IELTS Writing Task 2 — Junk Food Tax: a Band 9 sample answer

Rising rates of obesity and diabetes have pushed governments to consider measures once thought unthinkable, among them taxing unhealthy food. Critics call such taxes an intrusion into private choice. I disagree: when private choices generate public costs, taxation is a legitimate and proven tool.

The strongest argument for a junk-food tax is that it works. Mexico's levy on sugary drinks cut purchases within a year, and several countries report similar results. Price shapes behaviour quietly and constantly: a few pence on a can of soda barely registers in a single purchase, yet it nudges millions of daily decisions in a healthier direction. Revenue from such taxes can also be directed into school meals and preventive health programmes, doubling the benefit from a single policy.

Critics raise two objections, both worth answering. First, they say such taxes punish the poor, who spend a larger share of income on food. This is true of any consumption tax, but the answer is design, not abandonment: revenues can fund subsidies that make fruit and vegetables cheaper for exactly those households. Second, they warn of a 'nanny state'. Yet governments already tax tobacco and alcohol on precisely the same logic — that the hospital bills for private habits arrive at the public door.

In conclusion, a tax on foods high in sugar and fat is neither a punishment nor a panacea; it is a nudge with a track record. Paired with subsidies for healthy food, it is one of the few health policies that pays for itself.