Denmark has begun taxing fatty food at a rate of 1.29$ per
pound. The country already has a tax on surgery food. While I don’t think the
taxes will do much to reign in skyrocketing obesity rates, I think the little
Scandinavian country has the right idea.
Some
see an ethical issue in the government attempting to influence the diet of its
citizens. Others see it as just another tax grab, but it’s fair. In countries
with government run health care, the tax dollars of the people who eat
healthily are being sucked up in a disproportionate amount by citizens who are
sick because of their poor diet.
Take
the example of the Canadian province of Ontario. There, 90% of the government
run health care costs come from caring for only 10% of the population. Many of
the chronic diseases that this 10% face, such as diabetes, high-blood pressure,
cardiovascular disease and so on, are preventable and stem from poor nutrition.
So is not fair that the provincial government is hiking up general taxes for
healthy to pay for the sick.
On
top of discouraging people from buying unhealthy food, governments should give
its population incentives to eat healthily by subsidizing good foods. Too
often, highly processed and nutritionally depleted food is simply cheaper and
more readily available; this has to change. Many countries subsidize things
like education and sports for children to encourage them to pursue a healthy
life, so why not subsidize good food?
As
for the ethical issue of government meddling in the diets’ of its citizens?
Processed and refined foods are not a human right. Morally speaking, they are
closer to cigarettes: an unhealthy pleasure. Cigarettes are taxes to discourage
people from smoking and to offset the medical costs of caring for them when the
effects of their unhealthy choices catch up. Unhealthy food should be treated
much in the same way. Good on you Denmark!
http://www.bioethics.net/2011/10/danish-food-police-add-saturated-fat-to-their-list/
1 comment:
I agree that governments should try to find incentives for its people to eat more healthily, especially as obesity is on the rise in many countries today, but taxing fatty foods is the wrong way to go about it. I want to point out that this new tax initiative in Denmark ignores two important points.
One is that diabetes, high-blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, etc. have far more complicated causes than just eating fatty foods. Many of these diseases are intricately tied into other life-style habits such as smoking, work-related stress, lack of exercise, etc. that are not resolved simply by consuming less fat. Furthermore, according to a study by Michigan State University, about 80% of diabetes patients have an immediate family member who is also diabetic, which means that genetics plays a huge role, if not a bigger role, than diet in causing some of these diseases.
The second point is that this system taxes any food containing 2.3% or more saturated fat, and so it indiscriminately discourages the consumption of both processed foods and natural organic food. When we say “fatty food,” the first things that come to mind are probably the likes of chocolate and cakes. But in reality, this 2.3% rule means that foods like avocado, eggs, whole milk, and certain nuts would also unfortunately make the list, so nutritious foods that are essential to one’s diet are wrongly victimized.
Because of their inability to take complex, multi-faceted causes of heath issues into account, governments should not meddle with the diet of its citizens, especially not by introducing new taxes on foods. Government bureaucracy can allow a few policy-makers – who are not necessarily well-versed in nutritional science at all – to arbitrarily decide what is healthy or not for the whole population and to seek simplistic, financial solutions to complicated health issues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15137948
Post a Comment