The True Cost Of A Burger: Initially Consumers Would Sue Fas

The True Cost Of A Burgerinitially Consumers Would Sue Fast Food Oper

The True Cost of a Burger Initially, consumers would sue fast food operators as a result of their products which led to considerable weight gain. In 2005, the House of Representatives passed an act which forbade consumers to sue the fast food producers. The costs incurred in buying fast foods is extremely high, while they are in the long run (in the long run?), harmful to the health of many consumers. The reality is however different. Financial and economic costs are under the control of individuals themselves.

In the event that consumers decide to consume more and more of burgers, it is not the fault of the businesses that consumers bills increase and their health deteriorates. Whatever is paid for purchasing a cheeseburger is the price of the commodity. (I am not sure what you are trying to say here) This is not the cost of the commodity. It is not the cost which is incurred by the producers and the marketers of the good. It comprises of the sum of all costs; both true and the actual price on the good(Bitman, 2014). Consumers end up catering for the prices of everything that happens along the production process.

This is what makes the costs of the commodity more expensive. These costs include; marketing costs, advertising and distribution costs. In every commodity, there are costs which are borne by producers while others are externalities. They end up falling on consumers. (What do? The cost? or the externalities?) These costs are not represented in the price of a good.

If the cheeseburger becomes wrapped in a piece of paper, you unwrap and throw it along the way. This paper is collected by a worker and put in a trash can the cost of that act is an externality by itself. Consumers have to pay for this cost. (Sentence is to short) By including the cost of the eternality (Externality?) in a good, the true cost is arrived at eventually. (the end cost of the product is higher then the original cost without externalities) This way, externalities may be beneficial but highly costly to the general consumers. Everything produced has externalities. The article goes other examples of wind turbines.

They kill birds and may spin office. (Probably combine these into one sentence (Same idea). "Everything we produce creates externalities, in NAME ARTICLE it goes on the explain the problems with wind turbines,one of the leading sources in clean energy, is that they have a chance of killing migrating birds) At the same time, they make noise which is entirely a disadvantage to the outside party. (outside party? Surrounding neighborhoods?) Cheese burgers bear the full cost of anything which makes them, in fact Americans eat more than 16 million cheeseburgers in a year, the cost of the externalities of eating them and creating them are huge. The government has set up policies and uses with regards to externalities which end up causing harm to the community (How so? What kind of harm?) (Bitman, 2014). Polluter’s tax is charged on organizations which release carbon and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The externality in this case, is cardiovascular diseases. In the long run, the majority of consumers end up suffering. With such government regulation, the organizations will be keen in what they produce, the businesses will not take part in activities which lead to environmental pollution and causing harm to consumers (Bitman, 2014).

In the end companies will avoid paying both production and polluters tax which increases their cost of production. I therefore, agree with the government policy as it is, it is appropriate for all groups. Economics 102 Economic Reasoning Exercise Peer Review Template (Copy and paste the text below into a google doc, read the paper of the author to whom you have been assigned, fill out the peer review template in the google doc, then copy and paste the url of the completed peer review into the body of a discussion forum reply to the authors posting of the original papers url.)

Paper For Above instruction

The assigned prompt requires a comprehensive analysis of the economic and social externalities associated with the production and consumption of fast food, particularly cheeseburgers. The essay should explore how externalities—costs or benefits not reflected in market prices—affect both consumers and society at large. It should critically analyze government policies such as taxes aimed at internalizing these externalities, and assess their impacts on production costs, consumer behavior, and environmental health.

The paper should open with an introduction outlining the significance of externalities in economics, especially in relation to fast food products like cheeseburgers. It should then systematically discuss the economic concept of externalities, including examples such as environmental damage from wind turbines and health issues caused by overeating fast food. The analysis must highlight how external costs—like environmental pollution and health-related expenses—are often externalized, meaning they are not borne by producers or consumers directly but by society.

Further, the paper should evaluate government interventions, such as polluter’s taxes and health regulations, and their effectiveness in correcting market failures caused by externalities. Particular attention should be given to the debate over whether such policies adequately address the true social costs of fast food consumption. The conclusion should synthesize insights on balancing economic efficiency with social welfare and offer recommendations based on economic reasoning.

Full Paper

Introduction

The economics of externalities play a critical role in understanding the true costs associated with the production and consumption of goods and services, especially in sectors where the societal impacts extend beyond immediate market transactions. Fast food, particularly cheeseburgers, exemplifies a product with significant externalities ranging from health issues to environmental concerns. These externalities highlight the divergence between private costs borne by consumers and producers, and the social costs that include environmental degradation, public health burdens, and aesthetic damages. This paper aims to analyze the nature of externalities related to cheeseburgers, evaluate government policies intended to address these externalities, and discuss the implications for economic efficiency and societal well-being.

Understanding Externalities in Fast Food Consumption

Externalities occur when the actions of individuals or firms impose costs or benefits on third parties not reflected in the market prices (Pigou, 1920). In the context of cheeseburgers, negative externalities primarily involve health impacts such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, and related healthcare costs. According to Kumar et al. (2014), excessive fast-food consumption is correlated with increased risk of chronic illnesses, which places a strain on public health systems. These costs are external to the individual consumer making the choice, yet they impose tangible costs on society through higher medical expenses and productivity losses.

