Right, This fat tax........

rjsterry

AidanR wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm also not totally sold on the evolution argument. From my understanding, people didn't live long enough for the I'll-effects of a bad diet to have an impact. Nor was there likely to be sufficient quantity - we all know that everything in moderation is ok. Anyway, if there's no negative outcomes, evolution theory would say it has no impact.

The short lives of our ancestors isn't really the critical factor. The main point is whether they got to breed. Good nutrition could have made all the difference for males attracting females* and successfully raising healthy offspring that could themselves breed.

Despite this, I think the general argument behind paleo is less that we have adapted to eat certain foods, but more that we *haven't* adapted to eat certain foods. Now, that too is not entirely true - take the case of dairy. Where it's been consumed the longest (Europe) there are low levels of lactose intolerance, whereas in the rest of the world the majority of the (non-white) population is usually lactose intolerant:



A similar thing goes for wheat, specifically gluten. I've seen estimates (but sadly can't find the source) that up to a third of the (US) population has some form of wheat intolerance, even if only 1% are diagnosed with full-blown coeliac disease. Trouble is, a lot of wheat intolerance manifests itself in very generalised symptoms and usually goes undiagnosed.

So why have many of us successfully evolved to tolerate such agricultural produce? Surely it had to produce an evolutionary advantage? Well, despite the potentially nasty side-effects, there was an advantage - calories. Something might not be good for you, but if it gave you the energy to get through the day then overall you gained from eating it. The problem is, for us in the developed world the issue isn't a lack of calories any more.

*I've said males attracting females rather than the other way round as early humans were likely polygynous, although obviously female nutrition would be essential for producing healthy offspring.

I think one of the biggest issues with many approaches to diet and health generally is the attempt to designate everything as 'good' or 'bad' for you. Everything has side effects - even cycling :shock: - and there isn't some perfect benign combination of diet and exercise that contains the secret of eternal life. The best we can hope for is for the benefits of a particular lifestyle to outweigh the detrimental effects.

AidanR

@meanredspider

Whilst I don't disagree that we are good at storing fat, I don't think your point and mine are mutually exclusive.

@rjsterry

No, you can't simply designate all things as either good or bad - you have to take things in their context for a start. But you can certainly say that some foodstuffs are better than others in a given context.

DonDaddyD

I don't accept that its a rich/vs poor thing. When my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins etc had less they bought cheaper produce like £1 in chicken wings instead of £5 in chicken legs, but McDonalds was always the rare treat never the norm.

Still, for most It has everything to do with price. Battery Chicken, McDs, £2 2 piece of chicken and chips from Chicken Cottage sell because they are firstly affordable compared to a free range corn ed chicken and promote themselves as being affordable.

Sure there are some dumb-ones out who think that a McDonalds salad is healthy.... but I bet more will say "Sure I'd buy healthier food it's just that the bad stuff is [presents itself as] cheaper."

Secondly there is the implied time it takes cooking dinner. Now nothing beats a £16 leg of lamb soaked in a £10 bottle of Wolf Blass wrapped in foil and slow cooked for 6hrs. But when you come home from work having stood on your feet all day spending 15mins making a Spag-bol will feel psychologically longer than 15mins spent going to McDonalds et al... It has to do with someone else making the food for you.

I guess one of the biggest issues is that cooking for many is no longer fun. I love cooking so I prefer to cook and adjust it's affordability accordingly. Mince beef (many time cornbeef) and rice with onions and pepper is a delicacy of the poor.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Everything has side effects - even cycling :shock

GET OUT

The UK (and to a greater extent the US) have a problem with weight because

a) calorific processed convenience food is cheaper and more available than fresh fruit & veg
b) calorific processed convenience food is more desirable for many people

I think it really is as simple as that. Nobody is overweight because they eat too many apples. I'm overweight myself despite being reasonably active, and this is entirely down to my eating habits. I know if I make a conscious, rational effort to eat "well" the kilos drop off, it just requires planning and organisation.

In an age where we are constantly being sold convenience its quite easy to just go with the flow and buy whatever appeals to you whether you're hungry or not.

meanredspider

Perhaps they should put VAT on processed foods and use the cash raised to reduce the price of the raw/basic stuff - cost neutral to your average family.

Loads of flaws with that idea

Sewinman

Sounds like a tax on the poor to me...they will pay a much higher % of their income on such a tax.

