tax on junk food argumentative essay

Junk Food should be Taxed

This essay will argue in favor of taxing junk food. It will discuss the potential public health benefits of such a tax, including reducing consumption of unhealthy foods, combating obesity, and generating revenue for health initiatives. The piece will examine case studies where similar taxes have been implemented and their outcomes, as well as counterarguments regarding personal freedom and economic impact. At PapersOwl too, you can discover numerous free essay illustrations related to Food.

How it works

Junk food is “”food that is not good for your health because it is high in fat, sugar, or artificial substances”” (Cambridge Dictionary). Public health advocates say a sugar tax on junk foods could help reduce the consumption of sugary foods causing a reduction in obesity and diseases, as well as people to become healthy overall. A junk food tax would also generate income for significant causes, such as nutrition education, obesity prevention, and improving diet. The goal of the tax is to minimize the consumption of unhealthy foods, which would presumably lead to a healthier population.

Sugary foods have harmful preservatives and are addictive, so taxing it would cause people to make healthier choices by choosing alternatives to the junk foods.

Taxing sugary foods affects the consumer choice by causing people to think wisely on how they want to spend their money. “”The inexpensiveness of unhealthy foods relative to fresh produce is thought to be an important contributor to the overconsumption of junk food”” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Healthy food being more expensive than junk food is one of the reasons people buy it. Some people can’t afford to buy healthy foods because of the price compared to the cheaper unhealthier stuff. If the price of junk foods was raised, people wouldn’t be as urged to spend money on it, which would cause them to reduce their consumption of these sugary foods making healthier choices.

This will cause a decrease in heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. According to econimicshelp.org “”a report by the University of Nottingham and University of Oxford, claimed that introducing a tax on unhealthy foods would save, at least, 3,000 lives a year from heart disease””. Choosing healthier options can prevent diseases and make people feel better about themselves when they are eating good. Thus, a junk food tax is believed to encourage a healthier lifestyle and thereby causing manufacturers to produce healthier alternatives. With the taxes on sugary foods we can use the earnings to educate Americans about nutrition, preventing obesity, and improving diet.

We can use the taxes to teach people how to become healthy by educating them on nutrition and making them understand the concept of manufacturers when they advertise and try to trick us into buying junk food. The junk food industry doesn’t want people to know of the dangers of their products in that the chemicals and substances in their products are harmful to us. Once we are aware of the negative/damaging effects of junk food on us we can start to change our bad habits of eating them by opting for healthier alternatives. As well as teach them the negative health effects that come with eating them.

Let’s admit it: we’ve all eaten chips, candy, or cookies without scanning and knowing what exactly we’re putting into our bodies. One time when I actually took a good look at the nutrition label on the back of a sugary snack, I was shocked to see I couldn’t recognize almost all of the ingredients listed. From trans fat to high fructose corn syrup, it’s good to know what preservatives and food additives we are consuming, and what they mean for our body.

Preservatives are a type of food additive added to food to prolong its shelf life and preserve them from spoiling while food additives are used to enhance the flavor, appearance or texture of a product, as well as extend its shelf life. These substances have been associated with detrimental health effects and should be avoided. An example of a common preservative are trans fats which are, “”a type of unsaturated fat that increases shelf life and improves consistency of products”” (healthline.com). They can be found in processed foods like baked goods, snacks such as potato chips and microwave popcorn, and biscuits.

According to healthline.com “”Eating trans fats has been associated with many negative effects on health, including inflammation, heart disease and diabetes””. An example of a food additive is high fructose corn syrup which is a sweetener made from corn. It is found in soda, candy, and snack foods and “”has been linked to weight gain and diabetes”” (healthline.com). These two substances have one thing in common and that is they both are harmful to us. We should start reading ingredient labels when grocery shopping to take control of our diets and find out what’s being added to our favorite foods. Junk foods not only have preservatives, they also have addictive substances that are harmful to us.

Has it ever occurred to us why sugary foods taste so good? The chemicals in these sweet foods include addictive substances that trigger endorphins in the brain causing us to keep wanting more of it. Sugar activates the brain’s reward system causing a release of dopamine. “”Activation of the reward system in the brain called the mesolimbic dopamine system leads to intense feelings of reward that can result in cravings and addiction”” (theconversation.com).We get pleasure and feelings of reward out of sugary foods. It’s the same pleasure people get out of drugs. This causes us to binge on junk food when we are feeling stressed for the satisfaction of it. This can be harmful to us internally and externally.

Internally it can affect our health and cause us to have diseases and other problems much sooner than people who are healthier. The external effects of junk food is unhealthy weight gain, causes our skin to breakout, look dull, and makes us look older. Cardiologist Dr. James O’Keefe told KCTV in 2015 that it can take six weeks to end an addiction to sugar and that strong craving can feel almost like drug withdrawal (Can Sugar Be More Addictive Than Drugs by Elysia Richardson). Thankfully there are healthier alternatives to these junk foods to help cope with cravings and forget about sugary foods.

There are many healthy alternatives to sugary foods. We can reduce our sugar cravings by eating naturally sweet food. Healthy options such as fruits, berries, honey, dark chocolate, and dates can satisfy these cravings. Being hydrated and full can reduce sweet tooths. You get a craving when you are hungry and the feeling is difficult to resist thus, eating a healthy meal as soon as the hunger strikes can cause the craving to go away. Salt is also proven to help with our sugar cravings. According to Dr. Oz in the YouTube video How to Cut Down Sugar Craving in Two Weeks, “”80% of the salt…doesn’t come from salt you add; it comes from the salt from processed foods””.

If, instead of processed foods, you eat wholesome food and sprinkle a bit of salt on it twice per day, it has to be better than what you’re used to. Another alternative are organic options which are healthier and have quality ingredients. For example, if you look at the nutritional information between the two alternatives, Justin’s Peanut Butter Cups are healthier than eating Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and the taste of the healthier option taste better in my opinion.

It makes you feel better and less sluggish. Sugary foods can have a toll on our energy. For example, after a candy splurge we get a sugar rush followed by the unavoidable sugar crash. So it causes us to feel drained and tired when we consume too much sugar for the body to handle. With these many healthy options to junk foods some people still eat sugary foods and dislike the idea of a junk food tax.

On the other hand, some people believe it isn’t fair for the government to interfere in people’s food choices. They think the taxes added by the government will tell them what to and what not to eat. They disagree with adding a tax because according to them they should have freedom to make their own choices cause it effects them, not the government. Some also say that adding taxes won’t do anything to help fight obesity and health diseases because people that love junk food will buy it regardless of how much it costs.

They also think that junk food is convenient for low income people because that’s all they can afford and it saves them time and money. I agree junk food is cheap however, it is unhealthy causing many health problems and killing the people that are eating it. Junk food isn’t really cheap and convenient cause in the long run they’re going to be having to spend more money on medical bills with constant trips to the doctor and for medications. People who think wisely about their decisions would save money by caring about their health and what they put into their body, so raising the tax on junk food will help people stay on a healthy track reducing diseases.

This junk food tax policy can save many people’s lives. People correlate the cheaper product as a better choice, but it won’t be a better choice when we will be spending it on hospital bills in the future. Healthier options might kill our bills, but it can save our lives. Reducing sugar consumption can help with weight loss, reduce acne, and prevent diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.

Implementing a tax on sugary foods will influence the consumer to make wiser choices on what they choose to put in their body, whether they want to spend more money on unhealthy foods and suffer in the lung run, or spend more money on healthy foods and be happier. Consumers opt for the low-priced goods so if junk foods were taxed more people would consider eating healthier foods since the prices would be around the same.

Cite this page

Junk Food Should be Taxed. (2020, Feb 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/junk-food-should-be-taxed/

"Junk Food Should be Taxed." PapersOwl.com , 7 Feb 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/junk-food-should-be-taxed/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Junk Food Should be Taxed . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/junk-food-should-be-taxed/ [Accessed: 17 Sep. 2024]

"Junk Food Should be Taxed." PapersOwl.com, Feb 07, 2020. Accessed September 17, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/junk-food-should-be-taxed/

"Junk Food Should be Taxed," PapersOwl.com , 07-Feb-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/junk-food-should-be-taxed/. [Accessed: 17-Sep-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Junk Food Should be Taxed . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/junk-food-should-be-taxed/ [Accessed: 17-Sep-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

> Journals
> Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
> Volume 77 Issue 3
> Should we tax unhealthy food and drink?

Article contents

Why implement food and drink taxes, evidence for taxing unhealthy foods and drinks, sugary drink tax evaluations, food tax evaluations, what does this mean for the uk, criticisms of the soft drinks industry levy, conclusions, should we tax unhealthy food and drink.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2018

The global burden of obesity leads to significant morbidity and has major economic implications. In April 2018, Britain will join a growing number of countries attempting to tackle this using fiscal measures when the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy is introduced. We review recent evidence from natural experiments of the impact of health-related food and drink taxes on consumer behaviour, and discuss the possible consequences of these approaches on purchases and health. We highlight some of the potential indirect consequences and the importance of robust prospective evaluation.

In recent decades, the global burden of obesity and related conditions has surged. In 2014, 13 % of the world's population were obese ( 1 ) , with an estimated cost to the global economy of $2 trillion ( 2 ) . Britain will join a growing number of countries attempting to tackle the consequences of obesity using fiscal measures when the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) is introduced in April, 2018 ( 3 ) . Recent data on the impact of health-related food and drink taxes from natural experimental evaluations are allowing us to better understand how fiscal measures affect behaviour. In this review, we draw on this new evidence and discuss how health-related food and drink taxes might change purchasing habits and improve health.

Unhealthy diets are the second leading behavioural risk factor behind tobacco for all-cause morbidity and mortality in the UK ( 4 ) . A poor diet can cause disease both directly and via mediating factors such as weight gain and high blood pressure. As well as the energetic contributions of energy-dense food and drinks, saturated fat leads to CVD ( Reference Sacks, Lichtenstein and Wu 5 ) , salt increases the risk of hypertension ( Reference He and MacGregor 6 , Reference He, Li and MacGregor 7 ) and as discussed in more detail later, sugary drink consumption is related to diabetes independently of weight gain ( Reference Imamura, O'Connor and Ye 8 ) .

Health-related food and drink taxes implemented internationally commonly aim to reduce the burden of obesity. In the UK, 20 % of 4–5-year olds and 33 % of 10–11-year olds are either overweight or obese ( 9 ) . Furthermore, children from the most deprived backgrounds are twice as likely to be obese than those from the least deprived ( 10 ) ; a disparity that only serves to entrench inequality as these children are more likely to become obese adults ( Reference Llewellyn, Simmonds and Owen 11 ) . Childhood obesity, alongside an adult obesity prevalence of more than 25 % ( 12 ) , is estimated to cost the UK over £6 billion/year in direct healthcare costs ( 2 ) and £27 billion when losses to productivity are included ( 13 ) .

Reducing the consumption of unhealthy food and drinks would benefit health, and taxes are a powerful lever by which to achieve this ( 14 , Reference Mytton, Eyles and Ogilvie 15 ) . As such, the UK government is introducing the SDIL, a key component of the childhood obesity plan. Internationally, sugary drinks are the food or drink product most commonly taxed to improve health and this is with good reason. Both observational studies ( Reference Dubois, Farmer and Girard 16 – Reference Palmer, Boggs and Krishnan 19 ) and randomised control trials demonstrate that sugar and sugary drinks lead to increased weight among children ( Reference Ebbeling, Feldman and Chomitz 20 , Reference de Ruyter, Olthof and Seidell 21 ) and adults ( Reference Raben, Vasilaras and Moller 22 – Reference Malik, Pan and Willett 25 ) . Sugary drinks are also directly associated with diabetes independent of adiposity; their high glycaemic load means that consumption results in spikes in blood glucose and insulin concentrations, which may lead to insulin resistance and β cell dysfunction ( Reference Ludwig 26 ) . In a recent meta-analysis, Imamura et al. estimated a 13 % increase in the incidence of type two diabetes for each additional daily serving of sugary drink after adjusting for obesity, and predicted that 79 000 cases of the disease (3·6 % of all cases) over the next 10 years would be attributable to these drinks at present consumption levels ( Reference Imamura, O'Connor and Ye 8 ) . In addition to diabetes, sugary drinks are associated with dental caries ( 27 ) , CVD ( Reference Fung, Malik and Rexrode 28 ) and lipid dysfunction ( Reference Dhingra, Sullivan and Jacques 29 , Reference Nettleton, Lutsey and Wang 30 ) .

Beyond data relating their consumption to ill health, sugary drinks are an appealing target for taxation because they contain no nutritional benefit beyond the energy obtained from sugar. Their liquid substitutes (such as diet soft drinks and water) are generally healthier and there is little evidence that people react by increasing the amount of unhealthy food they eat. Sugary drink taxes may also in part correct the negative externality that results from the price of these products not encompassing the full cost they impose on society due to ill health and reduced productivity. Finally, they are relatively straightforward to define from an administrative perspective ( Reference Briggs 31 ) .

In recent years, taxes on sugary drinks have been implemented by numerous countries, in addition to a smaller number of health-related food taxes. Table 1 (adapted from the World Cancer Research Fund ( 32 ) ) lists the measures already in place, but many more are on the horizon: for example in South Africa, Estonia, Portugal, Ireland and the UK.

