









































Addressing American Obesity: A 
Policy Proposal
Alexandra Barnes-Schwartz

Volume Two
Edition Two
Spring 2022

 
GEORGETOWN SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH JOURNAL

53



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

Addressing American Obesity: A Policy Proposal 

Alexandra Barnes-Schwartz 

Department of Global Health, Georgetown University Graduate School of Arts and 
Sciences, Washington, D.C. 
E-mail: ab3916@georgetown.edu
https://doi.org/10.48091/gsr.v2i2.44

Abstract 

Obesity is defined by the CDC as a BMI over 30, which is a weight that is higher than what is considered 
healthy, meaning excess fat that is causing or increasing the risk of health issues. In 2017, 42% of adults 
were considered clinically obese, putting them at significantly higher risk for numerous conditions 
including osteoarthritis, breathing problems, mental illness, body pain, and difficulty with physical 
function.1,2 In the last century, life expectancy has steadily increased in the United States, but rising obesity 
rates may cause this metric to fall.3 Obesity is caused by environmental and behavioral factors, namely an 
individual’s dietary choices and physical inactivity. The burden of disease, though, is unequally borne by 
society. Socioeconomic status plays a large role in an individual’s susceptibility to obesity as the poor face 
higher rates of disease.4 This literature sets forth a policy proposal to combat obesity in the United States 
that focuses on imposing taxes on unhealthy foods and making healthy food more accessible.  

Keywords: Obesity, Soda Tax, Food Subsidies 

1. Introduction

According to the CDC, the leading causes of
death in 2019 were heart disease, cancer, accidents, 
chronic lower respiratory disease, stroke, 
Alzheimer’s and diabetes.5-13 Obesity’s various 
complications are all leading causes of death, aside 
from one — accidental death. Solving the obesity 
epidemic from a dietary standpoint is theoretically 
simple: eat fewer processed foods. The USDA 
recommends that people eat more fruits and 
vegetables, whole grains, beans, and nuts, while 
keeping dairy, lean meat, and eggs in moderation.14 
However, making this simple dietary change is not 
feasible for most people due to socioeconomic 
barriers.  With that in mind, the current 
government subsidies focused on corn, soybeans, 
rice, sorghum dairy, and livestock have saturated 
grocery store and bodega shelves with inexpensive, 

processed snack foods, fast food, soda, and corn 
and soybean fed meat.15 Many of these products 
are artificially reduced in price by their use of corn-
derived sweeteners, soybean-derived oils, and fatty 
meats. There is a positive association between the 
proportion of someone's diet containing these 
subsidized foods and obesity.16 In effect, the 
government subsidizes unhealthy food and does 
not subsidize healthy food. To increase 
accessibility to healthier alternatives, the 
government should subsidize fruits and vegetables. 

2. Policy: Subsidize fruit and vegetable growers

In many grocery stores, the most energy-dense
foods are often the least expensive. Farm subsidies 
have traditionally existed as a government tool of 
business and economics. Originally understood to 
provide economic stability to small farmers, they 
are now a tool of large agricultural conglomerates 

54



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

that can be leveraged to improve public health.17 
As detailed by Monsivais and Drewnowski, retail 
prices in Seattle Washington were found to be 
“$18.16/1,000 kcal for foods in the bottom quintile 
of energy density” and only “$1.76/1,000 kcal for 
foods in the top quintile.”18 This finding elucidates 
the formidable barrier to eating a healthy diet for 
those with limited financial means.19  

Previous studies have shown that price 
reduction affects individual choices. In the 
Healthy Incentives Pilot, SNAP (Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program) recipients were 
provided a 30% rebate on fruits and vegetables. 
They found behavioral change proportional to the 
change in the price.19 According to Mozaffarian, 
the 30% incentive of the program would prevent 
“8,782 cardiovascular disease events, gain 18,928 
quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and save 
$1.21 billion in healthcare costs” if continued for 5 
years.20   

This policy is a feasible one for disincentivizing 
consumption in which public health directly 
collides with corporate bottom lines. Additionally, 
the mechanism of traditional farm subsidies is 
already in place, which allows for the leverage of 
existing networks and processes to generate new 
types of farm subsidies.  

Increasing the amounts of fruit and vegetables 
consumed is beneficial to one’s health, but the 
consumption of high-calorie nutrient-poor foods 
must also be reduced to improve weight 
management. This type of price comparison (of 
lowering the cost of healthy food and increasing 
the cost of unhealthy food) makes healthier food a 
more cost-effective choice for consumers. As such, 
a two-pronged approach decreases the cost of 
healthy food while increasing the cost of “junk” 
food. 

