Fat tax

I_give_it_2_u_str8

is finally being implemented in one country - Denmark.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/10/02/denmark-introduces-fat-tax-on-foods-high-in-saturated-fat/

Denmark has introduced what’s believed to be the world’s first fat food tax, applying a surcharge to foods with more than 2.3 percent saturated fats, in an effort to combat obesity and heart disease.

Danes hoarded food before the tax went into effect Saturday, emptying grocery store shelves. Some butter lovers may even resort to stocking up during trips abroad.

The new tax of 16 kroner ($2.90) per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of saturated fat in a product will be levied on foods like butter, milk, cheese, pizza, oils and meat.

“Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark,” health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said when he introduced the idea in 2009, according to The Associated Press, because “saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer.”

But some Danes are not happy about the ‘big brother’ feeling that comes with the tax.

“Denmark finds every sort of way to increase our taxes,” said Alisa Clausen, a South Jutland resident. “Why should the government decide how much fat we eat? They also want to increase the tobacco price very significantly. In theory this is good — it makes unhealthy items expensive so that we do not consume as much or any and that way the health system doesn’t use a lot of money on patients who become sick from overuse of fat and tobacco. However, these taxes take on a big brother feeling. We should not be punished by taxes on items the government decides we should not use.”

The Nordic country isn’t known for having a grossly overweight population — only about 10 percent of Danes are considered obese, compared to about one-third of adults (33.8 percent) and approximately 17 percent (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents age 2—19 years in the United States, according to a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

But perhaps Denmark has its obesity rate relatively under control because of its policies. In 2004, Denmark made it illegal for any food to have more than 2 percent trans fats. In July 2010, the country increased taxes on ice cream, chocolate and sweets by 25 percent. At the same time, Denmark increased taxes on soft drinks, tobacco and alcohol products, beyond the minimum levels established by the EU.

“Denmark will not only increase general health amongst the population but will also ease the burden on the public health care system and increase its resources at a time of recession when Member States are cutting public expenditure,” Monika Kosinska, the secretary general of the European Public Health Alliance, said in 2010.

Kosinska said the tax increases should be complemented by measures to make nutritious food more affordable.

“We get the taxes, but never a reduction on anything to complement the increases, such as on healthy foods,” said Clausen.



What do you guys think - good? bad?

If its successful, it may pick up in north america soon so watch out. it may cost you more than your arteries if you wanna go for that second double down :P
http://www.kfc.com/doubledown/

erickirb

Why base it on % Sat fat. Saturated fat does not make a person fat, excess caloires makes one fat. This is bad policy, so the products full of sugar and excess cals don't get taxed??

aj_rock

Ehn, baby steps I suppose. It's very sad to think that we have to consider raiding people's pockets in order to make them eat healthier, and it really does not address the underlying problems of why/how people get fat in the first place.

I_give_it_2_u_str8

Why base it on % Sat fat. Saturated fat does not make a person fat, excess caloires makes one fat. This is bad policy, so the products full of sugar and excess cals don't get taxed??

just curious, how would the government track a persons daily calories? unless they were all forced to use MFP

erickirb

Why base it on % Sat fat. Saturated fat does not make a person fat, excess caloires makes one fat. This is bad policy, so the products full of sugar and excess cals don't get taxed??

just curious, how would the government track a persons daily calories? unless they were all forced to use MFP

It is based on the products % of saturated fat. I think a tax of this sort is not a bad idea, but it should be on all "junk" food, not just foods with sat fat. and as long as the money gets used in either health care, or to make healthy choices cheaper, or to educate citizen on making healthy choices. If the funds just go to general coffers then I would not take kingly to such a tax.

rockylucas

Considering their much lower rates of obesity than the United State and other European countries, and the fact that they have implemented similar policies in the past by taxing sweets, soda, and other junk food, it would seem as if this proactive approach towards public health is working very well.

