Adam Eljamal, Drew Trodden, Cam Marchel
Food and Health in America
While America is currently focused on a variety of issues, one major problem that we often turn a blind eye to is the dangerously increasing rates of obesity. Seventy percent of county officials rank obesity as a leading problem where they live, yet very little has been done to help solve the problem.1 Obesity has been growing at an exponential rate, and rather then simply stating a problem, we’d like to propose a solution. As the obesity epidemic worsens in the US, a productive way to help lower these rates is to introduce a sin tax on high-sugar content beverages/items in order to disincentivize people from purchasing such products.
As citizens of the United States of America, we stand in the spotlight for our issues to be analyzed in a condescending manner due to our prosperous existence and worldly contributions. We do have our issues; some of which are scrutinized more heavily than others by the outside world. However, there is no debate that obesity is one of the most prevalent and increasing issues that our nation faces. Obesity is a condition that is associated with having an excess of body fat, defined by genetic and environmental factors that are difficult to control when dieting. Nationally, 37.9 percent of American adults were obese in 2013-14 (NHANES). Rates of extreme or severe obesity are 7.7 percent, and more than 70 percent are overweight or obese. These concerning percentages of our nation's population see personal detriment from Obesity, in a physical context, on a psychological front, and through societal impact and implications. To make things worse, the growth rate of is getting larger by year. Specifically, half of all Americans in 39 states are projected to be obese by the year 2030.
With that being said, it’s important to question the status quo and look at what the U.S. has done/is doing to try to prevent the problem. Currently, the main focus of the United States in the battle against obesity is in schools. Previously, the U.S. implemented policies such as the requirement of at least 60 minutes of physical activity in schools and mandating schools to offer healthier food options to students. More generally speaking, the U.S. has also tightened down on dangerously unhealthy food options, most notably Mcdonald’s “supersized” meals. These examples along with others do show an effort of some sorts by the government to combat obesity, however there is no question that more needs to be done, as future projections of increased obesity rates show.
To best cover the problems encompassed within the effects of obesity, it is most logical to start with the physical detriments incurred, as this is a physical disorder. Obesity causes harm and inconvenience to those affected by it in terms of their respective appearance and ability to partake in physical activity. Due to societal pressures for individuals to be thin, muscular, or fit, obesity is deemed the less desirable trait, aesthetically speaking. Not to mention, it is quite difficult for these obese individuals to experience the simplicity of sports, to enjoy attractions that have weight-related restrictions, and even things as ordinary as to walk a lengthy distance. While these highlighted issues may be considered trivial by some, there is no denying that the biggest physical harm caused by obesity is the increased risk of disease that is involved with the weight disorder. People who have obesity, compared to those with a normal or healthy weight, are at increased risk for many serious diseases and health conditions, including the following: all-causes of death, high blood pressure, high LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and
breathing problems, some cancers, low quality of life, and more. With all of these more serious issues at stake, obesity serves as a gateway to extreme hardship and potential death.
The outlined physical detriments can and do lead to further psychological detriment. As a result of being less desirable in stature, and thoroughly unable to partake in physical activity, an obese individual can experience depression and lack of confidence on a daily and recurring basis. Since women are held on a pedestal for their beauty and physical appearance, they are most susceptible to psychological effects. In one study, obesity in women was associated with a 37 percent increase in major depression. There is also a strong relationship between women with a high BMI and more frequent thoughts of suicide. This cycle of depression can lead to binge eating and abnormal behavior that only worsens the situation. In fact, stressed spelled backwards happens to be desserts, and this is not a mere coincidence. The psychological effects of obesity are just as life-threatening as the physical effects.
Given that obesity is a national issue for the United States, there are societal implications and effects involved. To begin with, the U.S. is negatively perceived by other worldly powers as lazy and negligent in terms of healthiness and activity, only emphasized by the vast amount of fast food restaurants that exist within our country. In conjunction with this negative outside perception, we as Americans, do become complacent and accept the obesity and correlated health issues without attempting to resolve the problems. Societal perceptions aside, there is social detriment in a practical and financial sense as well. In our economy, obesity becomes an increasing cost. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who have obesity were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. Individuals who suffer from obesity also suffer from financial detriment due to
their condition and this expense can become quite burdensome when coupled with other effects of obesity.
