There is no question that obesity is a prominent issue in America. Over one-third or 35.7% of adults are obese, leading to health problems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke, with medical costs linked to obesity estimated at about $147 billion dollars in 2008 (“Adult Obesity Facts” n.pag.). One method to combat obesity that is constantly being considered is a “fat tax” against various foods that are deemed unhealthy; the argument is that if unhealthy foods are more expensive, consumers will buy healthier foods instead. It sounds like a good idea because the taxes could be used to fund nutritional education programs, the health care industry, all while curbing the consumption of the foods and lowering America’s rate of obesity. The rationale that a sin tax is successful with alcohol and tobacco products is often used to further encourage the idea of a fat tax. The fat tax is an undesirable idea to remedy obesity in America because sin taxes historically fail since they are not a proper use of the government’s taxing authority, the idea of generating revenue and decreasing consumption is mutually exclusive, the tax will hurt the economy, the tax could be considered discriminatory against the poor and minorities,.
The history of sin taxes is one of failure. From the 1794 Whiskey Tax to the more recent proposal by New York Governor David Paterson who tried to enact an 18% tax on sugary beverages, evidence shows that people will not accept these overt maneuvers by government to control them (Creighton 133-134). While the proposed fat taxes are not likely to generate an armed rebellion like the Whiskey Tax created, they are more likely to fail in a similar way to Governor Paterson’s attempted beverage tax. In this case, the unpopularity of the tax was reflected in the votes of New York state representatives, whose “legislature refused to adopt this proposed tax and forced Governor Paterson to compromise on the issue” (Creighton 134). Governor appointed mandates, whether they are fat taxes or requirements for girls to have particular vaccinations, usually bring forth the public’s ire. Taxation without representation is particularly abhorrent to the American public; the tax could be enacted if the public is persuaded through various means to ask their local, state, and federal representatives to support a fat tax, but lacking public support, legislatures simply will not vote for it and stymie any attempt to introduce an unpopular bill. This is because such a tax is not a proper use of a government’s taxing authority. One problem is that the foods targeted for taxation, unlike tobacco products which are dangerous at any level of use, can be consumed as part of a healthy diet if they are used in moderation (Todd and Zhen 31). Another problem is that some states or localities single out sugary beverages for taxes, while ignoring other items such as candy bars, doughnuts, ice cream, fast food, chewing gum, and so forth; singling out only one industry will not be an effective tactic; as Susan Neeley, CEO for the American beverage association says, “taxes will not teach our children how to live a healthy lifestyle” (“Taxing Americans” 6). As Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,” is the most desirable government allowing “a happy and prosperous people” (Creighton 133). The fat tax goes directly against this idea of free choice and enterprise. The government should not make purchasing decisions for people by adding a tax that makes certain products prohibitively expensive just because it has decided it is not good for people. In a free society, this is not a moral or just exercise of government power and will be rejected by the people and their representatives.
Another problem with the fat tax is that the idea of generating revenue and decreasing consumption is mutually exclusive. The most persuasive arguments for a fat tax is that they can generate revenue for educational programs, the health care industry, and subsidies for farmers who produce healthy fruits and vegetables so the healthy items will cost less for consumers who will choose to by them instead of the unhealthy items (Badillas 275, Todd and Zhen 35). These arguments sound fine in concept, but do not answer questions such as what the rate for a fat tax would be to generate the $147 billion spent in the healthcare industry due to obesity problems, educational programs to teach consumers about making healthy nutritional decisions, and subsidies for farmers growing healthier foods. The overall contradiction of these taxes is that there appears to be no way to have it all, meaning both lowering consumption and generating the revenue to support the previously mentioned programs that would be key in promoting healthier food choices. This failure of logic is that “the tax may be low, and neither curb consumption nor generate sufficient revenue or it may be so high that it does prevent consumption and, therefore, also fails to generate sufficient revenue” (Crichton 131). While the fat tax is brought forth with many good intentions, the problem demonstrated is that it is self-defeating.
