'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.

[Larry Lucido]

Were saturated fats replaced by trans-fats because the trans-fats were superior or cheaper

Excerpted from this Atkins site:

"They [trans-fats] are constructed with hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils, which both contain fats never found in nature. Called trans fats—meaning transformed from their natural state—they are manufactured by heating vegetable oils at a high temperature and bombarding them with hydrogen gas to form more stable oils. The process creates trans fats constructed of twisted, unnatural molecules that the body cannot process. The food industry sticks these hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils into virtually all baked goods and other junk food.

The reasons are economic ones. Unlike butter, olive oil or other natural fats, trans fats have shelf life from now till doomsday. "

[aruanan]

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.

This is not physiologically possible, unless the fat in the diet increased motility so much that absorption was severely impaired (diarrhea). Unless you have a disease like celiac sprue or Crohn disease that impairs nutrient absorption, absorption of ingested, digested food is nearly 100%. This is why calorie counting is an effective measure of energy intake.

Once they are absorbed, macronutrients are metabolized preferentially based on their storage capacity. The body has no storage form for proteins. Because of this, amino acids in excess of protein synthesis are metabolized either though the ketogenic or glucogenic pathways. The body has the ability to store about 3 days worth of energy in the form of glycogen. Carbohydrate/protein intake that starts to push the glycogen storage capacity results in a shift of substrate oxidation away from fats and toward glucose. A diet that has excess calories results in dietary fat going directly to storage (virtually all fat in humans is dietary fat; humans have extremely limited ability to make de novo fat). Once dietary fats are absorbed and weight gain is experienced, the ONLY way to get rid of the stored fat aside from surgery is to burn it off metabolically. The ONLY way that can happen is to decrease energy intake below expenditure or increase expenditure above intake. You can't exhale, excrete, or crap away body fat.

[Bella_Bru]

The government has pushed grains and cereal on us in their "pyramid" since I was a kid.

Yup,and they wonder why there are so many people who are obese. Eat more grains! Gobble up!

Hello....that's how they fatten cattle.

[Bella_Bru]

Yup, just look at a bottle of regular ranch dressing vs a bottle of fat free. There is double the sugar in the fat free. Gotta do something to make up the taste.

[Bella_Bru]

What ever happened to the days when a man ate what he wanted, drank what he wanted, smoked what he wanted and his heart exploded at 50?

Somewhere along the line it was decided we all must live to 100.

[DannyTN]

"This is not physiologically possible, unless the fat in the diet increased motility so much that absorption was severely impaired (diarrhea). "

I don't know what your credentials are but Dr. Atkins was a cardiologist by training. He explains it quite well in his books, particularly the "New Diet Revolution". He dares you to be "unashamedly unafraid of eating fat".

The bottom line is that without sufficient carbs, the body goes into a state of Ketosis (burning fat). Without the carbs, to produce insulin which is the hormone repsonsible for storing energy in fat cells, your body quits storing fat. More importantly it burns fat quickly. It not only burns it quickly, your body increases your metabolism to burn the fat that you have eaten. Eating more fat on a low carb diet actually revs your metabolism and burns more body fat than it would if you ate less.

Go get his book, He explains it much better than I ever could. You can get it for $4 to $7 at most pharmacies and bookstores. And unlike a lot of his critics, he cites studies after studies.

It understand it goes against what the medical establishment has taught. But I know for a fact it works. And medical establishment has recently expressed shock at the results of 1 year studies of low carb diets vs low fat diets.

[aruanan]

I don't know what your credentials are but Dr. Atkins was a cardiologist by training. He explains it quite well in his books, particularly the "New Diet Revolution". He dares you to be "unashamedly unafraid of eating fat".

I'm a Ph.D. in Human Nutrition/Nutritional Biology doing my post-doc on a cardiology fellowship. Most physicians have relatively little education in human nutrition.

The bottom line is that without sufficient carbs, the body goes into a state of Ketosis (burning fat).

Ketosis is not fat oxidation. You're burning fat all the time. It's the primary energy substrate of resting muscles. Ketosis is a metabolic disorder marked by increased levels of ketones in the body tissues, blood, and urine. A ketogenic diet is a high-fat diet that maintains the body's starvation mechanism. The formation of so-called ketone bodies in the liver is the consequence, not the cause, of fat oxidation. The ketone bodies are transported to peripheral tissues where they are used as an energy source in the (relative) absence of glucose. This is important to the brain that has no other significant source of energy than glucose.

Without the carbs, to produce insulin which is the hormone repsonsible for storing energy in fat cells, your body quits storing fat.

Insulin is responsible for signaling the presence of high blood glucose so that (primarily) skeletal muscle cells, not fat cells, can take it up. Of course, a eucaloric diet that has little glucose will have less glucose and more fat used for energy simply because for a constant energy expenditure there is relatively more fat and less glucose available as substrate. This is just accounting.

More importantly it burns fat quickly. It not only burns it quickly, your body increases your metabolism to burn the fat that you have eaten. Eating more fat on a low carb diet actually revs your metabolism and burns more body fat than it would if you ate less.