There are sizeable disadvantages to being significantly sizeable in stature. Obesity as a growing issue in the United States causes individual stress through physical risk of disease, inconvenience, psychological turmoil, financial expense, and contribution to a negative perception of our beloved nation. It is not with crudeness that these harms are brought to realization, but rather out of concern and desire for future prevention of the disorder. Physical exercise, dietary modifications, and emotional support can all contribute to a solution for growing obesity rates even though the fight against obesity appears to be an uphill battle. It is imperative that we strive for progress instead of perfection on the road to physical and mental health so that we can live the best lives possible.
What makes obesity especially important, is the number of effects it has on other major problems. The first is obesity’s relation to child development and academic achievement. Childhood obesity is directly linked to poor educational performance and an increase in the risk of bullying and depression. Additionally, obesity directly relates to inequality in America, as it disproportionately affects low-income1 7 and rural communities1 8 as well as certain racial and ethnic groups. This crisis also hurts our nation's military readiness. Being overweight is the leading cause of medical disqualifications when applying to the military, with nearly 1⁄4 of applicants rejected for exceeding body fat standards.1 0 Obese service members cost the military about $1 billion every year in healthcare costs and lost productivity.1 Finally is its relation to national financial issues. The obesity crisis costs our nation more than $150 billion in healthcare
costs annually, a staggering number that needs to be reduced.3 Because of this, officials and the general public are clearly concerned (and rightfully so), about where money towards obesity prevention is spent. It is important that taxpayer dollars get utilized correctly rather than go to waste.
For that reason, we believe it is very important to find a solution that is effective, hence the proposal of a sin tax. The thought of a sin tax is not a new idea. In fact, a sin tax model has been implemented & effective in over 26 countries, indicating its potential for success if used in the U.S. While some countries vary in the way they utilize the tax, it is suggested that the tax is specific to sugary beverages, as their manufacturers are easily identifiable and can be taxed at production.2 This specific idea of using the tax on sugary drinks has been done before, and has proven to be very effective in both its ease of enforcement and its results. The first example of such a sin tax was done in Melbourne’s Alfred hospital, where sales of high-sugar content drinks dropped 27.6% during a 17-week trial when the price of sugary drinks was increased by 20%. Bottled water sales increased by almost the same amount, which is especially important.2 Research has found that replacing a 20oz soda in one’s daily diet with a glass of water leads to roughly 15 pounds of potential weight loss per year. Melbourne is not alone, however, as a similar implementation of the tax executed in Mexico found a 5.5% drop in high-sugar content beverage sales during the first year, and an additional 9.7% decline in the second year. It is important to limit the sales of such drinks as they are directly linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, tooth decay and bone density problems. This idea wouldn’t be the first time the U.S. has created a tax to disincentivize the purchasing of certain goods, as illustrated by
the sin tax enforced on cigarettes. In that case, the tax proved to be extremely effective with rather shocking results, as since 1965 the smoking rate has dropped from 42 percent to 15 percent in 2015.
While the thought of a sugar tax may sound beneficial, it’s important to consider the details and exact plans of implementation. First and most importantly is to consider the exact percent increase that the tax would have. This was a debate recently held in South Africa, where lawmakers were trying to decide what percent to raise the tax on sugary items while trying to balance the effectiveness of the tax and the public opinion. Specifically, South Africa originally started with an 11% tax on sugary drinks, as a means of getting their “foot in the door.” After receiving mixed reactions on the tax, public officials have found it to be effective and beneficial, hence their certainty in wanting to raise it. Specifically, South African officials stated that they wont stop there, and will look to raise the tax up to 20% in the near future. Recent data & research conducted by South African officials have found that the current tax is predicted to result in a gain of over 300,000 life years over a 30 year period. A 20 percent tax, however, could double that number, resulting in 688,719 life years gained.
Now you might be sitting in your seat asking yourself why a sin tax hasn’t already been put into place. However, there are many people on the other side of the argument, and they have their reasons for their beliefs as well. The first major obstacle to overcome is that there are many groups that are completely against a sin tax on food. These organizations who are quite powerful and influential in their own right, are fighting against a sin tax hard, making it nearly impossible to implement. They outline a myriad of issues that will arise if the government decides to add a
sin tax. They believe that all though there’s a chance it will solve the obesity problem, it will just open a whole new bag of issues.
