The controversy of the obesity epidemic is obvious, but it is now more complex due to the proposal of food taxes in the market today. Due to the illogical reasoning of politicians and state legislatures in Congress, Radley Balko, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute has written an article named “What You Eat Is Your Business,” emphasizing that putting taxes on high-calories foods to decrease obesity is unrealistic. Balko argues that the obesity rate is increasing due to the lack of perception in every individual, and that it is a personal matter that government should not be involved in any kind. The only rational way to decrease obesity is by encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves (1). Although, this may appear unpersuasive
…show more content…
In my experience, when the tax of the items I usually buy is higher, I would definitely switch to something cheaper. The lesson I have learned is that poor people will always switch up to other things if the items they usually buy has a higher tax percentage. In “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that putting taxes on foods to decrease the obesity is wrong, and instead, the government should “foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health” (1). In other words, rather than imposing taxes on foods and soda, Balko suggests that the government should lead the consumers to the right path by educating what is good them. To response to Balko, in “Ounces of Prevention...,” the authors argue that higher tax percentage will reduce the sugared-beverage consumption, which is the largest risk for obesity and diabetes (Brownell and Frieden 1). Because they conducted an interventional study showing that higher tax helps decrease sugar intake, therefore it will improve health overall. But this is just a side of the experiment since they did not conduct an experiment to those who do not exercise, which is the main reason for the …show more content…
In the article “Soft Drink Industry Fights Proposed Food Stamp Ban,” written by Robert Pear, he emphasizes that banning food stamps to buy sugared-sweetened beverages is unfair because not everybody receives the food stamp to buy such drinks, and the people get received food stamp usually are the people with low income. Thus, banning food stamps would lead to unjust practices and the oppositions will be raised extensively (2). Moreover, Pear demonstrates why it is not equitable for Congress to ban the using of food stamps to buy such drinks: “The plan is unfair to food stamp recipients because it treats them differently from other customers” (qtd. in Pear 2). The essence of Pear’s argument is that food stamps recipients still have their dignity. What happen if they go to the grocery store and are told by the cashier that they cannot buy their favorite drinks when a line of people aligns behind them? How would they feel? Since when did customers’ favorite drinks become the government’s
In my experience, when the tax of the items I usually buy is higher, I would definitely switch to something cheaper. The lesson I have learned is that poor people will always switch up to other things if the items they usually buy has a higher tax percentage. In “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that putting taxes on foods to decrease the obesity is wrong, and instead, the government should “foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health” (1). In other words, rather than imposing taxes on foods and soda, Balko suggests that the government should lead the consumers to the right path by educating what is good them. To response to Balko, in “Ounces of Prevention...,” the authors argue that higher tax percentage will reduce the sugared-beverage consumption, which is the largest risk for obesity and diabetes (Brownell and Frieden 1). Because they conducted an interventional study showing that higher tax helps decrease sugar intake, therefore it will improve health overall. But this is just a side of the experiment since they did not conduct an experiment to those who do not exercise, which is the main reason for the …show more content…
In the article “Soft Drink Industry Fights Proposed Food Stamp Ban,” written by Robert Pear, he emphasizes that banning food stamps to buy sugared-sweetened beverages is unfair because not everybody receives the food stamp to buy such drinks, and the people get received food stamp usually are the people with low income. Thus, banning food stamps would lead to unjust practices and the oppositions will be raised extensively (2). Moreover, Pear demonstrates why it is not equitable for Congress to ban the using of food stamps to buy such drinks: “The plan is unfair to food stamp recipients because it treats them differently from other customers” (qtd. in Pear 2). The essence of Pear’s argument is that food stamps recipients still have their dignity. What happen if they go to the grocery store and are told by the cashier that they cannot buy their favorite drinks when a line of people aligns behind them? How would they feel? Since when did customers’ favorite drinks become the government’s