The Fat Tax........................

[JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel]

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- In America's ongoing battle of the bulge, one strategy to combat the nation's obesity epidemic has generated more than a decade's worth of attention and controversy.

Popularly known as the "fat tax" or the "Twinkie tax," the concept first gained widespread attention in 1994 when Yale University psychology professor Kelly D. Brownell outlined the idea in an op-ed piece in The New York Times.

Addressing what he called a "dire set of circumstances," Brownell proposed two food-tax options: A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the purchase of unhealthy processed foods while subsidizing healthier choices; or a much smaller tax to fund long-term public health nutrition programs.

"The American food system is set up as if maximizing obesity were the aim," Brownell told HealthDay. "So the idea was to tax either certain classes of foods -- like soft drinks or fat foods -- or to just tax specific foods high in calories or low in nutrition. Then you use the income from such a tax to subsidize the sale of healthy foods in order to reverse what is the unfortunate reality now: that it costs more to eat a healthier diet."

The tax, said Brownell, would be a pro-active response to a food industry and consumer culture that increasingly promotes high-fat/low-nutrition products as the cheapest, tastiest, most convenient and most available dietary options.

Brownell emphasized that, if properly implemented, fat taxes could yield major benefits. For example, slapping a single penny tax onto the cost of soft drinks across the country would generate almost $1.5 billion annually -- a figure that far exceeds the budgets of current government-sponsored nutrition programs, he said.

The non-profit Washington, D.C.-based Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports that, in recent years, levies of this kind have, in fact, been imposed -- with states such as Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington creating "fat taxes" on soft drinks sold within their borders.

Other states such as California, Maine and Maryland have also experimented with hefty "fat-tax" legislation, Brownell said. However, all the levies were ultimately repealed, highlighting several practical problems with the fat-tax concept identified by both Brownell and the IOM.

One big problem is that money collected through fat taxes has typically not been earmarked for obesity-prevention programs or healthy food subsidies; instead they were often used to cover budget deficits.

Concerns have also been raised that such a tax is inherently regressive, meaning it punishes poorer people who must spend much of their limited income on food.

And although the fat tax appears to have gained popularity as a theoretical approach to weight management, deciding exactly which products are unhealthy, taxable foods is a tricky practical matter.

Nonetheless, while the IOM has remained neutral on the fat-tax issue, some legislators across the country are moving full-steam ahead to get food-related levies on the books.

New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat from New York City, is one such proponent of the fat tax.

For three years Ortiz has championed a bill that would ding any foods high in calories, fat or carbs -- including perennial favorites such as potato chips, candies and french fries. The bill would also add a one-cent surcharge on video games.

The taxes would generate an estimated $50 million a year, and all the money would be used to augment the state's $1.5 million budget for the Childhood Obesity Prevention Program. The program, established in 2001, is designed to promote healthy eating habits among children and adults through family physician interventions and after-school dietary and physical activity workshops.

"We have a very chronic epidemic regarding obesity," said Ortiz. "And we think the food tax is part of the solution. This will be a vehicle to fund the obesity prevention program that can provide the services needed to assure that our children and the working families of the state of New York will get the proper information on healthy lifestyles. It will save lives and the next generation."

[joyboy123]

Concerns have also been raised that such a tax is inherently regressive, meaning it punishes poorer people who must spend much of their limited income on food.

Maintaining a healthy lifestyle is not as big of a priority when you are a single parent, have a limited income and several kids to raise. What makes it more difficult is that the only places to eat are fast food places that are conveniently in walking distance. Also, that type of unhealthy food is quite addicting.

[Quinn]

Poor or not, being fat is the result of choices a person makes. Fat people drive insurance costs up for the rest of society in the same manner smokers that do and should be taxed accordingly.

-Quinn

[chefmike]

How about a superstition tax, which would mean ending the tax-exempt status of churches? Even the cult of scientology is tax-exempt now...

[blckhaze]

just think healthier food suld be cheaper than junk food. here in nyc(at least here in the bronx, and harlem. not 100% on manhattan), a salad can run you $5 or more, but junk food and soda start of at $.50. just not economically smart to healthy anymore.

[cruiser]

Poor or not, being fat is the result of choices a person makes. Fat people drive insurance costs up for the rest of society in the same manner smokers that do and should be taxed accordingly.

-Quinn

How about people who indulge in "risky" sexual behaviour?

[hillbilly]

ok here is a concept for the poor. fucking cook!

the costs of eating poorly will catch up with you monetarily as well as physically.

i hate that lame argument that there aren't enough choices when you don't have money. its such a cop out.

[Quinn]

Poor or not, being fat is the result of choices a person makes. Fat people drive insurance costs up for the rest of society in the same manner smokers that do and should be taxed accordingly.

-Quinn

How about people who indulge in "risky" sexual behaviour?

Before being able to answer such a question, I would need to know how you define "risky" sexual behavior. Are we talking about anal sex, homosexual contact, the number of partners involved, protection, or something else? How would you propose to track and assess such an activity?

The link between being overweight and substantially increased health risks (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) is well established and easy to assess. Barring certain rare diseases, being fat is the result of eating too much food, usually bad food. It's that simple.

-Quinn

[cruiser]

The links are undeniable. My question is where do we stop? There are many predictors other than obesity. Genetics for one. Should certain ethnic groups pay more because they are more likely to get certain diseases, or because of the fat content of the food they eat? If insurance costs are not shared, people will simply not purchase insurance. The ER will then be the mode of treatment. I'm sure if insurance is purchased individually the cost for an overweight/obese person probably would bbe higher as it would be for a smoker/drinker.

[Quinn]

My question is where do we stop?

I would apply a "reasonable man standard." If it's reasonable to conclude that a certain behavior repeated over time is likely to have a negative outcome, then a person should be responsible for offsetting some of the damage caused by that behavior.

There are many predictors other than obesity. Genetics for one. Should certain ethnic groups pay more because they are more likely to get certain diseases, or because of the fat content of the food they eat?

This is a great point. Once again, from my perspective, it comes down to a matter of personal choice. A person doesn't choose to have certain genetic predispositions. A person does, however, make choices as to what type of behavior they engage in relative to those predispositions. For example, since alcoholism runs in my family, I drink rather infrequently.

Things a person can't control (being born with Down Syndrome, etc.) should not be held against them. Things a person can control (diet, smoking, etc.), should, IMO, involve some sort of mitigating activity (taxes for smokers, etc.).

If insurance costs are not shared, people will simply not purchase insurance. The ER will then be the mode of treatment. I'm sure if insurance is purchased individually the cost for an overweight/obese person probably would bbe higher as it would be for a smoker/drinker

I believe that people who knowingly engage in behavior that promotes illness should pay a proportionately higher cost for the treatment of that illness than people who do not engage in said behavior. Otherwise, how do we disincentivize obviously stupid behavior (smoking four packs a day, etc.)?

-Quinn