Tax Junk Food - Should we?

[davieG]

From the BBC

In the same way as taxing cigarettes helped to reduce smoking and related illnesses, could putting up the price of junk food - as Denmark has done - cut obesity rates in the UK?

The first thing that struck me on the taxi journey into Copenhagen was how slim everyone looked.

I really had trouble spotting anyone fat.

And the second thing that became obvious the moment I stepped out of the cab and was almost run over by a cyclist, was that the Danes are clearly no strangers to exercise.

So why on earth has their government become the first in the world to introduce a tax on junk food?

The answer is depressingly simple. They may be among the slimmest in Europe but the Danes do not want to end up as fat as the British.

The UK is the fattest nation in Europe; one third of children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese.

When cigarettes were taxed... there was an immediate decline in the number that were bought

Professor Peter Kopelman

Obesity expert

At this rate, by 2050 obesity will be costing the state £32bn a year.

In Denmark there are signs that obesity among younger children is actually falling for the first time in 60 years.

But adult obesity is still on the increase and the government is anxious to reverse that trend.

"We've been relying on and emphasising self-responsibility for the last 50 years and it doesn't work," Charlotte Kira Kimby, of the Danish Heart Foundation told me.

"We know that sugar and fat are really what causes obesity to increase. So to target taxes makes sense and should have an impact on health."

'Ruin ourselves'

Think of all your favourite indulgences - chocolate, ice cream, crisps, sweets, cola… and imagine they all cost you significantly more than at present.

That is what is happening in Denmark. If it hit you in the pocket, would it make you change your behaviour? Or would you simply be furious about the food police telling you what to eat?

I met one Danish couple who are raising three young children on a modest income in what is already the most highly-taxed nation in Europe.

But they do not resent the government adding further to their grocery bills; far from it.

Lars Moerck and Karina Kirkefeldt have both struggled with obesity in the past.

At his heaviest Lars jokes that he had the belly of "an English hooligan".

Having both lost substantial amounts of weight, neither of them wants their children to have the same problems.

"We ruin ourselves and somebody has to take action. So if we can't do it, then the government should make health for the people," said Karina.

And Charlotte Kira Kimby denies that the new taxes amount to government nannying.

"We still have the same free choice to buy the things we would like to buy in the shops.

"What is happening with this kind of tax is that we actually just see the state going in and balancing price because it is cheap to produce food with a high content of sugar, fat and salt."

Calorie cuts

Not everyone has welcomed the changes though.

As chief executive of leading chocolate company Toms, Jesper Moller is Copenhagen's very own Willy Wonka.

He says firms like his are already reducing the calorie content of their products in response to customer demand.

He thinks the new taxes are an unnecessary burden.

"It just makes it very complicated to be a confectionary producer in Denmark. We already have some of the highest labour costs in the world," he said.

Obesity expert Professor Peter Kopelman of the Royal College of Physicians argues that the UK could learn a lesson from the lean Danes.

He believes that there is a clear parallel with the taxation of cigarettes.

Nudges are very important... tax is not a nudge, tax is a shove

Andrew Lansley, Health Secretary

Prof Kopelman said: "When cigarettes were taxed, you found that there was an immediate decline in the number that were bought.

"We also saw that there was a decline in the diseases that complicate cigarette smoking. I think there are lessons to learn for unhealthy food."

The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is due to publish a white paper on public health for England shortly. In it, he will lay out his strategy for tackling obesity.

But it seems any idea of a junk food tax is already off the table.

"Nudges are very important. Tax is not a nudge, tax is a shove," he said.

"If you start down the route of taxation, quite often you get quite a lot of push back against that. The public don't think it's our job to be trying to tell people what to do."

Read his lips. No new taxes.

It is too early to tell whether the Danish experiment will be successful but at least they have time on their side.

In the UK, the clock is ticking.

Public health experts fear that if we do not take steps to improve our diet in the UK, by 2050 we could expect a 20% rise in heart disease and a staggering 70% rise in Type 2 diabetes.

No-one would argue there is anything sweet about those statistics.

Panorama: Tax the Fat is on BBC One on Monday 15 November at 2030 GMT. Or watch it later via the BBC iPlayer. Join the debate on the Panorama blog.

[Dr The Singh]

From the BBC

In the same way as taxing cigarettes helped to reduce smoking and related illnesses, could putting up the price of junk food - as Denmark has done - cut obesity rates in the UK?

