In some countries, an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of eating too much fast food. It is, therefore, necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on this kind of food. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that governments should levy a tariff on junk feed because the number of health risks associated with consuming

this

Linking Words

kind of cuisine is on the rise.

This

Linking Words

essay agrees that a higher rate of tax should be paid by fast-food companies.

Firstly

Linking Words

, alcohol and tobacco companies already pay higher taxes and

secondly

Linking Words

, higher taxes could raise prices and lower consumption. Higher excise on liqueur and cigarettes has proven to be successful at curbing the harm caused by these substances.

This

Linking Words

revenue has been used to treat health problems associated with these products and has proven useful in advertising campaigns warning folk about the dangers of alcohol and tobacco abuse. Tax from a ast meal could be used in the same way. The United Kingdom is a prime example, where money from smokers is used to treat lung cancer and heart disease. The increasing levy would raise prices and lower consumption. Fast foodstuff companies would pass on

this

Linking Words

duty to consumers in the form of higher prices and

this

Linking Words

would lead to the family not being able to afford junk cooking because it is too expensive. rubble feed would soon become a luxury item and it would only be consumed occasionally, which would be less harmful to the general public’s health.

For instance

Linking Words

, the cost of organic bread has proven prohibitively expensive for most people and

that is

Linking Words

why only a small percentage of the population buy it regularly. In conclusion, junk snack should be taxed at a higher rate because of the good precedent set by alcohol and tobacco and the fact that the increased cost should reduce the number of fast-meat people buy.