fat tax

rubadub

has anybody any info on the proposed "fat tax" to be introduced by the government to put a high tax on high fat foods. i cant find much on the web. do you think its a good idea? is it too much of a "nanny state idea". whats next? high sugar, non-nutritious food, processed food?

bonkey

Originally posted by rubadub
do you think its a good idea? is it too much of a "nanny state idea".

I'm sure if it wasn't an issue, then there wouldnt be a tax.

Therefore, because its an issue, its hard to argue that its too "nannying", unless you'd accept the alternate that the govt should be able to refuse to fund any ailment clearly caused as a result of the issues this is tackling.

I find it ironic that for as long as I can remember, people have complained about youth drinking, and the insurgence of fast foods, and the negative effects they are having on our society.

Now that the government is finally trying to address these issues, what happens? We get people questioning (and complaining about, soon enough I'm sure) the right of the government to try and tackle these problems.

I know its probably not the same people, but I just find it somewhat amusing. It shows how impossible it is for any government to ever get it right.

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by rubadub
has anybody any info on the proposed "fat tax" to be introduced by the government to put a high tax on high fat foods. i cant find much on the web. do you think its a good idea? is it too much of a "nanny state idea". whats next? high sugar, non-nutritious food, processed food?

What's a nanny State.

A place that stops you committing murder, or suicide or choosing the colour of your political party?

Trebor

i hope they do it!

maybe then i can stop eating like a pig and get in shape

Chaos-Engine

I read the title of this tread and it caught me because i was thinking of a fat tax similar to the pollutor pays idea

However.
I am totally against placing taxes on high-sugar/saturated fat products as it isn't food that causes over-weight. It is abuse and over consumption of it that is a factor(but not the cause). Some people are genetically more likely to 'pile on the pounds' for instance.

Also
The placing of such a tax couldn't be placed on choclate bars and not the dairy industry. The Diary Industry is a very powerful lobby on the government as we have seen in the on going CAP reform talks.
The Truth is that most of the usual 20th century irish goods are very very starchy and fatting...
Here is a list of traditional(your granny's shopping basket) Irish products: "Whole Milk, Red Chedar, Yogurts, White Bread, Real Butter, White Flour, Sunflower Oil, Poor quality Meats"

Irish Cooking practices such as frying instead of grilling...
Irish Breakfasts!!!


I'll leave it there. Levying the proposed Fat-tax on products is a very very risky business as u can't levy it on high-sugar items and avoid saturated fatty goods such as my examples above

Taxing Persons that are over-weight or obesse is a much more practical idea. Perhaps not over-weight individuals but those that are classified as Obesse. They are much more heavier than the average person and therefore should pay more for the average services. One who is Obesse should have to pay more to fly on an airline as it costs more to get the plane off the ground as it is heavier due to the obesse person(while it can be admitted that it is almost unmeasureable), bus rides, car tax(excess weight on the road surface), cinema tickets(above average stress on cinema seats and possible inability to fit in the standard seat).... While this may seem terribly discriminatory and totally rediculise from my examples it my prove to be a healthy discouragment for people to become over-weight and ultamitly obesse.
Ofcourse none of my proposed measures should ever be introduced until the necessary aid and assistance is there to help people that are obesse or over-weight loss that weight. Support should always be there to help similar to A.S.H for those that are attempting to quit smoking.
The avoidence of being over-weight is more a heealth issue and not a beauty issue in my opinion. It should be treated as such and not the weight-watcher philosophy..

While I can see some support for this you could never see it implemented with most politicans over-weight and Mary Harney treatening to take-over the two seat to the left and right of her in the dáil

Sparks

To say nothing of the fact that the nutritional requirements of children are so radically different from adults that such a tax could not be levied fairly without a significant amount of information on your personal life and those of your children, if any, being made available.
For example, children need more calories than adults by nature of their rather more active lifestyles (ever noticed that kids run everywhere?) and their physiology (they're growing, remember - and that extra mass comes from somewhere...). However, they eat less, in terms of mass, so they need a higher calorie density - hence, fatty foods and sugary foods.
So you'd be, in effect, putting in a tax on a healthy children's diet.

rubadub

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm sure if it wasn't an issue, then there wouldnt be a tax.