The first issue highlighted is that soda is likely the first to get taxed, but is only partly to blame for this epidemic. Soda is extremely unhealthy for your body, and also completely unnecessary. There is no benefit to drinking soda other than the fact that it tastes good. However, while putting a tax on soda could make people buy it less, it may just also open a gate to other unhealthy options. There are plenty other options out there as a potential substitute for soda. If you only tax on soda, people will likely just popularize a different option and start the problem all over again. One study at Cornell University showed that a lot of people will potentially just switch over from soda to beer. That could actually present an even bigger issue than the obesity epidemic as it would lead to higher rates of drunk driving, as well as a much deteriorated workplace environment if showing up to work intoxicated becomes a commonplace.
Another issue is that while this tax worked for cigarettes, cigarettes aren’t exactly a fair comparison to soda. Both are bad for your body, however, while cigarettes are always harmful, soda isn’t very harmful to your body in moderation. Having a cigarette is much more dangerous than a soda and it is not even close. Although soda can technically be addictive, it doesn’t have the same addictive qualities as cigarettes. Also, the first cigarette you smoke will immediately harm your lungs and body, soda on the other hand won’t do very much damage if you can control how much you drink. The reason people combat the fact that the cigarette tax worked is that these are not very comparable entities, and that could mean that a soda tax won’t show quite the same effects.
The potential economic downfalls of a sin tax is another major issue that could arise if the sin tax is put into effect. America has this horrible issue going on right now, that issue is the fact that buying something healthier for you means spending more money. The obesity rates in poorer areas are noticeably higher. It is much cheaper and quicker for a family to go eat a Family Bucket at KFC than go to the grocery store and pick out vegetables and food to feed the family in a healthier manner. These families who aren’t as wealthy likely see both parents working potentially multiple jobs. They don’t have the time to go out food shopping for all the healthier options, and then go home and cook the meal. They have to work a lot, and they will be able to work even more and bring in even more much needed money if they grab some fast food to feed the family. They are also usually on very strict budget constraints and actually cannot afford the steep prices of shopping at a Whole Foods. If you start to impose a sin tax on the food that they generally feed their family, it could make some families make decisions between food or a home, or food and clothing. Families in the poorer areas couldn’t survive if a sin tax is put on their main food source. Also, to even see an impact and make people refrain from buying sugary foods the tax would likely have to be around 20%. Anything smaller than that and people probably won’t even really notice the difference and therefore will just keep buying whatever they want. 20% is a very big difference for these poorer families, and while it is a necessary percentage for the middle and upper classes, the lower class won’t survive something like that.
The last fact that has the government and other groups reluctant to try this out is the fact that it hasn’t ever really been fully implemented. All these issues arise because, although it has been tested out and played around with in some countries, no country has ever gone all out on a sugar tax. The U.S. government could be facing very bad implications if it fails, and they likely
don’t think that it is worth the risks. As I’ve just outlined, there are issues as massive as the whole economic structure being thrown out of whack. Countries are very careful of being the first to try this out because they don’t want to be the ones to set the example as to why you shouldn’t implement a sin tax. There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding this solution, and not many facts backing up it working.
After all that, we do still believe as a group that a sin tax is a necessary step towards the solution of the obesity epidemic. These issues are potentially there, but we think that the potential benefit of being done with obesity is too great of a perk to turn our cheek to. The one main issue that would be a problem is the fact that it could harm poorer areas greatly, however there will be ways to get around that and make it better for them. It probably won’t be right the first second it is implemented, and it will take a lot of trial and error for the government to get the sin tax right, but when they finally make it effective it will be well worth the risk and well worth the wait.
All in all, it is important to weigh the costs and benefits of a sin tax in order to properly conclude whether or not we believe it should be implemented. For that reason, while we recognize some potential flaws in the plan, we do still believe it is better than the status quo and offers more good then bad. Specifically, while the tax may be more detrimental to low income families, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it still offers equal opportunity to buy all drinks that aren’t high in sugar content. Additionally, the fact that the taxes raise the price on high sugar content goods as opposed to healthy ones makes it especially effective, as about 75% percent of Americans say they’d eat healthier if healthier food options were cheaper then they currently are.