3. Policy: Tax soft drinks and fast foods

Soft drinks largely contribute to obesity rates
due to their minimal nutritional content and 

maximum energy density. Taxing soft drinks 
would make people less inclined to buy them.21 In 
Mexico, a 10% tax added to soft drinks along with 
an advertising campaign was found to be effective 
in reducing soda consumption. A decrease in the 
purchase of these taxed drinks and an increase in 
the purchase of drinks without the additional tax, 
like water, followed.22, 23, 24 Additionally, as the 
burden of obesity is found to be greater in lower-
income groups, the decrease in consumption was 
found to be greater among households of lesser 
socioeconomic status.25 Chile; Berkeley, 
California, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania have 
followed suit with similar taxes on sugar-
sweetened beverages. After the implementation of 
the tax on soft drinks, Berkley saw a 21% decline 
in the consumption of soft drinks and an increase 
in water consumption while Philadelphia saw a 
51% decline.26 27 28 Chile, which had a smaller tax 
increase of 5%, also saw a decrease of around 4% in 
soft drinks.29  

While this policy has proved successful across 
the country, these proposals have also been met 
with harsh backlash from corporate interests. 
Washington DC’s proposed 1.5 cents per ounce 
excise tax was withdrawn after backlash from the 
affected soda and sugar industries, while proposed 
rules blocking SNAP recipients from using their 
benefits on soda drew significant lobbying 
opposition from the same industry.30,31,32  

Low nutrition, high calorie foods are easily 
accessible in the USA. Every city has a plethora of 
fast-food restaurants, bodegas, and gas stations 
stocked with junk food. Fast food and snack foods 
are cheap, convenient and addictively tasty, but 
they often fail to provide adequate nutrients and 
they include excessive doses of calories and fat  that 
contribute to obesity and its related health 
consequences.33,34 It is therefore unsurprising that 
there is an association between the frequency of 
fast food consumption and increased BMI.35 
Previous studies have shown that there are 
significant associations between the price of food 

55



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

and the choices consumers make.36 These types of 
taxes on unhealthy foods have shown promise in 
the European context with a Danish tax on fatty 
foods shown to decrease consumption and increase 
consumption of fruit and vegetables.37,38  

An excise tax of this type would likely receive 
backlash from vested interests. A main criticism is 
that these taxes are regressive and will be felt most 
heavily by the poor due to both consumption 
habits and availability. As such, this combined 
approach, increasing access to healthier foods and 
decreasing availability of unhealthy foods. With 
obesity undermining successes in public health, a 
tax on these consumables that contribute so heavily 
to the obesity epidemic and the designation of 
money collected to health-related spending could 
be an important step in improving the health of 
Americans. Cigarettes were formerly one of the 
largest killers of Americans and taxing them has 
been effective in curbing rates of cigarette 
consumption.39,

 

40 Obesity is now one of the 
greatest health threats to Americans and must be 
addressed in the public health sector. 

4. Conclusion

A combination of incentives for healthy food
and taxation of unhealthy food have the potential 
to help address America’s obesity crisis. This dual 
pronged approach should be done in tandem with 
other strategies such as education initiatives and 
campaigns to increase physical activity. An 
individual policy’s actions will never cause a 
complete shift in the obesity landscape, but in 
conjunction with educational and structural 
changes, adjusting food prices to reflect nutritional 
value is a necessary component for success.  

Acknowledgments 

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of 
S.C. McCrohan, Ray GL Regorgo and Dr.
Jarawan.

References 

1. CDC. (2021a, March 22). Adult obesity. Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.htm

2. Childhood Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | 
CDC. (2021, April 5).
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html

3. Olshansky, S. J., Passaro, D. J., Hershow, R. C., 
Layden, J., Carnes, B. A., Brody, J., Hayflick, L., 
Butler, R. N., Allison, D. B., & Ludwig, D. S.
(2005). A potential decline in life expectancy in the 
United States in the 21st century. New England 
Journal of Medicine, 352(11), 1138–1145. https://
doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr043743

4. Mozaffarian, D., Benjamin, E. J., Go, A. S., 
Arnett, D. K., Blaha, M. J., Cushman, M., Das, S. 
R., de Ferranti, S., Després, J.-P., Fullerton, H. J., 
Howard, V. J., Huffman, M. D., Isasi, C. R., 
Jiménez, M. C., Judd, S. E., Kissela, B. M., 
Lichtman, J. H., Lisabeth, L. D., Liu, S., …
Turner, M. B. (2016). Heart Disease and Stroke 
Statistics—2016 update. Circulation, 133(4), e38–
e360.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350

5. Kernan, W. N., Inzucchi, S. E., Sawan, C., Macko, 
R. F., & Furie, K. L. (2013). Obesity. Stroke, 
44(1), 278–286.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.6399 
22

