Have you ever thought about obesity in the United States and how to reduce it? In their opinion articles, Marlow and Shiers estimate that researchers at the Atlanta Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently account for 1% of total health care costs - estimated to be $ 147 billion in 2008 (Marlow and Shiers). Approximately 10% of medical expenses and 147 billion dollars are due to obesity. It not only accounts for nearly 10% of the medical budget, but also explains the obesity of the recent children.
An overly simple solution to obesity of disabling industrial products and food is a bad public policy. In reality, the junk food tax and sugar drinking tax are ineffective and do not recognize the complexity of obesity and the bluntness of multiple causes. It is time to put these tax considerations in the right place. Garbage can
While health researchers and staff have been considering junk food taxes for a long time, so far most of their energy has concentrated on soda tax. Since there is sufficient evidence that sugar sweet drinks are related to the diet environment, sugar sweet drinks are a natural departure attempt to try government intervention in the food environment, as soda water is an easily changeable part of the meal It is a point. However, the authors of the newspaper published in the American Journal of Public Health say that the time has come to start thinking wider. Jennifer Pomeranz, the first author of this paper at New York University, says: "It is important to talk about not only candied drinks but also whole meals."
The junk food tax is defined as "taxes on foods with low nutritional value such as general foods including sugar, while taxes on nutritious foods are not taxed" (Rupert Taylor, 2009). Junk food is usually consumed by elderly people and most kids, adults and even the elderly like to eat junk food. It can be said that junk food contains a lot of fat and food additives that are low in nutritional value and poor health. Research seems to suggest (Dr. Michael Booth, 2009)