Tax on saturated fats in food

I haven't seen a thread on this yet, so I may as well start one.

Denmark have introduced a tax on fatty food, the revenue from which will go towards promoting healthy eating (not sure what that means yet, but I could see a subsidy on vegetables, maybe?).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15137948

Any views?

If positive, should this be extended to (for example) products that are high in sugar or salt?

Could some of the revenue go toward better healthcare?

It's an interesting idea, and maybe an interesting debate.

EDIT: Bleh.. I meant SATURATED fats!!! Grr! .. How do I change a title?

 

I think this idea has come up here in the US. On the state level rather than the federal. I'd have to do some research on it to determine if any states have actually passed legislation though I'm fairly sure none have yet.

It's a no brainer really. After all, cigarettes are taxed heavily in an overall effort to improve the health of it's citizens (again, I'd have to do some research to see if the extra revenue there is subsidizing anything other than the individual state's general fund) why not dietary products, additives, processed foods, etc., as well. Foods that have been shown to negatively affect health, Here in the US, as in most Western countries, the health problems associated with obesity are winning the contest of greatest burden on the system. Michelle Obama has worked hard at raising awareness and you can't listen to NPR for a couple of hours these days without there being some reference to the problem. I predict that even here in the anti -tax US, it's inevitable that higher costing crap food will be coming to a supermarket near you in the not too distant future.

I'd prefer to see the tax revenue, as you say, subsidize the cost of healthier foods and/or preventative healthcare but even if they don't, the general public would benefit overall.

I'm thinking here.
Additional tax % is added to a pound of butter - the same % is deducted from a healthy alternative (which is currently more expensive than the unhealthy choice). That could work. Of course food manufacturers will scream price manipulation but the reality is, we can't wait for them to start doing the right thing.

 

Except that new research shows that fat does not make you fat. It also suggests that saturated fats have *no* connection to heart disease.

If we need to be taxing anything, we need to be looking at shitty sugary foods and trans-fats. Trans-fats are *very* bad for your heart but fat is an essential part of your diet.

Sugar is not.

The film crew I am working with just spoke to one of the top scientists at the Harvard Medical School and they are now willing to change their tune. They are admitting that they have made some mistakes in recent history about fats. The gist is what I am saying above. Their research (and many others) does not support the idea that saturated fats are bad for you. To the contrary, they can be beneficial.

PS: changed the thread title as well.

 

Thanks!

Yes, I wondered whether they were targeting the right things.

I can also see some issues. For example, this could impact the less well off in our society more than the better off, without careful balancing.. maybe.

There is the question as to whether government should be trying to influence our lifestyles as well, of course.

 

You've got a point there, Charlatan. I know that NYC has outright banned the use of artificial trans fat, at least in restaurant food preparation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/new-york-city-passes-trans-fat-ban/

Despite the bureaucratic non- logic coming out of the National Restaurant Association, the billed was passed.

Maybe you can change the title again to "Tax on trans fats and other shitty crap?"

 

It's absolutely tied to obesity rates. We didn't have these high rates of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, stroke, etc until the food we were eating changed. It largely started to change in the 70s when Nixon changed the Farm Bill.

The result was extremely cheap food in the US. The unintended result is that it has made the nation fat and unhealthy.

Snowy is right. A tax on these foods would be a tax on the poor. What is really needed is a complete and utter overhaul of the food system in the US.

 

Yes, the processed options are more costly to produce and the costs would be reflected in higher pricing, were it not for the subsidies. But why subsidize commodities used to process products that are more costly and less energy efficient to produce? Why legislate small and independent local farms out of the markets? If you anticipate a society that will be poorer in the future, do you set in motion a strategy on how you will feed them? And why would you be anticipating that? Hmmmm.

I knew when I posted my response about up and down taxing to level out prices that it would absolutely be nothing more than a bandaid on the problem. There is the likelihood as well that those purchasing the cheap, unhealthy options would not change habits even if processed product A was the same price or higher as healthy product B - resulting in yes, a tax on the poor.

And hell, they probably wouldn't even be aware that there were tax incentives to selecting healthier options as taxes are not included in unit and retail pricing reflected on the shelf - unhealthy product A would continue to appear cheaper until it went through the checkout process. (And who's paying attention to how much tax is being charged each item. I don't.) As a side note, when is the US going to require food providers to include sales tax in unit and retail pricing as the UK and Europe does? Do they think we're still fooled by $19.99? Sorry, it pisses me off that for decades now we've been treated like we're a bunch of idiots - as if we actually look at $19.99 and see $19.00. Well, maybe sometimes I do.

