More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?  

Obesity has become almost an epidemic today, and health activists argue that this challenge can be surmounted  by making products laden with excessive fat, expensive.  I disagree with this notion, as this can superficially deal with the issue but will not help eradicate it. 

Nowadays,  rather than food choices, corpulence is directly linked to hectic lifestyles almost everyone is exposed to. In the contemporary face-paced world, individuals are so absorbed in their work, they often neglect their health and lifestyle. Consequently, ready-made food becomes a convenient option.  As per  WHO, working professionals and students rely heavily on such products highlighting convenience that often outweighs cost. 

Moreover, the connection between the prices of fattening content in meals and corpulent people is a misplaced notion: even the costly edible goods will fail to dissuade those used to consuming these goods regularly.  This phenomenon cannot simply be controlled by increasing the prices of the products; habitual buyers would continue to purchase out of habit and convenience, and there is no force on earth, even excessive pricing,  that can dissuade them from avoiding highly-processed packaged foods. 

Similarly, lack of education about nutrition coupled with sedentary lifestyles exacerbate the situation, with the latter becoming an epidemic. Most rarely exert themselves physically while working, traveling and enjoying leisure, among others, and are likely to become overweight, regardless of their intake. Many studies have evidenced that even those consuming healthy diets develop larger girths due to them being indolent, so prices of foods are effectively disconnected from obesity. 

In conclusion, charging more for edible products containing fatty ingredients is likely to fail in achieving the objective of  alleviating incidence of obesity: this can be only achieved by encouraging people to abandon indolent ways of life and educating them about healthy food options. 

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?

 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?

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.

Obesity is menacing the future of society. This has prompted some to suggest that the state should intervene and make edible items that are laden with fat content, costlier to mitigate this health condition. However, others voice their dissent on this issue. 

This suggestion is founded on an assumption that expensive fattening nourishment will force people to opt for other more healthier options since such alternatives will either go out of the reach of a majority of consumers, especially youngsters, or will provide little motivation to consume such products since these items will cost as much as pricey healthy food. Most of the time people are seen consuming such items since these either are quite economical to afford, or are cashing on the desires to evade the struggle of cooking at home. However, this action will compel many to reconsider their options in favor of appropriate nutrition. 

Nevertheless, others suggest a more practical approach and are critical of this one. They predict that this policy is highly unlikely to obliterate corpulence since consumption of edible goods loaded with fat is a compulsion rather than a matter of voluntary choice. Most are pushed into buying such things: they have overwhelming work schedules and are exhausted by the time they reach home, leaving them with little energy to think about  preparing healthy meals. Moreover, it is the sedentary lifestyle from where this issue stems and not what people consume. Therefore, the state must promote healthy lifestyles and also persuade manufacturers to use healthy ingredients, instead of resorting to such impractical methods.  

Overall, the proposed policy of price hike of edible products that carry surfeit fat seems to be lacking in substance. Governments must act pragmatically and instead of punishing citizens,  they should look for more viable  options.  

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

Obesity is a modern malady, and a pressing concern, fed by modern lifestyles and gluten laden nourishment, but can making edible items, with high fat content, prohibitively expensive help surmount this challenge, is a matter that needs a careful analysis.  

Enforcing this policy is assumed to serve great purpose; it could dissuade individuals from consuming fattening food items. Most buyers, especially youngsters: the primary consumers of such products, would circumvent purchasing these high-calorie food items, and lean in favor of low cost in comparison to the healthy alternatives, or opt for home cooked meals.  

Having said that, presumptions are hardly going to resolve the situation, for a majority are more focused on the taste, and how readily the nourishment can be made available. Gone are the days when one had time to think about their eating habits; nowadays, individuals are overwhelmingly engaged with their professional life, resulting in a dramatic shift in their food consumption patterns, and prices are going to remain inconsequential. 

Additionally, there are myriads of reasons behind the individuals becoming obese: wrong choice of food; heightened anxiety levels; and hormonal imbalances are chief contributors to the corpulent population. This has been clearly corroborated by citing outcomes of a Canadian research that not all the overweight population is consuming fattening edible goods, but the primary culprits are genetic defects and stress-fueled depression - that force people to resort to binge eating. In such a case, a hike in the price is going to be of little help.

To recap, I believe corpulence stems from a myriad of causes: lack of time to determine the type of meals to be ingested; deepening stress and inherent tendency to gain weight, and making food with extra fats costly will prove of little consequence. 

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

Whether making edible items that lead to obesity can help surmount this challenge, is an intriguing question. There is humongous skepticism about the rationale behind this proposal.  

Proponents of the price rise assume that the high cost of fattening food would affect its affordability and take it out of the reach of many, especially the youngsters, the most devoted consumers of such edible items. This segment would have to either opt for economical options that can ill-afford to offer expensive greasy ingredients, or choose healthy home-cooked meals, reducing the incidence of corpulence naturally. 

Nevertheless, the reality is far from being so rosy: the consumption of the food with sumptuous fat content is sometimes the only alternative for the overworked people - engaged in work for extended hours at office, or dedicated to their academic pursuits. Consequently, compelling them to opt for the most readily available nourishment, regardless of the cost, and consume it, whenever they confront the pangs of hunger.  

Similarly, blaming fattening food for obesity is only a knee-jerk reaction and overlooking the primary cause. Corpulence primarily stems from sedentary lifestyles and from not what one is ingesting. It has been observed that of late, most have been engaging in indolent lifestyles, where they tend to be seated for most of the day, be it their work, traveling, or even when they are with their families experiencing free time. They tend to be physically inactive, and are unable to metabolize calories they consume, causing them to gain weight.   

Overall, I cannot concur with this proposal since it is not the intake that is causing a rise in the incidence of corpulence but the physically inactive ways of life, something that must be taken care of in order to let people lead a healthy life. 

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

More and more people are getting overweight. Some people think that increasing the price of fattening food items can solve this problem. Do you agree or disagree?

The great public discourse of concurrent times is associated with whether the intake of high calorie food can be mitigated by raising the price of such items, or not. Some support this and others oppose this.    

A lobby professes that the rise in the prices of food loaded with glutton would definitely reduce the intake of junk food as this would force consumers to switch to low calorie options which are healthier in nature, restricting the food shopping and  thus consumption. To exemplify, the International Food Policy Research Institute is proposing hiking the cost of calorie-rich edible items after a successful pilot study conducted in various parts of the world, wherein the targeted population involved in study almost eliminated the edible products, from their shopping lists, that were laden with fat because of the unaffordable prices. 

However, a section disagrees with the notion and believes, this move might not yield the desired results since the origin of this problem lies in the inability of a major part of the population to procure or cook healthy options due to their over engagement with their work or studies, leaving them with little time to consider their health, and so they choose they the readily available alternatives. To add to the woes, most are committed to flaunt their association with processed and packed food, which is often filled with fatty ingredients to enhance the taste that eventually causes addiction. Such people will continue to consume such material despite high prices.  

Overall, I disagree with the notion that raising the price of high calorie food would address the issue. People need to remain aware of their well being. It is necessary to discover plausible options to surmount this challenge.