Denmark Becomes First Nation With Tax On Fat In Food

5e75127e132dd772d5690399b691a022Is Denmark’s new fat tax a just response to the societal problems caused by obesity? Or is it sweet, buttery tyranny? Via the BBC:

Denmark has introduced what is believed to be the world’s first fat tax – a surcharge on foods that are high in saturated fat. Butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food are now subject to the tax if they contain more than 2.3% saturated fat.

Some consumers began hoarding to beat the price rise, while some producers call the tax a bureaucratic nightmare.

Danish officials say they hope the new tax will help limit the population’s intake of fatty foods.

However, some scientists think saturated fat may be the wrong target. They say salt, sugar and refined carbohydrates are more detrimental to health and should be tackled instead.

, , , , ,

  • http://bluetwothree.blogspot.com cybergabi

    How about this: tax everything that isn’t raw food (veggies, grains, legumes, nuts and seeds) – which would be everything pre-packed and everything animal-based? And take the earnings to subsidize healthy food (which are the above)?

  • http://about.me/cybergabi cybergabi

    How about this: tax everything that isn’t raw food (veggies, grains, legumes, nuts and seeds) – which would be everything pre-packed and everything animal-based? And take the earnings to subsidize healthy food (which are the above)?

  • Frig

    The price increase is not enough to change consumer habits. Almost every food group gets a different cost increase, but it’s about half a dollar extra for one kilo of fat cheese, for example.
    So that’s bad from a public health angle, but good from a ‘taxes destroy free will’-angle.
    I suspect it’s just a bit of extra coin in the coffers.

  • Frig

    The price increase is not enough to change consumer habits. Almost every food group gets a different cost increase, but it’s about half a dollar extra for one kilo of fat cheese, for example.
    So that’s bad from a public health angle, but good from a ‘taxes destroy free will’-angle.
    I suspect it’s just a bit of extra coin in the coffers.

  • Fit for Life

    Why don’t we have a tax based on Body Mass Index instead. When people go to file their taxes, we weigh them and measure their height. Have a set ideal BMI, and if they go over, tax their ass for every point.  Give people a year in andvance to start loosing to be fair. Some people can eat a lot of fat and get away with it and be perfectly healthy, why punish them? Make the people who are slowing this country down with their slow metabolisms pay.  Also, have a tax on blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Make everyone run a mile and tax them for every thirty seconds over 8:00. This is what we need to rebuild this country. Stimulate the economy and help with health care cost! So the poor will complain, “we can afford these taxes and we can only afford to eat fast food”. Fuck you, ever hear of beans and rice! And no not fried rice, and no not fried beans either. We raise our children on fried butter sticks and X-Box and expect them to be the leaders of the free world? Wake up America. Rice cakes will be the new gold, start investing now!

  • Fit for Life

    Why don’t we have a tax based on Body Mass Index instead. When people go to file their taxes, we weigh them and measure their height. Have a set ideal BMI, and if they go over, tax their ass for every point.  Give people a year in andvance to start loosing to be fair. Some people can eat a lot of fat and get away with it and be perfectly healthy, why punish them? Make the people who are slowing this country down with their slow metabolisms pay.  Also, have a tax on blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Make everyone run a mile and tax them for every thirty seconds over 8:00. This is what we need to rebuild this country. Stimulate the economy and help with health care cost! So the poor will complain, “we can afford these taxes and we can only afford to eat fast food”. Fuck you, ever hear of beans and rice! And no not fried rice, and no not fried beans either. We raise our children on fried butter sticks and X-Box and expect them to be the leaders of the free world? Wake up America. Rice cakes will be the new gold, start investing now!

    • Ironaddict06

      No, no, no.  Not BMI.  Anyone a bit knowledgeable in fitness knows BMI is junk.  Good for a generalization but not scientific enough.  TAX people based on their LBM-Lean Body Mass or Fat %.  This is easy to accomplish.  Since we are going to a government run health care system, every year each person visit his/her doctor-an annual physical-for your benefit of course.  Then the fattest pays more in taxes because he/she more than Leaner people will end up in hospitals or having to see doctors every month because of their health.

    • GoodDoktorBad

      Assuming you are being sarcastic that’s pretty funny…..if your’e serious…well…that’s the kind of funny where you laugh only because it’s better than crying. 

