Wealth is Health
The food pyramid is a waste of time and is simply unnecessary. Nobody follows it to the tee. If people set their diets to the recommended servings on that pyramid, they would have to be rich in order to afford all that food—or they would be left poor. Nevertheless, there are millions in the United States who simply cannot afford buying all the servings from each food group. Moreover, because of the culture America has come to live by, fast-food chains, soda, alcohol, junk food, and the affordability and accessibility of these snacks and meals, the public is left with little choice but to purchase them. Americans have become unhealthy, overweight, and very prone to health problems. America would be more proactive and make healthier lifestyle choices with help from the U.S. government. The lack of support on the behalf of the United States government is a key factor as to why American is one of the least fit countries in the world. U.S. government does not promote, nor does it encourage, healthy lifestyles. However, with more support and funding through the government, Americans would not be as unfit as they are today.
In The Wealth of Nations, written in 1776, Adam Smith wrote, “sugar, rum and tobacco are…subjects of taxation” (qtd. in Leonhardt). Two hundred years ago, this kind of taxation was intact. Why not now? Taxing high-caloric foods, either at a state, or even city-level, would benefit populations both physically and financially. If there is an increase in price in either high-caloric, fatty foods and/or beverages, consumers will tend to purchase less of these items. Because fast-food chains advertise large portions customers think that bigger means more for less. However, the only thing they are getting is more unhealthy calories. According to The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, “large portions not only provide more calories, but studies show that when people are served more, they eat more food” (National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, 1).
Furthermore, once consumers realize that companies are the selling same portions as before but the product is being taxed, consumers will consume less of that product, continue purchasing the product regardless of the high price or tax, and overtime, discontinue purchasing and consuming that product. By implementing taxes, less sugar, fat, and unhealthy foods are being consumed, thus reducing an individual’s risk for cardiovascular diseases, obesity, diabetes, and other many health-related problems. In addition, taxing unhealthy foods, will reduce the consumption, like when tobacco was taxed; “higher tobacco taxes reduced smoking” (Koch).
Not only will consuming less reduce health-related problems, and deter death, but if there are those who continue purchasing taxed items, revenue will accumulate from those taxes. Taxing items such as soda—a beverage lacking any nutritional value—will not guarantee an absolute discontinuation of consumption in the U.S. or the world. Bodies still need those sugars and fats to be used sparingly. Revenue from taxed junk food and beverages “could help low-income people by paying for healthier foods” (Koch). Moreover, alcohol is taxed. Alcohol is still killing people. Many lives are lost to DUIs, cirrhosis, alcohol abuse, which can lead to other serious problems and alcohol poisoning. Yet its taxes have lowered? High-calorie and high-sugared food and beverages also kills people, too! Many die from diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, obesity. Just being overweight or obese causes low self-esteem which can lead to depression, and can result in suicide, which is a bigger issue than imposing taxes.
When the issue of ‘taxes’ comes into play, many are opposed. Those opposing taxation on certain foods view is as communist or socialist, that government should not have the authority to control what one consumes. However, all the doctor visits from food and health-related issues affect the United States health care systems (CDC). Those opposed to taxation also do not realize that obesity and the fact that many are overweight, is costing the state millions of dollars. Lost productivity is also result of increase of overweight and obese people (Girion). What one does not realize is that obesity and related problems affect the work place. And being unable to fully function at one’s fully potential is difficult to do if an individual is overweight or constantly going to the doctor’s for weight and health-related illness.
Some have even started pushing for a better, healthier nation. In this case, a simple proposal shows interest and a vision for healthy lives. In 2008, David A. Paterson, governor of New York, “proposed an eighteen percent sales tax on non-diet and sugary juice and drinks” (Arnst). This clearly demonstrates that taking initiative to attempt to create change for the better there is a problem that needs to be brought for the public and government’s attention. By imposing such tax, it “would raise $404 million,” for then-2009 fiscal year (Arnst). This opportunity to raise money is one that should not be overlooked. Today, in New York, fifty-eight percent of adults are overweight (Brownell). Millions of dollars are available to help promote healthy programs and lifestyles. Taxing soda would be a smart way to fight obesity. Soda may not be the reason for obesity and other health problems, but sugary drinks are the single largest contributor of growing obesity (Koch). And they are certainly very present and a very important factor in diets, lifestyles and cultures, that still affects the well-being of individuals.
Americans consume a lot more calories than they did thirty years ago. Taxation of unhealthy foods will reduce weight gain and other health-related issues. However, that alone will not solve the health problems Americans have because of poor diets. The dietary choices Americans make do not include high levels of nutrient-dense foods. This is partly due to the high prices of healthy and organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and beans. In addition, organic, pesticide and hormone-free fruits and vegetables and animal protein are not as easily available and cost too much to afford for daily basis consumption. By increasing access to more healthy foods, Americans are able to make better choices and live healthier lives. For example, such revenue can be used to “[increase and improve availability of supermarket and farmers market in underserved areas]” (CDC). Pulitzer Prize winner, David Leonheardt, could not have said it better when he wrote an article for The New York Times, “If [Americans consumed fewer calories], we would be both thinner and richer” (Leonhardt).