The first thing that struck me on the taxi journey into Copenhagen was how slim everyone looked.

I really had trouble spotting anyone fat.

And the second thing that became obvious the moment I stepped out of the cab and was almost run over by a cyclist, was that the Danes are clearly no strangers to exercise.

So why on earth has their government become the first in the world to introduce a tax on junk food?

The answer is depressingly simple. They may be among the slimmest in Europe but the Danes do not want to end up as fat as the British.

The UK is the fattest nation in Europe; one third of children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese.

When cigarettes were taxed... there was an immediate decline in the number that were bought

Professor Peter Kopelman

Obesity expert

At this rate, by 2050 obesity will be costing the state £32bn a year.

In Denmark there are signs that obesity among younger children is actually falling for the first time in 60 years.

But adult obesity is still on the increase and the government is anxious to reverse that trend.

"We've been relying on and emphasising self-responsibility for the last 50 years and it doesn't work," Charlotte Kira Kimby, of the Danish Heart Foundation told me.

"We know that sugar and fat are really what causes obesity to increase. So to target taxes makes sense and should have an impact on health."

'Ruin ourselves'

Think of all your favourite indulgences - chocolate, ice cream, crisps, sweets, cola… and imagine they all cost you significantly more than at present.

That is what is happening in Denmark. If it hit you in the pocket, would it make you change your behaviour? Or would you simply be furious about the food police telling you what to eat?

I met one Danish couple who are raising three young children on a modest income in what is already the most highly-taxed nation in Europe.

But they do not resent the government adding further to their grocery bills; far from it.

Lars Moerck and Karina Kirkefeldt have both struggled with obesity in the past.

At his heaviest Lars jokes that he had the belly of "an English hooligan".

Having both lost substantial amounts of weight, neither of them wants their children to have the same problems.

"We ruin ourselves and somebody has to take action. So if we can't do it, then the government should make health for the people," said Karina.

And Charlotte Kira Kimby denies that the new taxes amount to government nannying.

"We still have the same free choice to buy the things we would like to buy in the shops.

"What is happening with this kind of tax is that we actually just see the state going in and balancing price because it is cheap to produce food with a high content of sugar, fat and salt."

Calorie cuts

Not everyone has welcomed the changes though.

As chief executive of leading chocolate company Toms, Jesper Moller is Copenhagen's very own Willy Wonka.

He says firms like his are already reducing the calorie content of their products in response to customer demand.

He thinks the new taxes are an unnecessary burden.

"It just makes it very complicated to be a confectionary producer in Denmark. We already have some of the highest labour costs in the world," he said.

Obesity expert Professor Peter Kopelman of the Royal College of Physicians argues that the UK could learn a lesson from the lean Danes.

He believes that there is a clear parallel with the taxation of cigarettes.

Nudges are very important... tax is not a nudge, tax is a shove

Andrew Lansley, Health Secretary

Prof Kopelman said: "When cigarettes were taxed, you found that there was an immediate decline in the number that were bought.

"We also saw that there was a decline in the diseases that complicate cigarette smoking. I think there are lessons to learn for unhealthy food."

The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is due to publish a white paper on public health for England shortly. In it, he will lay out his strategy for tackling obesity.

But it seems any idea of a junk food tax is already off the table.

"Nudges are very important. Tax is not a nudge, tax is a shove," he said.

"If you start down the route of taxation, quite often you get quite a lot of push back against that. The public don't think it's our job to be trying to tell people what to do."

Read his lips. No new taxes.

It is too early to tell whether the Danish experiment will be successful but at least they have time on their side.

In the UK, the clock is ticking.

Public health experts fear that if we do not take steps to improve our diet in the UK, by 2050 we could expect a 20% rise in heart disease and a staggering 70% rise in Type 2 diabetes.

No-one would argue there is anything sweet about those statistics.

Panorama: Tax the Fat is on BBC One on Monday 15 November at 2030 GMT. Or watch it later via the BBC iPlayer. Join the debate on the Panorama blog.

Unfortunaltely ready meals and some junk foods are the cheapest in our shoppping aisles. Aslong as there some reductions in some healthy foods, especially fruit and veg, i think it will be a positive thing!!

[Guest]

A rather simplistic point of view from me but I'd be happy to be taxed more on junk food if I knew the increased revenue was being utilised to subsidise healthier food making that cheaper

[Jon the Hat]

Meh. Nice in theory but you would end up spending a fortune on implementation and end up with sod all to spend on subsidy.

