http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...alth_obesity_dc

Food Firms Oppose Fat Tax Amid Move to Health Food
Sat Jan 24, 2:55 PM ET

By Lucas van Grinsven

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - The food industry has recognized obesity as a problem and will develop healthier products, but is strongly opposed to laws that could make junk food more expensive, executives said on Saturday.

Food companies gained support from U.S. Health Secretary Tommy Thompson who believes he does not need to raise taxes to convince food manufacturers to create healthier products, as part of a larger U.S. program for Americans to lose weight.


"Taxation can have a negative impact on the progress we're making now," he said at the World Economic Forum (news - web sites), adding that talks with companies such as PepsiCo had already helped raise the output of healthy foods.


PepsiCo now generates 60 percent of its revenues from healthy foods, versus 40 percent a few years ago, he said. PepsiCo said an extra tax on candy bars in some U.S. states and cities failed to work in the early 1990s.


Unilever Chairman Antony Burgmans, asked to represent food companies who were accused by the British National Consumer Council of mainly marketing high sugar and fat products to children, said his sector had recognized the issue. "This is serious. It's a problem. The food industry is prepared to work on a solution. But I don't think taxation (of junk food) is going to sustain it. We've tried it with tobacco and it failed," he said.


He said the food industry also needed better labels to tell consumers which elements their product contained. "That is an area where we can remarkably improve," Burgmans said.


Obese people, who are seriously overweight, cost the United States $117 billion in healthcare every year. Worldwide there are 300 million obese people, while one billion are overweight.


Obesity is linked to all kinds of diseases, including heart disease and diabetes. Some 16 million U.S. citizens are suffering from diabetes and another 17 million almost have it.


REGULATION IF NEEDED


Thompson did not rule out that regulation could be implemented if progress through discussion and collaboration with food makers was not effective enough.


He and other policy makers said governments, companies and special interest groups should first work together to promote a mix of measures, including healthier food production and promotion of lifestyles with exercise and healthy eating.


"I'm willing to go down that route as far as it takes us. If it's not enough, there may be regulation or taxation," he said.


Washington Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell said stricter measures were needed to make sure healthcare costs would not spiral out of control. Retail stores should be obliged to create enough shelf space for healthy products, such as fresh vegetables and fruit, and whole-grain, low-sugar, low-fat items.


Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said scientific advances would help us understand why humans favored particular kinds of food, and could even lead to a pill to make fat people slim.


After 100,000 years of surviving famines, human genes have adapted to allow the body to store food for future use.


"This has come to haunt us now that food is more plentiful," Collins said. He warned that a slimming pill could mean that people would be less inclined to better their life style.

I am leery about taxing "unhealthy" foods, although it isn't a bad sin tax in concept. If they kept it to Cokes and Snickers bars, fine. But you know they'd also include pork and beef, while leaving white bread and pasta alone.

Sometimes it's best to leave government out of these things. Government can make really dumb choices.

But if they made a low-carb, high fat snickers bar I'd be pretty miffed if they taxed it!

Some states already (or used to) do something similar to this. I know certain states put no sales tax on foods purchased in grocery stores, but other states will not tax essentials (foods such as milk, eggs, meat, vegetables, fruit, etc.). Those states do, however, put sales tax on chips and cookies and sodas. Granted, this isn't nearly as steep as a "sin tax" might be.

Note: While doing research on this, I found nothing that supported this, although I do remember sales tax in Minnesota being a little different on individual foods. I did discover a few sites mentioning tax on foods that can not be purchased with food stamps, as well as this link outlining State Sales Tax Rates. It would be interesting to find (and time consuming, I'm sure) what each state has set for sales tax on food purchases.

Tax high carb foods if you're going to tax high fat foods.

Florida taxes [sales tax] Convinience Foods...Stuff like Pre-Made Sandwiches, Candies, Colas, and such...But, they do not tax fresh foods in the Grochery Store. For example, I pay tax when I buy Diet Rites or a Diet Pepsi Slurpee, but not when I buy Meat and Veggies.

I am opposed to any attempt to tax foods based on their "healthfullness." For starters, we know what's going to be taxed and it isn't White Bread and Snackwells. It's going to be Beef, Pork, Lard, Pork Rinds, Vegetable Oils, and such. Secondly, the government is already heavily subsidizing junk food [candy, cola, etc...] because they subsidize corn, which is turned into Cornmeal [Doritos,] Corn Syrup [Cola and Candy,] and Partially Hydrogenated Corn Oil [Most Deep Fried Fast Foods.] To turn around and tax something you are already subsidizing is the height of stupidity. Although, intelligence has never been associated with Government.

Here in NC they tax all foods, but at different rates. regular groceries are taxed around 4%....but convenience foods, any food that is considered "ready to eat" (or drink) is taxed at a higher rate, around 6%.

That came as a shock to me when I moved here. In MA, when I left anyway, no food products were taxed...clothes either. "If you wear it or eat it, no tax" Of course, I left in 97, so who knows now.