Therefore, because its an issue, its hard to argue that its too "nannying", unless you'd accept the alternate that the govt should be able to refuse to fund any ailment clearly caused as a result of the issues this is tackling.

i accept it is an issue. one problem i have is that fat has been demonised by society and especially advertising and i think this may be an influence. i hope it isnt and that some medical consultants were involved in this decision and its not a "tax it cause they like it and they'll pay". i remember they increased the tax on "luxury biscuits" and large TVs years back.
fat is an essential part of the diet, men need 90grams a day. if abused it is a problem, like most substances. lots of foods are now "95% fat free" but are loaded with processed sugar, i just wonder what is next on the hit list.
i also wonder what foods will be excluded like butter? eggs? or will any at all

Originally posted by bonkey
Now that the government is finally trying to address these issues, what happens? We get people questioning (and complaining about, soon enough I'm sure) the right of the government to try and tackle these problems.

enough people are complaining about cigarettes being banned from the workplace, and they are not ok in moderation, so im sure plenty will complain about this.
it is time they tackle the problem, i just hope they have their priorities right about restricting/deterring use of harmful substances

DapperGent

I'd love to see it happen but I'd go after fastfood chains first while simultaneously giving tax breaks to organic farmers and cutting VAT on Fruit, Vegetables, Lean Meat, Wholegrain breads etc.

Making healthy food cheap and unhealthy food expensive seems a very good idea, ringfencing some of the cash for treating diabetes and obesity would make it a lot easier (forgive the pun) to swallow.

Executive Steve

its unworkable and stupid. it arises from the same sort of mind that thinks that banning smoking is a good idea, and thinks it should be illegal to buy a beer whenever you want to.

bonkey

Originally posted by rubadub
one problem i have is that fat has been demonised by society and especially advertising and i think this may be an influence.

I agree its been demonised, but I honestly don't think this is a factor. Purely and solely, I would reckon this is based on the health-cost implications.

I vaguely recall reading somewhere about the spiralling cost of healthcare in the US, where more than 50% of all healthcare expenditure was on weight-related issues.

If Ireland is headed that way, then the time to do something is now, before it becomes such a huge problem.

i hope it isnt and that some medical consultants were involved in this decision and its not a "tax it cause they like it and they'll pay".

I would imagine that the meds were involved...but I admit that this is pure assumption on my part.

jc

Gordon

So if Fat Tax existed then high fat foods would be taxed more? So you are saying that some food will get more expensive?

No thanks, food prices in Ireland are bloated enough. (pun... somewhere)

DapperGent

I do have a slight worry about implementation.

There is increasing evidence to suggest that the main obesity causing foods might be carbohydrate rather than animal fat based. I mean levied extra money of red meat, pork, duck, cream, cheese etc. is kind of dumb when some of the real killers are added sugar, fast food joints, chocolate bars, soft white bread, bagels cakes etc.

Some diet foods are nuts, packages screaming "only 3% fat" when they're so stuffed full of sugar to make them taste passable that they should have a health warning.

If they can get the balance right I'm all for it but if they are basing their "bad food" quotient on that food pyramid thing they could make a bad situation even worse.

bonkey

Originally posted by DapperGent
If they can get the balance right I'm all for it but if they are basing their "bad food" quotient on that food pyramid thing they could make a bad situation even worse.

Hopefully they'll have more sense. The Food Pyramid thing was developed by the US FDA (if memory serves correct) as a "simple" way of showing ppl what they can eat.

About 3 months ago, SciAm did an article about a "new" proposal for a Food Pyramid, based on what we've learned about nutrition since the last one was done.

Talk about radically different.

jc

rubadub

Originally posted by DapperGent
I'd love to see it happen but I'd go after fastfood chains first while simultaneously giving tax breaks to organic farmers and cutting VAT on Fruit, Vegetables, Lean Meat, Wholegrain breads etc.

Making healthy food cheap and unhealthy food expensive seems a very good idea, ringfencing some of the cash for treating diabetes and obesity would make it a lot easier (forgive the pun) to swallow.

great idea. it is cheaper for me to get a meal in mcdonalds thanks to their eurosaver deals than to cook a decent meal myself.

i would like to see stricter rules on advertising too. i have a few friends who never bothered to learn about nutrition who believe the likes of these "go-ahead" biscuits are actually good for them (it says so on the telly), they are loaded with processed sugar. you can get emmenthal muffins which are basically just sugar and cocoa and it has "low fat" in huge writing on the pack.

i dont know what the laws are about revealing contents too, do all foods now have to show typical values?, if so i think fast food or hot food in supermarkets should too.

and why are alcohol producers still getting away without revelaing calories and ingredients, tesco own brands are the only booze ive seen who do reveal it.

Sparks

No, no, bagels are fine. No, really. No, honestly, bagels are perfectly healthy. No, dammit, get your hands off my bagel you b*******! :mad:

Mailman

Silly Tax.