If someone could come up with a way to make retailers implement it, that would be good.

[Bryn]

Me and my girlfriend like to cook together and we frequently bemoan that it is more expensive to stock up on veg that it is to get a few pizzas and a load of frozen shit in. I wholeheartedly support the idea of taxing junk food, using the proceeds to subsidise fresh, healthy produce.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It is just so wrong that healthy food costs so much, but I can see where Jon is coming from. His cynicism is probably well-founded and the solution does indeed lie with the retailers. But unless market forces dictate, it's not going to happen.

[breadandcheese]

Meh. Nice in theory but you would end up spending a fortune on implementation and end up with sod all to spend on subsidy.

If someone could come up with a way to make retailers implement it, that would be good.

Forgetting any subsidy, a tax is quite easy to implement with a little bit of duty applied in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol. On balance I'd say it should be implemented.

[Webbo]

Sugar is the worse thing we eat. Totally empty calories, we should put VAT on it (assuming that it isn't already).

[Finnegan]

FUCK OFF! :angry:

As someone lucky enough to have a metabolism that makes Usain Bolt look slow I don't want to be disadvantaged because people can't raise their kids to have some self-control!

Typical British thinking, make something harder to do and the problem will go away. It's like trying to censor a film or a song or a game because you think it's going to encourage your children to go on a shooting rampage.

What the hell ever happened to the idea of responsibility? And "the buck stops here?" Maybe if your kids are lardy, lazy, useless bastards who eat nothing but McDonalds then it's probably because you raised them that way and the society you live in was happy for you to do so! Argh!

[Jon the Hat]

FUCK OFF! :angry:

As someone lucky enough to have a metabolism that makes Usain Bolt look slow I don't want to be disadvantaged because people can't raise their kids to have some self-control!

Typical British thinking, make something harder to do and the problem will go away. It's like trying to censor a film or a song or a game because you think it's going to encourage your children to go on a shooting rampage.

What the hell ever happened to the idea of responsibility? And "the buck stops here?" Maybe if your kids are lardy, lazy, useless bastards who eat nothing but McDonalds then it's probably because you raised them that way and the society you live in was happy for you to do so! Argh!

You are missing the point. A lot of people don't actually have as much choice as one might think, becuase good food is a lot more expensive than shite food. Decades of technology has gone into producing crap food cheaply, leaving fresh fruit and veg much more expensive per calorie than processed chips etc. If you are hungry and like the rest of like to feel full you are more likely to buy chips than brocolli becuase you get a sack of chips for the price of a bunch of brocolli.

[Webbo]

Sorry Jon that's rubbish. Fresh vegs are cheaper than chips. The reason people buy them is the convenience of not having to peel, cook and clear up afterwards.

[breadandcheese]

FUCK OFF! :angry:

As someone lucky enough to have a metabolism that makes Usain Bolt look slow I don't want to be disadvantaged because people can't raise their kids to have some self-control!

Typical British thinking, make something harder to do and the problem will go away. It's like trying to censor a film or a song or a game because you think it's going to encourage your children to go on a shooting rampage.

What the hell ever happened to the idea of responsibility? And "the buck stops here?" Maybe if your kids are lardy, lazy, useless bastards who eat nothing but McDonalds then it's probably because you raised them that way and the society you live in was happy for you to do so! Argh!

I love the irony that you as someone who leans towards the socialist end of the polticial spectrum is arguing for less tax and a greater personal responsibility, where as me, someone who is more at home towards the conservative end of the political spectrum is arguing for increasing the tax on fatty foods because of the costs to society.

I see the argument as follows:

The consumption of fatty foods leads to negative costs that the whole of society ends up paying for (The NHS having to buy new equipment and techniques to deal with an increasing number of obese patients). Therefore, as these costs can be quantified (by the extra spending the NHS has to make on obese patients) a tax should be levied on fatty foods that equates to the cost of treating obese patients. I'm not suggesting that the tax should be a money-maker (as smoking duty has become) but solely to cover the cost of treating obese patients.

[Finnegan]

You are missing the point. A lot of people don't actually have as much choice as one might think, becuase good food is a lot more expensive than shite food. Decades of technology has gone into producing crap food cheaply, leaving fresh fruit and veg much more expensive per calorie than processed chips etc. If you are hungry and like the rest of like to feel full you are more likely to buy chips than brocolli becuase you get a sack of chips for the price of a bunch of brocolli.

