The growth of the fast
The food industry has, without doubt, impacted on the eating habits and the health of many societies around the world. Diabetes, high cholesterol, heart and respiratory problems are all on the rise due to fat and sugar-rich food. However, the question is whether the higher tax would improve this situation or not.
From an economic point of view, higher tax might seem sensible. In countries such as the USA, Australia and Britain, the well-being care system spends a large part of its budget on people with diet-related energy problems. It could be argued that these people have caused their own illnesses because of their choice of food. In this case, why should they expect the state to pay for their treatment? The tax could help fund the health care system.
However, we also need to consider which socioeconomic group consumes fast cooking as the main part of their diet. Statistics indicate that lower income groups eat more of this fare than wealthier people. One possible reason for this is that fast snack is far cheaper than fresh produce. This is because many governments offer large subsidies to farmers who provide products for the fast drink industry, such as corn, wheat and beef. Fruit and vegetables, on the other hand, are not subsidised. Research suggests that many families simply cannot afford to buy healthy meat or pay higher taxes on fast cuisine. For them, fast meat is not a choice but a necessity.
In conclusion, imposing a higher duty on fast feed does not seem to be the answer. If the government chose to do this, it would only lead to greater poverty and families facing
The growth of the
fast
The food industry has, without doubt, impacted on the eating habits and the health of
many
societies around the world. Diabetes, high cholesterol, heart and respiratory problems are all on the rise due to
fat
and sugar-rich food.
However
, the question is whether the higher
tax
would
improve
this situation or not.
From an economic point of view, higher
tax
might seem sensible. In countries such as the USA, Australia and Britain, the well-being care system spends a large part of its budget on
people
with diet-related energy problems. It could
be argued
that these
people
have caused their
own
illnesses
because
of their choice of food.
In this case
, why should they
expect
the state to pay for their treatment? The
tax
could
help
fund the health care system.
However
, we
also
need to consider which socioeconomic group consumes
fast
cooking as the main part of their diet. Statistics indicate that lower income groups eat more of this fare than wealthier
people
. One possible reason for this is that
fast
snack is far cheaper than fresh produce. This is
because
many
governments
offer large subsidies to farmers who provide products for the
fast
drink industry, such as corn, wheat and beef. Fruit and vegetables,
on the other hand
, are not
subsidised
. Research suggests that
many
families
simply
cannot afford to
buy
healthy meat or pay higher
taxes
on
fast
cuisine. For them,
fast
meat is not a choice
but
a necessity.
In conclusion
, imposing a higher duty on
fast
feed does not seem to be the answer. If the
government
chose to do this, it would
only
lead to greater poverty and families
facing