Why don't they flip it on its head and stop levying VAT on gym memberships, bikes, fitness equipment etc etc. Make it cheaper to get fit.

meanredspider

Sewinman wrote:

Sounds like a tax on the poor to me...they will pay a much higher % of their income on such a tax.

Why don't they flip it on its head and stop levying VAT on gym memberships, bikes, fitness equipment etc etc. Make it cheaper to get fit.

That's what I was trying to think of - use the carrot rather than the stick - hence reduce the cost of the "better" foods (fruit, veg, and other basics)

rjsterry

Sewinman wrote:

Sounds like a tax on the poor to me...they will pay a much higher % of their income on such a tax.

Why don't they flip it on its head and stop levying VAT on gym memberships, bikes, fitness equipment etc etc. Make it cheaper to get fit.

Because someone has to try and sell this wheeze to HM Treasury.

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

Sounds like a tax on the poor to me...they will pay a much higher % of their income on such a tax.

Why don't they flip it on its head and stop levying VAT on gym memberships, bikes, fitness equipment etc etc. Make it cheaper to get fit.

Why is it a tax on the poor? It isn't just 'poor' people who purchase fast food and ready meals. Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have a whole range! I've shopped at Waitrose twice in my life, both times this year.

I know poor and poor is buying a battery chicken and a bag of rice and making that last a 2 - 3 person family for 4 days.

Nothing wrong with taxing processed food IMO and it isn't victimisation of the poor. Lets not grey the lines between poor and the uneducated.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Sounds like a tax on the poor to me...they will pay a much higher % of their income on such a tax.

Why don't they flip it on its head and stop levying VAT on gym memberships, bikes, fitness equipment etc etc. Make it cheaper to get fit.

Why is it a tax on the poor? It isn't just 'poor' people who purchase fast food and ready meals. Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have a whole range! I've shopped at Waitrose twice in my life, both times this year.

I know poor and poor is buying a battery chicken and a bag of rice and making that last a 2 - 3 person family for 4 days.

Nothing wrong with taxing processed food IMO and it isn't victimisation of the poor. Lets not grey the lines between poor and the uneducated.

It will disproportionately affect the poor. Look at the difference in produce stocked by Waitrose compared to Iceland or Farmfoods. Also, it might not just be poor people who buy fast food but a major difference between Sheen and Shepherds Bush is about a dozen fried chicken shops.

AidanR

It will disproportionately affect the poor... the poor who eat "bad food". And that's the whole point, isn't it? To change their behaviour?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Oh won't someone think of the poor!!!!!

So? The point of the matter is that it isn't only poor people who buy processed food. It isn't only poor people who will be affected. A tax on "bad food" is not unfair as people do have alternative options of healthier food they could buy with some sold at the same price.

You could argue that more poor folk than rich folk smoke and drink alcohol it doesn't stop increasing taxation of those products. You could argue that more poor people take public transport, it doesn't stop fares rising.

Simply because it will affect more poor people isn't by itself a reason not to add more tax to "bad food" when the implied outcome improves society as a whole.

Screaming "think of the poor" is as short sighted as "think of the children".

More healthy people (not just "poor people") means less strain on the NHS and less people taking sick days for poor health.

bails87

You know how the poor could avoid the tax?

They could stop eating sh1t food.


It's almost as if that's what they want them to do.....

Edit: My first year at uni, I had £30 a week to live on after paying for my accomodation.
That's not a huge amount of money, it's more than jobseekers, but it's not a lot. I never went out to eat because it was expensive. A bit of ham, some pasta, an onion, garlic and a tin of tomatoes made a perfectly good meal for a hell of a lot less than a Big Mac and Fries.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Screaming "think of the poor" is as short sighted as "think of the children".

That quite clearly isn't what I was saying. (And I'm not sure why you would jump to that conclusion to make a point?) If all the government did was put a tax on cheap food (because that's what processed food is) then it would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes without actually addressing the root cause of the rise in obesity. Your attitude (correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be that its possible to feed a family with basic but nutritious meals if you're prepared to cook from scratch. And thats absolutely true but its not the experience of the demographic (disproportionately from lower incomes) that have a problem with obesity.

I think governments can and should make a difference to public health issues like this but they won't by simply raising taxes. They should probably look at more investment in sports facilities at school and ways to encourage adults to be more active. Better cycling facilities would be a good start...

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Oh won't someone think of the poor!!!!!