Then the problem is that the cost of fresh produce is too high, not that junk food is too cheap!

Though I dispute your "if you're hungry you're more likely to eat chips because it's cheaper," I think that's bullshit to be honest. I know gazillions of people with more self control then simply going out and buying whatever is the most affordable. You make out like the chip shop is some new version of the dole queue!

My flat mate's as skint as I am but he lives off pasta, rice, vegetables, salad and whatever he can get his hands on. It's just the way he was raised, he likes to eat healthily. Sure he loves a pizza or a chicken burger as much as the next person but he has the self control not to pig out on junk food every day.

If there is a problem then there's a problem and as a society and a nation we need to tackle it. But taking away people's personal freedoms (directly or indirectly) is never the answer.

[Dr The Singh]

Sorry Jon that's rubbish. Fresh vegs are cheaper than chips. The reason people buy them is the convenience of not having to peel, cook and clear up afterwards.

The point is, to make a pie, pizza or any meal from fresh ingredients is far more expensive, eg a chicken curry, ready meals cost is around £6, to make it fresh, the meat itself costs a £5, then add the tomato, spices, onions etc it would cost double. Another eg lasagne, family size costs £4 ready made shit, to make fresh will cost atleast £7-8. Not to add the time and convenience!!

Now if you go to frozen section it's even more cheaper, iceland do a curry for £2.

If your on budget, ready made is cheaper and more convenient, whether taxing it, will change people's habit, is yet to be seen!!

[Jon the Hat]

Sorry Jon that's rubbish. Fresh vegs are cheaper than chips. The reason people buy them is the convenience of not having to peel, cook and clear up afterwards.

The comparison might not be absolutley true for chips vs Potatoes, but you get the idea.

The point is, to make a pie, pizza or any meal from fresh ingredients is far more expensive, eg a chicken curry, ready meals cost is around £6, to make it fresh, the meat itself costs a £5, then add the tomato, spices, onions etc it would cost double. Another eg lasagne, family size costs £4 ready made shit, to make fresh will cost atleast £7-8. Not to add the time and convenience!!

Now if you go to frozen section it's even more cheaper, iceland do a curry for £2.

If your on budget, ready made is cheaper and more convenient, whether taxing it, will change people's habit, is yet to be seen!!

See.

[Webbo]

The point is, to make a pie, pizza or any meal from fresh ingredients is far more expensive, eg a chicken curry, ready meals cost is around £6, to make it fresh, the meat itself costs a £5, then add the tomato, spices, onions etc it would cost double. Another eg lasagne, family size costs £4 ready made shit, to make fresh will cost atleast £7-8. Not to add the time and convenience!!

Now if you go to frozen section it's even more cheaper, iceland do a curry for £2.

If your on budget, ready made is cheaper and more convenient, whether taxing it, will change people's habit, is yet to be seen!!

True(ish) but have you ever had a lasagne ready meal?Hardly any meat or cheese. You could make a more filling sandwich with more taste and nutrients for less.

[Jon the Hat]

I love the irony that you as someone who leans towards the socialist end of the polticial spectrum is arguing for less tax and a greater personal responsibility, where as me, someone who is more at home towards the conservative end of the political spectrum is arguing for increasing the tax on fatty foods because of the costs to society.

I see the argument as follows:

The consumption of fatty foods leads to negative costs that the whole of society ends up paying for (The NHS having to buy new equipment and techniques to deal with an increasing number of obese patients). Therefore, as these costs can be quantified (by the extra spending the NHS has to make on obese patients) a tax should be levied on fatty foods that equates to the cost of treating obese patients. I'm not suggesting that the tax should be a money-maker (as smoking duty has become) but solely to cover the cost of treating obese patients.

You could apply that logic to a every cost the public sector incurs though, and that is a very expensive way of running your tax system. We generally have not gone down the road of ringfencing specific tax revenues, because priorities change and no treasury wants to have their hands tied in that way.

[Dr The Singh]

True(ish) but have you ever had a lasagne ready meal?Hardly any meat or cheese. You could make a more filling sandwich with more taste and nutrients for less.

Yes, I have tried cheap shit, but to be fair, i'm in position to be able to afford fresh items. But saying that, my little girl went to a birthday party, and the girl lived in new parks and they weren't very affluent, and the food being served to the kids was the cheap and nasty stuff from the frozen section. And there must be a market for cheap nasty stuff, otherwise the likes of farmfoods and oceland would have died many moons ago!!!

