'Fat tax' to fight obesity

News.com.au (Australia) ^ | June 9, 2003 | Rachel Morris

[SamAdams76]

BISCUITS, cakes and processed meals could be loaded with a "fat tax" as part of a shock tactic to combat Australia's spiralling obesity epidemic.

High-fat foods could be subject to the plan, which the Australian Medical Association says may be the way to reduce weight and ultimately save the health system billions.

The AMA will ask the Federal Government to consider the tax as part of an overall strategy to combat obesity. Recent studies have shown 47 per cent of women and 63 per of men are overweight or obese.

Diabetes Australia has also backed discussion of the plan at a federal level amid estimates more than one million Australians are afflicted by diabetes and that by 2010, 70 per cent of the population will be above their healthy weight range.

The British Medical Association has endorsed a similar plan to impose a 17.5 per cent value-added-tax on fatty food, except for takeaway meals which are already taxed. A similar tax has successfully been introduced on unsaturated fat products in Sri Lanka.

AMA vice president Mekesh Haikerwal said the doctors' group would be happy to put the tax idea "on the table" for discussion with the Federal Government.

A tax on fatty food would help to create a healthier society but "shock tactics" were needed to arrest the spread of obesity, he said.

"The discussion needs to be had," Dr Haikerwal said. "There needs to be a giant wake-up call, obesity is a major drain on our resources, on our health systems and workplaces."

Australian health ministers will meet next month to consider a national strategy to battle obesity levels with new evidence showing that within the next decade four-out-of-10 children will be overweight.

Diabetes Australia spokesman Alan Barclay said the plan was "definitely worth considering for the battle against diabetes". But he warned forcing companies to rethink the fat content of their products could result in foods high in sugar and starch.

There is already evidence some companies are changing the ingredients in snack foods. The recipe for Mars bars has been changed amid health fears over a fatty ingredient.

Hydrogenated vegetable fat has been removed from the popular chocolate bar because of its links with high cholesterol levels and heart disease.

"It needs to be targeted," Mr Barclay said. "Not all fats are bad for you."

He said there were about 600,000 registered diabetics in Australia with an estimated one million more undiagnosed or with pre-diabetes symptoms.

Diabetics spent an average of $10,000 a year on their condition, he said, with those with complications spending $20,000.

[freekitty]

How very stupid. The American Dream is to be free to do the things, including eating what you want, without interference of the government to tax you to death. That is what will get us first is being taxed to death.

[Sam Cree]

This is just crazy, IMO. I was just in Australia, a year ago, for two weeks, and, from what I saw, Australians are very much less obese, than Americans.

However, I did hear some talk about rising obesity, with much blame being placed on the fact that American style fast food was making an ever larger appearance there.

I also noticed that every food shop, whether convenience store, or restaurant, had a prominent section devoted to pastries, alot nicer looking pastries that the ones found in our convenience stores (though, other than that, our food is superior to Australian, usually).

But I believe there is a large body of research now claiming that sugar and starch are more the culprits in obesity than fats anyway.

[DannyTN]

Part of me agrees with you. But part of me asks, "What America are you living in?".

We've had price supports on Dairy products since I was a kid. The government has pushed grains and cereal on us in their "pyramid" since I was a kid. The truth is finally coming out that the policies have been stupid.

I'm just saying if we are going to do anything, let's do something that makes sense. You may be right that doing nothing is better than what we are doing now.

And as far as spending the money on what they said they will. We just got to start electing people of character, because we have to have some minimal levels of government and the temptation to divert the funds will always be there.

[txhurl]

I agree. Tax the fat people. I mean, the food they buy or the sodas they guzzle are innocent, just as bullets are innocent in themselves.

I'm so sick of people blaming fats for making you fat I'm going to propose the Constitutional diet: if the product you're about to eat wasn't available commercially in 1776, you can't have it.

Eat what the framers ate, and you'll lose weight.

[supercat]

This is about removing a substance in foods that bonds the plaque onto your arteries just so a snack food can taste crispy.

Were saturated fats replaced by trans-fats because the trans-fats were superior or cheaper, or were they replaced because saturated fats have to be listed on food labels and are considered "bad" while trans-fats don't have to be listed?

[Sam Cree]

"Let'em tax. If you don't eat the stuff, or much of it, what's the problem?"

Well, the problem is that there's alot of convincing research out there that implies that the culprit in obesity is sugar, not fat at all.

[Skywalk]

Oh, I know about the dairy subsidies for the Northeastern dairy farmers, and the government-sponsored pyramid.

All I'm saying is, let's tear down this wall! Let's not lay more bricks over a rickety foundation.