I exercise strenuosly regularly. I eat what I want when I want. I'm not obese. Fatty\high carbohydrate foods aren't unhealthy for me. I use them along with all the rest of the stuff I eat to keep my weight up to an acceptable level and not loose muscle.

Taxing what the government considers to be unhealthy food just increases the total cost of my balanced diet.

What would be the point of going to the Gym if you can't come back home later and eat something substantial that will go through to the muscles to build muscle fibre.

fisty

great idea.
it should be done.

GuanYin

Oh my god, what a load of tripe you are all talking.

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
[B Some people are genetically more likely to 'pile on the pounds' for instance.[/B]

This is one of the less common sense things I've seen on this thread. There are many psychological and social factors that lead to people becoming overweight, many of which occur at an early age that lead to a person becoming severly overweight or obesse later in life. These include emotional distress due to berevement or trauma and abuse, of often it occurs due to psychological issues on the parents side (over compensation of affection with food) . Then we look at metabolic issues which are not yet properly defined. Many people (such as myself) have undefined metabolic conditions which means that some foods cause massive unnatural weight gain.

Not to mention the issues with people on the otehr side of the coin, with over active metabolisms, the type who eat all day and are skinny as a rake They actually do need a higher energy intake (while not quite eating all day). A tax would also affect them.

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine

I'll leave it there. Levying the proposed Fat-tax on products is a very very risky business as u can't levy it on high-sugar items and avoid saturated fatty goods such as my examples above.

And then we get more and more children from impoverished families coming in with all sorts of medical conditions due to undernourishment and loss of many protein meat sources.

Why not tax the companies that produce high saturated fat foods and not the actual people.

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
Taxing Persons that are over-weight or obesse is a much more practical idea. Perhaps not over-weight individuals but those that are classified as Obesse.<snip>

Christ why not just build camps and cull the evil people who are not like us, how dare they use our facilities and buses etc.

Despite the fact there is a certain thing called the anti-discrimination act standing in the way, there are a multitude of medical, social and legal issues surrounding this proposed tax.

It reaks of a government in panic trying anything it can to screw the population. Yes there are overweight people in Ireland. It is a problem in some areas. Sometimes its medical/psychological, sometimes its just poor parenting.

A good government would introduce more sports facilities and youth schemes to make sure people were able to get the appropriate excercise, along with a health system that offers free medical advice and weight loss schemes for those who want to lose weight. A bad government introduces fat tax. Go figure.

seamus

This is another thing that uses people's ignorance to get through.

The general belief is that people who are overweight are lazy, careless, and eat too much. While this may be true of some, it's certainly not true of all. Some people suddenly balloon, and then begin eating normally again - but that doesn't mean that the weight won't suddenly disappear. In fact, I think most people will testify that the overweight people they know have had a pretty static weight most of the time, just like anyone else. Some people have genetic disorders or any other number of natural causes for being overweight.

Anyway my point is, some of the big backers of extra tax on high-fat foods say that it helps the health service cope with all of those people who eat too much and put a strain on the system. But if someone is eating too much, they're already paying more tax than most, so extra tax on 'bad' foods makes no difference.

A bit like the fact that alcoholics do pay extra money (on the amount of booze they consume), by default.

Just like the Credit Card levy, it's just another place where the Government is trying to stealth tax to cover up their past mismanagment.

:rolleyes:

GuanYin

Well said Seamus.

If the government did actually care about the health of the population, why don't they lower the tax rate on healthy foods?

mike65

Originally posted by sykeirl
Well said Seamus.

If the government did actually care about the health of the population, why don't they lower the tax rate on healthy foods?

There is no tax on foods here....but you will pay tax on top if you buy it in a restuarant for example...

Mike.

GuanYin

Originally posted by mike65
There is no tax on foods here....but you will pay tax on top if you buy it in a restuarant for example...

Mike.

Really?
Didn't know that!

Cool.

seamus

Originally posted by sykeirl
Really?
Didn't know that!

Cool.

Indeed. My eyebrows are quite tired after all the hmming I did over Mike's statement

In that case, I would be quite in favour of a tax on high-fat foods. Similar to taxing cigarettes and alcohol separately....

(If anyone thinks this is hypocrasy on my part, read my first post again )

bonkey

I find it somewhat amusing that no-one who has graced us with their righteous indignation has addressed the fact that obesity in Europe is on the rise, and is projected to be approximately in line with the US in terms of population percentages within the next 20-25 years if the trend continues.

Despite what you may like to tell us, obesity is on the rise. Now, while there are a number of arguable factors, one which is virutally undeniable is that this rise is obesity has closely matched dietary changes.