I don't see tax intervention as a permanent or even a very effective solution and would prove to be an abysmal failure without corresponding education, public service announcements, etc., which would of course require an investment from the Fed and states in a media campaign. -not likely to happen. But I think we all know that the food industry is not about to change course on it's own. We know as well not to count on legislators to take the bold risks necessary to flip the tables and subsidize products like fruits and vegetables which, by the way, don't seem to be a whole lot cheaper coming from Mexico, Central and South America than they do grown locally. NAFTA anyone?

I think the real solution is obvious - stop subsidizing food that is killing us. I guess we'll have to make sure to put that on our list of demands come the revolution.

 

I agree with you on tax intervention not being the most effective solution.

But as to the federal investment in promoting healthier lifestyles, the Affordable Care Act includes about $100 million for public education/awareness programs focused on the "killers" responsible for 70+% of all health care costs - heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity... But these education/awareness programs are mocked by conservatives as government intervention.

Sarah Palin, but last week the mother of five lashed out at Michelle Obama's"Let's Move" program (including in the $16 million funding in the ACA) to help curb childhood obesity by helping kids eat well and stay active.​

"Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat," Palin said...​

"Instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife's priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."​

The "God-given rights" Palin hopes to protect apparently involve not having to listen to healthy eating advice, learning about portion size and encouraging kids to play more sports and watch less TV...​

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20024104-10391704.html​

The ACA also includes another couple hundred million for community health services, primarily targeted to low income urban and rural areas, to provide greater access to primary care with a focus on prevention and promoting and educating patients on healthier lifestyles.

 

I would love to see a tax on unhealthy artificial crap.

And end the corporate farm subsidies.

Cut back the military while we're at it and turn some excess drill instructors into weight loss motivators.

 

Just more government messing with real food while allowing gmo's, msg, aspartame, pesticides and other atrocities go untouched. the revenue will go towards promoting healthy eating? whatever they deem healthy would likely be the last thing you want to eat.

good thing i didn't follow the us government's advice with the food pyramid. i'd probably be obese and on my way to heart disease and cancer right now.

 

As I pointed out, the recent govt funding is directed to community based programs that provide greater access to physicians, nutritionists, etc who educate patients and offer programs on lifestyle modification.

You would prefer the govt to more aggressively regulate GMOs and food additives than fund voluntary hands-on programs with health care professionals to promote healthier lifestyes ?

 

yes, reading the research reports of gmo's on lab rats is enough to make anyone never want to touch the stuff. that's why i try to avoid corn and soy because 90% of those crops are gmo. its also interesting that the governments failed food pyramid has you eating a heavy dose of both.

this is the problem that i have with the crowd who want government run health care. if governments cared anything about our health they wouldn't let crap like this into our systems.

i'm usually all for the free market, but the agriculture business like many others isn't free market. subsidies ensure we get additional doses of deadly corn and soy and it's added to almost every processed food product. where are the subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables? while on the other side there's a push by the fda to declare natural vitamins and herbs as drugs to get them regulated out of existence.

so when i see a government pushing for a sin tax on saturated fats, i just have to laugh. saturated fat is almost a non issue compared to the other deadly poisons that are in our food supply. at least saturated fat it a natural substance that our body has the ability to properly process.

 

Community-based, voluntary hands-on programs that provide greater access to health care professionals to promote and offer services to support healthier lifestyles is hardly "government run health care".

 

Access to healthier foods is still an issue, particularly in inner cities where the need is the greatest.

And when there is access, there are often cost issues for many consumers. We shlep across town to the Eastern Market (http://www.easternmarket-dc.org ) rather than the neighborhood Safeway when we can, but we'll pay alot more.

But there are a growing number of programs that are addressing the issue, often with govt. support (govt run health care?)
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/in_focus/hunger_if_competitive.html
http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/about/OurMission.php

 

maybe not, but i what i was trying to get at is government and health don't go hand in hand. if they were concerned about our health they wouldn't allow gmo's, deadly pesticides, neurotoxins, and other crap to get into our system from big agra.

the system makes money by poisoning us and then turns around and makes money by curing us with insanely priced drugs. instead we could just have safe food and not get sick in the first place.

so when government gives me recommendations for healthy living, or wants to run my healthcare, i just have to laugh.

 

Over 10,000 years of farming organically and we call the way we've been doing it for less than a century "conventional"? I know what the writer means - I just found it an odd descriptive choice in the context of his argument.

 

Government can help in the manner I pointed out...by funding privately administered neighborhood clinics in under served areas with the greatest need and that focus on primary care and prevention as well as community based programs that offer and promote healthier lifestyles.

I just have to laugh when conservatives play the "government run health care" card.

I'm also a but confused by your position on regulation. You're opposed to regulating big business that pollutes the environment or that may have an unsafe workplace, both of which are hazardous to health, yet you want regulations on big agriculture and food additives?