Index IntroductionObesity and its health consequencesThe concept of fat tax on junk foodPerspectives on fat tax on junk foodConclusionWorks CitedIntroductionIn the past ten years, the number of people affected by obesity has increased significantly. In 2016, 1.9 billion adults were overweight while 650 million were obese. Additionally, 350 million children and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 19 were obese. In the countries New Zealand, Mexico, the United States and Hungary, obesity rates are the highest, unlike countries such as Japan and Korea where obesity rates are the lowest. The number of people struggling with obesity will not change as studies show it will only increase until at least 2030. One of the potential solutions to address this global health problem is the implementation of a tax on junk food, which aims to discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods and reduce obesity rates. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Obesity and Its Health Consequences Obesity is primarily caused by an imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended. This disease not only affects the shape of the body, but can also cause diseases such as cancer, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis but also cardiovascular diseases. These diseases can be life-threatening and lead to death. In the United States, 1 in 3 people die of a heart attack or stroke and 1 in 12 people die of cancer due to obesity. Furthermore, life expectancy is reduced by approximately 3 years. However, obesity causes direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include medicines, surgeries and laboratory tests. Indirect costs are the value of lost work, insurance and wages. In 2005 in the United States, obesity was responsible for 21% of medical costs, which equates to $190 billion per year. This is money that could definitely be used for other medical services. Obesity is a disease that corresponds to prevention, while diseases such as cancer are not. Therefore drastic changes must be made so that there is a decrease in money spent on medical treatment for obesity. The concept of a fat tax on junk foodOne of the solutions being considered is the introduction of a fat tax. This is a tax on fattening foods. It aims to discourage people from eating unhealthy foods to prevent an unhealthy diet from leading to obesity. It also aims to offset the economic costs of obesity. Research has shown that when you increase the price of foods, whether unhealthy or healthy, people will be less interested in purchasing these foods. Although increasing prices of fattening foods seems like the perfect solution to this problem, the theory is being questioned. For this reason, there has been much discussion about whether or not a tax on fat is the main solution for reducing and preventing obesity. Throughout this essay, I will analyze these two distinct perspectives on this topic, to conclude whether or not the fat tax should be used as the primary solution for obesity reduction and prevention. Perspectives on the Fat Tax on Junk Food First, let's consider the perspective: “The Fat Tax should not be the primary solution for preventing and reducing obesity.” A source that identifies with this perspective is the article “Why taxes on fat won't make us thin” by Laura Cornelsen, researcher in Agri-Health Economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine together with Rosemary Green, Lecturer in Nutrition and Sustainability, Alan Dangour,reader of Food and Nutrition for Global Health and Richard Smith, professor of Health Systems Economics. Cornelsen's main arguments are that there has been a lack of research into the long-term effects of introducing a fat tax. He says there are several factors that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating the effect of the fat tax on health outcomes. Factors that play a role are the availability of substitute products, people's preferences and habits, and supply-side response. Furthermore, they say that because we don't know the impact, more research is needed on the effects of the fat tax. In my opinion, this source is worthy of evaluation because it is neutral in its roots but supports the relevance of the fat tax and clearly states arguments against the fat tax. The neutrality of its roots is a strong point of this article. This is because it took the positive effects into account and therefore makes the opposite argument stronger. Cornelsen's article has both strengths and weaknesses. A weakness of this article is the speculation about the impacts of the fat tax instead of providing scientific evidence and data showing what the direct and indirect impacts are. However, a strength of this article is that they recognize their weakness and explain the reasons why they do not provide the scientific data. Research on the effects of tax policy on diet, obesity and chronic diseases carried out a systematic review of 24 studies that have been done on the effects of taxes on food. The research was conducted and written by Anne Marie Thow, University of Sydney, accompanied by Stephan Jan, The George Institute for International Health, Stephan Leeder, University of Sydney and Boyd Swinburn, Deakin University. This research states that