Fitness and the Major Causes of Obesity

In the United States, one of the most controversial topics among average citizens is fitness and the major causes of obesity. Statistics show that nearly 70% of adults in the U.S. are classified as overweight or obese (Akil and Ahmad 61). The article "Obesity and Social Inequality" further states that "The prevalence of overweight/obesity in the United States is high, as evidenced by the nation's average BMI of 27.6%" (Broady and Meeks 202). In the British Medical Journal, the term "Fat Tax" is defined as "A tax on fat, saturated fat, or the dietary causes of obesity" (Mytton 1). Although numerous Americans love their Big-Mac, super-sized fries, and a substantial coke, the procedure for Fat Tax is to help Americans in settling on an upright choice on their healthier decisions and putting resources into a more advantageous way of life. For wellbeing specialists to completely achieve is getting everybody to comprehend that bad eating habits doesn't simply influence us as individuals, however influences society in general. Despite the fact that it just contributes a little rate in the arrangement, the consolidated impacts of Fat Tax will help diminish the high rates of obesity that exist today. Accordingly, by up-charging charges junk foods, the choice to pick healthier food options would be all the more engaging. Through this technique, Fat Tax could urge our general public to enhance their standards as it identifies with a more advantageous way of life. The important eating regimen changes can furnish people with more vitality to finish their day-by- day undertakings, and may even encourage them to join every day works out. Many college students struggle when it comes to money and deciding what they're going to eat. Us college students get so caught up into our work or other activities that we don't often have time to eat anything but fast food. In The State Press it states, "In addition to a lack of time, many students do not have access to a kitchen or car" (Deadrick 2017). This quote is true because not many college students have a kitchen or car their first few years, with this being a dilemma, many of these students have to go to the student union or the cafeteria to eat. The cafeteria usually has a better food option, but when people are in a hurry they don't have time to sit down and eat so they eat the less healthy food options in the Student Union. Regardless, similarly as there are constantly two sides to each story, this contention is the same and has a restricting point of view. The contradicting bunch has communicated that Fat Tax shouldn't exist in our general public, since it's considered separation towards the individuals who are hefty and they shouldn't be rebuffed for being corpulent. They likewise shared the hypothesis that having higher duties on greasy nourishments may conceivably make Fat Tax inevitably add duty to more beneficial sustenance alternatives too. In opposition to the contradicting sides, Fat Tax is really intended to just influence Americans to stop and think before purchasing greasy substances. The fundamental principal of Fat Tax isn't only for the individuals who are fat, yet additionally to teach everybody about the greasy substances they expend and impact more beneficial nourishment decisions. Individuals who devour unfortunate nourishments increase the likelihood of heaviness, heart issues, hypertension, shortness of breath, and different illnesses. Some trust the main offender that causes stoutness is the substance one eats; yet sugary/carbonated beverages have a major influence in the condition also. In the article "Sugar Wars" it states, "High consumption of sugary drinks is linked to heart disease, diabetes, and long-term weight gain" (Majerol 6). Expanding the expenses on sweet/carbonated refreshments can likewise enhance weight rates. In the British Medical Journal it states, "These techniques predict that a 20% tax on sugary drinks in the US would reduce the prevalence of obesity by 3.5%" (Mytton 2). Nonetheless, to be most effective, it's trusted that Fat Tax should first actualize their strategies on soft drinks. In the article, "Taxing the Rich-Foods, That Is" they state, "Late last year, New York Governor David A. Patterson proposed an 18% sales tax on non-diet soda and sugary drinks for the fiscal year starting in April" (Arnst 62). Along these lines, when New York's governor included a tax on those sugary beverages it would fund-raise towards public health programs. Despite the fact that Fat Tax may help diminish obesity rates, the contradicting parties have helped revealed insight into its biased conceivable outcomes, and furthermore its capability to build imbalance in this part of society. Some have likewise contended that the Fat Tax will be hard for those individuals who aren't financially steady. In any case, on the off chance that it can really spare lives, at that point the uncertainty of its reality shouldn't be chosen in view of regardless of whether individuals can manage the cost of more beneficial things. In the article "Taxing the Rich-Foods, That Is" it states, "In a statement, the American Beverage Assn. labeled Patterson's soda tax proposal 'a money grab that will raise taxes on middle-class families' " (Arnst 62). Ordinarily, healthier food choices cost more than low quality foods, which is the reason the contradicting parties feels that taxing foods wouldn't be reasonable. With the assistance of Fat Tax, escalating junk foods and soft drinks should help finance the healthier food options, which means the returns got from the Fat Tax would be utilized to pay a piece of the cost for healthier food options. In the article, " 'Soda taxes' and 'Fat taxes' can help tackle the twin problems of global obesity and under-nutrition" states that taxing certain foods would fund the food stamp program: Adding a 20% tax on soft drinks and snack and processed foods would generate revenue of around US$75.3 billion. If this were entirely earmarked for food security, it would effectively cover the cost of the government's annual food stamp expenditure. Again, even taking a proportion of this would go some way to fund the food stamp program. (Simon 22) Taxing foods will give those people who obtain help from the government the choice to select healthier foods instead of junk foods. Be that as it may, those on the restricting side say including unhealthier foods will inadvertently raise the costs of more advantageous nourishment choices. Including charge unhealthier foods won't raise the expense on solid nourishments. In the article, "Raising Junk Food Prices Could Spur People To Consume Less" states, "Specifically, they found that if you were to lower the cost of healthy foods like fruits and vegetables by 10 percent, consumption of produce would go up between 2 and 8 percent" ("Raising"). There isn't any way that adding tax on junk food would escalate the tax of healthier foods. Additionally, taxing junk foods can enhance an individual's productivity. Those with medical problems have a tendency to have powerless immune systems, which makes them get sick many times and pass up a major opportunity for their occupations and their day by day lives. Individuals that are comfortable with being overweight can hurt the economy, because of their disorders or sicknesses they have. The article "Dietary and Physical activity behaviors related to obesity-specific quality of life and work productivity baseline results from a worksite trial" they state, "Obesity is also associated with reduced productivity, with an estimated $73.1 billion in productivity losses due to obesity among full-time employees" (Cash et al. 1135). Decreasing rates on corpulence and presenting more beneficial food decisions will enable individuals to be more gainful and give them more vitality, which will prompt a more grounded immune system. The contradicting side would state there's no guarantee eating examples will make a move. Dietary patterns would continuously change since individuals would need to change their lives and settle on healthier food choices. Decreasing rates on obesity and offering healthier food choices will enable individuals to be more gainful and give them more vitality, which will give them a better immune system. The contradicting side would state there's no certification eating examples will make a move. Dietary patterns would continuously change since individuals would need to change their lives and settle on more beneficial choices.

Cite this page