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 prices of healthy foods through subsidies or to 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 tax 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. However, soft drink manufacturers have reacted by reducing sugar levels to just under the amount liable for tax and, as a result, most people tend to buy this slightly healthier version without really changing their overall dietary habits that much. Furthermore, it could be argued that this policy represents a kind of punishment for those consumers least able to seek better alternatives for financial reasons.
Subsidising healthy foods such as fruit and vegetables has, therefore, been proposed as a policy that would represent a reward rather than a punishment. Indeed, 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.
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 then be used to subsidise fruit and vegetables, thus making them more attractive for consumers.