"Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018, roughly 60% of that will be borne by the federal government. The Rudd Center estimates that, “a 20% increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20% decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion.”Justifying a Tax Currently in America it is harder for people to buy fruit than it is to buy Froot Loops or chips. Sugary cereal is often the first thing consumed during the day and this has led to concerns of increase in juvenile diabetes. For this and several other reasons, imposing a tax on unhealthy foods makes a lot of sense. However, substantial roadblocks stand in the way of instituting such a tax, despite the fact that it makes a lot of practical sense. The fact of the matter is that sin taxes are politically unpopular because they infringe on personal choices, and no legislator wants to be accused of being a nanny. Furthermore, agriculture lobbies are extremely powerful. Since public health is the role of the government, it does indeed have every right to impose a tax. However the practicality of such a tax is sadly low.
Last August, the UK proposed introducing a ‘fat tax’ to combat the increase in obesity. Researchers at Oxford University and Nottingham University claimed that a 17.5% VAT on unhealthy food could save up to 3,200 lives a year. Besides encouraging consumers to purchase healthier foods the tax could be used to subsidize the cost of more expensive, healthy foods. More recently the Chalmers University in Sweden found that putting a tax on meat would result in reduced consumption. A tax of €60/ton of CO2-equivalent would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture by 7% and would also reduce beef consumption by 15%. The study also found that if the land made available by decreasing meat and dairy production was used to produce bioenergy crops, agricultural emissions would drop a further 42%. This tax is not meant to nudge people towards a vegetarian diet but instead a more “climate-smart diet.” In more recent news more than 30 cities in America including New York, San Francisco and Philadephia are considering a tax on junk food to combat the obesity epidemic. In an article for New York Times acclaimed Food Writer Mark Bittman implies that if even a marginal tax was imposed on unhealthy foods, it would decrease consumption. These tax dollars could then be subsidize healthy food like wholegrains, vegetables and fruit or even organic products. The article states: