For Taxing:
Similar to vaccination, taxation could be seen as a preventive measure to address the root causes of obesity (energy consumption that exceeds energy usage), promoting population-wide changes in dietary habits and reducing the burden of obesity and obesity-related diseases on healthcare systems (cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, certain cancers, sleep apnoea, fatty liver disease, osteoarthritis, reflux, mental health disorders etc.) by reducing consumption of unhealthy products and incentivising healthier choices.
Evidence from jurisdictions that have implemented similar taxes, such as Mexico's sugary drinks tax and Hungary's junk food tax, suggests potential for positive health outcomes and economic benefits.
Current social annual cost of obesity is approximately £60bn, NHS obesity costs £6.5bn annually. Obesity is the second largest preventable cause of cancer.
Taxation generates revenue that can be reinvested in public health initiatives, including obesity prevention programs, healthcare infrastructure, and support for vulnerable populations.
Overall gives a psychological/ behavioural nudge for society to choose healthier options, contributing to long-term improvements in population mental and physical health.
Against Taxing:
Not everyone who buys high fat/ sugar foods is obese, also not every obese person has become obese from food choices and their weight may be as a result of disease, genetics, environmental (e.g. job) factors. Taxation of specific food products may contribute to stigmatisation of individuals with obesity or certain dietary habits, perpetuating negative stereotypes and potentially leading to psychological harm or discrimination.
Many argue that taxes on obesity-promoting products disproportionately burden low-income individuals, potentially exacerbating health inequities.
Government can advocate for alternative strategies, such as heavily subsidised healthy foods and free gym programs, education campaigns, and community-based interventions, arguing that these methods may be more effective and equitable than taxation.
One can argue that taxation infringes upon individual autonomy, limiting consumers' freedom to make personal dietary choices without government intervention.
At the end of the day taxation only takes the focus away from individual responsibility for dietary choices and lifestyle behaviours, instead placing blame on external factors such as food availability and marketing practices.
Overall it is important to look at obesity and its health issues comprehensively - as there are often multiple factors influencing dietary behaviours, including education, access to healthy foods, urban planning, and social determinants of health.
With any hot topic, sometimes you can easily structure an answer by using the four pillars of medical ethics e.g. for taxing: under the pillar of beneficence, one can argue that taxing can be a way to promote public physical and mental health. Under non-maleficence, doctors do not want their patients to be any more unwell and have lower complications, so by making unhealthy food choices less accessible this could lower obesity and obesity-related health complications. It is clear that taxation would however infringe on individual autonomy and freedom of choice, but also autonomy could be argued as helping individuals make informed choices about their health and thus taxing could help improve autonomy. Lastly, one could argue taxation is a tool for promoting social justice by addressing health inequities and distributing the burden of obesity-related costs more equitably across society.