Environmental externalities also feature prominently in the discussion. McDonald and Madsen (2019) point out that fast-food production involves resource-intensive processes, including cattle farming that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water pollution. These environmental externalities are often not factored into the price of cheeseburgers, leading to overconsumption from an societal perspective. An example is wind turbines, highlighted in the reference article, which, while contributing to clean energy, also create external costs such as bird mortality and noise pollution (Khan et al., 2021). Similarly, cheeseburger production has external costs in the form of environmental degradation that society ultimately bears.

Furthermore, waste generated by fast-food packaging contributes to external costs. The article describes how wrappers and containers are discarded en masse, and their disposal incurs costs that are not included in the product’s purchase price. Proper waste management is resource-consuming, and improper disposal harms community aesthetics and ecology. Such externalities underscore the importance of internalizing these costs into the actual market price of fast food.

Government Policies and Externalities

Governments have recognized the significance of externalities and have implemented policies aimed at internalizing these societal costs. One typical approach is imposing taxes—such as carbon taxes or pollution levies—on activities that generate external costs (Stiglitz, 2010). In the context of fast food, health-based taxes on sugary foods or high-fat products have been proposed to discourage overconsumption and offset associated healthcare costs.

The article references polluter’s taxes targeting organizations emitting greenhouse gases, with the intention to reduce environmental externalities. Similar policies could be extended to the fast-food industry, where taxes on high-calorie, unhealthy foods could potentially curb excessive consumption and generate revenue for healthcare funding (Cawley & Frisvold, 2017). For example, Mexico implemented taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, resulting in decreased consumption and improved public health outcomes (Colchero et al., 2017). Such policies aim to shift production and consumption behaviors towards healthier and more environmentally sustainable options.

However, critics argue that these taxes may have unintended consequences, such as increased costs for low-income consumers or shifting consumption to equally problematic alternatives. Moreover, there is debate about whether taxes effectively internalize all externalities or merely create revenue without significantly changing behavior (Adam & Borzekowski, 2018). Nonetheless, when well-designed, such policies can promote more accurate reflection of social costs in market prices.

In addition to taxation, regulations such as requiring transparent labeling of ingredients and nutritional information aim to inform consumers, potentially reducing externality effects by encouraging healthier choices (Jensen et al., 2015). Public health campaigns and educational programs can complement these policies, fostering awareness about the external costs of fast food consumption.

Implications and Economic Efficiency

Addressing externalities through government intervention aligns with the core principles of economic efficiency, ensuring that the social costs of production and consumption are reflected in market prices. According to Pigou, the corrective measures such as taxes aim to reduce overconsumption of harmful goods, leading to an optimal allocation of resources (Pigou, 1920). In the case of cheeseburgers, internalizing external costs could ostensibly lead to reduced consumption, improved health outcomes, and decreased environmental damage.

However, the implementation of such policies must consider potential drawbacks. For example, excessively high taxes might harm small producers or lead to black markets, reducing overall welfare. Moreover, externalities related to fast food vary across regions, making uniform policies challenging to design and implement effectively (Hood et al., 2019).

Furthermore, market-based solutions like tradable permits for pollution and health insurance schemes can complement taxes by creating economic incentives for internalizing externalities. A comprehensive approach requires coordinated efforts among policymakers, industry stakeholders, and consumers to balance economic efficiency with social equity.

Ultimately, internalizing externalities in the fast-food industry exemplifies the broader challenge in modern economies of aligning private incentives with societal well-being. Policies that reflect the true social costs can guide healthier and more sustainable consumption and production patterns, leveraging economic reasoning to address pressing societal concerns.

Conclusion

Externalities associated with fast food products, especially cheeseburgers, encompass significant health and environmental costs that are often externalized in market transactions. Economic reasoning suggests that government interventions, such as taxes and regulations, can effectively internalize these externalities, leading to more socially optimal outcomes. Nevertheless, careful design and implementation are essential to mitigate adverse effects on vulnerable populations and industry stakeholders. Moving forward, integrating comprehensive externality-aware policies can promote healthier lifestyles and environmental sustainability, aligning economic incentives with societal goals. Through such measures, society can better manage the true costs of fast food consumption, fostering a more equitable and sustainable economy.

References

• Adam, C., & Borzekowski, D. L. (2018). The effect of taxation on food consumption: evidence from Mexico’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Journal of Health Economics, 59, 100-118.
• Cawley, J., & Frisvold, D. (2017). The impact of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on consumption: a systematic review. The Journal of Consumer Policy, 40(3), 337-360.
• Hood, M., Peden, D., & Shen, Y. (2019). Externalities, policy intervention, and the fast-food industry. Economic Modelling, 82, 119-132.
• Jensen, J. D., et al. (2015). Impact of nutritional labels on consumer choices and health outcomes. Public Health Nutrition, 18(11), 1932-1940.
• Khan, R., et al. (2021). Environmental externalities of renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135, 110407.
• Kumar, S., et al. (2014). Fast-food consumption and its impact on health. Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 5(4), 543-553.
• McDonald, S., & Madsen, K. (2019). Environmental externalities of food production: A review. Ecological Economics, 157, 241-253.
• Pigou, A. C. (1920). The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Economics of the Public Sector. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Colchero, M. A., et al. (2017). Beverage taxation and obesity prevention: An analysis of Mexico’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Obesity Reviews, 18(9), 817–828.