Denmark's 'fat tax'

Recently, Denmark imposed a tax on foods that have more than 2.3% saturated fat, something that has been linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and a shorter life-expectancy. Denmark, among some other European countries already tax sugar, chocolate, and soda, but now things like oils, butter, milk, pizza, and meat will be included, and people wishing to buy these products will be taxed $2.86 per every 2.2 lbs of saturated fat that goes into making the foods. Denmark had already made it illegal for foods to have more than 2% trans fats in 2004.

Many were in favor of the ‘fat tax’, but will it be similar to the post I made yesterday where Americans wanted healthier options at restaurants, but few were choosing them. Part of the reason, however, is that healthier options at fast food restaurants are pricier than burgers, things on the dollar menu, and other less-than-healthy options. Others do not like the idea of being monitored by the government and them basically policing what they do. Some residents of Denmark are more on the fence and feel a combination of the two: that the idea is good in theory, but are unhappy and uncomfortable with the big brother feeling.

I understand the big brother feeling, but think the idea of unhealthy food costing more is good, and would be even better if coupled with making healthy options more affordable. That would be ideal.

Many want the UK, with the highest obesity rates in Europe (whereas Denmark’s obesity rate is sub 10%) to follow suit. I think America could learn a lesson too, even if that seems harsh and/or extreme. And I think about things I like, like coffee. There had been debates on caffeine consumption, although it is now known that there are many benefits (with the latest research showing a decline in depression among women), so what if coffee were taxed? Would I still drink it? I think the answer is yes. However, that is also because there really isn’t an alternative. Soda has caffeine, but isn’t healthy, especially the dark colas, which are linked to osteoporosis, so I wouldn’t switch to that. There are alternatives in this case – less fattening foods – but while I value health and wellness, others might think flavor is of utmost priority and not think foods lacking or limiting butter are suitable.

Before the tax went into effect, people started hoarding butter, which is not a good sign, nor is the suggestion that some people might even stock up on butter when they are in other countries. However, a shift in mentality takes time, and this is not very surprising, and while the Danes might not like it, there still might be a fast effect, just like when cigarettes were taxed, there was an immediate decline in purchasing and the diseases associated with smoking them.

One of the few negatives is that the taxing process is a bit complicated and more expensive for companies than it need be; the tax is calculated by the amount of saturated fat that is used to make the product vs how much is in the actual product.

As well, it would be more advantageous to tax a food’s “overall nutritional quality, rather than one element,” according to Dr. Mike Rayner, a public health researcher at the University of Oxford. I tend to concur, while still thinking the current tax will be beneficial.

Dr. Rayner also is concerned that there might be an increase in other less nutritious foods that can cause health problems, such as those containing salt and added sugars, such that the health benefits of the tax on saturated fat will be undone or that different health problems will now be an issue.

randi morse, randi.morse@gmail.com, newton, ma