So? The point of the matter is that it isn't only poor people who buy processed food. It isn't only poor people who will be affected. A tax on "bad food" is not unfair as people do have alternative options of healthier food they could buy with some sold at the same price.

You could argue that more poor folk than rich folk smoke and drink alcohol it doesn't stop increasing taxation of those products. You could argue that more poor people take public transport, it doesn't stop fares rising.

Simply because it will affect more poor people isn't by itself a reason not to add more tax to "bad food" when the implied outcome improves society as a whole.

Screaming "think of the poor" is as short sighted as "think of the children". More healthy people (not just "poor people") means less strain on the NHS and less people taking sick days for poor health.

You're missing the point which is that this isn't how you go about making the population more healthy, you just end up raising the tax burden on everyone (with the hardest hit being those who spend a greater proportion of their income on food). Well done for alluding to the deserving and undeserving poor though. Nice work

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Why don't they flip it on its head and stop levying VAT on gym memberships, bikes, fitness equipment etc etc. Make it cheaper to get fit.

Because someone has to try and sell this wheeze to HM Treasury.

@Morgan - This is basically what I said earlier, seems sensible to me.

@rjsterry - Don't see why it should be a hard sell. Fitter, trimmer people mean less burden on the NHS. The savings should outweigh the expenditure - obesity currently costs the NHS £4billion a year! (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/NHS_reforms_David_Cameron_speech_obesity_costs_foresight_Department_of_Health-2732)

sketchley

I wish during the years I grew from being a large but fairly active and fit teenager living at home with parents and home cooking to a fat inactive lump of lard I was at uni and beyond that the cheapest and easiest source of food was not crap takeaways and processed food. For that reason I think this is a good idea. But, for it to work it not just good enough to just make the crap food more expensive, you have to also make the good food cheaper at the same time. Make it stack up economically, even make it cheaper than it is right now to switch to the better food and you'll make a real difference.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Screaming "think of the poor" is as short sighted as "think of the children".

That quite clearly isn't what I was saying. (And I'm not sure why you would jump to that conclusion to make a point?) If all the government did was put a tax on cheap food (because that's what processed food is) then it would disproportionately affect those on lower incomes without actually addressing the root cause of the rise in obesity. Your attitude (correct me if I'm wrong) appears to be that its possible to feed a family with basic but nutritious meals if you're prepared to cook from scratch. And thats absolutely true but its not the experience of the demographic (disproportionately from lower incomes) that have a problem with obesity.

I think governments can and should make a difference to public health issues like this but they won't by simply raising taxes. They should probably look at more investment in sports facilities at school and ways to encourage adults to be more active. Better cycling facilities would be a good start...

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Oh won't someone think of the poor!!!!!

So? The point of the matter is that it isn't only poor people who buy processed food. It isn't only poor people who will be affected. A tax on "bad food" is not unfair as people do have alternative options of healthier food they could buy with some sold at the same price.

You could argue that more poor folk than rich folk smoke and drink alcohol it doesn't stop increasing taxation of those products. You could argue that more poor people take public transport, it doesn't stop fares rising.

Simply because it will affect more poor people isn't by itself a reason not to add more tax to "bad food" when the implied outcome improves society as a whole.

Screaming "think of the poor" is as short sighted as "think of the children". More healthy people (not just "poor people") means less strain on the NHS and less people taking sick days for poor health.

You're missing the point which is that this isn't how you go about making the population more healthy, you just end up raising the tax burden on everyone (with the hardest hit being those who spend a greater proportion of their income on food). Well done for alluding to the deserving and undeserving poor though. Nice work

I don't think I am missing the point.

Bad food = bad, which is detrimental to society as a whole. Much like the taxation of cigarettes and alcohol I see no problem in bad food being taxed accordingly. It has become too easy for us to buy processed and bad food it has been allowed to become necessity when it (takeaways at least) should be a luxury.

By making it more expensive you drive the cost into the luxury bracket and people will undoubtedly buy something else, which is more affordable. Reduce the tax or subsidise foods sourced from British farms and you create a healthy alternative option. Campaign as they have been to encourage people to cook home meals (poor people do cook from scratch it's a misconception that they don't*). In that scenario I don't see the "poor" being unfairly treated. There was no "outcry" when a pack of 20 fags tipped £6 people started to stop smoking (smoking ban notwithstanding). "Processed/Bad food" can be just as damaging as smoking if unchecked.

