Should the government make it harder for Americans to purchase foods that are unhealthy? And if so, what are some ways that the government can do that? Daniel E. Lieberman believes that there are three things that could be done: nothing, enhance public education, and strict regulation by our government on unhealthy foods. On the other hand Mark Bittman believes that the solution could be as simple as a tax on unhealthy foods Unfortunately, the American Obesity problem cannot be fixed with regulation and education alone, but with newfound funding from a tax on foods with large amounts of sugar and fat.
Lieberman’s piece is short and well intended. While he does not have nearly as many citations as Wittman his piece focuses heavily on the impact …show more content…
As Benjamin Franklin once said taxes are certain; which is why Bittman believes “taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthy food and generate billions of dollars annually” (588). Thereafter, Wittman would have the money spent subsidizing fruits and vegetables in an effort to make eating healthy more affordable and eating unhealthy expensive. This would certainly help people who are in a lower economic class because it would entice them to buy the affordable foods being subsidized like vegetables and fruits and eschew them from the expensive fat abundant foods. Another strength of Wittman’s piece is the amount of studies and statistics that he has included in his piece. Once of which was conducted by Y. Claire Wang which states that “a penny tax per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages in New York state would save 3 billion in healthcare” (591). With this information it is evident that a tax on sugary drinks could indeed not only generate money for the American taxpayer, but go so far as to save money that is being spent on Healthcare. Finally, Wittman suspects that “education alone is no match for the marketing dollars that push the very foods that the worst for us” (590). The fast food industry spent “4 Billion on marketing in 2009; the Department of Agriculture’s... percentage of that in 2012: $13 Million). These alarming figures only fortify Whitman's essay. Additionally, if new money could be
Lieberman’s piece is short and well intended. While he does not have nearly as many citations as Wittman his piece focuses heavily on the impact …show more content…
As Benjamin Franklin once said taxes are certain; which is why Bittman believes “taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthy food and generate billions of dollars annually” (588). Thereafter, Wittman would have the money spent subsidizing fruits and vegetables in an effort to make eating healthy more affordable and eating unhealthy expensive. This would certainly help people who are in a lower economic class because it would entice them to buy the affordable foods being subsidized like vegetables and fruits and eschew them from the expensive fat abundant foods. Another strength of Wittman’s piece is the amount of studies and statistics that he has included in his piece. Once of which was conducted by Y. Claire Wang which states that “a penny tax per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages in New York state would save 3 billion in healthcare” (591). With this information it is evident that a tax on sugary drinks could indeed not only generate money for the American taxpayer, but go so far as to save money that is being spent on Healthcare. Finally, Wittman suspects that “education alone is no match for the marketing dollars that push the very foods that the worst for us” (590). The fast food industry spent “4 Billion on marketing in 2009; the Department of Agriculture’s... percentage of that in 2012: $13 Million). These alarming figures only fortify Whitman's essay. Additionally, if new money could be