More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?
Do you agree or disagree?
Some people think the government should increase the price of fattening food items to solve this problem.
Should the government increase the price to reduce the incidence of obesity? Yes or no? Proposal
Yes they should:
- Assumption (would) if such an action taken,
- It will dissuade consumers from opting for such things and they will have to settle for cheaper but healthier options or home cooked meals
- Manufacturers will reduce the amount of fat being used in producing food items
Why this action should not be taken
- Blaming food will not alleviate the problem
- It is not the food but the sedentary lifestyles that is cause of this issue so, the state must ensure that this is taken care of effectively
- People will not abandon consumption to these items: they are forced to do so because of their overwhelming engagement with their professional and academic pursuits. Therefore, the state must focus on providing relief to people from their over-draining schedules so that people can get some time to cook rather than buy food.
- They should instead promote active lifestyles
- They should instead persuade the manufacturers to reduce the fat content in their produce.
The rising incidence of corpulence has caused an alarm about its impact on human health. This has prompted many to suggest that policy makers must intervene by making fattening food expensive, for this might discourage consumption of fatty foods. However, I fail to align myself with this proposal completely; this is unlikely to produce desired outcomes.
The school of thought proposing this arrangement assumes that costly edible goods loaded with fat would become unaffordable for a majority of consumers, especially youngsters, addicted to such material, and persuade a switchover to healthier alternatives. Moreover, this could also coax manufacturers to reduce fattening content in their preparations, and support healthy food intake.
However, this policy is unlikely to succeed as the food industry will turn to manipulative practices and tweak the quantity and quality of their merchandise to absorb the impact of extra levies, and still charge their clients the same price, thereby rendering this strategy ineffective. For instance, the UK government imposed extra taxes on gluten-laden crisps in 2010 to help mitigate intake of excessive sugar, but the sales continued to climb; food companies simply reduced the sizes of the crisps and the weight of packaging and their businesses continued as usual.
Similarly, the need of the hour is to address the root cause of this physical condition: it is the sedentary lifestyle that is making people obese; and improved food habits cannot resolve this issue. Therefore, lawmakers must focus on promoting active lifestyles to persuade people to physically exert and metabolize calories they consume with food and sustain their fitness.
Overall, this recommendation lacks practical vision and professes a superficial situation by disregarding the actual cause of obesity, whereas minor adjustments in the product will offset any presumed benefits derived from a hike in prices.
The school of thought proposing this arrangement assumes that costly edible goods loaded with fat would become unaffordable for a majority of consumers, especially youngsters, addicted to such material, and persuade a switchover to healthier alternatives. Moreover, this could also coax manufacturers to reduce fattening content in their preparations, and support healthy food intake.
However, this policy is unlikely to succeed as the food industry will turn to manipulative practices and tweak the quantity and quality of their merchandise to absorb the impact of extra levies, and still charge their clients the same price, thereby rendering this strategy ineffective. For instance, the UK government imposed extra taxes on gluten-laden crisps in 2010 to help mitigate intake of excessive sugar, but the sales continued to climb; food companies simply reduced the sizes of the crisps and the weight of packaging and their businesses continued as usual.
Similarly, the need of the hour is to address the root cause of this physical condition: it is the sedentary lifestyle that is making people obese; and improved food habits cannot resolve this issue. Therefore, lawmakers must focus on promoting active lifestyles to persuade people to physically exert and metabolize calories they consume with food and sustain their fitness.
Overall, this recommendation lacks practical vision and professes a superficial situation by disregarding the actual cause of obesity, whereas minor adjustments in the product will offset any presumed benefits derived from a hike in prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.