Table 1. Health-related food and drink taxes around the world, adapted and updated from the World Cancer Research Fund ( 32 )

While sugary drink taxes are becoming increasingly common and accepted both politically and publicly ( Reference Ipsos 33 ) , health-related food taxes remain relatively rare. This is likely to be because they are both politically and administratively more challenging to implement ( Reference Bødker, Pisinger and Toft 34 , Reference Vallgårda, Holm and Jensen 35 ) and because it is harder to predict what people will switch to consuming instead. Unlike soft drinks, many foods are essential, so the selection of foods for taxation and design of fiscal strategies to improve population diet is challenging. Nutrient-based taxes can be bureaucratically intensive due to the need to quantify the amount of the taxed nutrient in both domestically produced and imported foods and, in the case of the Danish saturated fat tax, different cuts of unpackaged meats; however, many countries now have nutrient-labelling requirements of different foods, making it easier to quantify nutrient-based tax rates. Furthermore, any health-related food tax needs to be careful not to inadvertently worsen health because of people switching to less healthy substitutes. For example, Denmark's saturated fat tax is estimated to have led to a small rise in salt consumption, partly countering the benefit derived from reduced saturated fat consumption ( Reference Smed, Scarborough and Rayner 36 ) .

The majority of published evidence suggesting that taxing unhealthy food and drinks will lead to a change in behaviour and improved health comes from simulation (modelling) studies. To quantify the potential health impact of a tax, models generally estimate how the tax will impact price and then how the new price will affect purchases and subsequent consumption. The effect of the new diet on health is then quantified using risk factor–disease associations generally taken from published studies in the peer-reviewed literature. While this can give an indication of the likely impact of a tax, there are many unquantified factors that have the potential to influence the outcome, some of which are illustrated in Fig. 1 . These include factors relating to industry, such as how marketing and pricing will change for both taxed and untaxed drinks and whether recipes change (reformulation) or new products emerge. Also, some possible consumer responses are unquantified, such as the educational impact of knowing that a food or drink has been taxed due to it being unhealthy, the potential that people might waste less and the possibility of shopping in nearby untaxed jurisdictions. In contrast to modelling alone, natural experiments provide a mechanism by which some of these non-economic factors can be quantified and understood.

Fig. 1. A flowchart illustrating how a health-related food and drink tax might impact health (update of Fig. 1 ‘Implicit framework for how food taxes may influence health’, with permission of Springer, from Mytton et al. ( Reference Mytton, Eyles and Ogilvie 15 ) ).

Empirical evidence of the effect of health-related food and drinks taxes in real settings is increasingly available, allowing us to gain an insight into how these measures work in practice. Industry sales figures for taxed drinks in Finland, France and Hungary all reported a decrease in demand following an increase in price (see Cornelsen & Carreido, 2015 ( Reference Cornelson and Carreido 37 ) ).

Independent peer-reviewed evaluations of these policies are also emerging. In Mexico, Colchero et al. have published several papers assessing the effects of the sugary drink and unhealthy food tax in place since January 2014. Prospectively collected data on drink prices from the first year of the policy allowed the authors to analyse the consumer pass-on rate of the tax. They found that on average, the price of taxed drinks rose by 1 peso/litre, equivalent to a pass-on rate of 100 %. More detailed evaluation showed that this rate was greater for taxed carbonated drinks than non-carbonated, although the relative price of smaller serving sizes of both these drink types increased more than larger servings ( Reference Colchero, Salgado and Unar-Munguia 38 ) . Figures on the sugary drink tax in Berkeley, California also revealed interesting outcomes in this respect. Supermarkets passed on more than 100 % of the tax, whereas pharmacies passed on 45 % and drink prices in corner shops decreased slightly ( Reference Silver, Ng and Ryan-Ibarra 39 ) . Whether this was due to corner shops being less prepared for the tax than the larger stores, or whether they were attempting to out-compete their rivals is unknown.

Further analyses of consumer data have shown that the taxes in Mexico and Berkeley were successful in reducing purchases. Using detailed records from a consumer panel involving over 6000 households, Colchero et al. modelled expected 2014 drink sales without the tax, had purchasing trends continued. Comparison between these modelled figures and the consumer-reported purchases for that year revealed an average fall in post-tax purchasing of 6 % for 2014. In fact, the difference increased throughout the year to reach a 12 % reduction by December ( Reference Colchero, Popkin and Rivera 40 ) . Rather than being a short-term effect, analysis of 2015 data showed a sustained decrease in purchasing of taxed beverages, averaging 9·7 % for the second year of the policy ( Reference Colchero, Rivera-Dommarco and Popkin 41 ) . The figures also revealed that the tax consistently resulted in larger sales decreases among lower socioeconomic groups. Given that the study sample was biased towards urban areas, which tend to be wealthier, these studies may have underestimated the tax's overall effect size.

Similarly, the first year following the introduction of the Berkeley soft drink tax resulted in a 10 % reduction in sales of targeted drinks, with no change in total drink spending due to an increase in water sales. However, purchases in neighbouring towns without a tax rose by 7 % indicating some cross-border shopping which partly mitigated the tax's effect ( Reference Silver, Ng and Ryan-Ibarra 39 ) .

It is important to note, however, that since data from both Mexico and Berkeley are from natural experimental evaluations, results cannot be attributed solely to the tax. Parallel public health campaigns publicising the risks associated with sugary drinks and advertising restrictions on high-energy food and drink in Mexico may have also influenced sales, making it impossible to isolate the independent effect of the tax.

While these studies suggest that sugary drink taxes are indeed effective in reducing purchases, further work is required to understand whether these potential consumption changes lead to better health outcomes.

There are also published data on the effects of health-related food taxes. A paper studying the Danish saturated fat tax measured how the policy had changed consumption of saturated fats and other nutrients ( Reference Smed, Scarborough and Rayner 36 ) . The price changes following the policy's introduction were varied and, in some cases, substantial: for example, the price of a standard pack of butter rose by 20 %. Despite only being in place for 15 months, the authors found that the tax reduced consumption of saturated fat by 4·0 % and increased consumption of vegetables and fibre by 7·9% and 3·7 %, respectively. However, the changes in diet were not all good for health: a 0·4 % rise in salt intake was observed alongside a 0·2 % fall in fruit consumption. The authors also modelled the effects of these dietary changes on mortality from non-communicable diseases and estimated that the changes in fat, fruit and vegetables, and fibre intake would prevent 165 deaths/year. However, the increase in salt consumption would lead to forty-one additional deaths due to the increased risks of hypertension and CVD, leaving the total number of deaths averted by the policy at 123 ( Reference Smed, Scarborough and Rayner 36 ) . This highlights the potential danger of substitutions when fiscal measures targeting foods are used. Indeed, a previous UK study modelling the effects of a 17·5 % tax on saturated fats found that this would worsen population health due to increased salt intake ( Reference Nnoaham, Sacks and Rayner 42 ) .

Along with its tax on sugary drinks, Mexico has an 8 % tax on non-essential foods with an energy density of greater than 1151 kJ (275 kcal)/100 g. Analysis of its effects on packaged foods showed that in its first year, purchases of taxed products fell by an average of 5 %. The greatest purchasing reductions were seen in the lowest socioeconomic tertile, with a fall of 10 %, and no change in purchasing was observed in the highest tertile ( Reference Batis, Rivera and Popkin 43 ) . These data may be relevant to the UK, where the greatest burden of diet-related disease is in the most deprived groups. However, at this stage the effect of the tax on the entire diet is unknown.

The failure of Denmark to maintain their saturated fat tax for more than 15 months shows the challenges of implementing health-related food taxes. Denmark's tax received very little input from public health professionals during its formulation, while the food industry had a substantial influence on the design and revision of the policy ( Reference Bødker, Pisinger and Toft 34 ) . Moreover, the stated aim of tax was to generate revenue, rather than to improve population health, which may have compromised its ability to maximise health outcomes ( Reference Vallgårda, Holm and Jensen 35 ) .

Overall, empirical data from health-related food and drink taxes suggest that almost all have been effective in reducing consumption of the targeted product or nutrient. For sugary drinks, this will likely lead to health benefits, though the scale of these is as yet unknown. The evidence is less compelling for health-related food taxes, and there is a danger of poorly designed taxes causing harm through unforeseen substitution effects.

In April 2018, the UK is due to introduce the SDIL to tackle obesity. While observing the effects of policies in other countries is useful when predicting what might happen, the SDIL is distinct from sugary drink taxes introduced elsewhere. Rather than a single tax rate applied to the product, the SDIL is a two-tiered industry levy where producers are taxed according to a drink's sugar concentration. Drinks containing more than 8 g sugar/100 ml face a 24p tax/litre, 5–8 g sugar/100 ml will be taxed at 18p/litre and drinks containing <5 g/100 ml sugar will not be taxed ( 3 ) . The levy is explicitly designed to encourage changes to industry behaviour rather than to directly affect consumer behaviour. Aside from passing on the tax to consumers, industry could reduce their tax burden by reformulating drinks to decrease sugar content, changing their advertising to encourage consumers to switch to untaxed alternatives, or changing their portion sizes such that taxed drinks are sold for the same price but at a lower volume. Indeed, reformulation is already occurring, with producers including Tesco and Ribena-Lucozade-Suntory either pledging to or already reformulating their products to below 5 g sugar/100 ml ( Reference Tesco 44 , 45 ) .

Recent modelling of the SDIL estimated how different industry responses may affect sugary drink consumption and health in the UK. The authors compared three possible scenarios: reformulation of high- and mid-sugar drinks to reduce sugar by 30 and 15 %, respectively, a price change based on 50 % of the levy being passed on to consumers, and changes to marketing strategies such that there is a 20 % reduction in sugar consumption from high and mid-sugar drinks. The largest reductions in disease burden were estimated to occur following reformulation, with the greatest relative health benefits accruing among children compared with adults. The reformulation scenario was estimated to lead to an overall fall in obesity prevalence of 144 000 people (equivalent to 0·9 % of the obese population), to reduce annual diabetes incidence by 19 000 and to result in 270 000 fewer decayed, missing or filled teeth per year ( Reference Briggs, Mytton and Kehlbacher 46 ) .

However, some of the wider potential impacts of sugary drink taxes (shown in Fig. 1 ) have not yet been quantified. In order to understand the range of possible consequences of the SDIL, prospective evaluation is crucial. Such a study is already underway, funded by the National Institute of Health Research and involving the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The study adopts a systems perspective covering three major areas: whether the levy has an effect on health (and for whom), the process underlying how the levy was introduced and how wider attitudes to the levy change over time ( 47 ) . Data on the price, sugar levels, purchases and consumption of sugary drinks and their substitutes and complements are being collected and analysed. Short-term health outcomes will be estimated where possible, with longer-term outcomes (beyond 2020) being modelled. Industry costs and government revenues will be measured, as well as wider consequences for the economy and there is an ongoing in-depth analysis of how the levy is changing consumer attitudes and behaviours using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Despite the success of sugary drink taxes abroad, as well as modelling suggesting the UK levy will improve public health, the policy still faces criticism. One of the most common objections is that it will cause job losses. An industry-funded report predicted that 4000 posts would be lost as a result of the levy ( 48 ) ; however, the calculations performed failed to adjust for employment gains resulting from increased sales of non-taxed drinks and jobs created in the administration of the policy itself. Indeed, researchers found no reduction in employment in relevant manufacturing and commercial industries associated with the introduction of the Mexican sugary drink tax ( Reference Guerrero-López, Molina and Colchero 49 ) , while modelling from the USA estimates that sugary drink taxes could even lead to a net gain in employment ( Reference Powell, Wada and Persky 50 ) .

Opponents of the SDIL also rightly point out that it is regressive. However, like other taxed products including alcohol and tobacco, these drinks are non-essential and the levy may be progressive for health. This is because more deprived populations generally have a higher prevalence of obesity ( 9 ) . Furthermore, as seen with the Mexican data, those from lower socioeconomic groups may also be more price sensitive. Finally, the SDIL comes alongside a commitment to use the revenue to increase funding for breakfast clubs and after school activities, which may offer greater benefits to those who are less well off.

Health-related food and drink taxes have the capability to modify population diets and reduce disease. Both modelling studies and a growing number of natural experiments indicate that fiscal measures are likely to be effective in bringing about desired price and purchasing changes, while the weight of published data on sugary drink taxes suggests that they will improve population health. However, the evidence is less clear for health-related food taxes, where the consequences of unforeseen changes in substitutions and complementary foods are not as easy to predict and could mitigate any health gain if the tax is poorly designed. This is more likely to happen with taxes on specific nutrients rather than broader food categories because the complexity of a nutrient tax makes it harder to model and evaluate how the overall diet will be affected. Any health-related food tax should, therefore, be both carefully designed and closely evaluated to minimise these unintended consequences and maximise population health.

In this review, we outline the potential for unhealthy food and drink taxes to improve health and highlight where their possible consequences remain uncertain. In addition to their direct effects, the use of these policies alongside other public health strategies could further increase their impact and the revenue generated could be channelled into other health-related interventions. Taxes alone will not solve the burden of diet-related ill health, but they will make an important contribution to shifting both industry and consumer behaviour in the right direction.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank their colleagues at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who form the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy Evaluation Study team, listed here: http://www.cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/research/dietary-public-health/food-behaviours-public-health-interventions/sdil/ , for discussions about evaluating the SDIL which have directly informed the evaluation section of this review. The authors are particularly grateful to the team's Principal Investigator, Professor Martin White, for his detailed comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

Financial support

P. S. is funded by a BHF Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowship (FS/15/34/31656). M. R. is funded by the British Heart Foundation (006/PSS/CORE/2016/OXFORD). A. B., P. S. and M. R. are co-investigators on NIHR Public Health Research funded grants 16/130/01 and 16/49/01 to evaluate the health impacts of UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. No other specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sector was received for this work.

Conflicts of interest

A. D. M. B. is a member of the Faculty of Public Health and the UK Health Forum. M. R. is Chair of Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming and is a member of the UK Health Forum. These three organisations have position statements supporting taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. There are no other conflicts of interest.

E. S. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the manuscript's content and made suggestions and edits to manuscript drafts. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Volume 77, Issue 3
Emma Smith (a1) , Peter Scarborough (a2) , Mike Rayner (a2) and Adam D. M. Briggs (a2) (a3)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665117004165

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest

Taxing Junk Food to Counter Obesity

All authors contributed equally to this article.

We examined the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a junk food tax as an intervention to counter increasing obesity in North America.

