Introduction
The Philadelphia Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax is a key public health policy pivoting on sugar drinks’ Consumption and related health consequences. This article will examine taxation from different angles, including the tax’s potential to deter consumers from buying sweetened beverages, create individual responsibility regarding health, reduce consumer sovereignty, and avoid concern for equity.
Discouraging Consumption, Improving Health
The concept of the implementation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax initiates heated conversations about the prospect of reduced Consumption that, in turn, aims at better health of society. The likely result of such a tax on sugary drinks – as a reduction in consumer consumption and a successive effect on health – is firmly known. Sugary drinks perfectly fit the description of wishing birds in that they play a detrimental role in obesity development and type 2 diabetes, among others (CDC, 2023). Research shows that the vice is much more visible to low-income consumers than others (Batis et al., 2016). Tax on sweet drinks will also affect the price of the products, causing the number of consumers of the drinks to drop. Fewer energy/diet-related diseases will accompany this. By increasing the cost of sugary drinks, the tax may encourage people to pick healthier options, which in share are known to contribute to declining behaviour that may lead to obesity, diabetes, and related health issues.
In addition, the funds from the SSBT can also help in providing campaigns and programs that will improve healthy behaviours among individuals. The initiatives could comprise educational messages about healthy eating and physical activity and provisions for the subsistence of healthier foods in impoverished societies. The research highlights that poorer neighbourhoods that contain SSBT tend to launch public health programs that deliberate on obesity prevention (Nakhimovsky et al., 2016). Making sugary drinks less attractive and providing financial incentives for healthier options, such as limiting SSBT, is an incredible way to improve health indicators.
Personal Responsibility and Public Health
The idea of personal accountability in health is multifaceted. Of course, people must recognize the duty to make well-considered decisions on their diet and everyday life. Despite this, the setting in which these decisions will be made matters greatly. The excessive promotion and the aggressive advertising of sugary drinks, especially in such communities, are some barriers to healthy decisions (Hall, 2018). The SSBT might work like a push away from drinking sugary drinks as the higher prices for those drinks can make people buy healthier options instead.
Health prevention programs do not fully remove an individual’s responsibility for their health. Education trips, in combination with the tax, can help people make more conscious consumption decisions about what they drink. Naming only personal responsibility does not consider social determinants of health, like poverty, availability of healthy food options, and marketing exposure that can greatly affect food choices.
Consumer Sovereignty and the SSBT
Consumer sovereignty implies that consumers enjoy the right to freely select what they will buy. The consumer’s choice can also be undermined through beverage tax charged to the distributor); the consumer beverages containing sugar will increase. Nevertheless, this view assumes that external forces do not affect buyer behaviour before the marketing efforts. The effects of marketing are significant on consumer preferences as many sugary drinks are specifically tailored to be sold to children and lower-income communities through mass marketing (Hall, 2018). Also, the present food landscape provides an array of unhealthy choices that are readthatvailable along with the healthier options being quite extreme.
The SSBT is a form of advertisement that the government uses to level the playing field by giving sugary drinks less visibility and motivating customers to choose healthier alternatives. The consumer still has the right to choose the product; however, a tax motivates them to consider a healthier choice.
Equity and the SSBT
The City Council’s decision to disapprove of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax due to its regressive nature makes apparent issues of its possible unequal influence on low-income individuals. The Philadelphia City Council’s claim regarding the SSBT’s repressiveness is true. According to “JPHMP 21 Public Health Case Studies on Policy & Administration”, disadvantaged households spend a disproportionate amount of their income on groceries, including sugary beverages. On the other hand, a price rise on these beverages can lead to more disparity in their budget. While the tax is a nuisance to households of low socioeconomic status, the benefits to these communities may outweigh the negatives by funding programs dedicated to decreasing health disparities and enhancing health determinants of the social order. Efforts to eliminate health inequalities include subsidies to healthy food choices and devoting funds to community health improvement programs. A compromise is applied in the case study when diet drinks are included in the tax to make the tax less regressive. Low-income consumers drink more regular soda, making them more likely to face a higher tax vis-à-vis higher-income individuals (JPHMP’s 21 Public Health Case Studies on Policy & Administration, 2017).
Even when looking only at the immediate price of sugary beverages, remember to consider the lasting health costs connected with their Consumption. Cheap diets are the main cause of chronic illness burdens in low-income groups. Disorders like type 2 diabetes and heart ailments increased health care expenses greatly. In a research paper entitled “The Health Affairs,” the money generated from SSBTs could be used to compensate for the cost of health care for the low-income classes and improve access to preventive healthcare services for the less privileged (Brownell et al., 2009).
Conclusion
Applying the SSBT case study in the city of Philadelphia illustrates the complications of public health scenarios that seek to enhance the community’s overall health. The levy may discourage the drinking of sugary drinks and consequently reduce negative health effects. However, the problems of personal responsibility, consumer sovereignty, and equity remain to be resolved. Therefore, by considering the individual responsibility barriers and the environmental influence on dietary choices, policymakers can develop a strategy combining SSBT with some targeted public health initiatives and investments that aid low-income communities directly. This multifaceted strategy will nourish better habits, improve overall health results, and prevent inequality arising from cultural differences.
References
Batis, C., Rivera, J. A., Popkin, B. M., & Taillie, L. S. (2016). First-year evaluation of Mexico’s tax on nonessential energy-dense foods: an observational study. PLoS medicine, 13(7), e1002057
Brownell, K. D., Farley, T., Willett, W. C., Popkin, B. M., Chaloupka, F. J., Thompson, J. W., & Ludwig, D. S. (2009). The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. The New England journal of medicine, 361(16), 1599.. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/dj52wd94j
Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, October 26). Sugar-sweetened beverages and Consumption. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html
Hall, K. D. (2018). Did the food environment cause the obesity epidemic? Obesity, 26(1), 11-13.
JPHMP’s 21 Public Health Case Studies on Policy & Administration. (2017). Case 5: The Philadelphia sugar-sweetened beverage tax. [Textbook Chapter]
Nakhimovsky, S. S., Feigl, A. B., Avila, C., O’Sullivan, G., Macgregor-Skinner, E., & Spranca, M. (2016). Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce overweight and obesity in middle-income countries: a systematic review. PloS one, 11(9), e0163358.
write