Governments should tax foods that are high in sugar and fat in order to improve public health.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Governments should tax foods that are high in sugar and fat in order to improve public health.
To what extent do you agree with this policy?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
This asks about a specific policy, so the strongest answers argue about whether the mechanism works, not whether obesity is bad. Two things are worth noticing: the statement gives a purpose ("in order to improve public health"), which means you can agree the goal is right while disputing that the tax achieves it — and "foods high in sugar and fat" is broader than "sugary drinks", where the real-world evidence is strongest.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase, then take a graded position: support the tax on drinks, where it demonstrably works, and resist extending it to food generally.
Body 1 — Why it works — price changes consumption of substitutable products, and the revenue can be directed at the same problem.
Body 2 — Why it is limited — regressive impact, and food is far less substitutable than drink, so demand does not move the same way.
Conclusion — Support a narrow, well-designed version; oppose the broad one.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
334 words
Some believe that levying taxes on foods high in sugar and fat represents an effective strategy for improving public health. In my view, such taxation can be a valuable public health tool, provided that the resulting revenue is reinvested into making healthier alternatives more accessible, particularly for low-income households.
To begin, taxing unhealthy food can meaningfully discourage its consumption while funding public health initiatives. To clarify, when the price of sugary drinks or fatty snacks rises noticeably, consumers become more inclined to seek cheaper, healthier alternatives, much as increased tobacco taxes have historically reduced smoking rates. To illustrate, evidence from countries that introduced sugar taxes has shown measurable reductions in the purchase of sugary beverages within just a few years of implementation. Moreover, revenue generated from such levies can be channelled into public health campaigns, subsidised gym memberships, or nutrition education programmes, thereby amplifying the policy's overall impact on reducing obesity and related illnesses, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
However, this policy risks disproportionately burdening low-income households unless carefully designed. This is attributable to the fact that processed, sugar-laden foods are often cheaper than fresh, nutritious alternatives, meaning that a blanket tax could simply increase the financial strain on families who already struggle to afford healthier options. Without such complementary measures, the policy risks becoming regressive, effectively penalising the very households it should be protecting, while wealthier consumers remain largely unaffected by the additional cost. To prevent this outcome, governments should simultaneously subsidise fruits, vegetables, and other nutritious staples, ensuring that taxation discourages unhealthy consumption without punishing those with limited disposable income. Additionally, the revenue collected from such taxes could be earmarked specifically for expanding access to fresh produce in areas currently underserved by affordable grocery options, ensuring the policy addresses the very inequality it might otherwise worsen.
To conclude, I agree that taxing foods high in sugar and fat can improve public health outcomes, but such measures should be paired with subsidies for healthier alternatives to avoid unfairly penalising economically disadvantaged consumers.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is an opinion (agree / disagree) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase the proposal to tax sugary and fatty foods, agreeing conditionally provided the revenue is reinvested to make healthier alternatives more accessible for low-income households.
Body 1: Argue that taxation discourages unhealthy consumption, as tobacco taxes historically show, and funds health campaigns and subsidised programmes, citing real evidence of reduced sugary-drink purchases after such taxes.
Body 2: Argue the policy risks unfairly burdening low-income families since junk food is often cheaper than fresh food, so it must be paired with subsidies for fruits and vegetables, especially in underserved areas, to avoid becoming regressive.
Conclusion: Restate agreement that such taxation can improve public health, conditioned on pairing it with subsidies so it does not unfairly penalise disadvantaged consumers.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
levying
imposing a tax or fee
levying taxes on foods high in sugar and fat represents an effective strategy
reinvested
putting profits or revenue back into something
the resulting revenue is reinvested into making healthier alternatives more accessible
consumption
the using up of a resource, such as food
taxing unhealthy food can meaningfully discourage its consumption
levies
taxes or fees imposed by authority
revenue generated from such levies can be channelled into public health campaigns
disproportionately
to an extent that is too large or too small relative to something else
this policy risks disproportionately burdening low-income households
regressive
(of a tax) taking a proportionally greater share from those with lower income
the policy risks becoming regressive, effectively penalising the very households it should be protecting
staples
essential foods used regularly
governments should simultaneously subsidise fruits, vegetables, and other nutritious staples
earmarked
designated for a particular purpose
the revenue collected from such taxes could be earmarked specifically for expanding access to fresh produce
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
Can I disagree with the method but agree with the goal?
Yes, and it usually produces a stronger essay. The statement gives the purpose — "in order to improve public health" — which explicitly opens that route. Saying the aim is right but the instrument is wrong is a clear, defensible position, provided you say so in the introduction.
Do I need to name real countries or real taxes?
No. IELTS does not verify facts and a vague half-remembered example can create more grammar problems than it solves. Describing the mechanism accurately — what happens to price, substitution and revenue — earns more than a name.
Is it acceptable to argue mainly about one product rather than the whole category?
Yes, as long as you signal that you are narrowing deliberately. Narrowing without saying so looks like you misread the question; narrowing explicitly, and explaining why the categories differ, is exactly what "to what extent" rewards.
How many ideas should each body paragraph contain?
One main idea, developed. Two or three undeveloped ideas in a paragraph is the most common reason a competent essay scores 6 rather than 7 — examiners are looking for extension, not coverage.