      • Fit for Life

        This is not a joke! Look at the Chinese. We Americans require more food in one meal than they eat all day. If they were to launch a full scale land invasion, they would now the first step would to be to cut off out food supply. That would put us at a disadvantage enough to nullify our “home field” advantage, because they could hold out for several months on rice and grasshoppers, waiting for us weaken, so they could just plow right over this whole country with foot soldiers alone. It is out PATRIOTIC DUTY as Americans to get back in shape and ready for WWIII when our econonmy collapses and they start asking for their money back and we don’t have it.

        • GoodDoktorBad

          Ba da bing ba da boom!!

  • bowsey

    Tax fructose, excluding fruit. That’s the real problem with obesity.

  • bowsey

    Tax fructose, excluding fruit. That’s the real problem with obesity.

  • bowsey

    Tax fructose, excluding fruit. That’s the real problem with obesity.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s ban fat people. Far too ugly to look at.

  • MrSta

    Let’s ban fat people. Far too ugly to look at.

  • http://twitter.com/MrDutton David

    how about we don’t tax any of like this because its still a personal choice

  • http://twitter.com/MrDutton David

    how about we don’t tax any of like this because its still a personal choice

  • Ironaddict06

    No, no, no.  Not BMI.  Anyone a bit knowledgeable in fitness knows BMI is junk.  Good for a generalization but not scientific enough.  TAX people based on their LBM-Lean Body Mass or Fat %.  This is easy to accomplish.  Since we are going to a government run health care system, every year each person visit his/her doctor-an annual physical-for your benefit of course.  Then the fattest pays more in taxes because he/she more than Leaner people will end up in hospitals or having to see doctors every month because of their health.

  • Ironaddict06

    BAM!  Take that.
    I’m all for government run health care as long as the government puts a huge amount of pressure to live a healthy live style. 

  • Ironaddict06

    BAM!  Take that.
    I’m all for government run health care as long as the government puts a huge amount of pressure to live a healthy live style. 

  • Okarin

    if ronald mcdonald was a real person he would look like a circus clown from a horror movie right now

  • Okarin

    if ronald mcdonald was a real person he would look like a circus clown from a horror movie right now

    • Simiantongue

      I won’t tolerate anyone bad mouthing Killer Klowns from Outer space. Just be warned.

      • GoodDoktorBad

        Of all the stupid things to feel hostile about, I can’t help it……I simply LOATH clowns -from outer space or otherwise. I also hate mascots in costume and Barney the dinosaur. I get a sick pleasure from imagining them being beat up. I know, its kinda sick. Woe is me….

  • Anonymous

    “Danish officials say they hope the new tax will help limit the population’s intake of fatty foods.”

    More like any excuse to generate revenue at the expense of the random “sinner”. It’s a sin tax, plain and simple like the high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Where the government benefits from your “sins”. Sounds like church and state are doing a little dance all the way to the bank. This is freedom. 

  • GoodDoktorBad

    “Danish officials say they hope the new tax will help limit the population’s intake of fatty foods.”

    More like any excuse to generate revenue at the expense of the random “sinner”. It’s a sin tax, plain and simple like the high taxes on tobacco and alcohol. Where the government benefits from your “sins”. Sounds like church and state are doing a little dance all the way to the bank. This is freedom. 

    • dumbsaint

      ‘We’re not going to tell you what not to do, but if you do it anyway we’re gonna charge you for it.’

    • DeepCough

      This is why I prefer Sloth, it’s the cheapest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

  • Anonymous

    I’m uneasy about the idea of tax as deterrent. It seems exploitative. Smokers in Australia still buy cigarettes, despite taxes driving it up to almost $18 a pack. All you’re left with is a tax on addicted people. Those that can afford the hike just pay it and the poorer do as well but are in an even worse situation than before. When I quit, health was the motivator not some taxman with a club in their hand.

  • dumbsaint

    I’m uneasy about the idea of tax as deterrent. It seems exploitative. Smokers in Australia still buy cigarettes, despite taxes driving it up to almost $18 a pack. All you’re left with is a tax on addicted people. Those that can afford the hike just pay it and the poorer do as well but are in an even worse situation than before. When I quit, health was the motivator not some taxman with a club in their hand.

  • Anonymous

    ‘We’re not going to tell you what not to do, but if you do it anyway we’re gonna charge you for it.’

  • Guest

    How about we just bring back the tax rate we had under Eisenhower, in which the top earners were taxed at 91%? It’s about time that people like John Paulson who make $2.4 million dollars an hour, actually contribute to the country they live in.