Small excise taxes are likely to yield substantial revenue but are unlikely to affect obesity rates. High excise taxes are likely to have a direct impact on weight in at-risk populations but are less likely to be politically palatable or sustainable.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of earmarked health programs and subsidies is likely to be a key determinant of tax success in the fight against obesity.

In response to rapidly increasing obesity in North America, health researchers and policymakers are considering novel approaches to counter the growth of this epidemic. 1 The divergence between energy intake and expenditure has widened since 1970, 2 with a steady increase in daily calorie intake leading scientists and researchers to suggest targeting food consumption as a means of addressing the obesity epidemic. One such approach is now gaining momentum while generating heated debates in and outside the scientific community: a tax on unhealthy foods has been proposed to help reduce their consumption. We consider the implications of implementing 2 types of junk food tax (a nutrient tax and a food and beverage category tax) and provide an overview of arguments in favor of and against their institution. Ethical concerns must be considered along with the current state of scientific evidence about obesity and the efficacy of taxes for behavior change. We have identified significant knowledge gaps that provide direction for future research.

A 2003 World Health Organization–Food and Agricultural Organization report proposed that the cost and pricing of healthy foods were key considerations in the prevention of obesity. 3 The inexpensiveness of unhealthy foods relative to fresh produce 4 is thought to be an important contributor to the overconsumption of junk food. 5 Accordingly, by increasing the price of cheap, energy-dense foods, researchers hope that a junk food tax will prod consumers to reject unhealthy choices in favor of less energy-dense foods. 6 In theory, a junk food tax would encourage a healthy lifestyle by diminishing the consumption of unhealthy foods (specifically snack or fast foods) and motivate manufacturers to produce healthier alternatives. 7

Pricing Policies and Food Consumption

Taxing unhealthy foods is expected to reduce their consumption through the foods’ own- and cross-price elasticity. Price elasticity reflects the magnitude of pricing on product demand and can be defined as the percentage change in the outcome (e.g., food consumption or weight) resulting from a 1% change in price. 6 Price elasticity is critical to consider for accurate forecasting of tax impacts. 8 With food, researchers must take into account its own-price elasticity (elasticity of demand with respect to the good’s own price) and its cross-price elasticity (elasticity of demand for that good, respective to a change in price of another good). In essence, the demand for food products is a function of the price of the item and the price of other food items, purchasing power (income), and other factors that influence personal preference (e.g., advertising). 6 Cross-price elasticity renders consumption of particular foods exceedingly difficult to predict, because it is highly interdependent on other foods. 9 Prediction of cross-price elasticity presents a challenge to data collection on food consumption trends and likely explains the limited literature that exists on the subject.

Existing and Repealed Food Taxes

On October 1, 2011, Denmark introduced the world’s first “fat tax,” with the aim of reducing cardiovascular disease. Any food item containing more than 2.3% saturated fat cost an extra 16 krone (∼US$3) per kilogram (∼2.2 lb). 10 However, the Danish government repealed the tax in November 2012, less than 12 months after its implementation. Danish shoppers had found ways to circumvent the controversial tax by purchasing taxed items across the border, in Germany or Sweden. 11 Although the Danish fat tax was too short-lived to measure its real impact on the consumption of fatty foods, its repeal highlights the challenges that may arise from a tax on unhealthy foods. Nevertheless, several countries today levy taxes on various food items with public health goals in mind. In 2011, Hungary imposed a 10-forint (US$0.04) tax on packaged products high in fat, salt, or sugar to help cover the country’s health care costs. 12–14 France approved its first official soda tax of 1 euro cent per canned drink in December 2011, as part of a bill to reduce the public health care deficit and combat obesity. 13 To date, these tax experiments are too recently implemented to provide longitudinal information on their effect on obesity.

Many US states levy taxes on specific foods to generate revenue, although none with the intent of curbing food consumption, 7 or affecting nutritional content. 15 This is the case of the sales tax (called a value-added tax in Europe and Canada), which targets food but cannot be considered a food tax per se. 7 In Canada and in many US states (40 as of 2009), 16 such taxes are imposed on soft drinks, sweets, and snack foods but not on basic groceries. 15 This practice distinguishes wants from needs and has been implemented in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The true effect of sales taxes on food consumption remains unclear.

Some researchers argue that sales taxes are inefficient, relative to excise taxes, in curbing demand. 16 By contrast to sales taxes, which constitute a percentage of the retail price, excise taxes are levied at a fixed cost per unit of measure. Although consumers can save on sales tax when buying items in bulk, excise taxes are built into the retail price, thereby encouraging consumers to buy less of the product. 15,17,18 A common example is US state excise taxes applied to cigarettes, which as of January 1, 2012, averaged US$1.46 per pack. 19 However, sales taxes can still affect health outcomes: as of 2003, US states without sales taxes on soft drinks or snack foods were 4 times as likely as states with a tax to have a relative increase in the prevalence of obesity. 20 Similar results were found in states that had repealed an existing soft drink or snack food tax, making them 13 times as likely as other states to have an increase in obesity (> 75th percentile). 6 Positive health outcomes resulting from taxes not targeted toward health outcomes could be a promising sign for taxes implemented within a public health agenda.

The imposition of a value-added tax (in Europe and Canada) and sales taxes (in the United States) on food has shown with certainty that even small taxes can generate very high revenue. Researchers estimate that a national excise tax of 1 cent per 12-ounce soft drink could amount to US$1.5 billion per year. 21 Nevertheless, many recent tax propositions have been voted down or repealed, including New York Governor David Patterson’s 2010 plan for a sugary soft drink tax and California Assemblyman Bill Monning’s proposed US$0.01-per-ounce soda tax. Support from within the food and beverage industries will be difficult to secure regardless of the promise of public health revenue, because powerful stakeholders and lobbyists have a vested interest in keeping product consumption high.

JUNK FOOD TAX PROPOSALS

By and large, tax propositions fall into 2 camps: taxes on specific nutrients and taxes on predefined food and beverage categories. Both face important practical challenges resulting from an attempt to classify foods that are often complex combinations of various ingredients in varying quantities. We consider the feasibility of each proposal, outlining their strengths and weaknesses in turn.

Taxing nutrients

The rationale for targeting nutrients in tax policies is that some sources of energy have little nutritional value and have been identified as key contributors to the prevalence of global overweight and obesity. 15,22 A 2001 report released by the UK National Audit Office on tackling obesity in England pointed out that fat has a higher energy density than other nutrients. 23 Furthermore, meals are increasingly being consumed outside the home, and these meals tend to be higher in fat. 23 A literal fat tax, like the one repealed in Denmark, theoretically would encourage individuals to opt for low-fat or nonfat alternatives. Another approach might be to tax unhealthy foods according to composition; for instance, any food composed of more than 30% fat or 40% sugar. 1 In theory, both methods would target a wide variety of problem foods and food distributors. Similarly, an ingredient tax (e.g., on high-fructose corn syrup) could encourage manufacturers to use fewer unhealthy additives and produce healthier, tax-exempt products. 1 However, taxing nutrients or ingredients is highly challenging: not all fats are unhealthy, and taxing foods according to fat content would lead to items such as nuts incurring very high taxes. 15 This is problematic not only for consumers but also for specialty food retailers (e.g., cheese vendors) whose limited variety of products would be disproportionately taxed as was the case in Denmark. 11 Because manufacturers regularly update and modify the production processes of certain foods, this approach would also entail a perpetual game of governmental catch-up, reevaluating and altering tax rates in an attempt to keep up with production changes. 15

Taxing Snack Foods

Taxing food categories has been proposed as a method to bypass many of the problems inherent in nutrient taxes. 7 Its pragmatism is rooted in the understanding that some foods do not constitute basic needs. 7,24 Some researchers suggest that a snack tax is most legislatively feasible. 8 It could also be the most effective because the majority of the increase in caloric intake since the 1980s is thought to result from snack consumption. 25 Snack foods are often processed and energy dense, which leads many tax proponents to advocate the inclusion of such foods in policy recommendations. 7

However, available evidence suggests that a snack tax alone might be ineffective in addressing the obesity epidemic. 20 A 20% tax on potato chips would theoretically result in a nonsignificant 830-calorie reduction per capita, less than a quarter of a pound per year. 8 Snack foods also present categorization gray areas. A 2008 review identified products commonly characterized at the state level as snack foods, including candy, chewing gum, chips, pretzels, ice cream, popsicles, milkshakes, and baked goods. 26 The question arises: Is a tax-free breakfast bar fundamentally healthier than a taxed candy bar? 27 Food categorization has inherent difficulties, regardless of how inclusive the categories may be.

Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) may be the single most important driver of the obesity epidemic. 16 In the past decade alone, per capita intake of calories derived from carbonated drinks and SSBs has increased by approximately 30%. 16 Moreover, beverages are thought to account for 10% to 15% of calorie intake for children and adolescents. 16 Recent research has found that individuals who are genetically predisposed to adiposity are more susceptible to the adverse health consequences of SSB consumption. 28 A SSB tax could also yield measurable results: one study found that a decrease of just one quarter of the calories obtained from SSBs would lead to an estimated reduction of 8000 calories per capita, which translates to just over 2 pounds per year for the average individual. 16 This reduction would substantially reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and related conditions. 16 Other estimated impacts of a SSB tax on obesity are more modest, including one study’s projected decrease of 0.06 body mass index points resulting from a high (20%) soft drink tax. 24 These estimates must be considered in the context of certain limitations, such as the validity of body mass index as a surrogate measure of obesity. In addition, the extent of the effect is likely to vary among demographic groups.

A SSB tax might also constitute the largest source of tax revenues to be obtained from a snack tax. A penny-per-ounce SSB tax could generate an estimated US $78.9 billion over a 5-year period, or almost US $118 billion in a broader soft drink tax that would include diet varieties. 29 Thus, although only hefty taxes would significantly reduce SSB consumption, 16 small taxes would still generate substantial revenue, which could be earmarked to subsidize healthy foods. Estimates suggest that a 55% tax rate would decrease the proportion of overweight and obese individuals by 0.7%. 30 Such a weight reduction is projected to have an impact over time but would not reverse obesity trends by itself. 30 Inevitably, weight outcomes will depend on which product substitutions, if any, consumers choose to make. 16,31,32

THE TAX DEBATE

Junk food tax proposals lend themselves to considerable ethical scrutiny. Arguments range from consumer-level considerations to a more general discussion on the role of government in industry.

Regressive Excise Taxes

As in the case of any excise tax, low-income populations would spend a greater relative percentage of their annual income on an unhealthy food tax than would higher-income individuals. 7 The argument has been raised that such a tax is unethical because food (as opposed to cigarettes or alcohol) is an essential need. 6 However, low-income populations consume more junk food than do high-income ones, 33 and they are generally at higher risk of obesity and chronic diseases. 20 It follows that low-income individuals might be more likely to change their consumption behaviors and experience long-term health benefits. 9 In addition, revenue generated from such a tax, if used for healthy food subsidies and educational programs, could help offset the costs that are borne by low-income consumers. 32 In light of such compensations, regressivity becomes a significantly less compelling argument. However, a real concern would be to ensure access to subsidized foods, or populations living in so-called food deserts might be doubly disadvantaged by price increases and travel costs to faraway supermarkets.

Healthy Food Subsidies and Health Education Programs

Controversy surrounds the justification of a junk food tax on the basis of revenue. This approach arguably fails to address the real problem: the promotion and consumption of unhealthy foods. 7 Health campaigns funded from tax revenue could not hope to compete with fast-food and junk food industry marketing dollar for dollar. 7 The theoretical double whammy effect of a tax that decreases unhealthy food consumption while generating high revenue to fund educational programs is idealistic, because a tax that successfully reduces consumption of a product cannot be relied on for sustained revenue. 6 However, the combined effects of an excise tax and subsidies might be greater than either effect alone. A small tax would be unlikely to measurably decrease consumption but would raise significant revenue. Consequently, the effect of a tax on population weight feasibly could arise from subsidies funded by this tax.

Government Intervention

One of the most common arguments opposing a tax on unhealthy foods is its impingement on individual freedom. However, the costs of obesity arising from individuals’ poor nutritional choices are borne by society as a whole through taxes, lost productivity, and an overburdened health care system. 15 In 2008, the medical costs associated with obesity and obesity-related illnesses totaled US$147 billion in the United States. 34 Obesity costs also affect the workplace, where decreased productivity and increased absenteeism affect the large-scale functioning of society. 16 Proponents of government intervention liken it to a form of stewardship, designed to help bring about changes that individuals on their own cannot. 35 Stewardship is not well received when it attempts to protect individuals from harming themselves. 35 The question must be asked, however, whether people are equipped with sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions about food consumption. Accordingly, economists suggest that government-mandated excise taxes are typically appropriate to correct market failures. 36,37 With respect to food, this translates to factors that influence consumers to make suboptimal nutrition choices, such as information failures (the extent to which consumers are fully informed about the immediate and long-term health implications of their food choices) and the failure to consider external costs (for the health care system and workplace) when consumers choose what to eat. 36 Regulation may constitute a middle road between a state that prohibits all risky activities and one that leaves people’s health to themselves and to the hidden hand of the market. 35

This hidden hand may be overriding individuals’ will because increasing evidence shows that junk food may be addictive. 1,17 Palatable foods activate brain reward circuitry in a similar fashion to many addictive drugs, and soaring obesity rates may be correlated to the increased availability of and exposure to highly reinforcing comfort foods. 38 Brain-imaging studies show that reductions in dopamine D 2 receptors in obese individuals are similar in magnitude to those of drug addicts and might play a modulating role in conferring a particular vulnerability to compulsive eating behaviors. 39 These findings support the belief that people often want to lose weight and be healthier but find it exceedingly difficult to do so. In light of the potential for addiction, it would be reasonable for governments to consider as a model regulations that have been implemented for similarly addictive activities and products (casino gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs), 1 without expecting any single intervention to remedy the state of obesity in North America on its own.

