Posted on 06/08/2003 2:24:14 PM PDT by 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.
I think the better solution is to let them start paying for their own health care costs ---one way would be to have insurance plans that match the needs of the buyers. If you use little health care, then you should be in a low-user group with low premiums. If you want an extravagant policy then you should pay for it.
I think we need to get away from the idea that health care is something the government can do for you, or that health care is only going to doctors for medicine and surgery. Health care is really a do-it-yourself program, you have to eat and drink right, exercise and all the rest. Getting to be 400 pounds and then thinking there's some magic cure out there for your heart and other problems that you don't have to pay for is just bad thinking.
..."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.
The diabetics know better than anyone that eating sugar, starch, or any signicant amount of carbs shoots up blood sugar, while eating protien or fat does not.
Atkins, Protien Power, Zone, Sugar Busters, Jenny Craig, and lots more, all rely on LOW CARB. Politicians would be rediculously stupid to foist a tax on fat.
Maybe a televison watching tax.
I think you misunderstand - I am NOT in favor of the government imposing "lifestyle" taxes of any kind. This is exactly the kind of nanny-state crap that has caused ALL taxes to explode and has led to so many of us completely shirking ANY responsibility for how we lead our lives.
On every other point, I agree with you completely.
Shhhhhh - don't give 'em any ideas.
But you also have to focus on what kind of reactions your insulin is having because that will affect your energy and hunger levels. Sugar and simple carbohydrates get digested quickly, your body puts out extra insulin fast to bring down the blood glucose levels. Then you're blood sugar drops and you feel weak and hungry again so you want more food. You have to work at keeping glucose/insulin levels in a slower balance ----but carbs aren't bad right before a work-out when you're planning on burning glucose ---sometimes you need carbs, but you don't need them for watching television.
If they need incentive to get to a normal size and thus reduce medical costs, so be it.
I'm all for any type of radical action until .gov admits that sugars and starches are at the root of obesity, not natural animal and vegetable products.
I am also for food entitlement programs covering essentially ONLY what WIC (women, infants and children) covers: eggs, milk, peanut butter, cheese.... wholesome foods, rather than Froot Loops and Lil' Debbie Star Crunches and Sunny Delight.
Exactly.
There are actually three separate issues here.
1. High Caloric Food.
2. Human Obesity.
3. Taxes.
Of the three, the third issue does not belong. The perpetual tendency for politicians and some citizens to tax objects or activities that they consider harmful or disagreeable is a misuse of the states power to tax.
They would be exempt under the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.