Let me give you a simple example. One of my teachers in secondary school was (and still is, I believe) the headmaster of an Irish College. When my younger sister was applying to go to it for the first time, my mum was asking the guy about the forms which are filled in....whether or not things like "special dietary requirements" really played a part. The answer was that over 30% of all applications were immediately binned for containing an entry on this field along the lines of "my child will only eat chips & burgers, or pizza".

Face facts - we are increasingly living in a fast-food world. Strangely, the nation who pioneered this idea is in the throes of an obesity catastreophe (from a medical point of view). The nations who adoped this way of life the fastest (mostly Western Europe) is following rapidly in their footsteps.

These are facts. You can say all you want that some people are naturall fat, but so what - some people naturally don't get cancer from smoking. Does this mean we should abolish the penurious taxes on cigarettes? I somehow doubt anyone will argue "yes" on those grounds....


Regardless of who you want to blame, the simple fact is that our lifestyles are changing, and that one side-effect of this is an explosion in overweight-related problems.

Something needs to be done about it, and the first steps to try and tackle a problem like this is to make the obvious candidate foods more expensive and thus less appealing.

If the government did nothing, people would complain they were walking the health service into a disaster and would condemn them for it, once they learned of the problem.

If the government tried to raise awareness, people would complain about the stupidity of spending a fortune on telling people something as obvious as that too many fatty foods are unhealthy for them.

Instead, the government announces its intention to tackle the problem by charging people for it. Same amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth at this "stupid" move by the government.

So I say this to all the righteous ingignants....how would you tackle the problem....or would you prefer to just pretend that it didnt exist so that in 20 years you can bitch about past/current governments for being crippled by the cost it incurs?

jc

GuanYin

Looking back on things now that I see Ireland and the UK are the only countries in the EU that offert ax exemption on food, I would be in favour of tax on high fat luxury items. Such as crisps, chocolate, fizzy drinks etc.

However some high fat products should not be taxed, such as dairy products (milk, cheese etc.) and low fat luxury items should probably remain exempt (if you actually want to help people rather than just profit off them).

That said, this is still not the best way to do things. At least not in itself. It still needs to look at the fact that kids just don't have a whole lot of options in getting healthy exercise due to the god-awful facilities in this country.

And say what you like, awareness schemes should be there. You will always get the odd eijit saying "sure every one knows that" but the ones who attend clinics and awareness schemes are usually the quiet ones.


If you read back through the posts you will see a few suggestions.


Lots of people

Nevyn

there is a huge gap in prices for when it comes to eating healthly

you will get a bag of yuky frozen chips and a pizza for what 5 euro , compare that with 12 euros to by the makings of a salad and chops or potatoes 3 fresh veg and chicken.

People are buying crap high salt high sugar high fat foods because they are cheaper, easier to cook and they will not have to argue with thier children to get them to eat it.

Children have to be eductated with food other wise you get apprent grown ups who cant eat in a resturant unless it is chips, can not appreciate any flavours that is not curry or tomatoe scause.

You have to try expose children to as much healthy foods as possible, even if it is a battle for it is in thier best intrests. My two only get chips once a week and even then what ever ammount of chips is on thier plate is matched with steamed veggies which they have learned to like.

DapperGent

Originally posted by seamus
In fact, I think most people will testify that the overweight people they know have had a pretty static weight most of the time, just like anyone else.

A lot of this is apparently due to elevated blood sugar and a crapped up insulin response. Obese people find it difficult to lose weight because (put simply) they have pretty much rubbished their ability to burn body fat instead of glucose. The vast majority are probably psychologically or physically (an increasingly accepted idea) addicted to high fat and high sugar foods. While some may have a genetic predisposition towards gaining weight a glance at obesity statistics can rule it out as an important factor, there are too many people getting too fat to blame genetics.

Originally posted by seamus
Anyway my point is, some of the big backers of extra tax on high-fat foods say that it helps the health service cope with all of those people who eat too much and put a strain on the system. But if someone is eating too much, they're already paying more tax than most, so extra tax on 'bad' foods makes no difference.

Even if as Mike says there is no tax on food (not even VAT?) this makes no sense. If a person is obese it's not simply a tendency to eat more food (nobody's going to be overweight because they gorge on celery), it's a tendency to eat shít food. Eating at fast food restaurants, getting takeaways, drinking sugary fizzy drinks, chocolate, sweets, crisps, microwave pizzas and offal. One of the major problems is that this stuff is all cheap. It's cheaper to eat at MacDonalds than it is to cook yourself a meal.

