Sugar Tax Policy on Obesity Prevention Efforts
The policy under review is a two-fold policy whereby different state governments in America use sugar taxes as measures to prevent obesity. The policy is both a fiscal policy and a health policy that is aimed at reducing the prevalence and spread of non-communicable diseases such as obesity. Sugar taxes were implemented in 2016 in various states such as Philadelphia, California, Berkeley and Ohio. The rationale for sugar taxes to address obesity is founded on findings by the World Bank that the prevalence of obesity was high with an estimated population of obese children totaling 107.7 million while obese adults were approximated to be 603.7 million adults around the world (Fernandez, 1). The consumption of ultra-processed foods such as processed foods and drinks make up the majority of sugar consumption, concomitantly increasing the prevalence of obesity in the United States.
Rationale for Sugar Taxes
The policy on sugar taxes is founded on the economic principle that increasing the price of a given product can change the intake patterns. The policy is also founded on the belief that increasing the price of sugar-sweetened beverages can minimize the price gap of sugary drinks with healthy options like milk, thereby prompting consumers to purchase healthier alternatives instead. American health advocacy groups such as the American Heart Association supported the sugar taxes as a health policy was founded on the belief that sugar-sweetened beverages are they are naturally non-nutritive, strongly related to obesity, and they are highly correlative to price (World Economic Forum, 2). The intake of sugar sweetened beverages is generally high across the globe, and accounts for the biggest source of added sugar in the contemporary American diet. There was no specific date or year in which sugar taxes were implemented as different states had different adopted sugar taxes in different time periods. Berkeley, California was the first county to United States jurisdiction to adopt a sugar free tax.
Sugar Tax Policy Success or Failure
There is so much into the sugar tax debate, but personally I would consider it as a success. An excise tax of $0.01 USD per fluid ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages was imposed at the manufacturer or the commercial level in the city of Berkeley California (Fernandez, 1). A study was then done in a 1 year period to compare consumption pre- and post-sales patterns in low-earning environs was compared to adjacent metropolises of San Francisco and Oakland. Data was collected 8 months before the tax was implemented and 4 months post-implementation. There was a sizable decline in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by 21% in Berkley compared to a slight increase of 4% in Oakland. Additionally, Berkeley recorded a 63% increase in the consumption of water (a healthier alternative) while increased neighboring cities reported 19% increase in water consumption.
The downside of the sugar tax is that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is a regressive tax that puts a greater financial burden on low income groups, especially when other alternatives are not applied such as providing healthy food subsidizations in a bid to ease apparent unplanned effects (Fernandez, 1). This reality is evidenced by the increase in consumption in affluent neighborhoods such as Oakland and San Francisco California. Despite the price increase, consumption pattern goes up.
Defense of Position
Although sugar taxes have mixed impacts on different populations, especially between low-income and high income earners, the fiscal policy is a good step towards addressing the challenge of obesity in America because a long journey starts with a single slide. Although there are hiccups with the sugar tax, its implementation has brought to light other perspectives of tackling obesity. For instance, decline in sales in states implementing the tax and sales increase in states without sugar tax demonstrates that the policy is not a one-state issue, but rather an issue of national concern. If all states implemented the sugar tax, there would be uniform impacts of the taxes on sales because customers do not have to cunningly move from one region where sugary-beverages are expensive to cheaper locations that are tax free.
Secondly, the sugar free tax has led to the knowledge that taxes alone cannot work in isolation to address the challenge of obesity in America. Other initiatives are needed such as public education to enlighten the public on the impact of sugar-sweetened products on their health, tooth decay, and weight gain. If the public is educated about their food choices, they would make rational decisions before making purchases. Sugar free taxes is based on the assumption that consumers are rational beings who can discern that the health policy is intended for their good. Nonetheless, customers are rational in other ways. Rather than buying in areas in taxed areas, they look for cheaper alternatives in other towns. Sugar tax to curb obesity is a successful is effort because it is synonymous to the hummingbird story. Rather than sit helpless to watch the forest burn, the hummingbird took little steps of fetching water with a feather to stop the gigantic forest fire while the rest of the big animals watched doing nothing. Similarly, the challenge of obesity is huge, and little steps like the sugar tax can help address the challenge.
