Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. More than half of the population is overweight or obese and 300,000 Americans die each year of obesity-related causes. The public health cost is enormous: about $71 billion is spent annually on treating diet-related diseases.

Is the answer to start treating junk food like tobacco? The District of Columbia and 17 states already do to some extent, taxing foods with little nutritional value like candy and soda. But those taxes go into general funding - not health programs - and the push is on for a national tax on junk food.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group known for its reports on Chinese food and movie popcorn, proposes a new tax on junk food to generate funding for public health and nutrition campaigns. Executive Director Michael Jacobson and Yale Professor Dr. Kelly Brownell recently estimated in the American Journal of Public Health that a one-cent tax per 12-ounce soft drink could generate about $1.5 billion annually and a penny tax per pound of candy, chips and other snack foods, or fats and oils, would raise about $70 million, $54 million, and $190 million, respectively.

While some health advocates applaud the idea, the food industry and others have decried the proposal, calling it an example of the government acting like a "nanny" by regulating what we eat. And even the government doesn't support the idea. At the National Nutrition Summit in June both Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala said they opposed a "fat tax" on foods of little nutritional value.

On One Hand...

Given the enormous public health toll obesity takes on this country every year, it is time to dedicate more resources to fighting the epidemic and a national tax on such food items could badly needed money for public health efforts or even to subsidize the costs of fruits and vegetables. Is it any surprise that Americans' waistlines are expanding as fast food, soda, snack food and candy companies pour billions in to their advertising campaigns? How can the federal program that encourages fruit and vegetable consumption with its $1 million media budget possibly compete with the $1 billion McDonald's spends on advertising? If we tax the food that's making Americans fatter, the government can start fighting back.

On the Other Hand...

It's not the role of the government to legislate people's behavior by taxing "bad" food out of their reach. It's impossible to pinpoint a few food items and blame them for an individual's obesity when diets are comprised of hundreds or thousands of foods. Food choices are based on taste, not price, and a one-cent tax on a candy bar isn't going to dissuade anyone from eating it. In addition, the fat tax unfairly burdens the poor, who on average consume more food of low nutritive value than wealthier Americans. No one's talking about taxing other high fat or unhealthy foods. How about a special tax on brie? Cheese has loads of fat. Or on Starbucks coffee? All that caffeine can't be good for you. Suggest those taxes and the people would take up arms to defend their right to buy gourmet foods, but propose to tax certain foods and the nutrition nannies who want to dictate what the rest of us eat will back it.

• 300,000 people a year die from obesity-related health conditions including heart disease, diabetes and stroke.

• Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia levy taxes on soft drinks, candy and other foods of low nutritional value.

• The National Cancer Institute spends $1 million a year to publicize its 5-A-Day campaign urging people to eat more fruits and vegetables.

• McDonald's spends $1 billion on advertising, and soft-drink companies spend more than $500 million.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Snack Foods Association