6. Powell-Wiley, T. M., Poirier, P., Burke, L. E., 
Després, J.-P., Gordon-Larsen, P., Lavie, C. J., 
Lear, S. A., Ndumele, C. E., Neeland, I. J., 
Sanders, P., St-Onge, M.-P., & null, null. (2021). 
Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific 
Statement from the American Heart association. 
Circulation, 143(21), e984–e1010.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000973

7. CDC newsroom. (2016, January 1). CDC. https://
www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1003-vs-
cancer-obesity.html

8. CDC. (2021b, June 7). Obesity is a common, 
serious, and costly disease. Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

9. Obesity and Cancer | CDC. (2021, March 10). 
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/obesity/index.htm

56



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

10. Zammit, C., Liddicoat, H., Moonsie, I., & 
Makker, H. (2010). Obesity and Respiratory 
Diseases. International Journal of General 
Medicine, 3, 335–343.
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S11926

11. Nestle, M., & Jacobson, M. F. (2000). Halting the 
obesity epidemic: A public health policy approach. 
Public Health Reports, 115(1), 12–24.

12. Pearson-Stuttard, J., Bandosz, P., Rehm, C. D., 
Penalvo, J., Whitsel, L., Gaziano, T., Conrad, Z., 
Wilde, P., Micha, R., Lloyd-Williams, F., 
Capewell, S., Mozaffarian, D., & O’Flaherty, M.
(2017). Reducing US cardiovascular disease burden 
and disparities through national and targeted 
dietary policies: A modelling study. PLOS 
Medicine, 14(6), e1002311.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002311

13. Ma, Y., Ajnakina, O., Steptoe, A., & Cadar, D.
(2020). Higher risk of dementia in English older 
individuals who are overweight or obese. 
International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(4), 
1353–1365. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa099

14. McGuire, S. (2011). U. S. Department of 
agriculture and U. S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans, 2010. 7th edition, Washington, DC: 
U. S. Government Printing Office, January 2011. 
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2(3), 293–
294. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.111.000430 

15. Fields, S. (2004). The fat of the land: Do 
agricultural subsidies foster poor health?
Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(14), 
A820–A823.

16. Siegel, K. R., McKeever Bullard, K., Imperatore, 
G., Kahn, H. S., Stein, A. D., Ali, M. K., & 
Narayan, K. M. (2016). Association of higher 
consumption of foods derived from subsidized 
commodities with adverse cardiometabolic risk 
among us adults. JAMA Internal Medicine,
176(8), 1124–1132.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2410

17. Popkin, BM. (2011). Agricultural policies, food 
and public health. EMBO Reports (2011)12:11-
18. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.200

18. Monsivais, P., & Drewnowski, A. (2007). The 
rising cost of low-energy-density foods. Journal of

the American Dietetic Association, 107(12), 2071–
2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2007.09.009

19. An, R. (2015). Nationwide expansion of a financial 
incentive program on fruit and vegetable purchases 
among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
participants: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Social 
Science & Medicine, 147, 80–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.032

20. Mozaffarian, D., Liu, J., Sy, S., Huang, Y., Rehm, 
C., Lee, Y., Wilde, P., Abrahams-Gessel, S., 
Jardim, T. de S. V., Gaziano, T., & Micha, R.
(2018). Cost-effectiveness of financial incentives 
and disincentives for improving food purchases and 
health through the US Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP): A microsimulation 
study. PLOS Medicine, 15(10), e1002661. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002661

21. Kim, D., & Kawachi, I. (2006). Food taxation and 
pricing strategies to “thin out” the obesity epidemic. 
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(5), 
430–437.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.007

22. Franck, C., Grandi, S. M., & Eisenberg, M. J.
(2013). Taxing junk food to counter obesity. 
American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 1949–
1953.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301279

23. Colchero, M. A., Molina, M., & Guerrero-López,
C. M. (2017). After Mexico implemented a tax, 
purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages decreased 
and water increased: Difference by place of 
residence, household composition, and income 
level. The Journal of Nutrition, 147(8), 1552–1557. 
https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.117.251892

24. Mexico’s sugar tax – did it make a difference?
(2016, November 1). WCRF International. https://
www.wcrf.org/mexicos-sugar-tax-did-it-make-a-
difference/

25. Álvarez-Sánchez, C., Contento, I., Jiménez-
Aguilar, A., Koch, P., Gray, H. L., Guerra, L. A., 
Rivera-Dommarco, J., Uribe-Carvajal, R., & 
Shamah-Levy, T. (2018). Does the Mexican sugar-
sweetened beverage tax have a signaling effect? 
ENSANUT 2016. PLoS ONE, 13(8), e0199337.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199337