Impact and Acceptability of a Junk Food Tax

Individual characteristics, including current weight and motivation to lose weight, 40 must be taken into account to estimate the effects of a tax on various populations. For instance, obese individuals find food more reinforcing than do leaner people and would be unlikely to respond to a small price increase. 41 An important consideration for preventive health, however, is that demand for unhealthy foods is somewhat elastic for nonobese individuals. 41 In the endeavor of reversing growing obesity trends, prevention is paramount. Therefore, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of a junk food tax (should one be implemented) must incorporate the preventive impact of such a tax on families, particularly on children, whose early eating habits are largely formed at home. Other demographic characteristics that influence price elasticity of demand are age and socioeconomic status. One study found that children in low-income households and children at risk for overweight were 50% and 39%, respectively, more price sensitive than higher-income and lower-risk children. 42 This evidence suggests that pricing strategies could help combat the obesity epidemic, particularly among populations with low socioeconomic status and high consumption of junk food. 20 It is important not to conflate the price elasticity of foods of children and adolescents with that of adults. Tobacco price elasticity, for instance, is several times as large for youths as for adults, in part because of the greater proportion of disposable income children and adolescents spend on such products. 8

Public acceptance of a junk food tax is likely to vary within and between interest groups. Objections on behalf of the food and beverage industry are to be expected. Although efforts to offset consumption by means of pricing policies have been effective in the case of tobacco products, 43,44 taxing food is considerably more challenging, because pitting problem foods against desirable ones is arguably an arbitrary practice. Lessons learned in overcoming opposition to the tobacco tax might help inform legislators and policymakers about how best to address similar controversy over junk food taxes. Several polls have indicated that public support depends on the use of tax revenue. 7 Moderate public acceptance was documented for small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods, provided the revenues would be used to fund obesity prevention and health education programs. 7 A 2012 telephone survey of US citizens found that a significant minority of respondents (36% of 592 individuals) favored a hefty excise tax (20%) on prepackaged SSBs. 45 Small taxes targeting key groups (e.g., children) are most likely to obtain public support, although by themselves they are unlikely to have any measurable effect on obesity rates. 7 The more intrusive the policy measure (or the higher the tax), the less public support can be expected; conversely, the more emphasis that is placed on public awareness and education, the more support such measures are likely to garner. 35

Our understanding of the effects of pricing on food remains limited. This is largely attributable to the difficulty of predicting the impact of food prices among a wealth of other factors that influence body weight. 46 Increasing consumption of healthy foods without reducing consumption of energy-dense fast foods would have little to no measurable effect on obesity. Thus, not only must we consider that desirable weight outcomes are likely to be achieved only if taxed foods are not substituted with nontaxed isocaloric foods and beverages, 18 but we must also acknowledge the potential of an overall increase in total energy intake resulting from consuming more low-calorie items. 20 These last points form the crux of today’s debate surrounding the tax: although experimental studies have shed some light on consumers’ food substitution choices, little evidence is available to forecast the effect of cross-price elasticity in uncontrolled settings. 47 This uncertainty helps explain why the literature does not unanimously favor a tax on unhealthy foods.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of these findings, a junk food consumption deterrent in the form of a modest tax on selected nutrients, snacks, or SSBs would yield substantial revenues to governments, but is unlikely to affect obesity rates. 6 Several studies suggest that high taxes (≥ 20%) may lead to measurable decreases in obesity on a population level, particularly if combined with additional interventions (e.g., healthy food subsidies, health education). 6,32,46,48 These considerations are important and may be especially relevant for obesity prevention in high-risk populations. Although unwilling politicians may oppose them, high taxes would have the greatest impact on adolescents, persons of low socioeconomic status, and populations at risk for obesity. 6,32

Ultimately, much of the evidence against or in favor of a tax on unhealthy food is derived from incomplete information. Pilot pricing interventions in specific closed settings should be considered as an approach to further our understanding of the true effects of a tax on obesity at the population level.

Human Participant Protection

No protocol approval was needed because no human participants were involved.

Death, Taxes and the Fight Against Junk Food

Some taxes just might make us healthier.

Benjamin Franklin, in 1789, pointed out that nothing is certain but death and taxes. Though to be fair, the same dismal sentiment had already popped up in 1726, in Daniel Defoe’s The Political History of the Devil . It’s a phrase on many of our minds on income tax day.

A new breed of taxes, however, now has the potential to make us both healthier and longer-lived. The latest of these went into effect this month inside the Navajo Nation, a 27,000-square-mile reservation home to 250,000 people, with territory extending into Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. Known as the Healthy Diné Nation Act , this is the first U.S. tax imposed on both sugary drinks and junk foods. (See Why Empty Calories Are a Big Problem .) At the same time, the Navajo Nation has lifted the current 5 percent tax on healthy fruits and vegetables sold on the reservation.

Native activists, worried about the prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease among the Navajo, are hopeful that the new tax will steer people away from sugar-laden sodas, cheese puffs, chips, and fried pies and toward healthy food choices of the sort made from Michael Pollan’s recommended edges of the grocery store . A problem for the Navajo, however, is availability of food on the reservation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has deemed the Navajo Nation a “food desert:” in some local stores, over 90 percent of the inventory is devoted to junk foods and high-sugar drinks. In a 2012 survey, it was found that over half of tribal members bought their food off the reservation, in some cases driving over 200 miles round-trip for fresh vegetables and meats.

With the revenue from the new tax, the Diné Community Advocacy Alliance (DCAA), a grassroots consortium of concerned volunteers, hopes to implement programs on gardening and nutrition education – and as local demand for healthy food increases, they hope to see an improvement in food offerings at local grocery stores.

Most health advocates agree that junk food taxes – in the face of our national obesity crisis – are a good idea. The medical cost of obesity is somewhere between $147 and $210 billion dollars a year, with childhood obesity accounting for $14 billion of the total – collectively about 10 percent of all annual medical spending.

A 2012 report from the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity found that sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), such as sodas and sports drinks, are a major source of American daily calories, especially for kids ages 2-18. The report also cited a study showing that for each extra serving of SSBs consumed per day, the chance of obesity goes up by 60 percent. SSBs are also associated with cardiovascular risk, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, and cavities.

The good news: a tax does seem to help wean us off this stuff. The Rudd Center report found that the demand for SSBs goes down when the price goes up; and it drops even more when coupled with nutrition education.

That said, not everybody favors the anti-sugar tax approach. Some citizens argue that such taxes disproportionately impact the already struggling poor. Others protest the idea of “nanny” government attempting to interfere with what should be personal decisions. Most prominently, the influential American Beverage Association – whose membership includes such SSB-manufacturing heavyweights as Coke and Pepsi–not unsurprisingly–objects to soda taxes. Beverage companies successfully defeated Michael Bloomberg’s 2012 attempt to ban super-sized soda sales in New York City.

The handwriting, however, may be on the wall. Now 33 states and several European countries have enacted SSB tax laws – though in the United States, according to a recent article in the Washington Post , the taxes are generally too tiny to have much consumer impact. In 2014, Mexico–by some accounts the largest consumer of SSBs in the world–levied a 10 percent tax on (non-alcoholic and non-dairy) sugary drinks, along with an 8 percent tax on junk foods, among them salty snacks, candy, ice cream, and (peculiarly) peanut butter. It’s not clear yet whether or not the tax is helping Mexicans kick their soda habit. Various analyses show soda sales down by 2 to 10 percent, but, some argue, that might be accounted for by normal year-to-year variation.

In November, 2014, Berkeley, CA, passed an SSB tax by a landslide–despite $2 million pumped into the campaign by the annoyed American Beverage Association–levying a general tax on all companies that distribute high-sugar, low-nutrition drinks. (San Francisco’s heftier SSB tax proposal failed to pass.)

Some studies point out that the hoped-for relationship between taxation and obesity–taxation up, obesity down–isn’t as straightforward as predicted. The reason may be that obesity is a complex problem, involving many factors. However, if SSB and junk food taxes at least persuade us to think about our nutritional choices, that’s not a bad measure of success.

I’d say let’s follow the Navajos.

Are ultra-processed foods as addictive as cigarettes?

Cholesterol, triglycerides, and nutrition: How your diet may increase your cancer odds

Ozempic and Mounjaro may also lower your risk of obesity-linked cancer

Is 'Ozempic face' real? Here's what sudden weight loss does to your body

The weight loss drugs you’re getting may be fake

Environment
Paid Content

History & Culture

History & Culture
Destination Guide
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Your US State Privacy Rights
Children's Online Privacy Policy
Interest-Based Ads
About Nielsen Measurement
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Nat Geo Home
Attend a Live Event
Book a Trip
Inspire Your Kids
Shop Nat Geo
Visit the D.C. Museum
Learn About Our Impact
Support Our Mission
Advertise With Us
Customer Service
Renew Subscription
Manage Your Subscription
Work at Nat Geo
Sign Up for Our Newsletters
Contribute to Protect the Planet

More From Forbes

Should we tax junk foods to curb obesity.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Taxing junk food manufacturers could indirectly promote healthier food choices, a new study suggests ... [+] (Credit: Shutterstock).

A new study out today proposes a strategy for fighting obesity that may seem unrealistic in the current era of business-friendly government policies: a national excise tax on junk food manufacturers. But it’s not such a crazy idea, say researchers from New York University and Tufts University. In fact, a handful of other countries have tried it, and early evidence suggests it does have a positive impact on public health.

The study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, is a review of every scientific paper published on U.S. and international food taxes through May of last year. After analyzing the data, the researchers concluded that an excise tax on junk food manufacturers would be legally viable and relatively easy to administer .

And even though such a tax wouldn’t hit consumers directly, as a sales tax would, it could have an indirect effect on eating choices—and by extension, obesity—says lead author Jennifer Pomeranz, assistant professor of public health policy and management at NYU’s College of Global Public Health. “The reason to use excise taxes is the expectation that [manufacturers] will pass on the increased costs by raising prices,” Pomeranz says. “Consumers end up either avoiding the product or replacing it with something different. Or the manufacturers have the option to reformulate and come up with products that will not be taxed.”

While there is widespread disagreement about what the role of government should be in the fight against widening waistlines, virtually everyone agrees obesity is a serious problem. More than one out of every three adults are obese , according to the National Institutes of Health. About one in six people under the age of 19 have obesity. Being overweight or obese raises the risk of several disorders, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and joint disease.

Local governments have tried a variety of strategies in recent years to curb rising rates of obesity. Berkeley, CA, imposes taxes on soda distributors, for example. Similar laws were passed in 2016 in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, CA, as well as in Boulder, CO.

Whether or not those taxes will actually make a dent in obesity is a matter of fierce debate, however. A study out of Cornell University in 2016 found that prices on sugary drinks in Berkeley didn’t increase as much as expected after that city’s tax went into effect, and many stores in the city didn’t pass along the cost of the taxes to consumers . That raised questions about whether local taxes will make any difference at all in the fight against obesity.

Pomeranz and her co-authors believe a national excise tax would be more effective, partly because it might incentivize food manufacturers to change the ingredients in their products. They suggest that for the purposes of such a tax, junk food should be defined according to a combination of product category (such as candy, salty snacks and so forth) and nutrients (namely sugar). Such a tax would be even better if it were graduated, they say, meaning it would go up as the nutritional value of the food goes down.

One country that has already seen a positive impact on public health from a junk food excise tax is Hungary. Manufacturers of junk foods in that country pay a “value added tax” of 27% on top of the 25% tax that’s imposed on most foods. Hungary’s law levies the junk food tax based largely on sugar and salt content.

Four years after Hungary’s tax was introduced, more than 59% of consumers had lowered their consumption of the offending junk food products, according to a study conducted by the country’s National Institute of Pharmacy and Nutrition and the World Health Organization (WHO). Overweight or obese adults were twice as likely to change their eating habits than were people of normal weight, the researchers found. When consumers were polled, they reported that they were opting for less expensive products—but that the taxes also made them more mindful of the health risks of junk food.

“Hungary has been touted by the World Health Organization as one of the most effective taxes they’ve seen because it has reduced consumption of [junk food] products,” Pomeranz says. “The educational component also reduced consumption. It wasn’t just about the price increase.”

Implementing a national tax on junk food in the U.S. wouldn’t be all that difficult, the NYU and Tufts researchers argue. There is already a model in place: an excise tax on alcohol manufacturers that’s based largely on ingredient levels. For wine, the tax increases according to the amount of alcohol in the drink.

Pomeranz is well aware that the idea of taxing junk food probably won’t gain much traction now, especially considering that President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress just passed a major tax cut for businesses. Still, she hopes the research will spark ideas for new ways to tackle the obesity problem in the future.

“Politics shifts all the time. The hope is that at some point a more public-health-friendly administration will come in and continue to support evidence-based policies,” Pomeranz says. “As public health advocates and researchers, we believe the fight must continue.”

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Open access
Published: 20 November 2018

The evidence—and acceptability—of taxes on unhealthy foods

Selvi Rajagopal 1 ,
Anne Barnhill 2 &
Joshua M. Sharfstein ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0036-6785 3

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research volume 7 , Article number: 68 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

8 Citations

31 Altmetric

Metrics details

The Original Article was published on 31 July 2018

The global obesity pandemic has public advocates and policymakers grappling with the question of how best to respond. Among the various policy options, unhealthy food and beverage taxes have gained attention as a potentially effective intervention to reduce non-nutritive caloric intake, while raising government funds for health promotion programs at the community level. Yet in many countries, including in Israel, such proposals have not gained broad support. Cities in both United States and Mexico have found that taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages reduce consumption. Yet the food industry has successfully fought many such policies. Looking forward, those supporting taxation policies will need to provide clear evidence, a compelling use of funds raised, a convincing answer to industry claims, and attention to equity in implementation. With no easy fixes in sight to obesity, it is likely that taxes will remain viable – if contested – options for the foreseeable future.

