I was just wondering what the U.S. Government would do if it were entrusted with the task of ensuring its citizens were healthy and fit. I am sure one of the first orders of business would be to print out posters similar to this one!
While it will soon become clear that the poster alone will not do the trick, I am positive the next ‘logical’ step might work: Additional taxation on unhealthy eaters! According to a report in BBC News, Fat taxes ‘could save thousands’, Oxford researchers are suggesting that more than 3000 deaths attributed to heart-disease and stroke could be prevented each year simply by slapping on additional taxes on pre-determined unhealthy foods - a so-called “fat-tax”.
The proposed raise in taxes was not arbitrary and, in fact, was done pretty scientifically. For example, researchers even took into account what foods consumers would turn to if their primary “unhealthy-food” became expensive because of the fat-tax:
They first applied the tax only to dairy products containing high levels of saturated fats - such as butter and cheese, as well as baked goods and puddings.
However, their analysis found that people would simply switch over to other unhealthy foods such as those containing high levels of salt, perhaps even increasing the risk of stroke and heart disease.
Finally, the scientists used a scoring system for foods called SSCg3d score (PDF) which is based on 8 nutrients in 100g of the food. Then the range of foods was tweaked until a good balance was reached between unhealthy foods and their alternates that people might turn to. Once this range of foods was taxed, research showed a most dramatic decrease of almost 3200 deaths.
Of course scientists argue that the results are mostly theoretical and many more considerations will have to be made before this can be implemented. Also, when the topic of fat-taxes was raised earlier in the U.K. it was dismissed by then Prime Minister Tony Blair because it was too suggestive of a “nanny state” where the government interfered with the lives of its citizens.
I am all for small governments and lower taxes. Infact, in many cases, I would rather the government let pure market dynamics and forces dictate the outcome. For example, if there are two competitors selling bottled water and one sells a gallon for $5 and the other for $25, it doesn’t take a genius to realize what will happen soon: if the two products are reasonably similar in nature, the $25 seller will be out of business before you can say “H 2 O”! - a classic example of market forces dictating outcomes.
But I am not so sure if “fat-taxes” would mean the country was turning into a nanny state. After all, the increase in taxes on cigarettes is a fine example of a method that has worked in reducing smoking.
What is your take on this? Should the government impose “fat-taxes” on unhealthy foods? Comment away!
Technorati Tags: health, nutrition, junk-food, fat-tax
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t think the government is qualified to determine what is healthy. You look at the shelves in the groceries stores and see something labeled as heart healthy and then turn the box around to see partially hydrogenated oils in the ingredients. Doctors don’t even seem to know what is healthy. In a perfect world this might work but in a perfect world food manufacturer’s wouldn’t put poison in our food in order to make a profit.
OMG, no! Quite apart from who determines what’s healthy and what’s not…
It’s hardly fair to tax those who enjoy the occasional McDonald’s meal or ice-cream but exercise regularly and keep themselves fit. These people are no extra burden to health services. Conversely, there’s nothing you can do to reasonably offset the effects of smoking on your lungs. Given enough time you’re practically guaranteed a trip to the respiratory clinic. And I’m not convinced by taxes reducing smoking either. Pricing certain people out of the market perhaps, but I still know a very large number who will continue to smoke no matter what the cost.