However, I am not sure how well that would work in the U.S. Those with poor eating and budgetary habits will not be dissuaded by paying higher amounts for their junk food. They will just be even more poor and clamor for even more assistance.

I_give_it_2_u_str8

Why base it on % Sat fat. Saturated fat does not make a person fat, excess caloires makes one fat. This is bad policy, so the products full of sugar and excess cals don't get taxed??

just curious, how would the government track a persons daily calories? unless they were all forced to use MFP

It is based on the products % of saturated fat.

i read what you posted the first time. thanks for repeating it.
i was referring to your other statement about calories contirbuting to fat. and i agree. but how would the government track a persons calories instead?

im wondering how

fbmandy55

I don't support the government expanding anymore than it already has, but in theory, it's a good idea. We are already overtaxed as it is so I would never support this but I WOULD support other measures that rewarded people for being healthy instead. For example, I have no problem with unhealthy overweight people paying more for insurance. As it is right now, if you are healthy and have lost a significant amount of weight you won't get approved for surgery to remove skin. An obese person on the other hand can have surgery for their knees, back, hips, gastric procedures, etc... When those are all results of the damage they have done by being overweight.

erickirb

Why base it on % Sat fat. Saturated fat does not make a person fat, excess caloires makes one fat. This is bad policy, so the products full of sugar and excess cals don't get taxed??

just curious, how would the government track a persons daily calories? unless they were all forced to use MFP

Sorry, I didn't mean to tax based on that, I menat that it isn't sat fats that are making people fat so taxing it will not solve a thing, as people that over eat, probably over eat on a bunch of things, not just due to sat fat.

It is based on the products % of saturated fat.

i read what you posted the first time. thanks for repeating it.
i was referring to your other statement about calories contirbuting to fat. and i agree. but how would the government track a persons calories instead?

im wondering how

I_give_it_2_u_str8

hmm. just got me thinking....using MFP may have some serious implications ppl! who's to tell that Mike wont share (or isnt already) sharing our information with the government HMMM??? haha jk. maybe.

binary_jester

I am glad I live in a country where there is a good chance that will not happen.

HMonsterX

Those with poor eating and budgetary habits will not be dissuaded by paying higher amounts for their junk food. They will just be even more poor and clamor for even more assistance.

This exactly.

I_give_it_2_u_str8

I am glad I live in a country where there is a good chance that will not happen.

if you live in the US, you're probably right. but its not bc your government values freedoms too much, its because your health care system is (mostly) not subsidized by the government.

but in nations where health care is paid for by the tax payer, like fbmandy said, in theory it may not be a bad idea. afterall, why should the healthy eaters pay a premium for other people's bad eating habits?

adrian_indy

I completely support the Danes in what ever they decide to do because it's their country. They have elected officials, so if they don't like the fat tax, vote them out. Besides, they need to watch their calories since they don't burn as much as they used to when they were still vikings.

I_give_it_2_u_str8

Why base it on % Sat fat. Saturated fat does not make a person fat, excess caloires makes one fat. This is bad policy, so the products full of sugar and excess cals don't get taxed??

there may be some correlation (though not causation) b/w food in high sat. fat and certain diseases. same reason why we tax cigarettes. users of these products may use health care services than non users

but i do understand your point. why stop there? why not tax people who are high risk for....genetic predispositions?

aj_rock

I completely support the Danes in what ever they decide to do because it's their country. They have elected officials, so if they don't like the fat tax, vote them out. Besides, they need to watch their calories since they don't burn as much as they used to when they were still vikings.

Viking man over here knows! You're gonna braid that eventually right? :P

anberlingasm

why should the healthy eaters pay a premium for other people's bad eating habits?

You can say this in regard to just about anything. Why should I have to pay a premium for my car insurance because other people drive like maniacs? Why should I have to pay a premium for my cider at the supermarket because teenagers are drinking too much White Lightning? Why should I have to pay so much tax because other people drink their livers into oblivion, smoke so much that their lungs pack in or sleep around so often that they need treating for STDs every other week?