How the hell does a tax on "unhealthy" foods work?

munkifisht

So I hear today the muted murmurings of the possible introduction of a "Fat tax" on unhealthy foods. In principle, I agree with this, of course it will tend to effect those in society who are already up against it, fruit and veg tend to cost more and are perishable and healthy food tents to take longer to prepare (not such a problem where one parent doesn't work) etc etc but lets not focus on that.

My problem with the idea of a fat tax is how do they decide what's unhealthy and whats not. Orange juice contains as much sugar as most soft drinks. Take milk, is milk bad, what about cream, or butter? Is the sugar in my tea going to be taxed, and how about breads, bagels, pastries? All of these are bad for you, are we going to start to tax them all and if we are going to tax some how do we go about defining food categories. What about a steak, surly not, but if I mince that steak and make it into a burger? If I go to a restaurant where they make their own ice cream from base ingredients which are not taxed, will the final product that is served to me be labial for tax? Can this idea work?

Jippohead

Tax food from Takeaways?

Suryavarman

They decide which food gets taxed based on what helps lobbyists and special interests the most.

Godge

I have an allergy to mushrooms. They make me violently ill if I consume them. They are unhealthy to me so they should be taxed for a start.

The smell of certain foods makes me ill, too, should they be banned?

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

They decide which food gets taxed based on what helps lobbyists and special interests the most.

cough grain pyramid cough

jester77

Just be happy that pizza is considered a vegetable

number10a

jester77 wrote: »

Just be happy that pizza is considered a vegetable

All because it's coated in fruit. Only in America......

Boskowski

munkifisht wrote: »

it will tend to effect those in society who are already up against it, fruit and veg tend to cost more and are perishable

Really? I find fruit and veg very cheap compared to most processed foods.

amacachi

bluewolf wrote: »

cough grain pyramid cough

You cynic. We definitely need 6 servings of it a day! :pac:

RichardAnd

OP, it has absolutely nothing to do with public health. In a similar guise of putting exorbitant tax on cigarettes, "fat tax" will be put on sugar and fat laden food under the label of encouraging healthy eating when in reality, it's just another way of generating more income for a cash strapped state.

If the government really wanted to wean people off fags and curries, they'd ban them outright. I don't agree with fiddling markets in this manner and grown adults should have the right to eat what they like and if they haven't the good sense to stay away from junk, it's their own business.

noxqs

Ask yourself this:

Are the politicians doing this out of a genuine concern for public health?

Or

Because they desperately need money, and taxing people directly on PAYE is unpopular?

Politicians couldn't care less about carbon emissions and fatty foods. But a bloated government is addicted to revenue streams. Even if we were all eating carrots, cycling to work, and never smoked a day in our lives, they'd tax something else. It just sounds better this way and sheep will be sheep and accept it.

ednwireland

noxqs wrote: »

Ask yourself this:

Are the politicians doing this out of a genuine concern for public health?

Or

Because they desperately need money, and taxing people directly on PAYE is unpopular?

Politicians couldn't care less about carbon emissions and fatty foods. But a bloated government is addicted to revenue streams. Even if we were all eating carrots, cycling to work, and never smoked a day in our lives, they'd tax something else. It just sounds better this way and sheep will be sheep and accept it.

i'd say B, but i'm a cynic

sh1tstirrer

All food will make you fat if you eat too much of it. Will this tax make all the fatties in the dail any thinner? What about people that eat those in moderation and aren't over weight, why should they have to pay a fat tax? As said before it is just a lame excuse to get more money in.

COYW

RichardAnd wrote: »

If the government really wanted to wean people off fags and curries, they'd ban them outright. I don't agree with fiddling markets in this manner and grown adults should have the right to eat what they like and if they haven't the good sense to stay away from junk, it's their own business.

Well not really, as the tax payer will have to foot the bill for their healthcare in later life.

drdeadlift

Sure they are planning on putting vat onto whey protein/ergogenic aids as they call it.To hell with it all

The Scientician

Boskowski wrote: »

Really? I find fruit and veg very cheap compared to most processed foods.

It depends where you get them, local veg shops seem better than some of hte supermarkets. But fresh fruit and veg perish very fast compared to processed foods so unless you're really well organised you can end up with lots of wastage. But if you're well prepared then yeah you're absolutely right.

