IELTS Writing Task 2: Junk Food Tax - Band 6.0 Sample with Full Breakdown

Related guides:

• IELTS Writing Task 2: Recycling (Discussion) — Band 6/7/8/9…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Deforestation Two Part Question Sample…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Plastic Pollution (Advantages…
• IELTS Writing Task 2 Renewable Energy Two Part Question…
• IELTS Writing Task 2: Climate Change Discussion Sample Band…

Prompt

Some governments have introduced taxes on junk food to encourage healthier eating habits. Do you think this is an effective way to improve people's health? Give relevant support for your answer.

Model Answers

Band 6.0 Answer

Governments should tax junk food to improve people's health. This is a good idea because junk food is bad for health and taxes can make people eat less of it.

Firstly, junk food is very unhealthy. It has a lot of fat and sugar, which can cause problems like obesity and diabetes. Many people eat too much junk food, so a tax can help reduce this. For example, in Mexico, a tax on sugary drinks reduced consumption by 12% in the first year. This shows that taxes can work.

Secondly, taxes can make people choose healthier options. When junk food is more expensive, people may buy fruits and vegetables instead. This is good because these foods are better for health. In Denmark, a fat tax led to people buying less butter and more healthy foods. This shows that taxes can change people's habits.

However, some people argue that taxes are not fair. They say that poor people spend more on junk food because it is cheap. But governments can use the money from taxes to help poor people buy healthy food. For example, they can give subsidies for fruits and vegetables. This way, everyone can benefit.

In conclusion, taxing junk food is an effective way to improve health. It can reduce consumption of unhealthy foods and encourage people to eat healthier. Governments should use this strategy to make people healthier.

Band 7.0 Answer

The implementation of taxes on junk food is a controversial issue, but it is an effective strategy to promote healthier eating habits.

On one hand, junk food is a significant contributor to health problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. These conditions are costly to treat and can reduce productivity. By taxing junk food, governments can discourage consumption and generate revenue for public health initiatives. For instance, Hungary's tax on high-sugar, high-salt, and high-fat products led to a 4% decrease in purchases of these items. This demonstrates that taxes can be an effective deterrent.

On the other hand, critics argue that taxing junk food disproportionately affects low-income individuals, who may not have access to affordable healthy alternatives. However, governments can mitigate this issue by using tax revenue to subsidize healthier food options. For example, the UK's soft drink industry levy has funded school breakfast clubs and sports programs, promoting healthier lifestyles among children. This approach ensures that the policy benefits all socioeconomic groups.

Moreover, taxes can influence consumer behavior by making healthier choices more appealing. When junk food becomes more expensive, people may opt for fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. This shift can lead to long-term health benefits and reduce the burden on healthcare systems. For example, France's tax on sugary drinks has been linked to a decrease in obesity rates among children.

In conclusion, taxing junk food is an effective way to improve public health. While there are valid concerns about equity, these can be addressed through thoughtful policy design. Governments should consider implementing such taxes to promote healthier eating habits and reduce the prevalence of diet-related diseases.

Band 8.0 Answer

The imposition of taxes on junk food has emerged as a contentious public health strategy, yet it presents a viable solution to combat the growing prevalence of diet-related illnesses.

Proponents of junk food taxation argue that it serves as a powerful deterrent against the consumption of unhealthy foods. The World Health Organization (WHO) has highlighted the role of sugary drinks and processed foods in the global obesity epidemic. By imposing taxes, governments can discourage consumption and generate revenue for public health campaigns. For example, Mexico's 8% tax on sugary beverages led to a 5.5% reduction in purchases in the first year, demonstrating the efficacy of such measures.

Furthermore, taxes can be used to fund initiatives that promote healthier lifestyles. Revenue generated from junk food taxes can be channeled into programs that provide nutritious meals in schools or subsidize the cost of fruits and vegetables for low-income families. This approach ensures that the policy benefits all segments of society. For instance, the UK's soft drink industry levy has funded school breakfast clubs and sports programs, contributing to improved health outcomes among children.

