In this contemporary world, the role of government on developing healthy citizens has sparked considerable debate, especially regarding whether they should subsidise fruits and vegatables to make them cheaper or levy taxes on junk foods. While both perspectives have their merits, I am largely inclined to support the latter view, as I believe that it is more conducive to citizens long term well being.
On the one hand, advocates of subsidising fruits and vegetables often base their arguments on accesibility these facilities bring. They claim that if the government provide financial aid to individuals, they will be able to purchase healthy food and promote healthier lifestyle. A clear example can be seen in Nepal, where the legislation has developed a new approach of providing economic support to the school, so the students can have healthy foods such as fresh vegetable. Therefore, proponents argue that the government should reinforce subsidising plans to foster healthier lifestyle of citizens.
On the other hand, opponents of this view contend that the legislation should levy heavier taxes which will decrease the consumption of unhealthy food. If the price of packaged food becomes higher due to heavy taxes, the purchasing. power of the customers will be reduced.I firmly agree with this standpoint because it aligns with modern ethos of personal and societal well-being. For instance, in USA, the government leavy huge taxes on junk food, so the price has become relatively exorbitant. As a result, they are able to witness a positive shift toward healtheir food due to its cheap price. Hence, taxing unhealthy food may bring conspicuous shift toward healthy food.
To conclude, although subsidising fruits and vegetables may boost accesibility, the taxing approach is more likely to promote long term healthy lifestyle. Therefore, I believe that government should levy huge tax to bring a healtheir shift to healthy foods.
Rate review and analyse