MagicSean

COYW wrote: »

Well not really, as the tax payer will have to foot the bill for their healthcare in later life.

Im pretty sure that studies have shown that this is untrue. The reduced life expectancy actually makes them less of a burden on the tax payer.

Suryavarman

COYW wrote: »

Well not really, as the tax payer will have to foot the bill for their healthcare in later life.

Don't make the taxpayer foot the bill then.

Chucky the tree

In Norway they put a tax on the amount of saturated fat in a food item. It's €2 or so for every Kilo of saturated fat.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Don't make the taxpayer foot the bill then.

Why not? If someone doesn't smoke why should they pay for the cancer treatment of someone who does? Why should someone who never eats fatty foods pay for some's heart operation who ate take-aways every night of the week?

MagicSean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

In Norway they put a tax on the amount of saturated fat in a food item. It's €2 or so for every Kilo of saturated fat.



Why not? If someone doesn't smoke why should they pay for the cancer treatment of someone who does? Why should someone who never eats fatty foods pay for some's heart operation who ate take-aways every night of the week?

Why stop there? If you are injured in a car crash you caused then why should I as a tax payer pay for your hospital treatment? If you are burned in a fire caused by an electrical fault in your house why should I pay for your treatment in hospital because you didn't get a good electrician? Nobody lives a riskless life.

Chucky the tree

Chucky the tree wrote: »

In Norway they put a tax on the amount of saturated fat in a food item. It's €2 or so for every Kilo of saturated fat.



Why not? If someone doesn't smoke why should they pay for the cancer treatment of someone who does? Why should someone who never eats fatty foods pay for some's heart operation who ate take-aways every night of the week?

Because saturated fat isn't bad for you, it's a myth. And that's why govts taxing foodstuffs based on which group lobbiest hardest regardless of the facts is ridiculous.
Don't tax them, don't make the taxpayer foot their bill

token56

The other, possibly better, option would be to reduce vat on foods considered good for you like fruit and veg to make them more appealing but of course we are living in a recession hit country so tax is never going to be reduced on something.

Chucky the tree

bluewolf wrote: »

Because saturated fat isn't bad for you, it's a myth. And that's why govts taxing foodstuffs based on which group lobbiest hardest regardless of the facts is ridiculous.
Don't tax them, don't make the taxpayer foot their bill

In what way do you mean they aren't bad for you?

Blatter

They will probably follow Denmark and put a totally ignorant and absurd tax on saturated fat.

Tazz T

How the hell does a tax on "unhealthy" foods work?


Government puts tax on as many food and drink products as possible. We give government money. Government gives money to the EU, then looks for something else it can tax on the rationale they're taxing it cos it's bad for us. 'Crossing the road' tax anyone?

Chucky the tree

Chucky the tree wrote: »

In what way do you mean they aren't bad for you?

go read the H&F forum

but some quick links
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/good-news-on-saturated-fat/
http://www.kriskris.com/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-you/
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/06/06/saturated-fat/

low-fat high refined-carb diets seem to be more unhealthy

Anyway this is getting off topic. What I'm trying to say is, having the govt tax "unhealthy" foods is ridiculous. The grain is one example, the pizza thing in the USA is another.

eire4

noxqs wrote: »

Ask yourself this:

Are the politicians doing this out of a genuine concern for public health?

Or

Because they desperately need money, and taxing people directly on PAYE is unpopular?

Politicians couldn't care less about carbon emissions and fatty foods. But a bloated government is addicted to revenue streams. Even if we were all eating carrots, cycling to work, and never smoked a day in our lives, they'd tax something else. It just sounds better this way and sheep will be sheep and accept it.

No question the answer is B. It is just like tickets being handed out for red light camera traffic violations in the US. Policticans say it is all about safety. When the reality is it is just about collecting revenue and is basically another stealth tax.

Dr Galen

token56 wrote: »

The other, possibly better, option would be to reduce vat on foods considered good for you like fruit and veg to make them more appealing but of course we are living in a recession hit country so tax is never going to be reduced on something.

see if it was for public health reasons, then this would be a great idea tbh. This isn't and shouldn't be dressed up as such.

