Debate speech: against imposing a tax on fattening foods

 A speech presented at a public debate on ethics and medicine  – for the counter speech – To join the debate club

In the past, obesity was seen as an aesthetic problem only. Today it is blamed for a variety of diseases from diabetes to cancer, and it is proposed to impose a tax on foods that were previously considered healthy. In the previous article I presented two arguments I am in favor of such a tax, and now I will present my three counterarguments:

• The first argument: paternalism versus the right to personal freedom.
• The second argument: the consumers of the fast and cheap food, mostly of low status, who subsist on this fattening food.
• The third argument: with the development of the obesity phenomenon, more jobs were actually created.

A tax violates the right to personal freedom

.My first argument discusses the paternalistic attitude that is actually diminishing as democracy and liberalism become stronger. John Stuart Mill in his book on freedom wrote - when a person is in his mature state, his consciousness has reached a place where it is appropriate that only he can decide for himself. How do I relate what was said to the imposition of taxes on fattening food? Fattening food may or may not be available and accessible in society.

According to this approach, everything should be laid on the table and the person as a mature being will make his own decisions: is it wise for me to buy this product when I am aware of its current and future consequences. There is no doubt that some damage will be caused to society if no tax is imposed and food continues to be available and cheap, the damage is of course A less healthy society Which leads itself to another serious chronic disease and that is the obesity disease.

Even if we start from a point of assumption that the total damage to society is greater than the benefit that will arise, we must give weight to the freedom of the person and add to the scales the damage caused to freedom. I claim that a person should be allowed to think, and given the freedom to act according to his thoughts. It is the role of a modern society to protect such freedoms. With the passage of time, personal freedom will take its rightful place in reformed countries. The person as an individual occupies the important place in society, therefore the person must be given the right to choose whether to buy this or that product, whether it is harmful or beneficial.

The lower classes need more fattening foods

The second argument concerns the members of the lower class. Asking the lower class to think whether the food they eat is healthy or harmful would be a capitalist pretence, since in most cases the only request of those people is not to be hungry, and if there is the option to pay a nominal amount for a satisfying sandwich, then we fulfilled their request. Healthy and mostly satisfying food is more expensive. Weighing whether to buy a bag of a certain type of cereal for 10 NIS or to buy a falafel dish at a fast food stand for 5 NIS is not a question for the lower class, and the answer to it in most cases is completely trivial.

That's why there should be fast and cheap food and those who can choose a healthier option should do so, but we should not forget the low class that lives on these foods and cannot afford the right to choose.

loss of jobs

My third argument concerns the creation of new jobs. With the development of the phenomenon, many workplaces were created such as gyms, dietitians, "magic" companies that guarantee convenient diets and quick results, homeopathic doctors and more. Everyone wants to fight the serious disease with you, to try and eradicate the phenomenon. It is clear to us that there will always be fat people, that even if they make it difficult to consume such types of food, these consumers will buy them at any price, and the imposition of the tax will not necessarily be helpful.

People who until today have made the decision whether to buy this or that product because the nutritional components His will continue to make the consideration of cost versus benefit, and people who have consumed this product will continue to consume it. That is why it is better to leave things as they are, in order to continue creating jobs and not try to cure one phenomenon, which is the obesity disease, and develop a new phenomenon, which is unemployment.

Summary of the two articles: in favor of imposing a tax

In conclusion: although the arguments presented above, I support imposing a tax on fattening foods, since the benefit outweighs the harm in such situations. However, today our values direct us to understand that the person's will must be given the critical weight in deciding the essential question regarding whether or not he will get the obesity disease.

However, we must eliminate the paternalistic approach when we strive for maximum personal freedom. The restriction of freedom in modern society should stop at the point where man harms his environment. And in this state of affairs it can be seen that the damage is both personal and environmental, the financial resources that are taken from the state to deal with those patients, the immediate family that has to deal with the patient, and the patient himself who in most cases if he had known about the consequences of the disease is not sure that he would have allowed himself to get into this situation in advance .

Therefore, and following the things I presented above, we should make it more difficult to access fattening food and impose an additional tax on this type of food, and perhaps even lower the price of nutritious and healthy food so that we can all foster a smarter and easier (ambivalent) healthy society.

Join the debate club