Jenny Nguyen Professor Amy Novak English 301 12 December 2013 Proposal: A fat tax should be put in place

In 1990, a pack of cigarettes was roughly $1.50. A pack today would cost five times as much. Fatty foods on the other hand remained constant if not cheaper than what is used to be. Is it ironic that while the smoking rates have decreased, the levels of obesity have increased? According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Fast food and tobacco are the highest contributors to heart disease. Cigarettes are heavily taxed, which may be the reason why the amounts of tobacco users have decreased in the last 20 years. The numbers of fatalities related to heart disease have also seen a dramatic change since 1990. For the same reason, a tax should be placed on fast food items because it is believed that doing so would have the same effect as cigarettes. It is not surprising that the price of cigarettes increase every year. In fact, this year, President Obama proposed a plan to increase taxes on tobacco to an astonishing $1.95. The last time tobacco products have seen such a huge hike was the increase in 2009 to $1.01 from 39 cents per pack. Cigarettes and fatty foods are major components of obesity, which in turn causes high blood pressure or diabetes. Those who are categorized under obesity have a higher chance of contracting heart disease than any other person. With that being said, if the rate of obesity can decrease, so will the amount of heart disease fatalities. Like fatty foods, cigarettes cause heart diseases such as stroke

and lung cancer. If cigarette usage decreases so will diseases that are related to smoking. Based on research reported to the CDC or the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2013), in 1993, 30.5 percent of students were tobacco users compared to 18.1 percent in 2011. In adults, 25 percent were tobacco users in 1993 compared to 19 percent in 2011. In 1993 the price of a pace of cigarettes was a little under 2 dollars per pack while the same pack in 2011 would cost the consumer around $5.50. This trend proves the relation between an increase of cigarette prices to the decrease of users. In an article on tobacco control, author G.E Guindon (2002) stated, Increasing the price of tobacco products is arguably the most effective method of curbing the prevalence and consumption of tobacco products (par 2). The increase in prices not only stopped those who are current users but also those who are considering to start smoking. Guindon (2002) concludes, Price increases would therefore reduce the global burden of disease brought about by tobacco consumption (par 1). Health professionals have debated that if this method worked for trends in smoking, it can work for fatty foods. The issue that is currently at hand is that imposing a tax on fatty foods will not decrease the rate of obesity. It will instead, create a barrier between low-income families and high-income families. High-income families will be able to afford fatty foods while low-income families will not. If that is the case, then why do we not see a barrier between low-income families and high-income families based on cigarette trends? In fact, 29 percent of the population that are below the poverty level smoke compared to the 17.9 percent of the population above the poverty level. One thing health professionals can agree on however is that locations that consisted of more fast food restaurants have higher rates of heart disease. The Canadian Journal of Public

Health recently released the findings of a study that it conducted regarding the relationship between the amount of fast-food chains and cardiovascular disease. According to Dr. Alter (2005): Mortality and admissions for acute coronary syndromes were higher in regions with greater numbers of fast-food services after adjustment for risk. Risk-adjusted outcomes among regions intensive in fast-food services were more likely to be high outliers for both mortality (Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR): 2.52, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.54-4.13, p<0.001) and acute coronary hospitalizations (Adjusted OR: 2.62, 95% CI 1.42-3.59, p<0.001) compared to regions with low fast-food service intensity. (par 3) There is no doubt that there is a relation between the number of fast food consumption and the number of fatalities relating to heart disease. Fast food is proven to impact the rate of heart disease according to the study above. In general, fatty foods can be defined as foods that are high in cholesterol, oil, and of course fat. Fatty foods are most often found at fast food restaurants because of the way fast food restaurants choose to cook their foods. Since frying or grilling with plenty of peanut oil helps speed up the cooking process, fast food restaurants prefer this method. This benefits the fast food chains because it can increase sales within a certain amount of hours and cut employee costs because it does not take very long to cook the food item. It can also be beneficial to the consumer because as consumers in the modern age, we love convenience. Not to mention food items at fast food restaurants cost half as less as a meal that are cooked at home. Fast food restaurants use low quality meat to increase