Unless they are going to stick €7 onto a Big Mac, or €5 onto a takeaway this won't discourage anyone from eating unhealthy foods. If someone likes to eat microwave dinners, then adding a few cents onto the price isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference, and I would suggest thats exactly what they are hoping for.

MagicSean

Dr Galen wrote: »

see if it was for public health reasons, then this would be a great idea tbh. This isn't and shouldn't be dressed up as such.

Unless they are going to stick €7 onto a Big Mac, or €5 onto a takeaway this won't discourage anyone from eating unhealthy foods. If someone likes to eat microwave dinners, then adding a few cents onto the price isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference, and I would suggest thats exactly what they are hoping for.

Vat rates need to be completely redone anyway. Are nappies and shoes still considered a luxury?

Tazz T

The big flaw in the thinking (even if it's just another dressed up bail out tax) is that 'unhealthy' foods are only unhealthy if you eat them in excess. Having a Big Mac once a month is not bad for you, so why should I be taxed for it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a land tax on carrots next because they take up land while they're growing.

Stupid, stupid politicians should be taxed @ 100%

username123

noxqs wrote: »

Are the politicians doing this out of a genuine concern for public health?

No, because if they were they would simultaneously reduce the tax on 'healthy' foods, set up education campaigns for healthy eating and subsidise gym memberships.

Seeing as none of that will happen I can only deduce its another ridiculous way to cream more money off an already over extended joe public that isnt income tax.

ressem

username123 wrote: »

No, because if they were they would simultaneously reduce the tax on 'healthy' foods, set up education campaigns for healthy eating and subsidise gym memberships.

Seeing as none of that will happen I can only deduce its another ridiculous way to cream more money off an already over extended joe public that isnt income tax.

What tax on what 'healthy' foods are you referring to? A lot of food is zero rated on the condition that it's not served to you as part of a service (e.g. hot meals) or by vending machine. Bottled water is the only one that comes to mind.

Tayla

A tax on sugary snack foods is the way forward, chocolate/cakes/fizzy drinks.


I also don't think a tax on saturated fat would be the way to go either, as another poster has said already saturated fat isn't bad for you.

I wouldn't mind a tax on trans fats which are the really dangerous ones, even if all it meant was that takeaways etc would stop using them then that would be a positive!

K-9

token56 wrote: »

The other, possibly better, option would be to reduce vat on foods considered good for you like fruit and veg to make them more appealing but of course we are living in a recession hit country so tax is never going to be reduced on something.

I don't think raw fruit and veg are Vatable, so they can't reduce it.

Processed ones maybe but I'm not 100% on that!

jimmycrackcorm

Who cares how a fat tax works? I only care for the fact that it will be tax of choice instead of an unavoidable tax.

Cookie_Monster

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Who cares how a fat tax works? I only care for the fact that it will be tax of choice instead of an unavoidable tax.

depends on how broadly or simply they define "fat" or "sugar", most foods have one or both in them in some kind of other. Plenty of fructose in fruit for example...

Dannyboy83

drdeadlift wrote: »

Sure they are planning on putting vat onto whey protein/ergogenic aids as they call it.To hell with it all

Vat is already applied to whey protein.
That's why we pay so much more than the UK

It will increase in price of course.

Dannyboy83

bluewolf wrote: »

go read the H&F forum

but some quick links
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/good-news-on-saturated-fat/
http://www.kriskris.com/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-you/
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/06/06/saturated-fat/

low-fat high refined-carb diets seem to be more unhealthy

Anyway this is getting off topic. What I'm trying to say is, having the govt tax "unhealthy" foods is ridiculous. The grain is one example, the pizza thing in the USA is another.

I have been using a Ketogenic diet for about 2 years now I guess (slimmer, happier and healthier than ever btw), so I probably sing from the same hymn sheet as yourself in this regard.

I'm trying not to go off topic so bear with me; People such as you or I who follow low carb diet/low insulin diets can eat large quantities of saturated fat, produce more testosterone and still tend to have improved blood profiles.

It doesn't appear to be so simple for people eating large quantities of saturated fat AND refined carbohydrates simultaneously however. Even most the authors of most Ketogenic books state that High levels of Saturated fat in the presence of High Insulin does cause damage.