  • Simiantongue

    I won’t tolerate anyone bad mouthing Killer Klowns from Outer space. Just be warned.

  • http://www.infinityage.com/hgh-therapy.aspx HGH therapy

    i think its a good step the Denmark Government took…….the results of such things can be seen after an year or two.

  • http://www.infinityage.com/hgh-therapy.aspx HGH therapy

    i think its a good step the Denmark Government took…….the results of such things can be seen after an year or two.

  • DeepCough

    This is why I prefer Sloth, it’s the cheapest of the Seven Deadly Sins.

  • Hadrian999

    I’ll never know where the nanny state liberal stereotype comes from………..

  • Hadrian999

    I’ll never know where the nanny state liberal comes from………..

  • Anonymous

    Of all the stupid things to feel hostile about, I can’t help it……I simply LOATH clowns -from outer space or otherwise. I also hate mascots in costume and Barney the dinosaur. I get a sick pleasure from imagining them being beat up. I know, its kinda sick. Whoa is me….

  • Anonymous

    Assuming you are being sarcastic that’s pretty funny…..if your’e serious…well…that’s the kind of funny where you laugh only because it’s better than crying. 

  • Fit for Life

    This is not a joke! Look at the Chinese. We Americans require more food in one meal than they eat all day. If they were to launch a full scale land invasion, they would now the first step would to be to cut off out food supply. That would put us at a disadvantage enough to nullify our “home field” advantage, because they could hold out for several months on rice and grasshoppers, waiting for us weaken, so they could just plow right over this whole country with foot soldiers alone. It is out PATRIOTIC DUTY as Americans to get back in shape and ready for WWIII when our econonmy collapses and they start asking for their money back and we don’t have it.

  • Anonymous

    Ba da bing ba da boom!!

  • http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/ David Evans

    Taxing food high in sugar and carbohydrates would make much
    more sense in the fight against obesity and heart disease.

    A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology
    Volume 85, Issue 1, 1 January 2000, Pages 45-48 found that it was high
    carbohydrate diets that were the highest risk factor for heart disease.

    Another study publihed in Cardiovascular diabetology 2009
    Jul 18;8:36 revealed that a carbohydrate-reduced diet was more beneficial with
    respect to weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors compared to a
    fat-reduced diet.

    High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) is known as the
    “good” cholesterol. Almost all “experts” agree that a high
    HDL is a good indicator of a healthy cardiovascular system.

    What type of diet raises your HDL cholesterol the most? In a
    study published in Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis Vol 12, 911-919 researchers
    found the best way to raise HDL (good cholesterol) is to eat saturated fat. It
    says ALL fats raised HDL, but saturated fat raised it the most!

    Almost invariably when compared to a low-fat diet, a low
    carb (by default a high fat diet) diet provides a greater fat loss and improved
    cholesterol profile. (Please see my website for 100′s of other example’s:
    healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com)

    Let’s look at the saturated fat tax from a nutritional point
    of view. Go to the usda food database and type in rib-eye (NDB number 23190).
    Even the most ardent vegan must concede that rib-eye is chok full of highly
    bioavailable vitamins and minerals and it has a fantastic protein profile.

    Now type in an entry for hard candies (NDB number 19107) and
    compare the nutritional profile with a rib-eye. Obviously the hard candy is
    virtually devoid of any nutrition whatsoever. It is also 62% sugar.

    So we can all agree the candy is not a nutritional
    powerhouse. However in Denmark the devoid of any nutrients candy will not be
    subject to the saturated fat tax, yet the highly nutritious rib-eye will be
    subject to the surcharge.

    I suggest the Danish government have either:

    (a) not thought this through

    (b) been subject to skilful lobbying from multi-national
    food producers

    (c) used the irrational fears about saturated fat as an
    excuse to raise tax revenue.

    I urge everyone to please search for a factual view on the
    effects of saturated fat on health and then make up your own mind if you think
    a similar tax in your own country would provide health benefits.

  • http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/ David Evans

    Taxing food high in sugar and carbohydrates would make much
    more sense in the fight against obesity and heart disease.

    A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology
    Volume 85, Issue 1, 1 January 2000, Pages 45-48 found that it was high
    carbohydrate diets that were the highest risk factor for heart disease.

