http://society.guardian.co.uk/publi...1151421,00.html

Fat tax on burgers proposed

Sarah Hall, political correspondent
Thursday February 19, 2004
The Guardian

Burgers, cheese, crisps and whole milk could be hit by a "fat tax" under Downing Street proposals to tackle obesity.

The prime minister's strategy unit has suggested that food of poor nutritional value could be subject to the extra duty, or VAT, as a means of "signalling to society that nutritional content in food is important".

In a separate move, labelling or even warnings could be applied to food packaging to flag up its junk content.

The proposals have been mooted in a paper, entitled Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour. The document, completed two weeks ago, follows the discovery that the number of obese people has soared from less than 10% of the population in the 1980s to more than 20% in 2001.

The document says that, while drugs can mitigate risks such as cardiovascular disease associated with obesity, its main causes are "poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle".

A national sports campaign is suggested, as well as proposals to "reform the marketing practices of some parts of the fast food and confec tionery industries through labellings and, in some cases, warnings".

Most controversially, the unit says: "There might even be potential to consider fiscal measures - a "fatty food tax".

VAT is currently levied at 17.5% on many foods associated with obesity, such as fizzy drinks and ice cream. But burgers bought in supermarkets are exempt, as are foods high in saturated fats such as butter, hard cheeses and full-fat milk.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said yesterday the document had not yet been put to Tony Blair.

This incenses me. I've done exactly what this government wants--lost a large amount of weight--and now they propose to make it more expensive for me to continue? 17.5% more expensive to be exact?

This is ludicrous.

"Personal Responsibility," they say? Not bloody likely. Looks more like a government trying to legislate what people can eat, according to the lipid hypothesis and the Low FaD dogma.

OMFG

Time to move to France?

it will make the poor poorer.

This is not about anybody's health. This is the gov't playing to the grandstands, trying to look as if they're "doing something" about a potential public health problem.

I really hope this generates some strong objections. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Wait until US politicians see this as a new revenue source...

Fortunately, according to BBC teletext service, the Government has denied they are going to do this, saying that it would be too difficult to operate. (I have a cynical desire to put 'for the moment' here).

They'll put more poor people on more fattening pastas, bread and rice than ever before. They will have the exact opposite effect they intended.

What a terrible idea. I have no idea what they already tax in Great Britain; do they tax sugary products already?

I wouldn't mind such a tax at all on stuff like Oreos and Twinkies that have no nutritional value at all. After all, at least in the U.S., we tax tobacco and booze at a high rate. I can't see why not true junk food.

Putting extra tax burden on whole foods just makes no sense, will harm the poor, and will harm farmers while enriching food processing giants.

A long time ago, I read a short story that had quasi-fascist government monitors who looked in on families to see who was fat, who smoked, etc. We may just get to that yet if things keep going the way they are.

There's been some talk in the states about it, but I really don't think it will happen.
Germany keeps talking about a speed limit on the Autobahn, but likewise...I don't think that will ever happen.

This has gone around the US a few times. CSPI keeps proposing to tax fat food.

CSPI is not an arm of the US government, though; and the British proposal has been drawn up by the ruling party's own strategists, as a set of recommendations for potential anti-obesity legislation. That gets it much closer to becoming law than CSPI's pronouncements.

However, that said, this is most likely just a bunch of publicity-seeking and grandstanding on the part of the current government, to make it look as if they are doing something about "the obesity problem." I doubt very much that the "fat tax" will actually even reach Parliament for debate, at least not for a year or so--and by that time, new research may well have blown away the whole premise. Nevertheless, the fact that this could even get serious consideration is completely appalling to me.



Fast food and soda are already taxed. (Keep in mind that the tax is substantial, a whopping 17.5%.) I'm not sure if candy is taxed, but I'm fairly sure that cookies, snack cakes etc are not.

They also tax tobacco to within an inch of its life, and tax alcohol so much that people regularly take "booze cruises" to France. (There is no limit on the amount of booze EU citizens can bring into the UK, provided it was bought in another EU country and it is not intended for resale. People just take the ferry and come back with whole carloads of wine.)

A 100% tax on sugar would be a good idea...no make that 200%.
I'm so fed up with the 'nanny state' - I really don't want Blair telling me what to eat, drink and think. It gets silly here. You can only buy aspirins 16 at a time in case you want to top yourself. I wish they would back off.

Oh, that aspirin thing. Stupidest thing I ever heard of. Every time I go to the States to visit my family, I bring back a 500-count bottle of ibuprofen. And any American friends who want a free place to stay near London know that the price of admission is a) one 500-count bottle of Ibuprofen, and b) one 750-ml bottle of good Bourbon.

I don't know what your country does...But, here in the US, the Gov't actually subsidizes Sugar [by subsidizing the Corn Indsutry.] Then, they bitch and moan about Obesity and all the money it's costing them. If they were smart - and yes I'm aware "Government Intelligence" is an oxymoron - they'd stop subsidizing Corn and let the price of Sugar set itself. The price of Corn Sugar would likely rise to a level higher than Sucrose...

That would raise the price of many junk foods. But, most importantly it would reduce the wide-spread use of Corn Sugars...which I believe are actually slightly worse for you than Sucrose. There'd be a return to Sucrose [as the primary sugar in packaged foods,] which is marginally less damaging to the body. But, more importantly...the prices would rise somewhat, reducing the affordability of these Junk Foods.

I think Corn is not a big crop here...requires more sun than the UK typically gets in the summer. However, the EU-wide farm subsidies are absolutely huge and I'm sure that Corn is among them.