With more than a quarter of global mortality now attributed to diseases related to obesity, including cardiovascular disease and stroke [ 1 ], it is no surprise that policymakers are considering a range of potential responses. Of growing interest are proposals that would increase the price of unhealthy foods in order to lower their consumption. Advocates for these policies often cite as a model the experience of cigarette taxes, which have been established as effective and widely adopted to reduce tobacco-related disease [ 2 ].

Tamir et al. recently published a qualitative assessment of key stakeholders’ views on taxes on unhealthy food and beverages in Israel [ 3 ]. The researchers found that a broad range of interested persons -- including legislators, healthcare providers, parents and families -- agreed that obesity was a problem of significant public concern. However, few believed that taxes on unhealthy food and beverage would lead to lower consumption. Moreover, legislators appeared particularly skeptical that such taxes would be acceptable to Israelis.

This research introduces two important questions: Do taxes on unhealthy foods improve the diet? And if so, why is there not more support for imposing them?

Evidence on effectiveness comes primarily from experience in the United States and Mexico [ 4 ]. U.S. jurisdictions that have a tax on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs), include four in California (Albany, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco), the cities of Seattle, Boulder, and Philadelphia, and the Navajo Nation. The first city to adopt the SSB tax was Berkeley, California in 2014, with a $0.01 per ounce excise tax on SSBs, of which an estimated 47% of the tax was transferred to retail customers through sales prices [ 5 ]. Within 4 months of policy implementation, the city saw a 21% reduction in the consumption of SSBs and a 68% increase in the consumption of water. These changes were concentrated in lower socioeconomic communities, where the burden of obesity is highest [ 5 ]. Philadelphia observed similar results following its tax legislation [ 6 ]. Mexico’s 2014 excise tax on SSBs yielded a 5.5% reduction in the purchase of taxed beverages over the first year and a 9.7% reduction in the second year, with the largest decrease in purchases observed among lower socioeconomic households [ 7 ]. Mexico’s 8% sales tax on unhealthy foods also resulted in a 5.8% decline in the purchase of taxed foods among households of medium socioeconomic status households, and a 10.2% decline among households of lower socioeconomic status [ 8 ]. It is too early to assess the impact of these taxes in the context of market and policy changes on overall dietary change and obesity rates.

With clear evidence that taxes reduce consumption of unhealthy food and beverages, why is their adoption so contested? In part, the controversy reflects a sustained campaign of opposition by the food industry, including manufacturers of SSBs. A primary message of this campaign is that taxation is an undue restriction of individual choice and is unfair towards low-income families. Lobbying groups echo the message of the food industry [ 9 , 10 ] and frame taxes as an unwarranted violation of Americans’ freedom, with one website proclaiming “all of us are tired of the government trying to control us.” [ 10 ] A survey study of Americans’ opinions of policies aimed to reduce SSB consumption found that 65% of people responded favorably for calorie labeling, which would afford greater choice to the consumer, but 76% opposed SSB taxes [ 11 ]. Most recently, following intense lobbying from the American Beverage Association, California imposed a ban on further soda taxes until 2031 [ 12 ].

Whether advocates of taxes on unhealthy food can overcome opposition depends on their ability to develop and disseminate a compelling case. In addition to the evolution of the scientific evidence, two factors may play an outsized role in the outcome of policy debates.

The first factor is how the revenue raised from taxes will be spent. As a public health intervention alone, a tax on unhealthy food may not be broadly appealing. However, in all US cities where the tax is employed, millions of dollars in revenue are being collected by local governments, who have earmarked funds for health promotion in low income communities, through health education, parks and recreation development, improved drinking water access, pre-kindergarten education, and chronic disease prevention. Philadelphia used the $72 million in tax revenue to send 2400 children to pre-school [ 13 ]. In San Francisco, $4.5 million of the expected $10 million revenue from sugar sweetened beverage taxes will fund grants supporting community-based organizations and $2.5 million will be given to the San Francisco Unified School District to provide healthy meals, water fountain maintenance and oral care in schools [ 14 ].

The second factor is whether advocates can provide an effective response to arguments against taxes. One promising approach is for supporters of taxes to acknowledge that there is a trade-off between individuals’ access to marketed products and the community’s ability to take action against significant threats to health. This view argues that as with cigarette taxes, modest restrictions of individual choice are justifiable when they support individual and community health and well-being.

This argument can be extended into a response to concerns that the taxes are unfair to low-income families. Tobacco taxes also disproportionately burden those with limited income. However, in part because such taxes also disproportionately reduce smoking and the burden of tobacco-related diseases in low-income communities, such taxes have been broadly accepted. More controversial are regressive taxes on necessities, such as groceries, with the majority of U.S. states exempting such products from general sales taxes. Thus the perceived fairness of a SSB tax may depend on whether SSBs are seen more like tobacco products (harmful, not necessities) or more like groceries (necessities). The heavy burden of diabetes and obesity in lower socioeconomic households, along with the evidence linking SSB and unhealthy foods with these diseases supports the need for a policy level intervention, such as a tax, to improve the health of these very communities. Resolving difficult questions of equity requires engagement with communities that would be most affected by the policy in policy discussions, to assess their preferences and priorities. Policymakers should consider earmarking funds from taxes on unhealthy foods specifically to benefit lower socioeconomic communities.

The pace of change in responding to obesity reflects both the relative strength of the evidence and the changing acceptability of various options. Given the difficulty in changing diets and reducing obesity, the lack of “easy” solutions, and the potential for a convincing case to be made for adoption, there is every reason for communities to consider taxation of unhealthy beverages and foods as part of a comprehensive approach to diet and health.

WHO | cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). 2018. http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/en/ . Accessed 24 Sept 2018.

Google Scholar

Kahende JW, Loomis BR, Adhikari B, Marshall L. A review of economic evaluations of tobacco control programs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(1):51–68. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19440269 . https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6010051.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Tamir O, Cohen-Yogev T, Furman-Assaf S, Endevelt R. Taxation of sugar sweetened beverages and unhealthy foods: A qualitative study of key opinion leaders’ views. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018;7(1):43. Accessed 24 Sept 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0240-1.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Basu S, Madsen K. Effectiveness and equity of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. PLoS Med. 2017;14(6):e1002327. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1919497826 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002327 .

Falbe J, Thompson HR, Becker CM, Rojas N, McCulloch CE, Madsen KA. Impact of the berkeley excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1865–71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552267 . https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362 .

Zhong Y, Auchincloss AH, Lee BK, Kanter GP. The short-term impacts of the philadelphia beverage tax on beverage consumption. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(1):26–34. Accessed 21 Sept 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.02.017.

Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing A sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564–71. Accessed 3 Oct 2018. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231.

Article Google Scholar

Taillie LS, Rivera JA, Popkin BM, Batis C. Do high vs. low purchasers respond differently to a nonessential energy-dense food tax? two-year evaluation of mexico’s 8% nonessential food tax. Prev Med. 2017;105S:S42. Accessed 21 Sept 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.009 .

Small victory for soda lovers in California. The Center for Consumer Freedom website. 2018. https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2018/07/small-victory-for-soda-lovers-in-california/ . Accessed 3 Oct 2018.

Your Cart Your Choice archives. Americans for Food and Beverage Choice website. 2017. https://yourcartyourchoice.com/filter/your-cart-your-choice/ . Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

Gollust SE, Barry CL, Niederdeppe J. Americans’ opinions about policies to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Prev Med. 2014;63:52–7. Accessed 22 Oct 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.002.

Hamblin A. Why Governor Brown signed a California ban on soda taxes to avoid what he called an ‘abomination’. 2018. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-soda-tax-20180628-htmlstory.html . Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

Kaplan, J. Soda wars rage on in Philly, where tax is blamed for job losses. Bloomberg.com . 2018. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/soda-wars-rage-on-in-philly-where-tax-is-blamed-for-job-losses . Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

Sawyer, N. Soda tax starts paying off. 2018. http://www.sfweekly.com/news/soda-tax-starts-paying-off/ . Updated 2018. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Availability of data and materials.

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

General Preventive Medicine Residency, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA

Selvi Rajagopal

Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

Anne Barnhill

Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe Street, W1033F, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA

Joshua M. Sharfstein

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the writing and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua M. Sharfstein .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

Selvi Rajagopal is a pediatrician, resident in preventive medicine, and MPH candidate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Anne Barnhill is a Research Scholar with the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program at the Berman Institute at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Barnhill is a philosopher and bioethicist who works on food ethics, food policy, and public health ethics.

Joshua Sharfstein is Professor of the Practice in Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He is the former health Commissioner of Baltimore City, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and Health Secretary of the State of Maryland.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rajagopal, S., Barnhill, A. & Sharfstein, J.M. The evidence—and acceptability—of taxes on unhealthy foods. Isr J Health Policy Res 7 , 68 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0264-6

Download citation

Received : 29 October 2018

Accepted : 05 November 2018

Published : 20 November 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-018-0264-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Unhealthy food and beverage taxes
Public health
Food industry
Lower socioeconomic status

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

ISSN: 2045-4015

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

Why taxing ‘junk food’ to tackle obesity isn’t as simple as it seems

Lead for Evidence-Based Medicine and Nutrition, Aston Medical School, Aston University

Disclosure statement

Duane Mellor has provided technical nutrition advice to the slush drinks industry and out of home advertising industry. They are also a member of the British Dietetic Association.

Aston University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Former prime minister Tony Blair has called for more taxes on junk food to tackle the UK’s obesity crisis. This includes extending sugar taxes beyond just soft drinks, as well as taxing food that is high in salt and fat. Blair also called for restrictions on advertising unhealthy food.

The former PM believes this is the only way to save the NHS. “We’ve got to shift from a service that’s treating people when they’re ill to a service that is focused on wellbeing, on prevention, on how people live more healthy lives,” he told The Times Health Commission.

But is it as simple as that? A levy on sugary drinks was introduced in the UK in 2018 which led to drinks makers reformulating their products so they contained less sugar. A year later, the British public was consuming less sugar . However, sugar consumption had been falling in Britain before the levy was introduced. Once this was factored into the analysis, there was no significant fall in sugar consumption.

Denmark experimented with a fat tax and it had similar underwhelming results. It was hailed as a world-leading public health policy when it was introduced in October 2011 but was abandoned 15 months later.

According to one survey, only 7% of Danes reduced the amount of butter, cream and cheese they bought. A different survey found that 80% did not change their food shopping habits at all.

However, whether or not levies on unhealthy food work is difficult to determine. Advocates for these programmes tend to highlight positive effects based on data modelling rather than actual changes in people’s weight and health. Detractors, on the other hand, quickly challenge such policies as being the enactment of the “nanny state”.

Where and what to tax?

Although the UK’s sugar tax led to drinks being reformulated to have less sugar, it also had some unintended consequences. For example, sugary drinks called slushies needed to have glycerol (E422) added to them to maintain their slush (artificial sweeteners failed to produce the required “slush”).

While this is safe for most older children and adults, the Food Standards Agency identified a possible risk of glycerol intoxication in smaller children and suggested sales should be restricted to children five years old and older.

Another unintended consequence is making the poor poorer by raising the price of food. If taxes or levies are extended beyond drinks and sugar to include all food high in fat, salt and sugar, the cost of this reformulation is likely to be passed on to the consumer.

With the current cost of living crisis, this is simply not acceptable to politicians or many of the public. If such levies are introduced, they need to be a smarter version of the soft drinks industry levy. It should drive food producers to change the food they produce, making less healthy ingredients cost more while making it more profitable to grow and supply healthier food.

What is ‘junk’ food?

The next challenge is to identify which food to tax.

Blair suggested “junk food”, which he defined as high in fat, salt and sugar - often called HFSS foods . It is these foods that can no longer be advertised on Transport for London sites.

This has been hailed as a success. These restrictions on advertising are estimated to have significantly decreased the average amount of HFSS foods households buy each week.

This data was then used to claim that this change reduced the number of people with obesity by 100,000 . This claim has been heavily criticised . It is an estimate, and the change in the number of people who are overweight or obese linked to the advertising ban is unknown.

So, although there may be some merit in tackling advertising, it perhaps needs to be smarter and respond to modern and emerging trends in advertising strategies. The focus on out-of-home advertising, which is the Transport for London approach, does not look at how social media and online advertising linked to cookies and trackers can build a message for potential consumers. Challenging how advertisers link campaigns across media is probably more effective.

An alternative is to focus where advertising is permitted. For example, regulating billboards near schools so that they only show healthy messages may be a more effective solution.

This is before considering the potentially stigmatising language in calling food “junk” food, especially given the message is focused on helping poorer people. Perhaps this is why there has been a move to use terms such as “ultra-processed food”.

Both, however, are slightly subjective. The HFSS definition could include cheese and Greek yoghurt and therefore might suggest that these foods receive an advertising ban. Whereas a fast-food meal with water and carrot sticks – although these may be the least popular meal option – can still be advertised.

When promoting healthier dietary choices, we need to make options like vegetables attractive. This can be difficult for people on low incomes, who might avoid trying new food that might be rejected and wasted. Instead, go for family favourites which might be less healthy but will make sure everyone is full within their budget.

So what are the answers? Perhaps not top-down approaches, such as those proposed by Blair. An example of how our food system can be changed has been set out in the Birmingham Food System Strategy . This sets out how small local food businesses make healthier food widely available across the city, as well as provide employment in the city. This sets out a community-led approach that encourages a city-wide food supply that is healthy for people and the planet.

To solve a complex problem you need subtle and connected changes in many areas that are designed with and are acceptable to those with the most to gain, but who are struggling on low incomes.

Public health
Give me perspective

Professor of Indigenous Cultural and Creative Industries (Identified)

Communications Director

Associate Director, Post-Award, RGCF

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Unhealthy Foods (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 2 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample essay on the topic of unhealthy foods from the real exam on the topic of unhealthy foods and whether or not governments should tax them.