    Another study publihed in Cardiovascular diabetology 2009
    Jul 18;8:36 revealed that a carbohydrate-reduced diet was more beneficial with
    respect to weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors compared to a
    fat-reduced diet.

    High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) is known as the
    “good” cholesterol. Almost all “experts” agree that a high
    HDL is a good indicator of a healthy cardiovascular system.

    What type of diet raises your HDL cholesterol the most? In a
    study published in Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis Vol 12, 911-919 researchers
    found the best way to raise HDL (good cholesterol) is to eat saturated fat. It
    says ALL fats raised HDL, but saturated fat raised it the most!

    Almost invariably when compared to a low-fat diet, a low
    carb (by default a high fat diet) diet provides a greater fat loss and improved
    cholesterol profile. (Please see my website for 100′s of other example’s:
    healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com)

    Let’s look at the saturated fat tax from a nutritional point
    of view. Go to the usda food database and type in rib-eye (NDB number 23190).
    Even the most ardent vegan must concede that rib-eye is chok full of highly
    bioavailable vitamins and minerals and it has a fantastic protein profile.

    Now type in an entry for hard candies (NDB number 19107) and
    compare the nutritional profile with a rib-eye. Obviously the hard candy is
    virtually devoid of any nutrition whatsoever. It is also 62% sugar.

    So we can all agree the candy is not a nutritional
    powerhouse. However in Denmark the devoid of any nutrients candy will not be
    subject to the saturated fat tax, yet the highly nutritious rib-eye will be
    subject to the surcharge.

    I suggest the Danish government have either:

    (a) not thought this through

    (b) been subject to skilful lobbying from multi-national
    food producers

    (c) used the irrational fears about saturated fat as an
    excuse to raise tax revenue.

    I urge everyone to please search for a factual view on the
    effects of saturated fat on health and then make up your own mind if you think
    a similar tax in your own country would provide health benefits.

  • http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/ David Evans

    Taxing food high in sugar and carbohydrates would make much
    more sense in the fight against obesity and heart disease.

    A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology
    Volume 85, Issue 1, 1 January 2000, Pages 45-48 found that it was high
    carbohydrate diets that were the highest risk factor for heart disease.

    Another study publihed in Cardiovascular diabetology 2009
    Jul 18;8:36 revealed that a carbohydrate-reduced diet was more beneficial with
    respect to weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors compared to a
    fat-reduced diet.

    High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) is known as the
    “good” cholesterol. Almost all “experts” agree that a high
    HDL is a good indicator of a healthy cardiovascular system.

    What type of diet raises your HDL cholesterol the most? In a
    study published in Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis Vol 12, 911-919 researchers
    found the best way to raise HDL (good cholesterol) is to eat saturated fat. It
    says ALL fats raised HDL, but saturated fat raised it the most!

    Almost invariably when compared to a low-fat diet, a low
    carb (by default a high fat diet) diet provides a greater fat loss and improved
    cholesterol profile. (Please see my website for 100′s of other example’s:
    healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com)

    Let’s look at the saturated fat tax from a nutritional point
    of view. Go to the usda food database and type in rib-eye (NDB number 23190).
    Even the most ardent vegan must concede that rib-eye is chok full of highly
    bioavailable vitamins and minerals and it has a fantastic protein profile.

    Now type in an entry for hard candies (NDB number 19107) and
    compare the nutritional profile with a rib-eye. Obviously the hard candy is
    virtually devoid of any nutrition whatsoever. It is also 62% sugar.

    So we can all agree the candy is not a nutritional
    powerhouse. However in Denmark the devoid of any nutrients candy will not be
    subject to the saturated fat tax, yet the highly nutritious rib-eye will be
    subject to the surcharge.

    I suggest the Danish government have either:

    (a) not thought this through

    (b) been subject to skilful lobbying from multi-national
    food producers

    (c) used the irrational fears about saturated fat as an
    excuse to raise tax revenue.

    I urge everyone to please search for a factual view on the
    effects of saturated fat on health and then make up your own mind if you think
    a similar tax in your own country would provide health benefits.

  • change is constant

    this is precisely why it has been made a tax which is non excludable; because given choice and the freedom, you’ll not do what is good for you despite knowing that what you’re doing is bad for you.

  • change is constant

    this is precisely why it has been made a tax which is non excludable; because given choice and the freedom, you’ll not do what is good for you despite knowing that what you’re doing is bad for you.

21