Critics contend that junk food taxes disproportionately affect low-income individuals, who may rely on cheap, calorie-dense foods to meet their nutritional needs. However, governments can address this concern by implementing complementary policies, such as subsidies for healthy foods or nutrition education programs. For example, Finland's comprehensive approach to public health, which includes taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies for healthy options, has led to significant improvements in diet and health outcomes.

In conclusion, taxing junk food is a multifaceted strategy that can effectively address the challenges posed by unhealthy diets. While it is essential to consider the potential negative impacts on low-income individuals, thoughtful policy design can mitigate these concerns. Governments should embrace this approach as part of a broader effort to promote public health and well-being.

Band 9.0 Answer

The debate surrounding the implementation of taxes on junk food has gained traction in recent years, with compelling evidence supporting its potential to enhance public health outcomes.

Advocates for junk food taxation posit that it serves as a potent tool for curbing the consumption of unhealthy foods. The WHO has identified sugary drinks and processed foods as key contributors to the global obesity crisis. By imposing taxes, governments can discourage consumption and allocate revenue to public health initiatives. For instance, Mexico's 8% tax on sugary beverages resulted in a 5.5% reduction in purchases within the first year, underscoring the effectiveness of such measures.

Moreover, taxes can be leveraged to fund programs that promote healthier lifestyles. Revenue generated from junk food taxes can be directed towards initiatives such as school nutrition programs or community gardens. This approach ensures that the policy benefits all socioeconomic groups. For example, the UK's soft drink industry levy has funded school breakfast clubs and sports programs, contributing to improved health outcomes among children.

Critics argue that junk food taxes may disproportionately affect low-income individuals, who may rely on affordable, calorie-dense foods. However, governments can address this concern by implementing complementary policies, such as subsidies for healthy foods or nutrition education programs. For instance, Finland's holistic approach to public health, which includes taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies for healthy options, has led to significant improvements in diet and health outcomes.

In conclusion, taxing junk food presents a multifaceted strategy to address the challenges posed by unhealthy diets. While it is crucial to consider the potential negative impacts on low-income individuals, well-designed policies can mitigate these concerns. Governments should embrace this approach as part of a broader effort to promote public health and well-being.

Scoring Breakdown

Band 6.0 Answer

Task Response (TR): 5

• Presents a relevant position with some development but lacks depth and complexity.

Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 5

• Organized but may lack clear progression. Ideas are presented but not always logically connected.

Lexical Resource (LR): 5

• Uses a mix of appropriate and less appropriate vocabulary. Some errors in word choice and collocation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 5

• Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. Some errors in grammar and punctuation.

Band 7.0 Answer

Task Response (TR): 6

• Presents a clear position with some development and support. Addresses the task but with some limitations in depth and complexity.

Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 6

• Logically organized with clear progression. Ideas are connected with appropriate cohesive devices.

Lexical Resource (LR): 6

• Uses a range of vocabulary with some less common lexical items. Some errors in word choice and collocation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 6

• Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. Some errors in grammar and punctuation.

Band 8.0 Answer

Task Response (TR): 7

• Presents a clear position with well-developed arguments and support. Addresses the task with depth and complexity.

Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 7

• Logically organized with clear progression. Ideas are connected with appropriate cohesive devices.

Lexical Resource (LR): 7

• Uses a range of vocabulary with some less common lexical items. Some errors in word choice and collocation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 7

• Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. Some errors in grammar and punctuation.

Band 9.0 Answer

Task Response (TR): 8

• Presents a clear position with well-developed arguments and support. Addresses the task with depth and complexity.

Coherence and Cohesion (CC): 8

• Logically organized with clear progression. Ideas are connected with appropriate cohesive devices.

Lexical Resource (LR): 8

• Uses a range of vocabulary with some less common lexical items. Some errors in word choice and collocation.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy (GRA): 8

• Uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. Some errors in grammar and punctuation.

