Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fat Tax Debate

Fat Tax Debate

Ratings: (0)|Views: 81 |Likes:
Published by Juroda96
A debate on tax on fatty food, done for a friendly school debate. Well written and punctuated. Good grammar.
A debate on tax on fatty food, done for a friendly school debate. Well written and punctuated. Good grammar.

More info:

Categories:Types, Speeches
Published by: Juroda96 on Mar 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 Chairperson, timekeeper, adjudicators, Members of the gluttonous,insatiable Opposition, Members of the Proposition, and esteemedmembers of the floor.
The motion today is “This house believes
that ___________________________________________________________
 My partner Joseph and I are extremely in favour of the motion. In my
speech I will talk about the definition of a “Fat Tax”,
Healthy Foods andDenmark
s introduction of a Fat Tax. In my partner Joseph
s speech, hewill be talking about __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________.A fat tax is a tax or that is, well, placed upon fattening foods, beveragesor both. A fat tax aims to discourage unhealthy diets and offsetthe economic costs of obesity. Obesity is increased body weight caused byexcessive accumulation. Numerous studies suggest that as the price of afood increases, consumption of that food decreases. In fact, eatingbehaviour may be more responsive to price increases than to nutritionaleducation. Dr David Ludwig of Harvard University and the Boston GeneralHospital, who coincidentally spoke here in Dublin recently, spoke aboutthere is a higher rate of depression, suicide, unemployment andremaining single among obese people, yet little support for them. A fattax aims to decrease the consumption of foods that are linked to obesity,and hence, help to solve these problems.The Danish gov
ernment’s now infamous fat tax
has caused aninternational uproar, applauded by public health advocates on the onehand and dismissed on the other as a nannying state social engineeringgone berserk, by thick and dense people such as the Opposition, if theytruly carry out what they are appraising.
I see it as one country’s attempt to stave off rising obesity rates, and its
associated medical conditions. But the policies
confusing. WhyDenmark of all places? Why particular foods? Will such taxes reallychange eating behaviour? An
d aren’t there better ways to halt or reverse
rising rates of diet-related disease?
Before getting to these questions, let’s look at what Denmark has done.
In 2009, its government announced a major tax overhaul aimed atcushioning the shock of the global economic crisis, promoting renewable
 energy, protecting the environment, discouraging climate change, andimproving health
all while maintaining revenues, of course.The tax reforms make it more expensive to produce products likely toharm the environment and to consume products potentially harmful tohealth. Taxes on tobacco and sweets were already in place, so it was atax for fats now. Taxes pay for this through policies that maintainrelatively little difference between the incomes of rich and poor. TheDanish population is literate and educated. Its adult smoking rate is 19percent. Its obesity rate is 9.5 percent, below the European average of 15per cent and a level not seen in the US since the 1970s. Denmark haslong used the tax system to achieve health goals. It has taxed candy fornearly 90 years, and was the first country to ban trans-fats in 2003.Because its level of income difference is relatively low, the effects of health taxes are less hard on the poor than in many other countries. Butthe Danes want their health to be better. Obesity rates may be low bymost standards, but they used to be lower
7 per cent in 2000.Like all taxes,
the “health” taxes are supposed to raise revenue: 2.75
billion Danish kroner annually (
357 million). The tax on saturated fat isexpected to account for more than one-third of that.Taxes on cigarettes are set high enough to discourage use, especiallyamong young people. But the food taxes are low, 0.34 kroner on a litre of 
soft drinks, for example. The “fat” tax is 16 kroner per kilogram of 
saturated fat. I
n Euros, the taxes will add 15
cents to a bag of crisps and 40
cents to the price of a burger.
 I love Healthy/Organic food. It's FAR more delicious then every unhealthyfood I've had and, somehow, it magically makes you feel better.Seriously. It's not funny how healthy and tasty it is at the same time. Itmight as well be wizardry.The only problem is the cost of it in comparison to obesity-creating fattyfoods.Honestly, it's not because this Healthy/Organic is exotic. It's not. Theproblem is the monopoly on the food industry that fatty fast and junk
food has. Healthy/Organic food shops don’t have t
he ability to gaincontrol because they can't afford to manufacture the food at lightningspeed without it become more junk food.Since this cannot be accomplished, instead, Organic Food shops have to jump their prices to bankrupting levels to even keep inventory and not goout of business.
 The only good thing about these huge prices are that they emphasize the
high-quality of these delicious, magically healthy wonders from theOrganic Food shops... but ultimately, the quality isn't worth it whenyou're on a budget. I know that if I eat sugar and fat stuffed food that mybody will degenerate, I may get diabetes, have cholesterol problems, andeven heart failure -
my parents didn’t want that to happen to me becausethey don’t want me to die at the age of 50
- they wanted to educate meto the reality of treating your body well. I want to be able to teach mychildren what my parents taught me, that they will be fit, active and mostimportantly, healthy. So, we'd like to see a fat tax. The money the
government gets from this tax would go towards making all food healthierand current Healthy/Organic foods cheaper.I agree that it's up to everybody to decide what to eat. But the harm of  junk food is obvious and obesity became not only individual problem.Heart disorder is becoming the most wide spread sickness. Thegovernment's job will be just taking taxes like they do for tobacco andalcohol. Heart disorders, by the way, are just as dangerous as lungcancer.Since the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on food, andsince fatty, unhealthy food is cheaper than organic, healthy foods, a fattax might be regressive, i.e. a tax system in which those with lowincomes pay proportionally higher taxes than the wealthy. Taxing foodsthat provide primarily calories, with little other nutritional value reducesthis problem, since calories are readily available from many sources indiet of industrialized nations. To make a fat tax less burdensome for thepoor, proponents recommend earmarking the revenuesto subsidize healthy foods and health education. Additionally, proponentshave argued that the fat tax is less regressive to the extent that it lowersmedical expenditures and expenditures on the targeted foods among thepoor. Indeed, there is a higher incidence of diet-related illnesses amongthe poor than in the general population.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->