Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Will Taxing Unhealthy Foods Make a Difference?

                                         


Just last week Denmark was the first country in the world to create a fat tax for specific foods. What
is a fat tax you ask? For Denmark, it's a tax that will be charged on all foods having more than 2.3%
saturated (or bad) fat. It affects everything from milk, to oil and packaged products. The money
generated from this new tax will be used to fight obesity in that country. Denmark isn't alone in the
food tax arena as it appears other countries are following their lead. Hungary has just started a tax on
all foods with unhealthy levels of sugar, salt and carbohydrates, and high levels of caffeine. Countries
including Denmark, Switzerland and Austria have banned trans fats, and Finland and Romania are
considering fat taxes too. Tax methods that have also been discussed here in Canada, mostly Quebec,
and include those for 'junk' foods, soft drinks and energy drinks.

So what does all this mean and how can it help? Well there are certainly pros and cons when it comes
to being the food police. On the positive side a food tax may help to show people that there are
healthier, more cost effective options for purchase and eating. With less people choosing these foods
it may help to curb the chronic disease associated with poor choices over time, including heart disease, high blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes and obesity.

However despite, this the question still remains whether increasing the cost of these foods will actually help curb people from putting those foods in the grocery cart. If a small bag of chips regularly costs $1 and the price jumps top $1.25, is that really enough of a difference to stop people from buying it? My thoughts are probably not. We all know human nature is the more people know they shouldn't do something, the more they'll want to do it. As another side note let's look at soft drinks. If we tax the regular, high sugar soft drink one would think it might create a shift towards more diet drinks being consumed. This is possibly a better choice as there is less overall calories and sugar, however it is still nutrient devoid and replacing something in the diet that could have been more nutritious, like milk, water or even juice. Taxing one specific component of food (like sugar or fat) may not be the answer as there are many components of food which could all make a food equally healthy or unhealthy (including salt, caffeine, total calories, a lack of vitamins and minerals, and the list goes on). It has not been one specific food component which has steered us towards the obesity and chronic disease cycle, but rather a collection of not-so-good eating habits over time.

So say people are in favour of an unhealthy food tax. Do we actually have the right to dictate to people what they should and should not be eating? Some would say yes, given everyone who pays taxes is indirectly responsible for each others healthcare. That is somewhat true I suppose, however fatter people don't necessarily cost the healthcare system more. A food tax is usually aimed at decreasing obesity rates. Don't forget the skinny people eat potato chips, drink pop and get heart disease too.
There is certainly not one solution to the complex problem of the food supply but here's my alternate
suggestion for a food tax. Instead of punishing people for making bad choices lets reward them for
making better choices. Let's not tax the 'junk' food and strive to make healthier foods cheaper and
available for everyone. Educate more on the benefits of a healthful diet, show people how they make
these alternate choices and more importantly subsidize the cost of milk, fruits and vegetables and then see how many people will fill their carts with these foods first.

As seen in The Telegram October 17, 2011

No comments:

Post a Comment