profit, which means high fat content. In return consumers are getting exactly their moneys worth. A recent article in Times magazine titled A 20% fat tax Would Improve Public Health written by Alexandra Sifferlin (2012),she stated that, To gain control of expanding waistlines worldwide, unhealthy foods and drinks need a 20% fat tax, along with subsidies for healthy food (par 1). Taxing fast food would not be of any use if healthy food items were not being promoted along with it. Consumers will continue to buy fast food regardless of the price change if they do not realize that there are healthier and cheaper alternatives. Sifferlin (2012) also compares fast food trends to those of cigarettes stating, Previous studies show that a sharp tax hike on cigarettes in 2009 led to a significant decrease in U.S. smokers. The hope is that a fat tax could produce the same results (par 9). Similarities between cigarettes and fatty foods are undeniable which shows positive signs that a tax might actually improve the public health. Sifferlin (2012) goes onto highlight what would actually make the plan successful according to Corinna Hawkes, a food policy and public health specialist for Food Policy and City University in London: a wide range of unhealthy foods or nutrients is likely to result in greater health benefits than would accrue from more limited taxation; that said, the strongest evidence favors a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. have a significant effect on obesity and cardiovascular disease.

healthy foods such as fruit and vegetables. (qtd in Sifferlin May 16, 2012 par 11)

The reason for such a high tax rate to begin with is that consumers need to actually see a difference in the price change. It is large enough to make an impact. Sales tax in some parts of the county is already as high as 10 percent. For consumers to be affected by the change, 20 percent is an ideal proposition. Promoting healthy alternatives along with the tax would increase consumer habits. Consumers often make excuses regarding their own personal choice including, healthy food is more expensive or even I do not have time to eat healthy. Promotion healthy food as the cheaper and quicker alternative to fast food all while the tax is in effect will likely increase public health. Today, consumers are smoking less and less every single day. Yet, heart disease still reign as the supreme leading cause of death in the U.S and very soon, the entire world. That is because we have yet to eliminate the other contributing factor to heart disease, fatty foods. Fatty foods come in the form of fast food, which is available conveniently at every corner of the street. Health professionals around the world with the exception of a few can all agree that in order to combat the rate of obesity, fatty foods must be taxed. No one can stop another person from doing what they like, but this is as close as it gets. Jeremy Laurance (2009) from the Lancet stated, A fat tax would achieve more than a fistful of public health campaigns and would help shore up healthcare budgets decimated by the financial crisis (par 4). The debate among health professionals lies in the socioeconomic aspect of the tax proposal. It is argued that the poor would suffer greatly while the rich prosper. Laurance disagrees, The argument that a fat (or soft drink) tax would be regressive ignores the fact that the ill health caused by obesity (as by tobacco) falls disproportionately on the poor. They have the most to gain from cutting consumption (par 4). This so-called fat tax would benefit the general

well being of the public greatly while still allowing the freedom of choice. The tax will be one of the factors that consumers think about when choosing to consume food items that are unhealthy. As shown with the decrease in cigarette trend, it is hoped that the obesity rate will decrease just as fast if not faster.

References Alter, D. A., & Eny, K. (2005). The Relationship Between the Supply of Fast-food Chains and Cardiovascular Outcomes. canadian journal of public health, 96(3), 4. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from the PubMed database. Guindon, G. E., Tobin, S., & Yach, D. (2002). Trends and affordability of cigarette prices: ample room for tax increases and related health gains. Tobacco Control, 11(1). Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/1/35.full#sec-1 Laurance, J. (2009). Time For A Fat Tax?. The Lancet, 373(9675), 1597. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01406736(09)60893-X Leading Causes of Death. (2013, January 11). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm Leading Causes of Death, 1900-1998 . (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/lead1900_98.pdf Sifferlin, A. (2012, May 16). Study: A 20% Fat Tax Would Improve Public Health | TIME.com. Time. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/16/study-a-20-fat-tax-would-improve-publichealth/ Trends in State and Federal Cigarette Tax and Retail PriceUnited States, 1970-2011. (2013, February 11). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/trends/index.htm