It’s a very common topic – health and government regulations.

Read it below in case something similar comes up on your test!

Be sure to check out my Patreon exclusive essays as well.

Be sure to listen to the audio first to test your listening skills before reading my sample answer:

Some think that governments should tax unhealthy foods to encourage people to eat healthier. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams

Some think that heavy-handed governmental taxation is the only way to compel healthier eating. In my opinion, while this makes rational sense, its actual effectiveness is questionable.

Those that argue in favour of these taxes can point to a logical chain of suppositions. Though taxes on unhealthy foods are rare, there is the occasional mandated price hike for sugary drinks and fast food, smoking is an instructive corollary. Several decades after research showed that smoking causes cancer, governments were able to push through legislation to tax cigarettes heavily. The result was that those already addicted to smoking continued to smoke but many people did not pick up the habit to begin with. Proponents argue this would also be the case when it comes to foods known to cause cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Many would eat them despite higher prices but the next generation would become more health conscious and that would further trickle down to their children.

Though the above argument is well reasoned, people will still buy luxuries. There is strong evidence for this dating back centuries. After the war of independence from Britain, the newly formed United States instituted direly needed taxes on luxuries including whiskey and chocolate. The purpose of the taxes was to raise money, not to lower consumption of those products. The unpopular acts were internally vindicated when people continued to buy luxuries along the same growth trend, enabling them to increase the national budget. Even though cutting down on purely pleasurable products makes disinterested sense, people are more swayed by instant gratification than cold calculation.

In conclusion, taxes on unhealthy foods would not be an effective measure against their consumption. Instead, governments should invest more in healthy school lunches and making healthy products more widely available to attack the problem at its root source.

Word Count: 295

1. Some think that heavy-handed governmental taxation is the only way to compel healthier eating. 2. In my opinion, while this makes rational sense, its actual effectiveness is questionable.

Paraphrase the overall topic for the essay.
Write your opinion clearly.

1. Those that argue in favour of these taxes can point to a logical chain of suppositions. 2. Though taxes on unhealthy foods are rare, there is the occasional mandated price hike for sugary drinks and fast food, smoking is an instructive corollary. 3. Several decades after research showed that smoking causes cancer, governments were able to push through legislation to tax cigarettes heavily. 4. The result was that those already addicted to smoking continued to smoke but many people did not pick up the habit to begin with. 5. Proponents argue this would also be the case when it comes to foods known to cause cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. 6. Many would eat them despite higher prices but the next generation would become more health conscious and that would further trickle down to their children.

Write a clear topic sentence with a singly main idea.
Explain your main idea if you need to.
Begin to develop it with research/examples/supporting ideas.
Write about the result if possible.
Continue developing – notice the specific ailments I mention.
Your last sentence can relate back to the question and be more general.

1. Though the above argument is well reasoned, people will still buy luxuries. 2. There is strong evidence for this dating back centuries. 3. After the war of independence from Britain, the newly formed United States instituted direly needed taxes on luxuries including whiskey and chocolate. 4. The purpose of the taxes was to raise money, not to lower consumption of those products. 5. The unpopular acts were internally vindicated when people continued to buy luxuries along the same growth trend, enabling them to increase the national budget. 6. Even though cutting down on purely pleasurable products makes disinterested sense, people are more swayed by instant gratification than cold calculation.

Write another topic sentence with a clear main idea.
Begin to develop it. Vary long/short sentences in your writing.
Your examples should be specific so write about the country/example that you know best.
Continue developing the same example.
Keep developing it – don’t switch to a new example or write generally.
Your last sentence can be more general and relate to the overall question.

1. In conclusion, taxes on unhealthy foods would not be an effective measure against their consumption. 2. Instead, governments should invest more in healthy school lunches and making healthy products more widely available to attack the problem at its root source.

Conclude by repeating your opinion.
Add in a final thought/extra detail at the end.

What do the words in bold below mean? Try to figure them out based on the sentences:

Some think that heavy-handed governmental taxation is the only way to compel healthier eating. In my opinion, while this makes rational sense , its actual effectiveness is questionable .

Those that argue in favour of these taxes can point to a logical chain of suppositions . Though taxes on unhealthy foods are rare, there is the occasional mandated price hike for sugary drinks and fast food, smoking is an instructive corollary . Several decades after research showed that smoking causes cancer, governments were able to push through legislation to tax cigarettes heavily . The result was that those already addicted to smoking continued to smoke but many people did not pick up the habit to begin with . Proponents argue this would also be the case when it comes to foods known to cause cardiovascular disease , diabetes and cancer . Many would eat them despite higher prices but the next generation would become more health conscious and that would further trickle down to their children.

Though the above argument is well reasoned , people will still buy luxuries. There is strong evidence for this dating back centuries . After the war of independence from Britain, the newly formed United States instituted direly needed taxes on luxuries including whiskey and chocolate. The purpose of the taxes was to raise money, not to lower consumption of those products. The unpopular acts were internally vindicated when people continued to buy luxuries along the same growth trend , enabling them to increase the national budget . Even though cutting down on purely pleasurable products makes disinterested sense , people are more swayed by instant gratification than cold calculation .

In conclusion, taxes on unhealthy foods would not be an effective measure against their consumption . Instead, governments should invest more in healthy school lunches and making healthy products more widely available to attack the problem at its root source .

heavy-handed strong/over-the-top

compel force

rational sense logical

actual effectiveness whether or not it works

questionable doubtful

argue in favour of support the idea of

point to argue about

logical chain sensible series

suppositions reasons

occasional mandated price hike regulation/tax

instructive corollary useful analogy

push through force

heavily strongly/a lot

addicted can’t stop using

pick up begin

to begin with start

proponents advocates

cardiovascular disease heart attacks

diabetes a disease related to eating too much sugar

cancer a common disease

next generation young people

health conscious caring about what you eat/exercise

further trickle down also contribute to

well reasoned rational

strong evidence good support for

dating back centuries hundreds of years ago

war of independence revolutionary war

newly formed just created

direly urgently

luxuries items you want but don’t need

lower consumption less eating/use

unpopular acts controversial

internally vindicated turned out to be true

growth trend increasing pattern

national budget money for the government to spend

cutting down on reducing

makes disinterested sense logical

swayed influenced

instant gratification pleasure right away

cold calculation rational

effective measure good method

consumption use

more widely available ubiquitous

attack the problem deal with

root source origin/cause

Pronunciation

ˈhɛvɪˈhændɪd kəmˈpɛl ˈræʃənl sɛns ˈækʧʊəl ɪˈfɛktɪvnəs ˈkwɛsʧənəbl ˈɑːgjuː ɪn ˈfeɪvər ɒv pɔɪnt tuː ˈlɒʤɪkəl ʧeɪn ˌsʌpəˈzɪʃənz əˈkeɪʒənl ˈmændeɪtɪd praɪs haɪk ɪnˈstrʌktɪv kəˈrɒləri pʊʃ θruː ˈhɛvɪli əˈdɪktɪd pɪk ʌp tuː bɪˈgɪn wɪð prəˈpəʊnənts ˌkɑːdɪəʊˈvæskjʊlə dɪˈziːz ˌdaɪəˈbiːtiːz ˈkænsə nɛkst ˌʤɛnəˈreɪʃən hɛlθ ˈkɒnʃəs ˈfɜːðə ˈtrɪkl daʊn wɛl ˈriːznd strɒŋ ˈɛvɪdəns ˈdeɪtɪŋ bæk ˈsɛnʧʊriz wɔːr ɒv ˌɪndɪˈpɛndəns ˈnjuːli fɔːmd ˈdaɪəli ˈlʌkʃəriz ˈləʊə kənˈsʌm(p)ʃən ʌnˈpɒpjʊlər ækts ɪnˈtɜːnəli ˈvɪndɪkeɪtɪd grəʊθ trɛnd ˈnæʃənl ˈbʌʤɪt ˈkʌtɪŋ daʊn ɒn meɪks dɪsˈɪntrɪstɪd sɛns sweɪd ˈɪnstənt ˌgrætɪfɪˈkeɪʃən kəʊld ˌkælkjʊˈleɪʃən ɪˈfɛktɪv ˈmɛʒə kənˈsʌm(p)ʃən mɔː ˈwaɪdli əˈveɪləbl əˈtæk ðə ˈprɒbləm ruːt sɔːs

Listen and repeat:

Vocabulary Practice

Remember and fill in the blanks:

Some think that h_____________ governmental taxation is the only way to c_____________ healthier eating. In my opinion, while this makes r_____________ , its a_____________ is q_____________ .

Those that a_____________ these taxes can p_____________ a l_____________ of s_____________ . Though taxes on unhealthy foods are rare, there is the o_____________ for sugary drinks and fast food, smoking is an i_____________ . Several decades after research showed that smoking causes cancer, governments were able to p_____________ legislation to tax cigarettes h_____________ . The result was that those already a_____________ to smoking continued to smoke but many people did not p_____________ the habit t_____________ . P_____________ argue this would also be the case when it comes to foods known to cause c_____________ , d_____________ and c_____________ . Many would eat them despite higher prices but the n_____________ would become more h_____________ and that would f _____________ to their children.

Though the above argument is w_____________ , people will still buy luxuries. There is s_____________ for this d_____________ . After the w_____________ from Britain, the _____________ United States instituted d_____________ needed taxes on l_____________ including whiskey and chocolate. The purpose of the taxes was to raise money, not to l_____________ of those products. The u_____________ were i_____________ when people continued to buy luxuries along the same g_____________ , enabling them to increase the n_____________ . Even though c_____________ purely pleasurable products m_____________ , people are more s_____________ by i_____________ than c_____________ .

In conclusion, taxes on unhealthy foods would not be an e_____________ against their c _____________ . Instead, governments should invest more in healthy school lunches and making healthy products m_____________ to a _____________ at its r _____________ .

Listen and check:

Listening Practice

Listen to the video below to practice your listening and get some ideas about the topic:

Reading Practice

Read here about the success of junk food taxes in Mexico and Hungary:

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16870014/junk-food-tax

Speaking Practice

Answer the questions below from the real IELTS speaking test related to food:

Do you like drinking coffee or tea?
How do you like to drink your coffee?
Is coffee a popular drink in your country at the moment?
When was the last time you had some coffee or tea?

Recommended For You

Latest IELTS Writing Task 1 2024 (Graphs, Charts, Maps, Processes)

by Dave | Sample Answers | 147 Comments

These are the most recent/latest IELTS Writing Task 1 Task topics and questions starting in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and continuing into 2024. ...

Recent IELTS Writing Topics and Questions 2024

by Dave | Sample Answers | 342 Comments

Read here all the newest IELTS questions and topics from 2024 and previous years with sample answers/essays. Be sure to check out my ...

Find my Newest IELTS Post Here – Updated Daily!

by Dave | IELTS FAQ | 18 Comments

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Online Materials (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 7 Comments

This is an IELTS writing task 2 sample answer on the topic of online materials from the real IELTS test/exam. You might also ...

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Old Buildings

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Old Buildings (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 9 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay from the real test/exam on the topic of old and new buildings. This ...

IELTS Essay Business Social Responsibility

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Businesses Social Responsibility (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 11 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay from the real IELTS test/exam related to businesses and whether or not they have social responsibilities. ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Taxing unhealthy food is considered solution in order to improve people s diet. Although taxing policy could help to plunge consumption of fast food, I partially disagree that I can impact competition between restaurants companies. Undoubtedly, taxing of poor dietary foods can reduce sales at fast food restaurants which are famous widespread across the world, furthermore setback at rivalry with other companies Moreover,the last experiences at other consumption spheres demonstrated taxing was not the best solution, for instance taxing of alcoholic drinks didn't plummet utilization of these products. There could be political costs of introducing a new tax so it can be cause probably people s outrage. For example at the last survey from CNN turned out that American people wouldn`t like any restriction or taxing at their diet style 68% rate. On the other hand taxing policy could help to reduce consumption of fast food moderately and a fat tax would make people pay the social cost of unhealthy food. Consumption of fatty foods have external costs on society. For example, eating unhealthy foods contributes to the problem of obesity. Obesity is estimated to cost the UK economy around £6.6–7.4 billion a year. The other benefit is about collected taxes can spend for other problems by government. For instance the money raised from ‘fat tax’ could be used to spend treating health costs of obesity In conclusion, even though taxing policy could help to plunge consumption of fast food, I partially disagree that It can impact competition between restaurants companies and it may not work as thought. Time:50 minutes Fərid Məmmədov Words:257 25.12.2020

Exclusive Ebooks, PDFs and more from me!

Don't miss out!

"The highest quality materials anywhere on the internet! Dave improved my writing and vocabulary so much. Really affordable options you don't want to miss out on!"

Minh, Vietnam

Hi, I’m Dave! Welcome to my IELTS exclusive resources! Before you commit I want to explain very clearly why there’s no one better to help you learn about IELTS and improve your English at the same time... Read more

Patreon Exclusive Ebooks Available Now!

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Junk Food — People Should Eat Less Junk Food

People Should Eat Less Junk Food

Categories: Dieting Junk Food

About this sample

Words: 475 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 475 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Physical health, mental well-being, overall quality of life, counterargument and refutation.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition - https://academic.oup.com/ajcn
Nutritional Neuroscience - https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/iunu20/current
World Health Organization - https://www.who.int
National Institute on Drug Abuse - https://www.drugabuse.gov

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 823 words

2 pages / 1019 words

2 pages / 836 words

2 pages / 880 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Junk Food

Cornelsen, L., Green, R., Dangour, A., & Smith, R. (2014). Why fat taxes won't make us thin. Journal of public health, 37(1), 18-23.Doshi, V. (2016, July 20).Tax on Junk food in Kerala leaves Indians with a bitter taste. The [...]

Oliver, J. (2010, February). Teach every child about food. TED. Retrieved from Publishers.

