Repealing Soda Tax: Pros and Cons

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Analysis
Conclusions
Bibliography

Introduction

The article titled Chicagos Soda Tax is Repealed, published by The Economist on October 13th, 2017, celebrates the repeal of the infamous soda tax, which received large amounts of criticism from both the soft drink lobby and the regular customers, who were upset with how their soft drinks suddenly went up in price. The price increases were quite significant, ranging from 10% to 50%, depending on the amount of added sugary sweeteners (Terruso 2017).

This caused a panic among the populace of Illinois, some of the more industrious citizens driving to other states in order to stock up on soft drinks. While the article seems to lend support to the bold claim that the tax was a beverage taxes are really a money grab that has nothing to do with public health, the issues regarding the tax run deeper than being an attempt to clog an 1.8 billion hole in the budget (Chicagos Soda Tax 2017).

Analysis

The main issue with sugary drinks is closely related to Americas ongoing obesity problem. The author cites this and even shows some statistics to back up the claim, but never lends any narrative credibility to the healthcare statement. On the other hand, the preference for the narrative of the soft drink lobby. The title itself describes the authors position perfectly the second line under the article says the repeal is A big victory for makers of sweet drinks, but does not mention that it is a loss for the pro-health care lobby (Chicagos Soda Tax 2017).

The sad truth is that sugary drinks are directly responsible for the obesity problem currently plaguing the USA. While the authors mention that sugary drinks provide empty calories and that 20 to 23% of all Americas children are obese, it is not the whole story (Chicagos Soda Tax 2017). Various researchers have been alarmed with increasing rates of obesity ever since the beginning of the 21st century, and all of them point out towards sugary drinks as a prominent factor. Actual obesity numbers for US adults are even higher 30 to 32% (Caprio 2013).

In many cases, the foundation for long-term weight problems was laid out during youth and adolescence. Caprio (2013) states that the calories in soft drinks are dangerous because the body does not register them as food. A person who consumes hundreds of calories via sugary drinks does not feel sated, which is an effective path to overeating. In addition, caffeine and sugar, which are present in many soft drinks, actually cause dehydration instead of quenching thirst, contrary to popular advertisements (Caprio 2013).

Lastly, the author fails to mention that the so-called soda drink tax is not an American invention. Similar laws have been passed in many countries, such as the UK, France, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Hungary, and others (Forster 2017). According to a meta-analysis performed by Escobar et al. (2013), taxation of sugary drinks leads to a decrease in demand for them as well as to a decrease in the prevalence of overweightness and obesity.

The article correctly pinpoints the weaknesses of the tax in its current form. One of the major complaints is considering fruit juices, which also contain added sugar (Chicagos Soda Tax 2017). Other concerns revolving around the Soda tax are related to the economic prosperity and needs of the customers. As the population of Illinois demonstrated, they do not need the government to tell them what is healthy and what is not, defending their freedom of choice, even if the said choice is poor from a healthcare perspective. Soft drink producers, on the other hand, are unhappy with profits decline from the artificial price increase. Such an intervention is against the laws of the free market.

Conclusions

On the one hand, there is a clear health benefit to the tax, even in its current and imperfect form. On the other hand, however, is the profitability of large corporate entities and the freedom of choice of many American citizens. According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report (2017), more than 29 million Americans have diabetes, which is often associated with and caused by obesity and overweightness. At the same time, statistics show that the primary consumers of sugary drinks come from impoverished backgrounds.

In other words, these people lead an unhealthy way of life and then demand the government to pay for their healthcare. In my opinion, if the government provides for these peoples insurance, covering more than 50% of its initial costs, then it has a say in what kind of lifestyle they get to live.

Bibliography

Caprio, Sonia. 2012. Calories from Soft Drinks Do They Matter? New England Journal of Medicine 367: 1462-1463.

Chicagos Soda Tax is Repealed. 2017. The Economist. Web.

Escobar, Maria Cabrera, Lennert Veerman, Stephen Tollman, Melanie Bertram, and Karen Hofman. 2013. Evidence that a Tax on Sugar Sweetened Beverages Reduces the Obesity Rate: a Meta-Analysis. BMC Public Health 13: 1072.

Forster, Katie. 2017. Budget 2017: New Sugar Tax Confirmed by Philip Hammond in Fight to Combat Rising Obesity. Independent. Web.

National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. 2017. CDC. Web.

Terruso, Julia. 2017. Philly Finds New Tax not so Sweet. The Inquirer. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Repealing Soda Tax: Pros and Cons

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)