I'm not 100% convinced taxing will work, there are far too many lazy parents arounds, and may hit the poor even more. But then again, they pay the price for eating shit, and the tax can be used for paying for there treatments later on!!

[MC Prussian]

Easy:

• Advertise fresh produce
• Support your local retailer (e.g. buy local)
• Parents should take their time to cook with their kids (even if it's only occasionally)
• Schools should offer better meals
• Send them lazy kids to a visit to the closest Clinic for the Obese

I remember us kids at primary school hanging out at our very own class garden with our head teacher. That was mandatory, mind you.

You relate more to vegetables and fruits when you see where/how they grow and how they are harvested.

A tax on junk food could work, but it would take an enormeous effort in order to implement it.

In the meantime, aforementioned suggestions (combined) work way better.

[breadandcheese]

You could apply that logic to a every cost the public sector incurs though, and that is a very expensive way of running your tax system. We generally have not gone down the road of ringfencing specific tax revenues, because priorities change and no treasury wants to have their hands tied in that way.

I disagree.

It takes one of the simplest economic concepts of externalities and applies it to the tax base. In that sense, any good that you privately consume and enjoy, but which has negative consequences for society should have some kind of tax on it to cover the public cost of your individual consumption. Hence petrol, alcohol and cigarettes all carry duty, as it's unfair for those non-users of these items to have to pay for the consequences.

The reason this does not apply to every cost that the public sector incurs is that there are very few goods which when consumed privately cause such costs to society. The major ones all have a tax on their consumption (with the exception of fatty foods), hence fuel duty + road tax, cigarette duty (although this has now become a money maker), alcohol duty, climate change levy.

I see it as the best method of correcting social costs. No one government is telling you that you cannot consume certain items, simply that if you do, you pay for it. In that sense, it is fair to society as a whole.

We haven't gone down the route of ringfencing specific tax revenues (although certain taxes have been presented as being raised for specific issues), but this does not mean it is a bad thing.

[I am Rod Hull]

Dont care... I only eat dirt.

[orangecity23]

I'm not surprised everyone in Denmark is skinny, I bought a sandwich at Copenhagen airport once and it cost 15 Euros. Scrooge McDuck couldn't afford enough food to get fat in that country.

[lcfc_jme]

If taxing junk food made healthier food cheaper and better value for money, I'd be all for it.

[FoxyPV]

The big thing that everyone seems to miss here is that Denmark is a social democracy and social responsibility is embued in everyone from the moment they are born. You can't even begin to compare cultures.

The problem with taxing fast food is that it will harm those who have the least without giving the required cooking skills to make it feasible to use fresh produce. Whilst I agree with it in theory, as Singhy and others have said, you would then need to close takeaway places or make the prices extortionate to reduce any temptation. In the chippy around the corner from our old house (very poor area) you used to be able to feed a family for £5. Where's the incentive to cook there?

If the tax raised was used to subsidise veg etc then it would be worthwhile but then you'd have to also teach people how to cook.

I'm all up for enforcing exercise for at least an hour a day to make people healthier.

[The Doctor]

You are missing the point. A lot of people don't actually have as much choice as one might think, becuase good food is a lot more expensive than shite food. Decades of technology has gone into producing crap food cheaply, leaving fresh fruit and veg much more expensive per calorie than processed chips etc. If you are hungry and like the rest of like to feel full you are more likely to buy chips than brocolli becuase you get a sack of chips for the price of a bunch of brocolli.

The point is, to make a pie, pizza or any meal from fresh ingredients is far more expensive, eg a chicken curry, ready meals cost is around £6, to make it fresh, the meat itself costs a £5, then add the tomato, spices, onions etc it would cost double. Another eg lasagne, family size costs £4 ready made shit, to make fresh will cost atleast £7-8. Not to add the time and convenience!!

Now if you go to frozen section it's even more cheaper, iceland do a curry for £2.

If your on budget, ready made is cheaper and more convenient, whether taxing it, will change people's habit, is yet to be seen!!

bullshit. When my cousin was at university, he said his food bill was about 1/4 of that of other people because he was cooking his food from scratch rather than buying ready meals or take-aways.

Don't see how introducing a tax is going to solve the problem when price isn't the main issue, lack of self-control from the public is the problem.