthier meals during their lunch in school. Both have been reasonably successful, but have not made big differences. During the last couple of years, a concept called the ‘fat tax’ has caused a lot of commotion in the current world. It has even been adopted by the government of Denmark, but was rejected within a couple of months. It was rejected because it did not result in the wanted outcomes.
However, for which reasons does this fat tax exist and what does it entail? First, the definition of ‘fat tax’ should be explained. The fat tax should be interpreted as an extra or higher taxation on unhealthy foods, for example on food with a high sugar level or foods that contain highly saturated fats. To simplify the definition of fat tax: it is a taxation on junk-food. It is transmitted as being one of many remedies for obesity, because this is currently becoming a big problem. People who have obesity experience a lot of problems regarding their health, however it is still very difficult for them to lose weight. The fat tax is seen as an incentive to buy healthier products and is even supported by the World Health Organisation. Still, there has been a lot of controversy around this so-called fat tax. This controversy has appeared on the grounds that there are existing arguments that support the introduction of the fat tax, but there also arguments expressed against the introduction of the fat tax. Now, obesity is addressed to many people in the United States and is responsible for a big part of the occurring deaths. The fat tax should be introduced in the United Stated of America for the reason that it benefits the health of the citizens and it is a sufficient remedy against obesity.
Over the last couple of years, research has shown that obesity is a very serious problem. It has even overtaken tobacco and alcohol on the list of biggest causes of death, now being the number 1 cause. “Results from the 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 34.2% of U.S. adults aged 20 years and over are overweight, 33.8% are obese, and 5.7% are extremely obese (…)” (Ogden and Carroll, 2010, p. 1). In other words, more than two-thirds of the inhabitants of the United States are overweight or have obesity. Additionally, “in 2007–2008 almost 17% of children and adolescents aged 2–19 years were obese” (Ogden et all, 2010, p. 1). These results indicate that almost one out of five children and adolescents are obese. Governments, health organisations and people in general are becoming increasingly worried about the consequences that obesity brings. They are worried with good reason, because these numbers are way too high. The consequences of having obesity are dangerous and could even be life threatening. Obesity is the root of multiple diet-based and chronic diseases, for instance diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and even cancer. Furthermore, being obese shortens lifetime with great difference. One of the reasons for having obesity could be the consumption of foods that contain highly saturated fats or high levels of sugar. These are less nutritional then other alternatives like fruits and vegetables. Furthermore, it is also evidently proven that obesity is contagious. This should be viewed as contagious in a social manner. For instance, when one person of two friends was obese, the chance of the other person becoming obese would be 71%. If the sex of these individuals both would be male, the chance would even be 100%. When a person would have a sibling that was obese, the chance of the person obtaining obesity 40%. Additionally, when one person of a married couple would have obesity, the other half would have a chance of 37% to become obese (Christakis and Fowler, 2007). This research was done in the United States and thus gives a good perspective on the current state of obesity and the ascendance of the disease in that region. By introducing the fat tax, these greasy and sugary products will become more expensive and therefore people will have an incentive to go for the cheaper and much healthier options, which is very convenient and beneficial. When people tend to eat healthier, they will probably lose weight which results in a reduction of the rate of people who have overweight and obesity. A research done in Australia, researched what kind of effects introduction of the fat tax would have. “Energy intake would decrease by 174 and 121 kJ per day for males and females, respectively. This equates to a 1.9 kg (…) reduction in mean population body weight for males and a 1.3 kg (…) reduction for females or a 1.6 kg (…) reduction for the affected population as a whole” (Sacks et all, 2010). These numbers are small, but could make a significant difference for people. It would just be a start to a new healthy lifestyle with no diseases.
Obesity has a large price tag. For the reason that a lot of people in US have diseases due to obesity, which initiates them to spend a lot of money on medical care. People with overweight spend 15.8 billion dollars in total on healthcare per year and people with obesity spend 98.1 billion in total, these two numbers combined estimates a grand total of 113.9 billion dollars payed by American people per year (Tsai, Williamson and Glick, 2010). These medical costs especially go to costs contrived from diseases that obesity causes, especially to medicines designed for diabetics. Diabetes is one of the main diseases that originates by obesity. “The total estimated cost of diabetes in 2007 is $174 billion, including $116 billion in excess medical expenditures and $58 billion in reduced national productivity” (American Diabetes Association, 2008). Keep in mind, that diabetes is not the only illness that diabetes causes, there are many more. Such a high number of expenses could be better allocated, so that a better education could be obtained. Or how about improving medical care? This is always developing and sharper and upgraded medical care is beneficial to everyone. If people desire to use the obtained amount of money to other purposes, it could be considered to try and lower the unemployment rate or to decrease the number of victims of sexual assault or murder. These are a couple examples out of many problems in the United States. On top of this, the fat tax will also generate more income for the government. This could also be used for improvements of the same objectives. The amount of money achieved by the fat tax could be utilised to improve the health care in the United States, health care organisations could use every penny. An objective could be to help people who are too poor to pay for medical expenses, considering they have every right for good medical care.
In contrast, it is also disputed that there will be one big disadvantage within the effects of the fat tax. It is argued that the introduction of the fat tax would be quite a burden on the lower layers of society, for the reason that these people have a lower income and will not be able to afford that more money on nutrition, even though every human has a right to have food, because it is one of their primary rights. Not only would higher prices not beneficial for them, it is furthermore estimated that obesity is the highest amongst low-income groups. The reason for this is that “refined grains, added sugars, and added fats are among the lowest-cost sources of dietary energy. They are inexpensive, good tasting, and convenient” (Drewnowski and Darmon, 2005). Unconveniently, refined grains, added sugars and added fats are unhealthy and could contribute to people gaining weight, even resulting in obesity. So the cheaper forms of nutrition are also the unhealthiest and mostly consumed by low-income groups, i.e. the lower, poorer groups of society. When an introduction of the fat tax would take place, products will become more expensive and this would be very inconvenient for low-income groups. The inequality between rich and poor would even become bigger. A measure that can be taken to solve this issue, is to use the money obtained with the higher taxation to the benefit of these low-income groups. They could receive some kind of subsidy to balance out the extra costs, provided that they show evidence of buying healthier nutrition. Another proposition could be that the profit of the fat tax could be addressed to abbreviate the inequality between rich and poor.
To conclude, the fat tax should be introduced as a remedy for obesity. Obesity is becoming a big problem and is slowly killing the people of our world, with emphasis on the people of the United States of America. The fat tax gives individuals the incentive to buy cheaper and conveniently more healthier foods, which results into a decrease of weight and the percentage of obesity. When obesity is reduced, the expenditures of people that have been obese on medical care can be transferred to other objectives, for example to the maintenance of a long and healthy life. The expenditures of the government can go to the development of the educational system, whereby every individual can be offered the best potential future they deserve. Another option could be to invest this money in science and medical research, which needs every penny, for example in their search to the cure of cancer. The earnings of the fat tax could also participate in all these matters. Another purpose could be to invest in the poor, who will probably feel the consequences of the fat tax more than higher levels of society. These reasons and solutions sound much more attractive than getting sick by our own wrongdoings and shortening our own lives on purpose. Research could be done to establish at what rate this fat tax should be set so that it will have genuine effect. Right now it is up to the people to decide what is of more importance, paying less and living a short and unhealthy life or paying a little bit more and living the healthy and long you are meant to have?