Ultimately you aren't taking away something that people need. People do not need £2 piece of chicken and chips, ready meals and chicken nuggets. So I don't accept the assertion that the poor will be unfairly discriminated against if processed food becomes less affordable.

Sewinman

A heady mix of class politics is getting in the way of looking at how this tax will effect people and their incomes. They propose taxing 'fat', including milk, cheese, pizza etc. These are all fairly staple foods in this day and age. Eating them in moderation won't kill you or make you fat, but you will pay tax on them none the less. Once the tax is imposed poor people will continue to buy lots of fatty products as they have to - as part of a balanced diet. However, the increased costs will account for a far higher % of their disposable income than it will for a high earner. Thus the poor will be made poorer and possibly a little bit thinner....possibly.

There are better ways....

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

A heady mix of class politics is getting in the way of looking at how this tax will effect people and their incomes. They propose taxing 'fat', including milk, cheese, pizza etc. These are all fairly staple foods in this day and age. Eating them in moderation won't kill you or make you fat, but you will pay tax on them none the less. Once the tax is imposed poor people will continue to buy lots of fatty products as they have to - as part of a balanced diet. However, the increased costs will account for a far higher % of their disposable income than it will for a high earner. Thus the poor will be made poorer and possibly a little bit thinner....possibly.

There are better ways....

OK this I understand.

If they just taxed proper processed packaged foods like ready meals and fast food like McDonalds, chicken shops, KFC et al (I don't know how it would work) then I'd be all for that, more so if they then subsidised or reduced taxation of British farm sourced produce.

However to tax basics like milk and cheese just reeks of stealth tax... [Greg]

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

A heady mix of class politics is getting in the way of looking at how this tax will effect people and their incomes. They propose taxing 'fat', including milk, cheese, pizza etc. These are all fairly staple foods in this day and age. Eating them in moderation won't kill you or make you fat, but you will pay tax on them none the less. Once the tax is imposed poor people will continue to buy lots of fatty products as they have to - as part of a balanced diet. However, the increased costs will account for a far higher % of their disposable income than it will for a high earner. Thus the poor will be made poorer and possibly a little bit thinner....possibly.

There are better ways....

OK this I understand.

If they just taxed proper processed packaged foods like ready meals and fast food like McDonalds, chicken shops, KFC et al (I don't know how it would work) then I'd be all for that, more so if they then subsidised or reduced taxation of British farm sourced produce.

However to tax basics like milk and cheese just reeks of stealth tax... [Greg]

Can you imagine the lobbying by the food companies and supermarkets! Greg would make a fortune arguing about the legal definition of 'processed'.

I can see him making a convincing case that a KFC chicken wing with seasoned coating is not 'processed' but a popular combination of two staple foods - chicken and the long loved British staple food of a simple batter, fried in a natural vegetable based oil. Surely it merely has 'ingredients' rather than being 'processed'.

"Would you propose, Mr Tax Inspector civil servant, to visit every middle class home and impose a tax on the 'processing' involved in a home made Spag Bog? Is processing over an Aga acceptable, but not in KFC!"

Define 'processing/processed'. Not easy...

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

A heady mix of class politics is getting in the way of looking at how this tax will effect people and their incomes. They propose taxing 'fat', including milk, cheese, pizza etc. These are all fairly staple foods in this day and age. Eating them in moderation won't kill you or make you fat, but you will pay tax on them none the less. Once the tax is imposed poor people will continue to buy lots of fatty products as they have to - as part of a balanced diet. However, the increased costs will account for a far higher % of their disposable income than it will for a high earner. Thus the poor will be made poorer and possibly a little bit thinner....possibly.

There are better ways....

OK this I understand.

If they just taxed proper processed packaged foods like ready meals and fast food like McDonalds, chicken shops, KFC et al (I don't know how it would work) then I'd be all for that, more so if they then subsidised or reduced taxation of British farm sourced produce.

However to tax basics like milk and cheese just reeks of stealth tax... [Greg]

Can you imagine the lobbying by the food companies and supermarkets! Greg would make a fortune arguing about the legal definition of 'processed'.

I can see him making a convincing case that a KFC chicken wing with seasoned coating is not 'processed' but a popular combination of two staple foods - chicken and the long loved British staple food of a simple batter, fried in a natural vegetable based oil. Surely it merely has 'ingredients' rather than being 'processed'.