Besides being self-defeating, a fat tax can hurt the economy. Often, the argument for any type of sin tax is that it will increase revenue that will be used to generate income to support positive causes. This not only includes popular ideas such as supporting educational programs concerning the problems of consuming products such as alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, but also the ideas that it can further benefit society by providing more community services, supporting education in general, and help balance economies distressed by recession and unemployment. Sin taxes already exist for items such as alcohol and cigarettes, so the pertinent question to consider concerning a fat tax is whether employing it will really have all the touted benefits or not. Governments desire to find positive ways to generate revenue that will benefit taxpayers; however, taxing junk food would be self-defeating, especially in times of recession or economic distress. Since the object of a fat tax is to lower consumption and therefore demand for the products being taxed, “problematically, sin taxes may inhibit discretionary spending and potentially eliminate jobs in industries producing products upon which excise taxes are levied” (Crichton 135). People may still buy the more expensive fat taxed items and have less money to spend on other items, like educational experiences for their children, needed repairs on property or autos, or healthy food items for the family, affecting other aspects of the economy in negative ways. In times of recession, the fat taxed foods may also simply become one more item that consumers will not buy, leading to an economy suffering further decline in consumer spending and revenue for employers who will no longer be able to afford to hire or may even lay off workers they can no longer afford to pay. Some experts estimate that even a 40% tax on calorically sweetened beverages would only lower the average consumer’s weight by one pound (Todd and Zhen 35). That such a prohibitively high tax would have such modest effects towards the goal of reducing obesity and would likely affect the economy adversely shows again that the fat tax is self-defeating.
The fat tax could be considered discriminatory against the poor and minorities. It is common knowledge that many of the unhealthy, high-calorie items that are targets of a fat tax are also much cheaper to purchase than healthier options. Additionally, “research has shown ‘stark racial and ethnic disparities’ in number and type of food stores available in different neighborhoods” (Badillas 268). Further research also demonstrates that “fresh fruits and vegetables are . . . more readily available in supermarkets, and minority and low-income areas have a higher rate of convenience stores and fewer supermarkets than other communities” (Badillas 268). The fact that healthier foods are simply less available in areas where minorities or the poor live may reflect the idea that businesses that sell healthier items are simply unwilling to open stores in areas where people are less likely to be able to afford the more expensive but healthier produce. However, adding a fat tax to items is not going to solve the problem of obesity if better choices are not available at affordable prices in all areas. Such a tax would not likely affect the consumers who have higher incomes and live in areas where healthy choices are readily available; it would simply make the lives of the poor and minorities more difficult. Thi8s problem of availability is not going to be solved by a fat tax, is plainly discrimination, and would be ineffective in solving the problem of obesity.
While it is full of good intentions, proposed fat taxes are simply an inappropriate idea for America. The problems, that sin taxes historically fail, the idea of generating revenue and decreasing consumption is mutually exclusive, the tax will hurt the economy, the tax could be considered discriminatory against the poor and minorities, and the tax is not a proper use of the government’s taxing authority, each provide convincing arguments by themselves that a fat tax will not benefit America. Together, they provide a powerful argument that completely different solutions will need to be considered to reduce the problem of obesity in America, and that taxes should play no part in this solution.
Works Cited
Badillas, Adriana. "Food Taxes: A Palatable Solution To The Obesity Epidemic?." Pacific Mcgeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal 23.2 (2011): 255-283. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Aug. 2012.
Creighton, Robert. "Fat Taxes." Journal Of Legal Medicine 31.1 (2010): 123-136. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Aug. 2012.
“Adult Obesity Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d. Web. Accessed 02 Aug 2012.
"Taxing Americans Into Good Health." New American (08856540) 25.21 (2009): 6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Aug. 2012.
Todd, Jessica E., and Chen Zhen. "Can Taxes On Calorically Sweetened Beverages Reduce Obesity?." Choices: The Magazine Of Food, Farm & Resource Issues 25.3 (2010): 31-37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Aug. 2012.