57



Georgetown	Scientific	Research	Journal	

26. Falbe, J., Thompson, H. R., Becker, C. M., Rojas, 
N., McCulloch, C. E., & Madsen, K. A. (2016). 
Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on Sugar-
Sweetened Beverage Consumption. American 
journal of public health, 106(10), 1865–1871. 
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362

27. Anwar, Y., & Relations|, M. (2016, August 23). 
Soda tax linked to drop in sugary beverage drinking 
in Berkeley. Berkeley News.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/08/23/sodadrinkin 
g/

28. Roberto, C. A., Lawman, H. G., LeVasseur, M. 
T., Mitra, N., Peterhans, A., Herring, B., & Bleich, 
S. N. (2019). Association of a beverage tax on 
sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened 
beverages with changes in beverage prices and sales 
at chain retailers in a large urban setting. JAMA, 
321(18), 1799–1810.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4249

29. Caro JC, Corvalán C, Reyes M, Silva A, Popkin B, 
et al. (2018) Chile’s 2014 sugar-sweetened beverage 
tax and changes in prices and purchases of sugar-
sweetened beverages: An observational study in an 
urban environment. PLOS Medicine 15(7): 
e1002597.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002597

30. Williams, J. (2021, June 12). DC council member 
withdraws soda tax proposal amid pushback
[Text]. TheHill.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-
watch/558167-dc-council-member-withdraws-
soda-tax-proposal-amid-pushback

31. Congress could cut soda and candy from snap, but 
big sugar is pushing back. (2017, August 28). Civil 
Eats. https://civileats.com/2017/08/28/congress-
could-cut-soda-and-candy-from-snap-but-big-
sugar-is-pushing-back/

32. Raice, J. M. and S. (2017, September 1). Expanded 
soda taxes stir pushback. Wall Street Journal. 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/expanded-soda-taxes-
stir-pushback-1504288005

33. Nestle, M., & Jacobson, M. F. (2000). Halting the 
obesity epidemic: a public health policy approach. 
Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), 
115(1), 12–24.
https://doi.org/10.1093/phr/115.1.12

34. French, S. A., Harnack, L., & Jeffery, R. W.
(2000). Fast food restaurant use among women in 
the Pound of Prevention study: Dietary, behavioral 
and demographic correlates. International Journal 
of Obesity, 24(10), 1353–1359.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0801429

35. Pereira, M. A., Kartashov, A. I., Ebbeling, C. B., 
Van Horn, L., Slattery, M. L., Jacobs, D. R., & 
Ludwig, D. S. (2005). Fast-food habits, weight 
gain, and insulin resistance (The cardia study): 15-
year prospective analysis. The Lancet, 365(9453), 
36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(04)17663-0

36. Powell, L. M., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2009). Food 
prices and obesity: Evidence and policy 
implications for taxes and subsidies. The Milbank 
Quarterly, 87(1), 229–257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00554.x

37. González-Zapata, L. I., Alvarez-Dardet, C., 
Millstone, E., Clemente-Gómez, V., Holdsworth, 
M., Ortiz-Moncada, R., Lobstein, T., Sarri, K., 
De Marchi, B., & Horvath, K. Z. (2010). The 
potential role of taxes and subsidies on food in the 
prevention of obesity in Europe. Journal of 
Epidemiology and Community Health, 64(8), 
696–704.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.079228

38. Smed, S., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., & Jensen,
J. D. (2016). The effects of the Danish saturated 
fat tax on food and nutrient intake and modelled 
health outcomes: An econometric and comparative 
risk assessment evaluation. European Journal of 
Clinical Nutrition, 70(6), 681–686.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2016.6

39. Guindon, G. E., Tobin, S., & Yach, D. (2002). 
Trends and affordability of cigarette prices: Ample 
room for tax increases and related health gains. 
Tobacco Control, 11(1), 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.11.1.35

40. The US Burden of Disease Collaborators. “The 
State of US Health, 1990-2016: Burden of 
Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Among US 
States.” JAMA, vol. 319, no. 14, Apr. 2018, pp. 
1444–72. Silverchair,
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.0158.

58



59




	Table of Contents
	Letter From the Editors
	Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in the United States: Addressing Reasons for Vaccine Hesitancy th
	An Analysis of the Effects of Frequency and Type of Physical Activity on Self-Esteem in Adolescent M
	Addressing American Obesity: A Policy Proposal
	The Select Agent Regulations: Structure and Stricture
	An Evaluation of the Human Impact of Climatic Factors in Cook County, Illinois
	An Evaluation of Food Insecurity in the D.C. Community
	About the Authors
	Meet the Staff
	Acknowledgements