The policy under review is a two-fold policy whereby different state governments in America use sugar taxes as measures to prevent obesity. The policy is both a fiscal policy and a health policy that is aimed at reducing the prevalence and spread of non-communicable diseases such as obesity. Sugar taxes were implemented in 2016 in various states such as Philadelphia, California, Berkeley and Ohio. The rationale for sugar taxes to address obesity is founded on findings by the World Bank that the prevalence of obesity was high with an estimated population of obese children totaling 107.7 million while obese adults were approximated to be 603.7 million adults around the world (Fernandez, 1). The consumption of ultra-processed foods such as processed foods and drinks make up the majority of sugar consumption, concomitantly increasing the prevalence of obesity in the United States.
Rationale for Sugar Taxes
The policy on sugar taxes is founded on the economic principle that increasing the price of a given product can change the intake patterns. The policy is also founded on the belief that increasing the price of sugar-sweetened beverages can minimize the price gap of sugary drinks with healthy options like milk, thereby prompting consumers to purchase healthier alternatives instead. American health advocacy groups such as the American Heart Association supported the sugar taxes as a health policy was founded on the belief that sugar-sweetened beverages are they are naturally non-nutritive, strongly related to obesity, and they are highly correlative to price (World Economic Forum, 2). The intake of sugar sweetened beverages is generally high across the globe, and accounts for the biggest source of added sugar in the contemporary American diet. There was no specific date or year in which sugar taxes were implemented as different states had different adopted sugar taxes in different time periods. Berkeley, California was the first county to United States jurisdiction to adopt a sugar free tax.
Sugar Tax Policy Success or Failure
There is so much into the sugar tax debate, but personally I would consider it as a success. An excise tax of $0.01 USD per fluid ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages was imposed at the manufacturer or the commercial level in the city of Berkeley California (Fernandez, 1). A study was then done in a 1 year period to compare consumption pre- and post-sales patterns in low-earning environs was compared to adjacent metropolises of San Francisco and Oakland. Data was collected 8 months before the tax was implemented and 4 months post-implementation. There was a sizable decline in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages by 21% in Berkley compared to a slight increase of 4% in Oakland. Additionally, Berkeley recorded a 63% increase in the consumption of water (a healthier alternative) while increased neighboring cities reported 19% increase in water consumption.
The downside of the sugar tax is that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is a regressive tax that puts a greater financial burden on low income groups, especially when other alternatives are not applied such as providing healthy food subsidizations in a bid to ease apparent unplanned effects (Fernandez, 1). This reality is evidenced by the increase in consumption in affluent neighborhoods such as Oakland and San Francisco California. Despite the price increase, consumption pattern goes up.
Defense of Position
Although sugar taxes have mixed impacts on different populations, especially between low-income and high income earners, the fiscal policy is a good step towards addressing the challenge of obesity in America because a long journey starts with a single slide. Although there are hiccups with the sugar tax, its implementation has brought to light other perspectives of tackling obesity. For instance, decline in sales in states implementing the tax and sales increase in states without sugar tax demonstrates that the policy is not a one-state issue, but rather an issue of national concern. If all states implemented the sugar tax, there would be uniform impacts of the taxes on sales because customers do not have to cunningly move from one region where sugary-beverages are expensive to cheaper locations that are tax free.
Secondly, the sugar free tax has led to the knowledge that taxes alone cannot work in isolation to address the challenge of obesity in America. Other initiatives are needed such as public education to enlighten the public on the impact of sugar-sweetened products on their health, tooth decay, and weight gain. If the public is educated about their food choices, they would make rational decisions before making purchases. Sugar free taxes is based on the assumption that consumers are rational beings who can discern that the health policy is intended for their good. Nonetheless, customers are rational in other ways. Rather than buying in areas in taxed areas, they look for cheaper alternatives in other towns. Sugar tax to curb obesity is a successful is effort because it is synonymous to the hummingbird story. Rather than sit helpless to watch the forest burn, the hummingbird took little steps of fetching water with a feather to stop the gigantic forest fire while the rest of the big animals watched doing nothing. Similarly, the challenge of obesity is huge, and little steps like the sugar tax can help address the challenge.