The presence of junk food in schools has become a pressing concern for educators, parents, and health advocates. The consumption of high-sugar, high-fat, and low-nutrient foods not only affects students' health but also hinders [...]

According to the World Health Organization, in 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults were overweight, of which around 650 million were obese. In the United States alone, more than 42% of the population is considered obese. This [...]

Unhealthy eating is one of the most important health risk factors that can cause a range of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes and other conditions linked to obesity. Unhealthy eating can add [...]

I have chosen unhealthy diet as the lifestyle behavior that affects my health directly. An unhealthy diet is defined as the consumption of “high levels of high-energy foods, such as processed foods that are high in fats and [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Junk Food Should Be Banned in Schools

Junk Food Essay Abstract

Nowadays, the trend of eating junk food is catching up with every teenager. Most teenagers love junk food because it is quickly cooked and delicious. Basically, junk food is sold in grocery stores or restaurants with precooked or preheated ingredients. Recent studies indicate that teenagers are consuming junk food at an alarming rate. Therefore, most junk food advertising is primarily focused on teenagers. However, many teenagers are not aware of the health effects of consuming junk food. The food in the picture is a good example of junk food. Such food looks nice, it tastes well, but is disastrous.

Junk Food Essay Introduction

Despite the consumption of junk food is popular, most of the teenagers know totally nothing regarding the health effects associated with the consumption of junk food. In most cases, they have trouble resisting the urge to taste the food when the shelves of grocery stores, commercials, and fast-food restaurants are overfilled with treats. Hence, it is important for a junk food essay to demonstrate the effects of eating junk food among teenagers.

This junk food essay will also look at ways of reducing the harms of junk food to teenagers. One possible way is to reduce the availability of junk food is informing about its effects at schools. It would be very beneficial if the consumption of junk food among teenagers would reduce at school because, typically, students spend most of their time there, interacting with their peers. It is through this interaction that they are swayed by their peers to eat junk food. And schools’ dining places usually have plenty of junk food for sale. During class breaks, teenagers swarm into dining halls to buy snacks or purchase them from vending machines. There are other possible ways to reduce the harms, such as schools offering nutrition class and grocery stores selling teenagers modified “junk food.”

The topic of junk food is very controversial. It elicits debate whenever it is mentioned. The argument against junk food gets most backing from health experts. This is primarily because they have conducted extensive research on the effects of junk food on teenagers; hence, they are justified in opposing the consumption of junk food. Additionally, parents have begun to realize the harms of teenagers’ eating habits; however, they do not have a good method to keep teenagers away from junk food. On the other hand, teenagers love eating junk food and they are largely affected by what their peers’ are doing. Even the images of fat people do not discourage them from eating junk food either at school, at home or at a restaurant.

The issue of junk food is thought-provoking and exciting because the majority of American teenagers consume junk food on a daily basis and seems to be not concerned with the negative health effects (Spurlock 195). Most of the diseases including heart attacks, high blood pressure, cancers, diabetes, and obesity have been closely associated with the consumption of junk food. Out of all these diseases, obesity takes a central role when it comes to the harmful effects of eating junk food among teenagers. Moreover, many teenagers eat junk food, oblivious to its harmful effects.

Now I know that your writers are indeed experts because they know how to carry out research just like my teachers expect me to do. I am thankful to your writers and online agents who always reply to my concerns. Jessica

I used a couple of other services, who only spoiled my grades. EliteWritings.com was like a savior in my life and I gradually improved my reputation. Josh

English writing is definitely not my strongest point and I always make silly mistakes. I surfed the web and found your company. You sent me a good paper with impressive ideas. I really appreciate your help. Anthony

Your writers are really competent and hard working. I’ve purchased a difficult research project and to my surprise – I got excellent! Thanks! Addison

Wonderful writing service and friendly writers who always communicate with customers! I realized that your company can be trusted when you sent me good papers within short deadlines. James

My writer forgot about a part of requirements, but I requested revision and he adjusted the needed part. I got the revised paper shortly and the paper looked just like I was expecting. Lily

I was afraid to buy midterm coursework from you, but I did not know how to deal with my topic in computer sciences. I got 93% for the project and was ecstatic. I will surely use your services more. Logan

I’ve bought some essays from you and you guys are wonderful! Your writers sent me amazing essays! Mia

I did not know about your company and my friend recommended me to order essays from you. Your writer sent me my essays on time and I did not find any mistakes! Abigail

I always forget how to use different citation styles and formatting remains challenging for me. I found out that your company offers cheap formatting services and I sent you the paper. Since that time, my teacher never deducts points for formatting mistakes. Alexander

I am a horrible writer and I would rather pass several tests than work on essays. I found your service and you guys are great! You offered me good discounts and I am pleased to get affordable papers. Cooperation with you is worth it. Zoe

Quick and good service! Olivia

I am so bad in writing that I thought I would fail every class. One of my friends told me to use your services and I could not believe my eyes. Your writers managed to improve my academic records very fast! Thank you. Samantha

I am so lucky! Your essays improved my reputation. Taylor

Many high school students gained massive weight in a short time when they were teenagers. For example, Nibin is a close friend of mine who gained nearly 20 pounds in a span of four weeks when we were still in elementary school. He used to eat pizza and hot dogs after school. He gained that much weight because he ate a lot of junk food, which is against the recommendations of medical experts. Other kids called him “Junk Food Dude” just as the boy in the book “The Adventures of Junk Food Dude.” Undoubtedly, experience with Nibin enabled us to see the devastating health effects associated with the consumption of junk food. The below image clearly demonstrates the effect of the consumption of junk food on teenagers.

Research Objectives

To establish the harmful effects of junk food consumption to teenagers’ life;
To determine ways of reducing the harms of junk food to teenagers.

Research Questions

What is the effect of junk food consumption on teenagers’ life?
What are the ways of reducing the harms of junk food to teenagers?

Significance of the Study

There is a huge variety of junk food available in the United States, which makes the issue severe than any other country. What is most important to note is that teenagers take having junk food every day as an eating habit. These junk foods may lead to diseases and health problems. Disturbingly, not many teenagers are aware of the health effects of eating junk food. The information obtained through this study will facilitate the determination of ways of reducing the harms of junk food to teenagers. More so, further research can be conducted from the information obtained.

Purpose of the Junk Food Essay

Junk food is a key issue since its consumption negatively affects teenagers in that they might become obese or suffer from heart-related diseases. Many countries look upon the United States; therefore, it would be prudent for it to take a bold step in educating the teenagers on the dangers of consuming large amounts of junk food. For this reason, it is important to conduct a study on the consumption of junk food among teenagers. Ultimately, the purpose of this junk food essay is to determine ways of reducing the harms of junk food to teenagers.

The results will be presented to parents to persuade them to comprehend the effects and convince that their children were exposing themselves to those negative effects while eating huge amounts of junk food. Some of the parents might not be cognizant of the harmful effects of eating junk food. Therefore, by interacting with them, they will realize the effects of junk food. Hence, they can take measures to ensure that their children do not consume junk food.

Furthermore, the results will be presented to the administrators of schools to the administrative office and hope the report can catch their attention. Through the report, schools would be made aware of the health dangers students were exposing themselves to by consuming junk food and schools’ responsibility of taking care of students’ health, as well as their study. Furthermore, schools will be presented with suggested ways of reducing the harms of junk food to teenagers. If they implement these suggestions, the health hazards associated with junk food will be a gone case in a few months.

Lastly, the results will be presented to junk food companies. Many junk food companies target kids as their future customers, and if they can build brand loyalty now, they will have a customer for life. People have been increasing their attention to living a healthy life. Once a company invents a healthy substitute for junk food, other junk food companies will easily lose the competition. Therefore, it is significant to make the companies aware that producing healthy food is beneficial for teenagers and also the long-term growth of the company.

The fast-food effect is a great concern affecting people around the world. A lot of individuals and companies have created campaigns to notify and educate people. All of them have the same aim - to prevent the consequences of fast food. Since fast food consumption impacts caused campaigns in mass media, communities and schools have been forced to reach various discourse organizations and the genre of these campaigns covers various information.

Nowadays, the United States has the biggest fast food industry than any other country in the world. It also adds to the problem that teens see advertisements with tasty junk food everywhere, they are tempted to try it and think they become cool consuming it. However, an average meal at a fast-food joint has about 1000 to 1500 calories. That is half of the daily calorie intake of a teenager. Teenagers often overeat because of the large portions served. Teens with extra weight are less likely to take part in sports and more likely to transform into couch potatoes. They are at risk of becoming fat, and it has both psychological and health dangers. Overweight teens have to live with teasing at school. This can affect their development and cause low self-esteem. Eating poorly can lead to a vicious cycle of eating more than required, low self-esteem, anti-social behavior, fatigue, and even depression.

Client's Review

" I ordered a cheap essay on this website. Guys, I was so surprised the essay was written better than I thought it'd be. "

Sara J. reviewed EliteWritings on August 15, 2018, via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website.

If they are overweight in adulthood, they can be prone to overweight related diseases, like diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart problems, and gout. Frequent consumption of junk food makes teens face the risk of developing insulin resistance. Junk food has no nutrition value and makes such harm to the teenage body as overweight, chronic degenerative diseases, cardiovascular problems, high blood pressure, heart diseases, affection of the oxygen flow to the brain cells and others. It also causes a constant feeling of hunger, fatigue, and tiredness. Teen over-weight usually leads to consequences like depression which has a negative influence on the development and growth, social relationships, performance in school and can sometimes lead to suicide.

The harmful effect and consequences of eating fast food were not clear at the beginning. With time, campaigns have been promoted to make the community aware of these consequences and make people develop a healthier diet. Contrary to it, fast food joints use various forms of marketing to promote their products. Advertising on television, radio, restaurants, websites, and signs as well as social media are all creating advertisements to affect the community about fast food. However, there are a lot of campaigns that try to avert the dangers of consuming junk food. The purpose of such campaigns is to improve knowledge about the dangerous consequences of both direct and long term health diseases because of eating at fast-food restaurants. They provide statistics, reports, nutrition facts, information about growing overweight problems in the United States. These campaigns generally express knowledge to younger adults about the influence of nutrition and healthy lifestyles by concentrating on the hazardous effects of junk food.

Junk Food Essay Conclusion

The teen years are the time of quick physical and emotional development. The food nutrients are the fuel for this growth, and a nutritious diet is important for good health when you are a teenager. Junk food contains items like sweets, chips, and soda that are high in calories and fat but nutritionally low. Understanding the junk food effect on teens' growth helps to stress the importance of a healthy diet.

Junk food seems to be appealing because of its price, taste, and convenience. Children do not usually understand the consequences of this kind of food because it is so appetizing and they easily become addicted (Fleck). Of course, teenagers can sometimes have a burger or pizza, about once a week. But they should be prompted to this kind of food in smaller portions. Adults have to let them know about other food options and the bad effects of junk food. Once they are aware of what they eat, they may go for healthier food. Parents can only tell them more about what they eat. The idea is to attach eating habits from the very beginning but avoid overdoing it. It is good to keep a combination of both healthy and not healthy snacks at home. Sometimes, teenagers should be allowed to have a soda. The harder they are pushed on, the more they resist. So, it is necessary to find the balance - not too hard, not too lenient.

The greatest problem is that junk food is easy to reach, delicious and not too expensive. It is also has a lot of fat and refined starch, and almost no fiber and is highly processed. Teens eat burgers, French fries, pizzas with soda that contains lots of calories. Fast food restaurants are also great places to have fun with friends.

In order to avert the global problem, all possible informative means should be used to make teenagers realize the harmful effects of junk food. It is not necessary to avoid eating it, but it is of vital importance to avoid the habit of eating such food. The conclusion is that young individuals must eat less of the calorie-dense, nutrient-poor meals served at fast-food joints. Schools and parents can do a lot to make children aware of healthy choices. First of all, fast food joints must strongly change their current marketing practices, that teenagers and children do not receive ongoing encouragement to look for food that will greatly damage their health. Additionally, when young individuals visit, the joints should do more to help them make more healthy choices.

Junk Food Essay Summary

The traditional eating habits of American teenagers are not healthy, mostly because they eat too much junk food. However, sufficient efforts have not been put in place to educate teenagers on the harmful effects of consuming junk food. The number of obese teenagers keeps on increasing at an alarming rate. Also, the number of health-related cases caused by the intake of junk food keeps on increasing every day. Evidently, this shows that most teenagers are either not aware of the harmful effects of junk food or are just ignorant of the consequences. The extensive research needs to be conducted in this area to provide schools, parents, and teenagers themselves with adequate information on the extent of the effect of junk food consumption. Ultimately, such research would yield suggestions on how people can work together to reduce the harms of junk food to teenagers.

More About Persuasive Essay Writing

What is the purpose of a persuasive essay ?
How to write a persuasive essay ?
What persuasive essay topics were good in 2016 ?
How to choose good persuasive essay topics in 2020 ?

Free Persuasive Essay Examples from Elite Essay Writers

Argumentative, book report, environment, evidence-based practice, informative, please notice.

Some text in the modal.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

School Education /

Essay on Junk Food: Samples in 150, 250 Words

Updated on
Oct 5, 2023

Food is the main source of energy. It is important to consume healthy food. Any food product that contains a high percentage of saturated fats or trans fats is referred to as Junk food. The term junk itself indicates that it is harmful to our health. To lead a healthy lifestyle it is important to avoid the overconsumption of junk food. However, junk food has gained popularity because we consume it on a regular basis. Here we have provided an essay on junk food for children and school-going students. It will provide a general overview of how to draft an essay on junk food. Continue reading!

Essay on Junk Food in 150 Words

Junk food has become a prevalent component of the modern diet. It is not only attracting the young generation but is also getting induced in their daily diet. Habitual consumption of junk food causes serious health issues because it is high in calorie content. Processed food with high content of saturated and trans fats, or high sugar content comes under this category.

Street food places and the majority of food chains and restaurants are serving food in high quantities, thereby reducing the consumption of healthier options. People are now prioritizing taste and neglecting the culinary diversity of traditional food.

