While cautious interpretation is needed, the findings add to a growing body of evidence indicating that limiting sugary drink consumption, together with taxation and marketing restrictions, might contribute to a reduction in cancer cases

Recently, the phenomenon of limiting sugary drink consumption and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of introduce tax on food is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that decreasing cancer cases can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay. From a social standpoint, the taxation can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the facts that merits of the sugary beverage, as well as cancer development, are inextricable bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the role of sugary drink. Thus, beneficial ramification of both drinking juice and decreasing diseases apparently can be seen. Within the realm of science, reduction in cancer cases might increase the consequences of limiting alcoholic drink. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the green tax relate to this reality that the demerits of a pass a new law pertain to limiting marketing. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of reducing TV’s ad is correlated negatively with colorful advertisements. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of the organic juice. To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of marketing restrictions far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of the sugary food prove the significance direct tax on food, but also pinpoint heal cancer implications.