6 mercaptopurine 6-mercaptopurine

Seventeen states and D.C. have a "snack" or soda tax. This is the same number as last year. Taxing products is one way legislatures try to influence consumers' buying practices. The federal and state governments have imposed taxes on items such as alcohol and tobacco to raise revenue, but also to promote public health and discourage consumption. The National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices and the World Health Organization WHO ; have noted that taxes on "junk foods" are possible tools governments can use to influence consumer choices.127, 128 One reason for imposing such taxes is to raise the price of high-calorie foods with few nutrients and encourage consumers to switch to healthier foods. TFAH's analysis found that nearly all the states administering soda and snack food taxes use the funds for general revenue purposes. Arkansas and West Virginia are the only two states that designate tax receipt funds for health-related spending. Arkansas's tax on soft drinks raises over million annually to help finance its portion of Medicaid expenses.129 West Virginia uses the funds for medical, dental, and nursing schools at West Virginia University. These taxes are very controversial. Proponents of the taxes argue that: I A tax on junk food could be used to fund a healthy eating and nutritional information campaign, allowing anti-obesity crusaders to compete with the massive advertising budget of the food industry. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a leading proponent of the junk food tax, has stated: "The government needs to do more than just cross its fingers and hope that the obesity epidemic goes away. It needs to mount campaigns and implement policies that will make it easier for people to eat well and be active."130 I WHO supports taxing unhealthy foods and lowering the cost of healthier options in an effort to combat obesity and overweight prevalence throughout the world.131 Opponents argue that junk food taxes are: I Regressive. Individuals with lower incomes spend a greater proportion of their incomes on food, including junk foods, and therefore the tax is primarily a tax on low-income people. Additionally, since the tax is the same for the poor as it is for the rich, the tax eats up a bigger percentage of the poor consumer's income. I Unlikely to encourage many people to substitute healthier foods for junk food. The British Heart Foundation, responding to a similar U.K. proposal, stated that "few people would seriously consider avoiding these foods altogether."132 I Difficult to administer, burdensome, and leads to consumer confusion.133 I Penalizing the wrong target. If manufacturers are to blame for the prevalence and damage of unhealthy food, they should be burdened by taxes, rather than their consumers.134 Public opinion is divided on the issue of a junk food tax. "Forums on Health" at Harvard University sponsored a national poll of 1, 002 Americans in 2003 and found that 41 percent "somewhat supported" or "strongly supported" a special tax on junk food.135 A Minnesota poll of over 800 state residents found similar percentages -- 42 percent supported a potential junk food tax, of whom 25 percent "strongly supported" such an initiative. Forty percent of state residents strongly opposed a tax.136 Seventeen states and D.C. currently have laws that permit foods of low nutritional value to be taxed see table ; . This assessment does not include a comprehensive review of all food tax policies in all states. Some states with a general food tax that covers "junk food" may not be included in this evaluation. 51.

Mercaptopurine for men