Vocabulary Highlights

1. Taxation: The imposition of taxes. Example: The government introduced a new taxation policy on junk food.
2. Deterrent: Something that discourages or prevents something. Example: The tax serves as a deterrent against consuming junk food.
3. Revenue: Income generated from taxes or other sources. Example: The revenue from the tax was used to fund public health initiatives.
4. Subsidies: Financial assistance provided to support an economic sector. Example: The government provided subsidies for healthy foods.
5. Complementary: Serving to complete or enhance something else. Example: The government implemented complementary policies to address the concerns.
6. Holistic: Considering the whole of something rather than just its parts. Example: Finland's holistic approach to public health has led to significant improvements.
7. Traction: Gaining support or acceptance. Example: The debate surrounding junk food taxation has gained traction in recent years.
8. Underscoring: Emphasizing or highlighting. Example: The results underscore the effectiveness of the tax.
9. Allocate: To distribute or assign resources. Example: The government allocated revenue to public health initiatives.
10. Leverage: To use something to its fullest advantage. Example: The government leveraged the tax to fund programs that promote healthier lifestyles.
11. Calorie-dense: Containing a high number of calories relative to its volume. Example: Low-income individuals may rely on affordable, calorie-dense foods.
12. Nutritional needs: The requirements for a balanced and healthy diet. Example: The policy addresses the nutritional needs of low-income individuals.
13. Comprehensive: Including all or nearly all elements or aspects. Example: The government's comprehensive approach to public health has led to significant improvements.
14. Multifaceted: Having many aspects or features. Example: The strategy presents a multifaceted approach to address the challenges posed by unhealthy diets.
15. Well-designed: Carefully planned and executed. Example: Well-designed policies can mitigate the concerns.
16. Advocates: Supporters or defenders of a cause. Example: Advocates for junk food taxation argue that it serves as a potent tool.
17. Curbing: To control or limit something. Example: The tax serves as a potent tool for curbing the consumption of unhealthy foods.
18. Allocate: To distribute or assign resources. Example: The government allocated revenue to public health initiatives.
19. Leverage: To use something to its fullest advantage. Example: The government leveraged the tax to fund programs that promote healthier lifestyles.
20. Calorie-dense: Containing a high number of calories relative to its volume. Example: Low-income individuals may rely on affordable, calorie-dense foods.
21. Nutritional needs: The requirements for a balanced and healthy diet. Example: The policy addresses the nutritional needs of low-income individuals.
22. Comprehensive: Including all or nearly all elements or aspects. Example: The government's comprehensive approach to public health has led to significant improvements.
23. Multifaceted: Having many aspects or features. Example: The strategy presents a multifaceted approach to address the challenges posed by unhealthy diets.
24. Well-designed: Carefully planned and executed. Example: Well-designed policies can mitigate the concerns.
25. Advocates: Supporters or defenders of a cause. Example: Advocates for junk food taxation argue that it serves as a potent tool.
26. Curbing: To control or limit something. Example: The tax serves as a potent tool for curbing the consumption of unhealthy foods.

Common Mistakes

1. Lack of Depth: Many students provide a surface-level analysis without delving into the complexities of the issue. They often fail to provide sufficient supporting arguments or examples.
2. Poor Organization: Some responses lack clear structure and logical progression. Ideas may be presented in a disjointed manner, making it difficult for the examiner to follow the argument.
3. Limited Vocabulary: Students often rely on basic vocabulary and fail to use a range of lexical items. This can result in a lower score in the Lexical Resource band.
4. Grammatical Errors: Common grammatical errors include subject-verb agreement, tense consistency, and article usage. These errors can detract from the overall quality of the response.
5. Inadequate Task Response: Some students fail to address the task fully, either by providing a one-sided argument or by digressing from the topic. This can result in a lower score in the Task Response band.

Get Your Own Response Scored by AI on English AIdol

Practice makes perfect! Get your own response scored by AI on English AIdol and receive personalized feedback to improve your IELTS Writing Task 2 skills.