Some highly trained athletes have shown a transient response to a high fat diet that resulted in increased synthesis of proteins involved in fat oxidation. In addition, there have been studies of lean young adult males with a relatively high fat diet (~44% energy from fat intake). They had a difference in resting metabolic rate from lean young males with a habitually low fat (~33% energy from fat intake) of about 11% (~170kcals, about the caloric value of a glazed donut). It doesn't follow, though, that an obese middle-aged individual will experience the same result on a low carbohydrate, high fat diet.

Go get his book, He explains it much better than I ever could. You can get it for $4 to $7 at most pharmacies and bookstores. And unlike a lot of his critics, he cites studies after studies.

Atkins used studies cynically. That is, he cited those that appeared to give credibility to his book. He and his proponents have ignored many, many more studies that seriously undermine his theory. The recent 1 year study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that Atkins diet resulted in a quicker weight loss during the first six months, but that at the end of the year there was no significant difference. On the other hand, a review of over 200 studies of different diets done by the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that those were least fat who ate the least fat.

It understand it goes against what the medical establishment has taught. But I know for a fact it works. And medical establishment has recently expressed shock at the results of 1 year studies of low carb diets vs low fat diets.

This is not true. See the comments immediately above.

[Mark Turbo]

Why don't they just freaking ration all the food? Then the commies can tell us exactly what to eat and how much.

Bad news coming, thought Winston. And sure enough, following on a gory description of the annihilation of a Eurasian army, with stupendous figures of killed and prisoners, came the announcement that, as from next week, the chocolate ration would be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty.

--1984, George Orwell

Big Brother says you can have 20 grams of chocolate per week. For reference, a Hershey's milk chocolate bar like the ones at the checkout line weighs 43 grams.

[Salvation]

**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.**

Ooooooooh! Ice cream, too?

[ladyinred]

Expect this to be here soon. A few years ago a few of us realized that once they were through with tobacco, in the sense that they had totally demonized it, they would start on certain foods. The time has come now. Creeps.

[Fraulein]

Looks like the fat tax is next! Wonder how many smoke nazis around here are going to start whistling to a different tune? Maybe now they'll actually start to 'get it.'

[Sam Cree]

So, what diet do you recommend?

Limiting sugar and starch has worked great for me, while limiting fat, which I did for years, was always a struggle, eventually causing me to reach my heaviest ever weight.

[visualops]

As a child, I can recall my mother, standing by the stove, softening up her Cadbury's. When asked about her chocolate rituals, she would respond, "because during the War it was rationed, and now I eat what I like."
She is now 71, and keeps her chocolate hidden in a drawer, despite the fact she knows my father wouldn't touch her chocolate bar lol.

[btcusn]

I sure am getting sick of the health Nazi's, first smoking, next drinking, now what foods you can or cannot eat. Next, the amount of exercise you need each week. What could be next?? What clothes to wear?? Sure sounds like the military to me, where any new and good sounding harebrained idea is implemented as orders to keep the pc bunch happy. No smoking or sale of tobacco products, weight control, not for health, but to maintain a good military appearance, no Playboys because it offends some congress dorks.
Beam me up Scotty!!
Jack

[aruanan]

So, what diet do you recommend?

The diet should:

1. Consist of a broad variety of foods from all food groups (If you eat enough for your energy requirements, you'll have--perhaps with the exception of calcium--enough vitamins and minerals, though extra vitamin E for antioxidant activity wouldn't be bad. And such a diet won't be a radical departure into something extreme to lose weight but which cannot be maintained as a regular diet);

2. Consist of several smaller meals distributed throughout the day (Many people get too hungry from skipping meals and then overeat);

3. Not exceed in intake over the same period of time one's weekly energy expenditure (a slight reduction in caloric intake over a long period of time will result in a lasting reduction of body fat. Most weight gain occurs at the rate of a few pounds per year over decades; unfortunately, people want instant results);

4. Consist of meals that are not eaten rapidly (biological cues for satiety take a certain amount of time before they result in diminution of feelings of hunger; it's common to stuff in a huge amount of food in a short amount of time and sidestep the cues);

5. Not be characterized by grazing--that is, by constant snacking on energy dense food;

6. Be combined with regular bouts of aerobic exercise (weight loss accompanied by periods of sustained physical activity--a brisk walk for 20-30 minutes several times a week--tend to be much longer lasting) and even resistance training (building up one's lean muscle mass will increase energy expenditure during the activity, for a while after the activity, and the increased lean body mass will use more stored energy--mostly in the form of lipid oxidation).

Unfortunately, people want results NOW with the absolute minimum amount of discomfort or effort. In the context of cheap, highly nutritious, energy-dense foods and the almost complete lack of any need to engage in physical activity greater than that required to walk to the refrigerator, operate the microwave, phone in an order to Pizza Hut, or drive to Wendy's, these are the attitudes that result in obesity.

[Great Dane]

What took them so long, we expected this train to start rolling long ago....... they have squeezed as much as they could out of smokers.

[Great Dane]

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

I don't eat the stuff, but I see a lot wrong with governments mandating life styles, we are on a dangerous path here.

[tracer]

bump

[Protagoras]

The craziness is already here. Smoking laws etc. It's only a matter of time. The frog is cooking.

BTW, so called "conservatives" on this site sign on to this crap in ever increasing numbers.

[VRWC_minion]

Wouldn't it make more sense to tax the individual ? Should a skinny person penalized too ?