[aruanan]

How about this. Use the proceeds of the tax to subsidize healthier foods.

There is no such thing as healthy or unhealthy food. It's their relative and absolute quantities that make the difference. The reason there are so many fat people is simple: highly nutritious and palatable food is easy to get and very, very cheap. When energy-dense food intake is combined with a sedentary lifestyle and recreational eating, fat butts ensue. If energy intake exceeds energy expenditure, fat deposits grow.

If the government were to ration food and limit each person's intake only to his expenditure, no one would get fat. Well, the capos of illegal food cartels would get fat from illegal food sales. And the government could get fat from asset forfeiture laws as it seizes property used for illegal food storage and preparation. Besides, the idea of using law and government coercion to perfect the human race instead of protecting members of society from the predation of others has never worked. It has only resulted in suffering that is far more costly than Type-II diabetes, angioplasties, and prescription drugs for lowering cholesterol.

[MarkM]

How about this? Don't put extra taxes on anything. Let people make their own choices about the food they eat. But they also have to live with the consequences of those choices.

[DannyTN]

"If energy intake exceeds energy expenditure, fat deposits grow. "

That's not entirely true. I lost weight fast eating 5000 calories a day following Dr. Atkins theories. If you cut the carbs enough to turn off the insulin, you can eat all you want.

[LibKill]

What the pluperfect heck is going on down under? This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of.

[per loin]

By raising taxes on fat folks, they can reduce those now collected from smokers.

[redhead]

"A tax on fatty food would help to create a healthier society but "shock tactics" were needed to arrest the spread of obesity, he said."

These guys are barking up the wrong tree. INSULIN is the fat-making and fat-storing hormone. FATS do not stimulate insulin, CARBOHYDRATES do. Natural fats (like butter, cream, steak fat, egg yolks, coconut oil) are essential nutrients, especially for such functions as forming hormones and neurotransmitters, and the proper formation of hair, skin, and nails. UNsaturated fatty acids (margarine, vegetable oils, etc.) on the other hand, can cause blood clotting and "age spots," and are so detrimental to health that they are even used to suppress the immune response after transplant surgery.

This is the kind of silly tail-chasing we get when we let the vegetable oil and sugar manufacturers decide what we should eat, and influence government (which has NO business telling us what we can eat in the first place) to make laws mandating that we eat more of their trashy synthetic foods and less of the historically nutritious and nourishing natural diet our grandparents were raised on.

Cholesterol, for instance is such an essential nutrient for cell integrity that if we don't eat ENOUGH of it in our diet, our body will make it. From SUGAR.

Those triglycerides swimming around in your blood? They probably came from that 1-pound cinnamon roll you washed down with orange juice this morning, and chased with that big cup of Starbuck's double-shot high-test espresso (low fat cream and lots of sugar, of course...), and they are on their way to your fat cells, thanks to the action of the insulin you stimulated.

Go HERE and do a little research into the FACTS. Dr. Enig is a lipid chemist. She KNOWS her fats.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

I don't get this concept of taxing behavior. If promiscuity is a problem, raise the tax on condoms. If atv's are a nuisance, raise the tax on four-wheelers. Where would it end?

[MarkL]

How about this. Use the proceeds of the tax to subsidize healthier foods.

Yeah right!

DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY THINK THAT MONEY THE GOVERNMENT TAKES IN AS NEW TAXES HERE WILL ACTUALLY GO TO WHERE THEY PROMISE IT'S GOING TO GO?!?!?!?!?!

Perfect examples include state lottery funds going to improve schools, the gasoline taxes going to fund road repairs and improvements, and my favorite, tobacco taxes funding health care! ROTFLMAO!!!!

Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me 97 times, shame on me!

Mark

[Drew68]

Eat what the framers ate, and you'll lose weight.

Does that include the roughly one gallon of beer they drank daily? If so, I'm all for it!!!

[txhurl]

Naw, that was Sam Adams, an attorney. The framers were quaffing bourbon, God love 'em.

[RipSawyer]

"Eat what the framers ate, and you'll lose weight."


Maybe so, but the framers probably got more exercise in an average day than most people get in a week now. Heck, more than a lot of them get in a month.

[FITZ]

Only a matter of time before this craziness hits the U.S. shores.

Yes ---it's the logical next step because they can't raise cigarette taxes much higher than they are now. Spending can't be cut ---politicians seem totally against that, so new taxes must be created.

[CFC__VRWC]

By raising taxes on fat folks, they can reduce those now collected from smokers.

I'm sure you must have forgotten the </sarcasm> tag.