Another aspect of the over-consumption of junk food is ordering food on a daily basis due to a busy schedule. Besides that, munching on snacks to satisfy hunger is another bad habit that leads to health issues. Such food products lack nutritional components such as dietary fibres, protein, vitamins, iron, etc.

To conclude, health is an important part of life so, it is important to take care of healthy food habits and avoid the excess consumption of unhealthy or junk food.

Also Read: Tips for cooking while studying abroad

Essay on Junk Food in 250 Words

Junk food refers to the unhealthy food. Consumption of junk food such as pizzas, burgers, fried items, pastries, etc. has alarming consequences. Its effect is witnessed as the global obesity epidemic because the masses are more inclined towards eating junk food.

Impact of Consuming Junk Food

Food high in salt, sugar, and unhealthy fats contributes to weight gain. It will ultimately cause obesity. Obesity is the key source of other diseases that are difficult to cure. Some of the chronic diseases that occur due to the consumption of junk food are high risk of heart failure, GIT disorders, hypertension, diabetes, etc. So, it is crucial to eliminate or reduce the consumption of unhealthy food and replace it with nutritional food.

Affordability

Another factor that contributes a lot in favour of a high intake of junk food is its affordability. Junk food is more accessible as it is available on the streets at a cheaper price. The price factor affects people who cannot afford healthier options. Thus, people tend to consume junk food that is comparatively more affordable and accessible.

Taste over Nutritional Value

Nowadays, people are more inclined towards enjoying the taste of food. It’s obvious that crispy and spicy food will attract you more as compared to salads and pulses i.e. much healthier options with high nutritional values. Consuming junk food on a regular basis has become common for many, and this has led to homogeneity in their diets. So, it’s important to choose the healthy option over a tastier option to minimize the negative health impact due to junk food.

In conclusion, having junk food occasionally is acceptable when you visit any party or celebrate any occasion. However, its regular consumption will disturb your dietary habits and also hamper your health for the long term.

Also Read: Taking Care of Mental Health while Studying Abroad

Kajal Thareja

Hi, I am Kajal, a pharmacy graduate, currently pursuing management and is an experienced content writer. I have 2-years of writing experience in Ed-tech (digital marketing) company. I am passionate towards writing blogs and am on the path of discovering true potential professionally in the field of content marketing. I am engaged in writing creative content for students which is simple yet creative and engaging and leaves an impact on the reader's mind.

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Junk Food Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on junk food.

The term ‘junk food’ itself says a lot about this food. It indicates how it is harmful to our health. Furthermore, junk foods are basically trash which harms our bodies in different ways. They have high levels of cholesterol, sugar, calories and more. We see how nowadays, the younger generation is getting indulging in more and more junk food. This is putting their lives in danger and giving them an unhealthy lifestyle .

Furthermore, junk food does not have a single benefit. It only has ill-effects as they do not contain nutritional value . Parents must teach their kids about the ill-effects of junk food. Moreover, they must provide them with healthy meals at home so they won’t have to go out to eat fast food.

Rising Popularity of Junk Food

We all know that the fast-food industry is increasing by leaps and bounds these days. People these days are more attracted to junk food because it is appealing. Why is that? People are using manipulative ways to entice people to buy their fast food.

Moreover, junk food is prepared very easily. It takes minimum time to prepare it as it does not have any nutritious ingredients. We see how junk food does not have any special ingredients. It just contains common harmful ones in excess like oil, sugar, and more.

Furthermore, junk food is very reasonable. As it does not require any healthy material, it is not that costly. We see how it is available at very reasonable pricing. It is one of the main reasons why people buy it frequently.

Most importantly, junk food has become very accessible now, more than ever. With the onset of numerous food delivery apps, you can now get junk food with a single click. You have a plethora of options now which will deliver all sorts of junk food right at your doorstep.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Ill-effects of Junk Food

The major characteristic of junk food is that it spikes the energy levels instantly. It does not really benefit your body, just satisfies your taste buds. If we intake junk food regularly, we get moody more often.

Moreover, regular consumption of junk food causes a drop in the concentration levels of a person. This is why we see how kids these days are easily distracted. Moreover, you may also notice how obesity becoming common these days. It is a very chronic disease which is only enhanced by eating junk food.

Further, you may also notice how junk food increases blood pressure and sugar. A person gets more prone to heart diseases due to the fattening products used in it. Similarly, junk food is not easy to digest. This may gradually damage your brain function because it creates a lack of oxygen levels.

Junk food does not only damage the heart but the liver as well. It causes diabetes amongst people from an early age. Moreover, the lack of fibers in junk food equals to a damaged digestive system. This may cause constipation as well. Therefore, we see how junk food companies are fooling people. They are deceiving them into consuming their junk food to increase their sales. Thus, we need to realize this fact as soon as possible. Try to replace junk food with healthy food. Prepare your meals at home instead of ordering outside.

FAQ on Junk Food Essay

Q.1 Why is junk food getting popular?

A.1 Junk food is getting popular because it is easily accessible now. It is appealing and fast food companies are fooling the public for increasing their sales.

Q.2 State the ill-effects of junk food.

A.2 Junk food causes a lot of chronic diseases like diabetes, cholesterol, heart diseases. It drops your concentration level and messes with your digestive system.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

COMMENTS

Junk Food Should be Taxed
Essay Example: Junk food is ""food that is not good for your health because it is high in fat, sugar, or artificial substances"" (Cambridge Dictionary). Public health advocates say a sugar tax on junk foods could help reduce the consumption of sugary foods causing a reduction in obesity and
Should Governments Tax Unhealthy Foods and Drinks?
The web page explores the pros and cons of taxing sugar and other unhealthy foods and drinks to improve nutrition and health. It discusses the regressive impact, the dose-response relationship, and the role of government in such taxes.
Should we tax unhealthy food and drink?
Drinks containing more than 8 g sugar/100 ml face a 24p tax/litre, 5-8 g sugar/100 ml will be taxed at 18p/litre and drinks containing <5 g/100 ml sugar will not be taxed (3). The levy is explicitly designed to encourage changes to industry behaviour rather than to directly affect consumer behaviour.
Essay on Why Junk Food Should Be Taxed
A junk food tax of this kind could greatly increase the health of the American public as a whole by reducing death rates and healthcare. 1825 Words; 8 Pages; Decent Essays. Read More. Decent Essays. Obesity Epidemic Persuasive Essay. 993 Words; 4 Pages; Obesity Epidemic Persuasive Essay.
Junk Food Tax Persuasive Essay
Explore the persuasive arguments supporting the implementation of a junk food tax, highlighting the potential benefits such as improved public health, reduced healthcare costs, and increased revenue for government initiatives. ... Junk Food Tax Persuasive Essay September 14, 2021 / jakesullivan. The tax code is full оf loopholes. Many people ...
Taxing Junk Food to Counter Obesity
As in the case of any excise tax, low-income populations would spend a greater relative percentage of their annual income on an unhealthy food tax than would higher-income individuals. 7 The argument has been raised that such a tax is unethical because food (as opposed to cigarettes or alcohol) is an essential need. 6 However, low-income ...
Tax On Junk Food Persuasive Essay
Tax On Junk Food Persuasive Essay. 745 Words3 Pages. Tax the Unhealthy, to Live Healthy. Megan was diagnosed with obesity when she was just ten years old. She was addicted to junk food and would constantly binge on sweets. This is because it was easy to access, affordable, and of course, tasted really good. Unfortunately, Megan deals with the ...
US Policies That Define Foods for Junk Food Taxes, 1991-2021
Excise taxes on junk food are not widely utilized in the United States. The development of a workable definition of the food to be taxed is a substantial barrier to implementation. Three decades of legislative and regulatory definitions of food for taxes and related purposes provide insight into methods to characterize food to advance new policies.
Argumentative Essay On Junk Food
Argumentative Essay On Junk Food. 968 Words4 Pages. For a will, the sugar-sweetened drink has been taxed and are improving people diet and there is a lot of research on junk food is taxed and how it can also improve people diet. In places were sugar drinks have been taxed the person paying for there drink is taxed but for junk, food researcher ...
Death, Taxes and the Fight Against Junk Food
The Navajo Nation, a U.S. reservation, has enacted the first tax on both sugary drinks and junk foods to combat obesity and diabetes. The tax is part of a larger health initiative that includes ...
Persuasive Essay On Junk Food Tax
Persuasive Essay On Junk Food Tax. Decent Essays. 1706 Words. 7 Pages. Open Document. "More than one in three adults in America is considered obese" (Katz). Having a junk food tax will most definitely help lower this statistic. While characterized as a negative burden, taxes are easily one of the most important aspects in everyday life.
Should We Tax Junk Foods To Curb Obesity?
Manufacturers of junk foods in that country pay a "value added tax" of 27% on top of the 25% tax that's imposed on most foods. Hungary's law levies the junk food tax based largely on sugar ...
Taxing Junk Food Persuasive Speech
Tax On Junk Food Persuasive Essay. 745 Words | 3 Pages. Tax the Unhealthy, to Live Healthy Megan was diagnosed with obesity when she was just ten years old. She was addicted to junk food and would constantly binge on sweets. This is because it was easy to access, affordable, and of course, tasted really good.
The evidence—and acceptability—of taxes on unhealthy foods
The global obesity pandemic has public advocates and policymakers grappling with the question of how best to respond. Among the various policy options, unhealthy food and beverage taxes have gained attention as a potentially effective intervention to reduce non-nutritive caloric intake, while raising government funds for health promotion programs at the community level. Yet in many countries ...
Why taxing 'junk food' to tackle obesity isn't as simple as it seems
Published: September 15, 2023 9:57am EDT. Former prime minister Tony Blair has called for more taxes on junk food to tackle the UK's obesity crisis. This includes extending sugar taxes beyond ...
IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Unhealthy Foods (Real Past
This web page provides a real past IELTS essay on whether governments should tax unhealthy foods to improve people's health. It argues that taxes are not effective and suggests other measures to promote healthy eating.
People Should Eat Less Junk Food: [Essay Example], 475 words
Conclusion. In conclusion, people should eat less junk food to improve their physical health, mental well-being, and overall quality of life. The impact of junk food on various aspects of health and well-being cannot be overlooked. By making conscious choices towards a healthier diet, individuals can promote a happier and more fulfilling life.
Persuasive Essay On Junk Food Tax
The OMA (Ontario Medical Association) suggests that we should increase taxes on junk food, similar to the taxes we put on tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol. With increased taxes on junk food we should in turn decrease taxes on healthy foods. Doctors are wanting a junk food tax because junk food poses various health threats to Canadians.…
Free Persuasive Essay about the Harmful Effects of Junk Food
This persuasive essay argues that junk food should be banned in schools and provides research and examples to support the claim. It also suggests some ways to reduce the harms of junk food to teenagers, such as nutrition education and healthy alternatives.
Persuasive Essay: Junk Food Tax
Corban Gillen District Writing Assessment Persuasive Essay: Junk Food Tax April 3-5, 2017 Is there really going to be tax on junk food? If they were to tax us on junk food, the government could do more for us. but if you were on the no side, it wouldn't be our faults that people were obese. Then if you think about it people would buy less candy ...
Essay on Junk Food: Samples in 150, 250 Words
Here we have provided an essay on junk food for children and school-going students. It will provide a general overview of how to draft an essay on junk food. Continue reading! Also Read: Essay on Health. Also Read: Importance of Education. Essay on Junk Food in 150 Words. Junk food has become a prevalent component of the modern diet.
Argumentative Essay On Junk Food
Argumentative Essay On Junk Food. 708 Words3 Pages. Commentary: "Junk food tax and vegetable subsidies could save australia billions of dollars". The article describes how putting a tax on junk food and more subsidies on vegetables could save 3 billion on healthcare and add almost 500,000 extra years of life. According to the article, there ...
Junk Food Essay for Students and Children
Learn about the rising popularity, ill-effects and alternatives of junk food in this 500+ words essay. Find out how junk food harms your health, mood, concentration and digestion.

Junk Food should be Taxed

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Login Alert

Article contents

Acknowledgements

Financial support

Conflicts of interest

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Recent Posts

Taxing Junk Food to Counter Obesity

Pricing Policies and Food Consumption

Existing and Repealed Food Taxes

JUNK FOOD TAX PROPOSALS

Taxing nutrients

Taxing Snack Foods

Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

THE TAX DEBATE

Regressive Excise Taxes

Healthy Food Subsidies and Health Education Programs

Government Intervention

Impact and Acceptability of a Junk Food Tax

CONCLUSIONS

Human Participant Protection

Death, Taxes and the Fight Against Junk Food

Related Topics

Are ultra-processed foods as addictive as cigarettes?

Cholesterol, triglycerides, and nutrition: How your diet may increase your cancer odds

Ozempic and Mounjaro may also lower your risk of obesity-linked cancer

Is 'Ozempic face' real? Here's what sudden weight loss does to your body

The weight loss drugs you’re getting may be fake

History & Culture

More From Forbes

The evidence—and acceptability—of taxes on unhealthy foods

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Publisher’s Note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

Why taxing ‘junk food’ to tackle obesity isn’t as simple as it seems

Disclosure statement

Where and what to tax?

What is ‘junk’ food?

Professor of Indigenous Cultural and Creative Industries (Identified)

Communications Director

Associate Director, Post-Award, RGCF

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Unhealthy Foods (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

Pronunciation

Vocabulary Practice

Listening Practice

Reading Practice

Speaking Practice

Recommended For You

Latest IELTS Writing Task 1 2024 (Graphs, Charts, Maps, Processes)

Recent IELTS Writing Topics and Questions 2024

Find my Newest IELTS Post Here – Updated Daily!

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Online Materials (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Old Buildings (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Businesses Social Responsibility (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Exclusive Ebooks, PDFs and more from me!

People Should Eat Less Junk Food

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?