It is widely debated whether the state should regulate the availability of unhealthy food to encourage citizens to eat healthy food. While some argue that the government must impose additional junk food fees, I firmly contend that this is not a practical decision, and what individuals choose to eat is their personal choice.
The most compelling reason to support this view is the effects of aggressive government intervention. When authorities make such a drastic decision, the outcome is invariably negative; the taxes directly affect the price of the product. To illustrate, if soda prices rise sharply, individuals will just look for cheaper alternatives that are often of low quality or even more harmful. Consequently, it becomes clear that a sudden change in the state’s approach will not change anything or make matters worse.
A further point worth considering is the difficulty of defining harmfulness. This is particularly evident in natural foods, where scientists spend moths only to determine the usefulness of farm products. For instance, one liter of apple juice may contain as much sugar as a cup of cola. This is not only a dilemma about the nutritional value of food, but also years of hard work.
Admittedly, those who oppose this view maintain that taxes force companies to change recipes in order to avoid them and release more healthy meals. However, this argument fails to account for the fact that not all manufacturers have the flexibility to adapt to new regulations. Moreover, as a result it will lead to the creation of big monopolies, which will cause extra problems for the country, which ultimately undermines the opposing standpoint.
In conclusion, while there are those who believe in the success of taxiing unhealthy food, evidence strongly suggests that in long perspective this decision will result in significant difficulties for population and economy. It is therefore recommended to not charge additional fees for food.