researchers overestimate the effect of fat taxes and that the reality may be disappointing. Support the article "Why fat taxes won't make us lose weight." Therefore, the article is a reliable source. Additionally, an article used to examine the “Fat tax should not be the primary solution for obesity prevention and reduction” perspective is “What the world can learn from Denmark's failed fat tax” written by Olga Khazan on Washington Post. This article mentions the abolition of the fat tax in Denmark, one year after its introduction. According to her, the abolition is due to the growing administrative costs of companies, the purchase of unhealthy products across borders and the risk of losing jobs. Olga Khazan describes the introduction of the fat tax in Denmark as a “failed policy”. The perspective in this article is clearly stated. The source from which they got the information is reliable as it is the Danish Tax Ministry. Even so, no scientific data was used in this article to support the claim made. This weakens the source. Second, let's consider the perspective: “The fat tax should be the main solution for the prevention and reduction of obesity.” A source that supports this perspective is the article “Taxing unhealthy fats can lead to healthy diets, new analysis show”, by S Smed, JD Jensen, University of Copenhagen, together with P Scarborough, M Rayner, University of Oxford. The main argument is that saturated fat taxation in Denmark has had a modest but positive effect. There was a reduction in fat consumption of 4% and an increase in vegetable consumption of 7.9%. The article cites another study that demonstrates the effectiveness of taxing unhealthy foods to benefit our health. It is a valid source due to its scientific background, which therefore makes it reliable. Not only does it show the effect that the tax has onfat has on food consumption, but also the effect it has on cardiovascular disease, which shows that researchers have looked at the broader overall impact. Additionally, the source used a counterargument and responded with a pro argument. This definitely strengthens the source. It is an interesting source to consult as it provides information on how the fat tax affected a country that introduced the fat tax. However, this could be used as a weakness. Use only country-based evidence. This means that the article is not very diverse and does not necessarily represent the situation in other countries. This makes the scientific data used weaker. Another article used to consider the perspective, "Fat tax should be the primary solution for preventing and reducing obesity", is "'Fat tax' on unhealthy foods must increase prices by 20% to take effect, says study” written by Dennis Campbell, health correspondent for the Guardian. This source claims that the introduction of food taxes will help reduce diet-related diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and obesity. This source not only examines the impact the fat tax will have on consumption, but claims that a 20% tax on such drinks in the United States would reduce obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5 % to the cost of unhealthy food in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease deaths linked to obesity and therefore linked to the introduction of the fat tax. Despite this flaw, the article used a study reviewed by professors at the University of Oxford's Department of Public Health which demonstrates that the research that has been done is relevant and reliable. After evaluating the arguments put forward by both sides, I believe that the “Fat Tax should not be the primary solution for preventing and reducing obesity” perspective is the most compelling for multiple reasons. The first is that the sources supporting this perspective have clearly taken the opposite side into consideration. Furthermore, he provides relevant and valuable arguments and has used many sources and research to be able to support his claim. After reflecting on the posed question, it is possible to understand the rationale behind the two perspectives addressed. Initially, my view on this issue was neutral due to its counterbalancing advantages and disadvantages. However, after completing this essay based on an in-depth analysis of a wide range of sources on the two opposing perspectives and their conclusions, I have drawn my own conclusion. The research I have done has definitely changed my personal position on the question of whether the fat tax should be the primary solution for reducing and preventing obesity. However, it should be made clear that the research carried out for this essay is limited. Therefore, I cannot fully confirm whether I support or am against this solution for obesity reduction and prevention. More research would need to be conducted on the overall impact of the fat tax to be fully aware of the consequences and to be able to strengthen my position on this issue. Conclusion For this solution to be fully taken into consideration, scientists need to examine the different aspects that emerge with the introduction of such taxes, such as the availability of substitute products, supply response, purchasing of unhealthy products across borders, the risk of losing jobs due to administrative costs and the impact on healthcare costs.