Download PAYING THE PRICE

PAYING THE PRICE
Poll Question
Some states are considering imposing taxes on junk food in order to deter people from eating
unhealthy food. Opponents feel that consumers should have the freedom to buy the foods they
like. What do you think?
Junk food should be taxed.

Agree

Disagree

Explain why you voted the way you did:
Vocabulary:
devotee: a very dedicated enthusiast or follower of something or someone
Obesity: the state of being very overweight
LINCOLN, Nebraska (Achieve3000, March 15, 2012).It's easy to fall in love with junk food. Soft
drinks, candy, and chips are not only delicious, according to devotees, but also relatively
inexpensive. However, junk food is unhealthy, and it is contributing to obesity and other health
issues. Now, there's a movement to make these foods a little less appealing by requiring
consumers to pay taxes on them. Is this a good idea?
Here's how a tax on junk food would work: a consumer living in a state where a junk food tax is in
effect would purchase the food at the price shown on the price tag. In addition, the consumer would
pay a tax consisting of a certain percent of the price. Suppose, for example, that a bottle of soda
cost $1, and there was a 10 percent tax on it. Then the customer would pay $1.10, because 10
percent of $1 is 10 cents. The 10 cents tax would go to the state government.
Suggestions to tax junk food are popping up in many states. In 2010, New York Governor David
Patterson suggested adding an 18-percent tax to the price of soft drinks (though that proposal was
abandoned). In 2012, Nebraska State Senator Bill Avery proposed a tax on soft drinks. Around the
same time, a group representing hospitals in Illinois also suggested taxing junk food.
Some people support the idea of a junk food tax. Others oppose it. These two groups disagree on
the possible effects of such a tax.
Advocates for this tax say that making unhealthy foods more costly would mean people would buy
and eat less junk food. They point to studies showing that increases in the cost of junk food lead to
decreases in its consumption.
Advocates say these studies indicate that a junk food tax would reduce caloric intake (because junk
food is high in calories). It would therefore reduce the rate of obesity, which has been linked to
health problems such as diabetes and heart disease. That would mean a healthier population.
People would spend less money on doctor visits and would be less likely to need hospital visits.
Some people, however, oppose a junk food tax. They argue that if certain junk foods, like soda,
were taxed, consumers might switch to other foods, like sports drinks, that actually have even more
calories. If this is true, then a junk food tax would not help resolve the obesity issue.
Opponents also believe that consumers should have the freedom to buy the foods they like.They
should not have to pay more for certain foods simply because those foods are unhealthy.
Opponents say that a junk food tax would be particularly unfair to Americans who have less money
to spend on groceries, since some people eat junk food because it is cheaper than healthy food. (It
costs less to produce the ingredients of burgers, chips, and soft drinks than it does to produce fruits,
vegetables, and lean meats.)
However, supporters of the junk food tax say that the tax would actually lead all Americans,
regardless of their financial resources, to eat healthier foods. They argue that with a tax in place,
the prices of healthy and unhealthy foods would become more equal. Then more people would
choose healthier foods and would be healthier overall.
Advocates and opponents agree on one thing: people who want to be healthier should be eating
less junk food.
Dig Deeper
People continue to argue over whether it is acceptable for a government to impose taxes on junk
food. Supporters of the idea say that if it costs more to buy unhealthy foods and drinks, people will
buy less of them. People will be healthier as a result. So, in economic terms, the purpose of these
"junk food taxes" would be to modify consumer behavior. Those who oppose such taxes, however,
believe that junk food taxes are unfair because they limit consumers' freedom to choose what to eat
by making a food's cost higher.
Most economists assert that it's acceptable for the government to intervene when the market fails
to consider the public's well being. Junk food and sugary drinks, experts say, are dangerous
substances that can contribute to the development of health problems.
This would not be the first time that a government has imposed a tax on a product that is bad for
public health. Most states impose taxes on alcohol and tobacco (both of which can lead to the
development of certain diseases). This is done to raise revenue while encouraging consumers to
reduce or cease using them. Do the taxes work? Consider this: Research suggests that telling
people cigarettes cause cancer does little to deter people from smoking. Imposing regulations, on
the other hand, can be a deterrent. Taxing cigarettes, banning advertising, and setting age limits for
purchases can serve as incentives for smokers to quit.
Some health advocates point out that the government is already intervening in food prices. And it's
not necessarily in a way that promotes public health. The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides
subsidies to farmers who grow corn. (A subsidy is money the government pays to keep the price of a
product low.) As a result, it's cheaper to feed livestock with corn than with grass, making for lower
meat prices. Meat from grass-fed animals is healthier, but it is considerably more expensive to
buy. Corn is also made into unhealthy high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).Because of the subsidy, the
production of high-fructose corn syrup is cheap, giving food companies an incentive to use it in their
products. Look on the label of many unhealthy foods (and some that you may consider healthy, like
ketchup, cereal, or sliced bread), and you'll find it. High-fructose corn syrup is also found in soft
drinks, candy, cookies, chips, and other junk foods. That’s why these foods are relatively
inexpensive. Health advocates argue that the government should shift subsidies from corn and
instead support the production of fruits and vegetables. Because these foods are costly to produce,
they are also expensive to buy at the grocery store. Consumers who can afford to buy them may do
so out of concern for their health, but they have no economic incentive to purchase these items.
The government could act to lower prices on healthy foods through subsidies, or raise prices on
unhealthy ones through taxes. Either way, the purpose would be to change consumer behavior.
People disagree about whether or not this should be the role of the government.
1. What is one cause-and-effect relationship described in this article?

