History:
The first drive-thru restaurant debuted in 1947 at Red’s Giant Hamburg in Springfield, Missouri. Located on the famous Route 66, the restaurant served customers as a connivence while traveling and was more efficient. At the same time, the McDonald brothers opened their redesigned restaurant, and several fast-food chains that exist today opened soon after. Burger King and Taco Bell got their start in the 1950’s, and Wendy’s opened in 1969. (Schlosser 49) These chains now are accredited with our nation’s issue of a tripled rate of obesity. Martin Schmidt, a professor of economics at the College of William & Mary, suggests that if a tax of ten percent is placed on the usage of the drive-thru at fast food restaurants consumers would be more likely to “exercise” by walking inside. He also suggests that this tax could be used in the fight of obesity, by creating heath awareness programs.
Thesis:
A tax on drive-thru usage at fast food restaurants will not fight our nations’ concern of a rise in obesity.
Argument:
It is unavoidable, it is convenient and cheap, it consumes our world, whether one is driving, walking in the mall or downtown, or adds suffocating magazines for advertisement. It is an issue our society is having to confront head on at this time, due to epidemic proportion of our nation it affects. It is the rise of obesity. More than one-third of the adult population is overweight, and an estimated nineteen million Americans are morbidly obese. Morbidly obese means their BMI is forty or greater, when twenty-four is the highest healthy number on the scale. (Wiedower 2) Obesity is defined by the WMC Bariatric Program as a progressive disease, that causes and contributes to the development of numerous life threatening conditions. These conditions include but are not limited to, hypertension, diabetes, respiratory disorders, such as sleep apnea, asthma, stroke, and gastrointestinal defects. The risk for cervical, ovarian, breast, and gallbladder cancer increases for morbidly obese women and for men prostate and colon cancer increases. (Wiedower 3) So who is to blame? How do we utilize our resources to begin a recovery plan? The obvious answer and what should be the sole answer is the consumer. They should be educated enough to know that good health comes by a combination of eating right and exercising, or the child’s parents should know. The consequence, the government either state or federal would punish them by implementing a ten percent tax on using the drive-thru at fast food restaurants. But what if upon research and medical studies there was a middleman? The fast food industry itself, misleading with false nutritional claims and sociological affects; so how would a tax be beneficial?
A survey completed by market firm Claritas states seventy-eight percent of all fast-food restaurants have inquired the use of the drive-thru, and numerous family-style restaurant chains now have special parking spaces for take-out. He feels with such a significant amount a ten percent tax would raise a large revenue which could be used to fight obesity. However, there are several issues with this concept already. Americans are busy. We see more families where both parents are working and delegating who has “soccer mom duty,” the drive-thru is a connivence, quicker then unloading the van full of kids to go inside and order. The point is American’s like connivence and efficiency, so why not pay a little bit extra if it saves them time when in a pinch. Many restaurants already have incorporated a service charge when someone orders pizza for a delivery, yet this extra charge does not stop them from having the pizza delivered, why? Because of its connivence.
So if Americans do not object paying the extra fee then the revenue of the ten percent tax would generate, but now another issue arises. Who will be in charge of seeing this tax goes to proper organizations? And which organizations will be selected? Schmidt discusses the tax could be used to decrease taxes going to Medicare and Medicaid programs, but only 27.9% of the nation uses one of these programs reports the U.S. Census Bureau. So how is this tax benefitting everyone who is paying it? Obesity would not be such a demanding issue if only 27.9% of the nation was consuming fast food. This appears to be in the federal government’s territory, but as Schmidt gets into splitting the revenue would this be a nation wide standard? Or up to the state government to choose which programs benefit? There are too many holes and unanswered questions of how this would assemble and where the money would actually go.
Schmidt, as mentioned, also discusses splitting the revenue from the tax to different organizations. He talks about environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife or Keep America Beautiful, starting health awareness programs, or diet programs. The problem with this is the tax is only ten percent, a wise quote said always give a 100% to everything you do. If the tax was to be split among three organizations, would there be enough profit to even benefit them? Creating an organization or educating our country is not a cheap task. The revenue needs to go to one organization, preferably one dealing with nutritional education. Which takes me to my next point Schmidt never mentions in his article about the actual food being served, he is focused on the drive-thru aspect. But what about what the customer is ordering and consuming whether inside or via drive-thru? The actual food they eat is a major contribution in causing the obesity epidemic.
How many times has McDonalds or Taco Bell had a misguided impact on its consumers to what they are actually eating? Fast food does not taste “good” because it is prepared by gourmet chefs, it is due to the dyes, additives, and artificial flavors added. (Schlosser 97) For example, french fries were until 1990, fried in 7% cottonseed oil and 93% beef tallow, when it became public that these two put together produced more saturated fat then actually eating a hamburger, they were mandated to find an alternative. McDonalds for example has misguided vegetarians, when asked what products were vegetarian friendly, french fries were listed. (Schlosser 105) The public needs to be guided away from their additive and article ingredients, learning the truth. This tax only focuses on the drive-thru encouraging customers to exercise more by walking inside, the minute it takes to walk inside is not enough to count for the thirty minute minimum of exercise doctors recommend for everyone daily.
This obesity epidemic needs to be fought with a balance of healthy eating education and exercise programs. Consumers need to be taught what they put into their bodies is important and the fast food industry does not particularly care as long as they are make money. This ten percent tax is like a tiny slap on the wrist, which the public cannot even feel because they are already morbidly overweight and burying themselves alive. What our nation needs is a major wake up call, something a tax will not accomplish.
Works Cited:
Leach, Susan M. Before & After: Living and Eating Well After Weight-Loss Surgery. New York City: Harper Collins, 2004. Print.
Schimdt, Martin B. “Supertax Me.” New York Times. N.p., 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 1 Feb.
Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side to an All American Meal. New York City: Harper Perenniel, 2005. Print.
Wiedower, Jim, and Troy Glembot. “Understanding Obesity .” Valley Health Winchester Medical Center Bariatric Program. Ed. Troy Glembot. US Department of Health, – 2001. Web. 25 Jan. 2011.
Wilson, Tracy V. “How Fast Food Works.” How Stuff Works . N.p., 22 Aug. 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
