The Pros and Cons of the Implementation of Fat Tax in the UK - Essay Example

This essay discusses that the United Kingdom is becoming ‘fat’. According to the National Health Services (NHS), obesity is one of the biggest problems confronting UK in the 21st century; obesity causes several diseases or health problems. As this problem is growing, there are many attempts to control it. There is a suggestion in the UK that a tax on junk food is the only solution to mitigate this problem. This essay critically evaluates the arguments for and against such proposal. People who support ‘fat tax’ argue that this proposal is likely to be effective because this strategy has been used to alcohol and cigarettes quite successfully.

According to Jofre, the UK is considered to be the ‘fattest’ nation in Europe. In line with this, the rate of obesity in the UK is growing steadily, and time is short, which implies that ‘fat tax’ could be the perfect solution for obesity. For instance, Denmark is one of the slimmest countries in Europe because it implemented ‘fat tax’. It is also argued that ‘fat tax’ has an impact on health for it is widely known that sugar and fat are the main reason for obesity. Thus, the basis for the proposal becomes obvious.

As stated by Jofre, if the public cannot take care of their health, then the government is obliged to take action. In contrast, people who are against this proposal believe that it is their choice, and not the responsibility of the government. But what are the real advantages and disadvantages of implementing ‘fat tax’ in the UK? An obvious advantage of ‘fat tax’ is the revenue it could generate. ‘Fat tax’ would probably have to be quite large so as to make a difference on food preference, producing additional revenues (Leicester & Windmeijer 2004).

Such revenues could be used for obesity prevention and treatment agendas, or to fund the promotion of nutritious foods. There is logical argument for the possible success of implementing ‘fat tax’ in order to lessen consumption of unhealthy foods. One of the main factors affecting food preference is price, together with ease, quality, and taste, and, to a lesser degree, health (Jofre 2010). ‘Fat tax’ has been proven to be successful in Denmark. However, implementing ‘fat tax’ is difficult.

It is hard to determine what foods should be taxed. However, even though difficult to implement, Denmark, and other countries, have shown success in adopting ‘fat tax’. This proposal is disapproved of by other people for wrongly troubling the poor, for poor people consume higher quantities of junk foods and would hence be held back by ‘fat tax’ (Leicester & Windmeijer 2004). Yet, poor people may profit as well since price is more precious to poor people in choosing foods to eat, and thus ‘fat tax’ may result in major change in consumption behaviour for poor people in comparison with rich ones who can buy nutritious foods.

Especially, nutritious food decisions would have to be cheap and easy to get to. If not, poor people, who remain incapable of buying nutritious foods, will either be pushed to starve or shell out more to sustain a harmful diet. If obesity is a real major problem in the UK, it is more helpful to think of other ways, since the ‘fat tax’ proposal looks weak. In particular, ‘fat taxes’ that financially support obesity prevention and treatment agendas, and complaints against food businesses, appear quite financially advantageous for the individuals supporting them, such as attorneys and public health advocates, without essentially solving the obesity crisis (Press Association 2011).

What’s more, a lot of people eat wisely, so why should they be burdened of the taxes intended to discipline irresponsible consumers? And there are no sure proof that obesity is caused by the failure of food businesses to inform consumers that hamburgers and ice creams are fatty foods. It appears that the most