Simply taxing certain foods will not solely help create a healthier nation. Advertisement needs to change. Food and beverage advertisement must be changed, limited and regulated in order to create and promote a healthier country. Why is it that burger joints, carbonated beverages, like soda, weight loss pills—even alcohol—are advertised yet programs like 5-a-Day rarely seen? Government funding needs to be created in order to promote and expand the promotion of consuming fresh fruits, vegetables, grains and beans. If advertisement to sell clothes, new technology, cars, services and many other unnecessary gadgets and doohickeys, then advertisement must also work to promote the selling and consumption of beneficial food. So far, 5-A-Day commercials are the fewer ones being aired and advertised on television. This program “receives about five-million dollars in annual funding and has a negligible impact” (Jacobson, 153).
Advertisement through commercials, or through any other media, for unhealthy, high-caloric food needs to lessen. Less advertisement of unhealthy food means that less promoting would be done. In return, that would lead to less purchasing of that product. The less advertisement the public experiences, retention of information is less, thus consumption and purchasing products decreases. Not only should there be a limit or reduction to advertisement, but it must also be regulated. Advertisement, however, is not the only aspect that needs to be regulated. Fast-food chains also need to be regulated, decreased or limited. By strategically placing fast-food restaurants farther away from communities, individuals are less likely to approach and purchase meals there. Not having these outlets as easily available, accessible or convenient, people will not be as prone to go out of their way to grab a bite to eat. The accessibility of these fast-food joints is what created the problem of obesity and health-related dilemmas in the first place.Local governments also need funding in order to encourage and maintain healthy communities. Funding for creation and maintaining facilities that encourage, promote, and educate communities about fitness, health and nutrition will benefit individually greatly. Instead of building or opening another Starbucks, Taco Bell or McDonald’s on the corner, or near publicly-dense areas, a fitness center could replace it. Creating more recreational facilities to increase physical activity would only be of assistance to countless. With the help of government aid, families and individuals would have affordable access to a gym and become educated though courses which promote fitness, nutrition and healthier eating habits.
Additionally, community gardens are also a wonderful, easy, and affordable technique to promoting and encourage better eating behaviors. Moreover, incentives could also be placed here. Through local farming and community gardens, more produce can be sold at the local farmers’ markets. (And implementing more farmers’ market in the community schedule would not be such a bad idea, either!) Because food would be more affordable, more families and individuals would consume more nutritionally-dense groceries. An article in The Wall Street Journal describes a study in which “kids who live in areas where fruits and vegetables are expensive are more likely to gain excess amounts of weight than kids in areas where those foods are relatively cheaper” (Rundle). Because accessibility to healthy, affordable, nutrient-rich food is not present in the community, people turn to process, junk and fast-food. People buy the unhealthy stuff. Why? Because it’s cheap! People are not buying the healthy food. Why? Because it’s expensive! Now, it the roles were reversed, would Americans still buy expensive, unhealthy food? Of course not. But the sad part is that people are buying and eating what they can afford.
Although many may not see obesity as a problem, it is a constant reminder that Americans need to find ways to improve one’s own health and life. Many may not agree that this is an issue that U.S. government needs to deal with, but it is the help America needs is dire. The government’s aid can only benefit such need. Adults and children are gaining weight as a result of not being able to afford fruits and vegetables or the correct food on the pyramid. Many are malnourished as a result of lack of nutritive-based food. In the 1990s, the United States Department of Agriculture—a department created and funded by United States government—established the food pyramid in order to “improve the nutrition and well-being of Americans” (USDA). U.S.D.A. was the one that created the guidelines for the food groups. The foods U.S.D.A. recommends are expensive to purchase in order to abide by those guidelines. If this department of the government created such a pyramid, shouldn’t the government then help the one’s they want to have follow such guidelines? Food has become almost unaffordable, yet people disagree with the fact that government should step in? It only makes sense that government should support and repair the pyramid project it started.
Works Cited
Arnst, Catherine. "Taxing the Rich—Foods, That Is." 12 Feb 2009. Business Week. 12 Apr 2011
Brownell, Kelly. “Want a Healthier State? Save Gov. Paterson's Tax on Sugar Soda.” New York News – NY Daily News. 17 Feb. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
CDC. “Healthy Communities: What Local Governments Can Do To Reduce and Prevent Obesity.” GA, Atlanta. 11 Apr. 2011. PowerPoint. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/CDC_Healthy_Communities.pdf
Girion, Lisa. “Obesity Is Costly to State, Report Says; Californians’ Weight Problems Could Lead to Health Expenses and Lost Productivity Totaling $28.7 Billion This Year, the Study Says.” Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 6 Apr. 2005: C1. ProQuest. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
Jacobson, Michael F. Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could Save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Koch, Wendy. “Soda Makers: Don't Tax Our Soft Drinks.” USATODAY.com. 16 Aug. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.
Leonhardt, David. “Sodas a Tempting Tax Target.” The New York Times. 19 Apr. 2009. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
Rundle, Rhonda L. “Study Links Produce Prices to Obesity.” Wall Street Journal [New York] 6 Oct. 2005: D5. ProQuest. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.
The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity. From Wallet to Waistline The Hidden Costs of Super Sizing”. Rep. The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://www.cspinet.org/w2w.pdf>.
USDA. "USDA's MyPyramid.gov - About Us." MyPyramid.gov. 9 Feb. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2011.