"Would you propose, Mr Tax Inspector civil servant, to visit every middle class home and impose a tax on the 'processing' involved in a home made Spag Bog? Is processing over an Aga acceptable, but not in KFC!"

Define 'processing/processed'. Not easy...

Yes, but that is why I qualified my entire post with the bit in bold.

The finer details I leave to brainier men, that's how politics work.

k1875

The problem with a fat tax is that the companies who manufacture cheap, crappy foods will reduce the level of fat in their food and replace it with other, equally unhealthy flavour enhancers. If they can't bulk out their cheap burgers with low cost, high fat "meat" (I use the term in it's loosest possible sense), they will bulk it out with other shit instead. Does anyone think that the people buying 60% fat frozen economy burgers are going to stop buying them because it no longer says "100% beef" on the packaging ?

There is a demand in the UK (and beyond) for cheap, effort free, instantly gratifying food which unfortunately has catastrophic long term health effects when consumed excessively. And it doesn't solely affect the poor, there's plenty of well off people in the same boat but instead of spending £2.50 on a meal in a polystyrene box, they're spending £12.50 on a domino's, curry or chinese take away4 or 5 times a week.

As for incentivising people to take up gym membership, it costs nothing to go for a walk or do some press ups. If you want to exercise you can do so without paying a monthly sub for the privilege, but you have to want to exercise. It's not a financial decision not to. Subsidising gym membership would simply make it cheaper for those who are already gym members. There are gyms all over edinburgh run by the council which are broadly cheaper than Bannatynes & Virgin etc and do not require a membership, but in my experience they aren't any busier.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes, but that is why I qualified my entire post with the bit in bold.

The finer details I leave to brainier men, that's how politics work.

You are giving them a lot of credit. Anyway, this is just a classic rabble rousing load of badly thought out bollox that gets thrown around during party conferences to please the party faithful...it will never happen.

cee

I just don't buy the fact that healthy food is any more expensive than unhealthy food.

It may take a little more advance thought and preparation.

But to take the 2quid chicken and chips example...feeding a family of 4...thats 8 quid.

I bet I could make a healthy alternative for a fiver.....all fresh ingredients.

Torvid

cee wrote:

I just don't buy the fact that healthy food is any more expensive than unhealthy food.

It may take a little more advance thought and preparation.

But to take the 2quid chicken and chips example...feeding a family of 4...thats 8 quid.

I bet I could make a healthy alternative for a fiver.....all fresh ingredients.

It doesn't even need planning most of the big supermarkets offer meal planning carts now that tell you what to cook on what day, how to cook it and they even have a printable shopping list so you just go in and buy what you need.

Sainsbury’s do a £20 a week one for 2 people and £50 a week on for 4 people. You just have to know about them and be willing to cook, there are days when I really can't be bothered to cook but on the whole you have to make them the exception and not the norm.

Salmon and leak risotto last night took 20mins to makes that’s from starting prep to eating the thing I couldn't go out and get take-away and get it back to the flat in that time and I live here

walkingbootweather

Torvid wrote:

I live here

You live in a Convention Centre? How very unconventional...

Torvid

walkingbootweather wrote:

Torvid wrote:

I live here

You live in a Convention Centre? How very unconventional...

Its what passes for culture in the second city...

meanredspider

Sewinman wrote:

Define 'processing/processed'. Not easy...

It wouldn't need to be complicated and could be done by exception. ie "unprocessed" items plus certain listed "basics" (milk, cheese, flour, tea, coffee).

Unprocessed could be defined as a food type either in its natural state (fruit, veg etc) or simply mechanically altered (filleted, butchered, mince, purees etc) or with certain basic preserving processes (smoking, salting, drying) etc These items could have "negative VAT" applied to them whilst everything else would have VAT. The idea being that it was cost-neutral and incentivised the buying of unprocessed foods. All of this would just be at point of sale.

It might not be watertight but so long as a Mars Bar, takeaway kebab, bottle of Coke etc counted as "processed", it wouldn't matter if a few things slipped through the cracks.

rick_chasey

Fat tax won't work as well in the UK.

It can work in Scandi because there amount of people who are properly poor are plently less.

A fat tax in the UK would be pretty regressive. Given the poor are feeling the bite of recession harder than the rest, and cheaper food is the worst offender for said fat, a fat tax would be an unecessary kick in the balls to them.

barry_kellett99

AidanR wrote:

have put on around 6kg of muscle and lost 8kg of fat in a year.

How do you measure this?