Obesity is a very serious issue in the United States. “The percentage of obese adults has more than doubled over the last 30 years; the percentage of obese children has tripled” (Bittman). But what is the cause? Many believe that obesity is a direct result of the diet of most Americans: specifically, the amount of “junk food” (unhealthy, fatty foods and beverages) that they take in. But what can the country do to solve this issue? One idea that has been presented is that the government put a tax on these unhealthy foods. But is taxing junk food really the right way to go?

There are many who would argue against a junk food tax for myriad reasons. First and foremost, many believe that this tax is not economically sound. While possibly changing the eating habits of people, this fat tax could supposedly also just cause them to turn to foreign companies for their fixes, causing American companies to lose money. This loss of revenue would then create an even larger problem in that it will have to be regained somehow. When Denmark attempted to enforce such a tax in 2011, they were left in this type of situation, and now “Danish politicians plan on filling the $200 million revenue gap left by the fat tax by raising the income tax” (Flows). Opponents of the junk food tax fear that America could be left in the same situation.
After looking at the other side of this issue, one can see that the proponents of a junk food tax have made points that easily repudiate that of their opponents’. To begin, it is completely understandable to be against risking economic instability. As the country is already in a recession, this may not seem like the most propitious time to take a risk. But the proponents ask us to look at the damage that has already been done because of the health issues that stem from unhealthy eating. Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, looks at it this way: “100 percent tax on junk food and beverages would help pay for the collateral damages of this industry: the $150 billion in diet-related disease and health-care costs now incurred by the public and taxpayers for obesity and diabetes” (Morriss and Cummins). Also, “health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government” (Bittman). The economy has already suffered a blow at the hands of junk food, and it will continue to get worse if nothing is done to counteract it. Also, once the sales of these foods go down, the problem will be lessened, eliminating the need for a new income tax (like in Denmark’s situation). As the citizens of the United States cannot easily stroll into another country and buy fatty foods, the situation in Denmark should not have a repeat.

Another feasible argument against a junk food tax is that by imposing such a tax, the government would be infringing on the fundamental rights of a person: namely, the right to control one’s own diet. From the beginning of time, people have taken care of their own diets, whether it be hunting and gathering, farming, or just buying food from a grocery store. If one can provide food for oneself, one can decide what one wants to eat. Andrew P. Morriss, a professor of law and business at the University of Alabama, put it this way: “It is no one’s business but yours what you eat. The freedom to eat a slice of apple pie might not sound quite as stirring as freedom of speech, but the ability to choose how to live our lives is the most fundamental freedom” (Morriss and Cummins).
To this argument, the proponents can really do nothing but concede, as it is still a basic right of United States citizens to eat what they please.

Opponents also argue that a tax is not needed to curb the baneful appetite of overweight Americans. If the citizens of this nation are better educated about the dangers of unhealthy eating, they should be able to change their behaviors themselves. According to the opposition, upping the advertisement of healthy foods, promoting exercise, and displaying public service announcements that address the cause should surely be enough to make a difference.
To this argument, the proponents react with another idea: continue educating the population on healthy diets along with taxing junk foods. The opponents will argue that education is all that’s needed, and I agree that it can play a key role. Americans should understand more about the effects of unhealthy eating, and exposés of these effects can have an impact. A well-organized documentary with chilling facts can certainly pack a punch. So yes, a better health education can help to raise awareness about obesity, but taxing unhealthy foods at the same time would have even more of an effect. For example, in 1998, the United States settled multiple lawsuits with the tobacco industry, resulting in tobacco companies agreeing to finance antismoking campaigns and to cut down on their marketing. Look at the facts now: “more than half of all Americans who once smoked have quit and smoking rates are about half of what they were in the 1960s” (Bittman). Once the government stepped in and took some action against the tobacco companies, change started to happen. Yes, this was in pairing with the antismoking campaigns and the health education children and adults receive, but as these efforts had already been put in place (but did not have much of an effect), much of the credit can go to the government for taking a stand.

Implementing a junk food tax is about more than just money and statistics. The purpose of such a tax is to help Americans steer clear of these deleterious foods, and as a result, stop the growth of obesity and the diseases that stem from it. “A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes” (Bittman). Not only would this tax help to reduce consumption, but it would also benefit the poor. As junk food prices rise, the opportunity for the lower class to afford foods that are nutritionally worthless becomes further and further impeded.

Stemming from that, here is another question: If junk food is nutritionally worthless, why would it be such a big deal to put a tax on it? Yes, fast food, soda, and candy bars can taste exceptional – I personally have long thought of myself as a connoisseur of the chocolate industry – but opposing the tax for solely that reason is entirely farcical. Eating these foods does nothing more than give people short-lived pleasure, which cannot be replicated unless the food is eaten again. It’s akin to an addiction. The truth is, “you don’t need sugary beverages (or the associated fries), which have been linked not only to Type 2 diabetes and increased obesity but also to cardiovascular diseases and decreased intake of valuable nutrients like calcium” (Bittman). Sugary beverages and fatty foods have no value, and most of the time do not provide true nourishment. “It also appears that liquid calories provide less feeling of fullness; in other words, when you drink a soda it’s probably in addition to your other calorie intake, not instead of it” (Bittman). Yes, junk food tastes good, but there are other foods that can be just as delicious that actually have nutritional value. What is the sense of eating foods that do nothing for you?

Looking back on both sides of this debate, it is plain to see which side demands the results that America needs. Without government action, obesity will continue its destructive path throughout the country. The country has reached the threshold, and a tax on junk food is the much-needed first step towards effacing this problem.