With appropriate taxation and tax breaks it is possible to make a meal of steak, salad, potatoes and veggies cheap as **** without affecting revenues. The companies that produce this **** need to bear a greater burden of the social consequences of it, but in tandem with this the man on the street needs to have his chicken nuggets and chips made a little less appealing. The only way to do this is to educate and make more expensive. Let the latter pay for the former.

Surmising Eric Schlosser in Fast Food Nation. The actual price you pay for highly processed food doesn't take into account the price being borne by society for it's methods of production or it's impact on people's health. It should.

mike65

Originally posted by DapperGent

Even if as Mike says there is no tax on food (not even VAT?) this makes no sense.

No not even VAT or at least not yet, the EU may have a view on that.

As for the proposition I have no problem with the idea of making food which is demonstatably unhealthy more expensive through tax, howver one has to be careful. You can get fat through simply eating too much "normal" food and not burning off the calories. Foods which contain excessive amounts of saturated and unsaturated fats and which indeed contain the fat simply to "bulk out" a product should be hit hard but I'd leave things like biscuits alone.

Mike.

rubadub

Originally posted by mike65
Foods which contain excessive amounts of saturated and unsaturated fats and which indeed contain the fat simply to "bulk out" a product should be hit hard but I'd leave things like biscuits alone.

remember the kitkat ads? is it a bisuit or a bar?

i wonder how they will handle definitions and what way maufacturers will get around it.
i see more and more people with misleading ingredients lists, separating things like "chocolate topping" or "biscuit layer" so it appears they have mostly flour at a glance, when you look again it is mainly fat and sugar. another misleading ingredient label technique is on sugar. listing sucrose, fructose, inverted sugar syrup, glucose, glucose syrup etc etc all listed separately so they dont look like the main ingredient.

just like the vitners trying to ban "shot drinks", how do you define this? sugar levels?- if so classic liquers like cointreau will be banned.

seamus

Originally posted by DapperGent
Even if as Mike says there is no tax on food (not even VAT?) this makes no sense. If a person is obese it's not simply a tendency to eat more food (nobody's going to be overweight because they gorge on celery), it's a tendency to eat shít food. Eating at fast food restaurants, getting takeaways, drinking sugary fizzy drinks, chocolate, sweets, crisps, microwave pizzas and offal. One of the major problems is that this stuff is all cheap. It's cheaper to eat at MacDonalds than it is to cook yourself a meal.

**** food certainly doesn't help, but most cases of obesity are caused by a badly controlled diet, IMO. It's not necessarily what you eat, but how much you eat. It's very much possible to eat healthy foods - bread, pasta, vegetables, etc - and still become overweight. By the very same token it's very much possible to eat nothing but McDonalds and never put on a pound (although you might begin to suffer from malnutrition).

It's to do with how much we burn. We're more sedentary now than we've ever been, but our diet hasn't changed much at all. If anything, we're eating more, because it's there, and we can afford it - we're genetically preprogrammed to eat as much as we can to store up for times of famine. Except times of famine never come anymore in the western world.

I would be very much in favour of a tax on high-fat foods, at least to bring them up closer to the cost of healthier, lower-fat foods. The problem with fast food is that it's so cheap, you're more inclined to buy it, and more inclined to buy more of it. If you can buy three fast food meals for the price of two healthier meals, people are more inclined to buy the three fast food meals (and then eat them in two).

My 2c

Capt'n Midnight

AFAIK Confectionery is taxed at 25% because it is not a food - it is defined by the fact that the main ingredient is sugar.

But as rubadub pointed out lots of "health bars" get around this by breaking the sugar into many different ingridents
glucose / invert syrup - museli (the high sugar type) honey rasins carmel etc.

those bars are advertised as healthy - they are not - and the best bit the avoided tax is pure profit for the manufacturer - Lets face it Health bars should be CHEAPER than normal ones 'cos there is no vat on Food.

So the trick is define FOOD
and anything not food is just charged at 21%

remember most processed cereals have added vitamines only 'cos it would be illegal to sell them otherwise

Note: raw materials would be exempt - the markup on processed foods is so high there is no financial point - eg: sugar would not have any VAT - no one eats sugar sandwichs any more - do they ?

Don't forget that too much fruit / fruit juice is not good for you either !

rubadub

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
remember most processed cereals have added vitamines only 'cos it would be illegal to sell them otherwise

yep. sugar puffs are 49% sugar i wouldnt be surprised if they have to have sugar in the name by law!

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Don't forget that too much fruit / fruit juice is not good for you either !

yes most are about 11% sugar so a pint of juice has over 50g of sugar, but at least its not processed.
it is disturbing to hear the misconceptions some of my friends have about diet and nutrition, mostly due to advertising and urban myths. the companies are using loop holes in advertising law which should be addressed