The point is - which is the unhealthy food?
The food which is high in saturated fat, which is probably natural, probably similar to which our prehistoric ancestors probably consumed?
OR, the refined food which causes an colossal insulin surge and has been around a shorter than time than the atom bomb?

The obvious answer imo, is the food which causes the insulin surge - this for most sedentary people in my experience is the more dangerous food.
This is why our society has become so fat and we have so many diabetics.
That's not to say the food should be banned - it would still be useful if we ever had a famine again.
But in an era which the problem is too much food, not too little - then these type of foods are highly undesirable for anyone other than specific groups such as weightlifters/athletes and so on.

As ever, the government will lag behind the curve, try to enforce a lifestyle which is actually not only unhealthy, but dangerous to people who are at risk of developing diabetes (will we see court cases in a few years over this?) before they realise they've been doing it wrong all along.
Oooops, too bad.

The problem is:
Most Irish people are simply too ignorant or too undisciplined to actually follow a healthy diet.
The typical Irish person is going to protest from one side of their mouth about their right to eat what they like, essentially filling their arteries with poison, while smugly approving of taxing the smoker who is.....erm, filling their lungs with poison.
(As a reformed smoker and a reformed glutton, I have the luxury of being smug about neither)

Obesity is now considered to be the number 2 cause in many type of cancers, second only to smoking.
So, I think it's entirely hypocritical to say we can tax smokers to the hilt, but gluttons should be allowed to eat whatever they like.

BUT;
It can still be a useful tool.
There are still numerous non-desirables which are bad for everyone, regardless of the diet followed, such as transfats, corn syrup and so on.

While the tax is going to be utterly useless at modifying the behaviour of the population in my opinion, - if the government actually utilized the tax appropriately, it could effectively alter the behaviour of the food industry, which would be a far more significant achievement.
They use gunk because it's more profitable.
If we can make it more expensive to use gunk than to use healthy products, at least we are helping everyone to some degree.

I guess I probably spend more time following nutritional issues than Joe Soap, but here is an example of a video which has been talked about a lot recently in nutritional forums - this is just one example the kinds of things we should really be trying to eliminate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXXrB3rz-xU




CAVEAT:
The skeptic in me unfortunately believes that - much like the planned increases in Tax for low emissions vehicles, the government will at some stage claim that since not even people are raising revenue through Fat tax, they will be forced to "balance" things by introducing a 'general food tax' which will include health promoting foods also.
This is Ireland after all.

amacachi

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

As ever, the government will lag behind the curve, try to enforce a lifestyle which is actually not only unhealthy, but dangerous to people who are at risk of developing diabetes (will we see court cases in a few years over this?) before they realise they've been doing it wrong all along.

You're giving them too much credit IMO, they don't give two fcuks one way or the other. A slightly different example but up til a few years ago the EU spent as much on subsidies for tobacco farmers (I didn't realise it was grown in Europe) as they spent on anti-smoking campaigns.
On the Health and Fitness forum earlier this year a thread was started about how Safefood changed away from the food pyramid. Unfortunately it's still the same information. When this was pointed out again and again to a Safefood rep they may as well have had their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".
I had a glance at the board of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland at the time and a look now makes for fun reading. http://www.fsai.ie/about_us/about_fsai/board_members.html What vested interests?! :pac:

Dannyboy83

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149

Nearly half of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year - over 130,000 in total - are caused by avoidable life choices including smoking, drinking and eating the wrong things, a review reveals.

Tobacco is the biggest culprit, causing 23% of cases in men and 15.6% in women, says the Cancer Research UK report.

Next comes a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables in men's diets, while for women it is being overweight.

Interesting article above.
Perhaps we should be demanding a subsidy on Fruit & Veg in this country, to coincide with the incoming Fat Tax?

nesf

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Why not? If someone doesn't smoke why should they pay for the cancer treatment of someone who does? Why should someone who never eats fatty foods pay for some's heart operation who ate take-aways every night of the week?

Why should my taxes pay for liver transplants, operations/hospital care after drunk driving crashes and so on? It's the blunt reality of life that we have to pay for things we ourselves would not do, deal with it.