Because burgers, chips, and soft drinks are fairly inexpensive, stores would rather sell these items
than fruits, vegetables, and lean meats.

Because sports drinks often have more calories than soda, many athletes drink sports drinks as a way
to fuel their muscles for exercise.

Because consumers have the freedom to buy the foods they like, some people want to put a tax on
junk food in order to raise more money for state governments.

Because junk food is high in calories, it is contributing to obesity, which is linked to health problems
such as diabetes and heart disease.
2. What is this article mainly about?

New York Governor David Patterson and Nebraska State Senator Bill Avery have proposed a tax on
soft drinks.

Some states are considering a junk food tax, and people disagree about whether or not this is a good
idea.

Experts on food and nutrition say that people who want to be healthier should be eating less junk
food.

People who are healthy spend less money on doctor visits and are not as likely to need hospital visits.
3. Which is the closest antonym for the word devotee?

Resident

Tyrant

Critic

Steward
4. Which of these is a statement of opinion?

Studies show that increases in the cost of junk food lead to deceases in consumption of it.

Some hospitals in the state of Illinois have suggested putting a tax on junk food.

Eating junk food can contribute to obesity, diabetes, and other health issues.

Putting a tax on junk food is the best way to solve the obesity problem in the United States.
5. In what way does the article contrast junk foods like burgers, chips, and soft drinks with fruits,
vegetables, and lean meats?

People who consume burgers, chips, and soft drinks have fewer illnesses than people who eat fruits,
vegetables, and lean meats.

Supermarkets make more money selling burgers, chips, and soft drinks than they do selling fruits,
vegetables, and lean meats.

It costs less to produce the ingredients in burgers, chips, and soft drinks than it does to produce fruits,
vegetables, and lean meats.

Fast food meals such as burgers, chips, and soft drinks are more satisfying than meals containing
fruits, vegetables, and lean meats.
6. Which two words from the article are the closest synonyms?

Advocate and supporter

Consumer and opponent

American and customer

Governor and devotee
7. Which question is not answered by the article?

How would a tax on junk food work in a state in the U.S.?

Why do some people want to put a tax on junk food?

Which states have already enacted a tax on junk food?

How much was the tax proposed by Governor Patterson?
8. Which excerpt from the article best supports the opinion that a tax on junk food would have a positive
impact on people in the U.S.?

[Advocates] argue that with a tax in place, the prices of healthy and unhealthy foods would become
more equal. Then more people would choose healthier foods and would be healthier overall.

In 2010, New York Governor David Patterson suggested adding an 18-percent tax to the price of soft
drinks (though that proposal was abandoned).

Now, there's a movement to make [junk] foods a little less appealing by requiring consumers to pay
taxes on them.

Here's how a tax on junk food would work: a consumer living in a state where a junk food tax is in
effect would purchase the food at the price shown on the price tag.
How does this connect to Chapter 7?
What would happen if the Government made this tax a law?
Is there any other solution? Describe.