Health issues arising from consuming excessive amounts of junk food are a cause of great concern in many countries. There are calls for governments to either reduce the prices of healthy eatables through subsidies or raise the costs of unhealthy products through taxation. In my opinion, a combination of the two is the best way forward.
On the one hand, I agree that the levy option can help to reduce the consumption of potentially harmful foods.
For example
, the so-called "sugar tax" imposed in the UK on soft drinks with a high sugar content has had some positive effects. Soft drink manufacturers,Linking Words
however
, have reacted by reducing sugar levels to just under the amount liable for tax and, Linking Words
as a result
, most people tend to buy Linking Words
this
slightly healthier version without really changing their Linking Words
overall
dietary habits that much. It could be argued, Linking Words
furthermore
, that Linking Words
this
policy represents a kind of punishment for those consumers least able to seek better alternatives for financial reasons.
Subsidising healthy eatables Linking Words
such
as fruit and vegetables has, Linking Words
therefore
, been proposed as a policy that would represent a reward rather than a punishment. Indeed, Linking Words
this
strategy of passing on price reductions directly to the consumer seems to have a greater impact on eating habits, and I see it as an important step towards encouraging people to eat better. Of course, one drawback is that persuading governments to spend money, rather than collect it through taxation, is no simple matter.
Linking Words
To conclude
, I believe that the best way forward is to employ both strategies in tandem. Imposing a tax on unhealthy foods and drinks can discourage people from buying them, and the money raised can Linking Words
then
be used to subsidize fruit and vegetables, Linking Words
thus
making them more attractive to consumers.Linking Words
thangavelsarujan