During the post-industrial era, obesity has become an epidemic in westernized cultures. In an effort to counteract this dilemma, many local governments have debated the necessity and viability of a tax on sugary beverages. From a biological perspective, such a tax would be advantageous for public health as it would reduce the chances of developing obesity, which leaves afflicted individuals at risk for related health conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. Encouraged by contemporary culture and media, the assimilation of high sugar and high fat foods as the staple of modern diets has notably led to an excessive consumption of sweetened drinks. This results in the proliferation of obesogens and undesirable microbes in the human population. The cultural shift to a more sedentary lifestyle compounded with irregularities in sleep patterns has also led to the increasing emergence of transgenerational obesity. Government intervention in the form of an excise tax on sugar has become essential to reducing the burden of disease associated with obesity.
The overconsumption of sugary drinks can induce obesity. Researchers have discovered certain EDCs to be particularly harmful; some are even causally correlated to symptoms of obesity. A sugar tax would be conducive to reducing exposure to these chemicals, the most common of which would be BPA and HCFS. Bisphenol-A is an EDC typically found in the polycarbonate plastics and inner lining of aluminum cans. These are the containers of many sweet beverages, such as soda and juice. Another hazardous chemical indisputably found in a vast range of sweetened, commercially produced drinks is high fructose corn syrup. In a PSR article concerning the obesity epidemic, Jerrold Heindel’s obesogen hypothesis states that “exposure to certain chemicals during development will affect tissue and organ development, leading to increased susceptibility to gain weight throughout life” and that EDCs can “alter the set-point for gaining”. If this is true, then this sheds light as to why obese people typically remain so for the duration of their lives, as weight lost through a strict regimen of diet and exercise is easily regained again. However, a tax can pose a vital check for those who have the biological affinity for sweets.
Obesogens have also been known to possess a transgenerational effect. In mice,
“prenatal TBT exposure caused heritable alterations in the directly exposed F1 fetuses (and/or F2 germ cells” and predisposed the offspring “toward the adipocyte lineage” even though they had not been exposed to the chemical. In the same study, it was also stated that “evidence of harm from chemical exposure in animal studies should be sufficiently persuasive to counsel patients to show caution toward EDC exposure.” When imposing the results of the mice model onto humans, the danger of obesogens must be made more common knowledge in order to prevent this unjust hereditary effect. Taxing sweetened drinks and alerting buyers of the potential side effects of the chemicals they contain is a necessary step towards educating a population about the caution they must take towards what they consume.
The tax on sugar would also be beneficial in limiting sugar intake. Studies have observed “evidence that the significant dietary changes that occurred with the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry occurred too recently on an evolutionary time scale”, leading to “chronic states of metabolic derangement and misguided immune responses”. This evolutionary mismatch is responsible for the rapid increase of metabolic and inflammatory diseases that have accompanied us in this modern era of technology. Sugar intake has spiked dramatically over the past century, from 56 kg in 1970 to 69 kg in 2000. This increase in sweets consumption has resulted in a sudden shift in our gut microbial communities, and is causally correlated with adiposity. According to Dr. Cox in her scientific review “Obesity, inflammation, and the gut microbiota”, dietary habits modulate intestinal permeability. This has “the potential to trigger metabolic endotoxemia”, which may have “implications in the context of risk of obesity-associated disease”.Thus, the influx of sugar from excessive purchase of sugary beverages could be stimulating the release of endotoxins from bacteria, and dysregulating the metabolic processes that control energy absorption and lipid storage. The consequence of this dysbiosis can be lessened by imposing a sugar tax in order to reduce the temptation to ingest excessive amounts of empty calories.
Due to the vast range of environmental factors that affects a population’s susceptibility to obesity, there is difficulty predicting the efficacy and necessity of the sugar tax. However, experts state that “by the law of economic demand, as the price of sugary beverages rise, consumption will go down.” They parallel this statement with examples from successful governments that have already implemented this policy. Some may even claim that the tax will do very little to mitigate obesity rates, arguing that obesity is largely a consequence of unfortunate genetic predisposition. However, statistics demonstrate a universal increase in rates of obesity across demographics. It is highly unlikely a gene or gene(s) for excess fat storage would continue to be selected for in a rapidly growing world afflicted by the luxuries of a convenient and stable food supply. Thus, the prevalence of this disadvantageous trait implies that obesity is becoming more a product of environment than genetics.
Obesity is an issue particularly in this modern era where the work schedule of the average individual calls for convenience and irregular sleep. This new lifestyle pattern has “negatively tilted white adipose metabolism toward storage and accumulation.” As a result of mismatch theory, this now maladaptive trait “contributes to everexpanding waistlines and deleterious metabolic diseases.” With an affected metabolism and circadian rhythm, the modern man is much more biologically responsive to obesity. A sugar tax would be most helpful in curbing those desires, generally across the population as a whole.
Conclusively, a tax on sugar would be biologically practical in order to sustain the health and longevity of mankind. For now, the tax targets only sugar sweetened beverages, which people are certainly capable of living without. Not only could some of the revenue from this tax fund health related issues caused by obesity, it should also be utilized in the form of subsidies for organic fruit and vegetable farmers. The end goal of that would be to lower the prices of fresh produce while simultaneously bringing up the price of unhealthier drink options. Hopefully this compound effect succeeds in slowing the onset of obesity for future generations, and becomes a vital example for developing countries to follow.