Have You Heard About Denmark's New Fat Tax?

Thank you to Fooducate which is where I first heard about this story. It was originally reported by the BBC over the weekend. Apparently, the country of Denmark has passed the world's first 'Fat Tax'. Starting soon all foods with a saturated fat content of greater than 2.3% will carry a tax of aproximately 8 cents per ounce.

Oh, this is wrong on so many levels. I was rather angry when I first heard about the tax because it doesn't make alot of sense to me. The tax is only on products containing SATURATED fat. The types of products to be taxed will be items like butter, coconut oil, lard, some meats, cheese and full fat milk and the products that contain them like ice cream and pizza. It means that candy, chips or french fries fried in soybean oil, cakes and cookies made with canola oil or deconstructed fat free milk products will remain untaxed.

The items to be taxed are largely unprocessed items that my healthy weight family eats every week. Meanwhile the products that we avoid to maintain our health, like chips and cookies will remain untaxed!! While I am sure that some processed products will be taxed, it will be quite easy for food companies to reformulate those products and circumvent the tax. Manufacturers of butter would be unable to reformulate, of course. The tax means that a pound of butter will cost about $1.28 more! Raising the price of unprocessed food seems counterintuitive. Don't we want people to start making their own food rather than letting some unknown company do the cooking for us? Food is expensive enough already, levying a tax on so many unprepared foods makes little sense to me.

Perhaps it surprises you that I am against this tax? Actually I am all for taxing unhealthy foods. I fully support the once proposed NYC soda tax. I supported the once proposed ban of sugary beverages from being part of the SNAP benefit plan. I just disagree with the item being taxed here. If you want to address obesity, tax sugar. Our bodies need fat, even saturated fat. But our bodies don't need sugar at all!! Obesity is undoubtedly a complex problem. It is not one that a single bad ingredient or food caused. The causes of obesity are cultural as well as food related. But it makes no sense to me to blame the foods that we have been eating throughout history.

I don't anticipate additional countries following suit. I will be curious if the law even lives. Sometimes bad international press can turn the tide against such laws. This could be a difficult additional expense for the average Danish family. Suddenly your meat, milk, butter and cheese have an added tax. It could end up being $5-10 a week on otherwise unprocessed healthy foods. Over the course of a year that could mean an extra $250-$500!!!

It is clear to me that many people in positions of authority do not understand nutrition. Many folks do not understand the partnership between healthy fats and satiety. Meanwhile, how many hundreds of calories could you ingest of saturated-fat-free potato chips before you burst? I think the Danes got it all wrong. If the government should have any say over our diets, it ought to be them standing strong against sugar and banning non-food chemicals from the food supply. This tax is completely off base.

Do you agree with government taxes on food items? Why or why not?

This post is shared with Traditional Tuesdays and Real Food Wednesdays and Simple Lives Thursdays and Fight Back Fridays

Should Parents Lose Custody of Obese Children?: My Opinion

An interesting article came out yesterday all across the various internet news sites. Apparently, an opinion piece in the American Medical Journal released Wednesday states that in some cases putting an obese child in foster care is more ethical than surgery. Bariatric type surgery on young growing bodies is frought with controversy.

According to Dr David Ludwig, the hope is that state intervention "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible. That may require instruction on parenting."

The various news reports did not comment on whether they think this is a good idea or not, that isn't their purpose. Fortunately I can. I imagine that the initial reaction to this story will be mixed with some folks coming out squarely against intervention while other brazenly claiming "if you can't take care of your kids..." I don't think that address the issue.

If you consider the current system and laws, a child may be removed from his home if his parents are neglecting him. This includes a parent who does not provide enough food for their child. A parent can also have their children taken away for medical neglect, i.e.-willfully not administering prescribed medication, or not seeking emergency medical care in the event of a serious condition or injury. I am pretty sure we all agree on that. The state reviews all cases before any child is taken away from their family. You may disagree with the quality of investigation that the state puts into these cases (I do not), and you may abhor the cases where kids fall through the cracks (I absolutely do). But, in that case what we are arguing about is the implementation of the law, not the law itself. The point of my post is the law.

I think super obese kids should be evaluated to see if the case warrants intervention. BUT I think this should happen at the point that kids are beginning to experience medical complications. Obesity alone is not enough reason to take a child away from their family. But when a child develops an otherwise preventable medical problem like Diabetes or difficulty breathing, it makes sense to me that some investigation should happen. And just because a social worker gets involved doesn't mean that foster care is the only path. It is logical that parents should be guided toward better nutrition education and parenting. The state taking custody of an obese child should be a last resort.

The article in the journal of the AMA was an opinion piece, not a politician speaking out in favor of writing a law surrounding this. And for what it's worth, it is already happening. The Yahoo Shine version of the story mentions the case of a three year old who was 90 pounds when she first met with Ludwig. By 12 she was 440 pounds and had developed sleep apnea, cholesterol problems, diabetes, etc. She was placed in foster care, given proper nutrition, and lost 130 pounds after one year. She may still be obese, but the articles mention that her medical conditions have abated.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a blanket approach to this problem. We all must remember that the laws are set up to help kids, not vilify parents. But, if your actions as a parent are creating medical problems in your child, the state should absolutely consider if removing the child from his family is neccessary.

Read the ABC News article:
Should Parents Lose Custody of Super Obese Kids?

This post is shared with Simple Lives Thursdays and with Food Renegade's Fight Back Fridays