Denmark introduces fat-related food tax • Hacker News Board

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#21

Post by jmarovt » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 12:23 AM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #5

For those of you who wonder if this is a good idea or whether or not it will improve the general health of the population. Don't worry about it, the Danish government has promised not to increase the tax rates (in fact it was one of the cornerstones of their campaign so they couldn't abandon it) since then they have looked in all sorts of places and for all sorts of excuses for how to increase revenue without actuall…

"the health of the average dane (which is about as bad as the health of the average American twenty years ago)"

- Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I have lived both in Denmark and in the US and you really can't compare an average Dane to an average American (average Dane lives far far more healthy life than an American counterpart and has by far higher level of health care service). Not to mention the Danish health care system which is far superior to any other health care system I have ever witnessed. It should be a role model for all the other countries.

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#22

Post by unignorant » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 12:27 AM UTC

ddfisher wrote: post #13

tomfakes wrote: post #3

In my recent research into nutrition, there is good evidence that saturated fat isn't the enemy. The science for nutrition in humans is very difficult to pin down - there are just too many external variables, and the human body does a fantastic job in working with whatever it gets as a fuel in the short term that masks a lot of what is bad. Personally, I'm convinced there's something that rings true in the Paleo move…

As someone considering paleo, I'd be interested to hear what studies you thought well supported the claim that saturated fats aren't the problem and why you thought those studies were more reliable than the ones that indicte the contrary.

The book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (Taubes) provides solid evidence (i.e. well-referenced studies) against various forms of the lipid hypothesis. While Taubes' own theory of obesity hasn't really stood up over time, the book contains a lot of good research.

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#23

Post by holgersindbaek » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 1:00 AM UTC

Welcome to the wonderfull life of socialist Denmark. Were you're sure the Government will control what is good for you and what is not good for you.

The newly elected government in Denmark campaigned on the promise of NOT making some much needed reforms to the Danish social care welfare system (about half of the Danish population recieves benefits from the stated one way or the other), so now they are trying to gather money anywhere they can, to keep this promise.

This tax is not a well thought out tax, intended to increase the general well-being of the Danish population, it's the first of a long run of weird taxes we'll see from the newly elected Danish Government.

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#24

Post by Roybatty » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:09 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #8

The experiment I'd like to see would be for some country with an obesity problem to make it so that prepared food must be priced proportionally to its calories. I think one of the reasons for obesity is that it is really really easy to get a ridiculous amount of calories without realizing it. Most people would not eat half a large pizza for lunch every day--they would be aghast at eating that many calories. Yet a lar…

What country would force food to be priced proportionally to its calories - N. Korea, Cuba, or maybe that's the next step for Denmark?

Do you really want to see that experiment?

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#25

Post by maeon3 » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

Part of the reason why half of America is morbidly obese is not because the food is cheap, but because the food triggers endocannabinoids and you literally become addicted and suffer withdrawal symptoms from food that is quite literally killing you .01% per meal.

Tax it all you want, if you want to solve the problem you gotta put a surgeon's general's warning on 95% of food America eats as "This food will cause you to die if you eat more than x grams per day".

What I want is a little indicator on every food item at the store, a number as the percentage decrease in overall health when this food is fed every meal to various animals. A score of how long this food will cause a monkey to die if he eats X grams per day. It might be a shocker to see the healthfood isle filled full of foods that will cause you to die if you eat it every day.

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#26

Post by anamax » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

hartror wrote: post #20

pnathan wrote: post #17

It's an interesting problem, in the abstract. If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect freedom limiter) to perform one particular act, should it? Or should people make the right choice on their own, and/or let the market sort it out? What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it ? What about the Slippery Slope? Where do you draw…

It can also be looked in this manner. It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness.

> It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness.

Except that things aren't that straight forward.

BTW - would you support a tax on child-bearing by folks who are likely to have "at risk" children? (It's pretty easy to identify those people.)

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#27

Post by SoftwareMaven » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:35 AM UTC

recursive wrote: post #12

The internet seems to love the notion that fatty foods do not lead to fatty people. My personal experience is that it does. Fat is slower to metabolize than any other macro-nutrient. If you don't exercise, this might not apply. But if you do, you need carbohydrates for energy, and you don't need much fat. Any excess fat you do consume is harder to burn.

Go read Good Calories, Bad Calories to learn the real science behind nutrition (as opposed to "personal experience").

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#28

Post by techiferous » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:41 AM UTC

With all of the confusing misinformation out there, there is plenty that we do know, based on sound science. The Harvard School of Public Health is a great resource that distills what scientific research has shown us about nutrition (as opposed to what lobbyists have influenced the USDA to tell us about nutrition).

More info here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-...

And an overview here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-p...

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#29

Post by felipemnoa » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:44 AM UTC

recursive wrote: post #11

tzs wrote: post #8

The experiment I'd like to see would be for some country with an obesity problem to make it so that prepared food must be priced proportionally to its calories. I think one of the reasons for obesity is that it is really really easy to get a ridiculous amount of calories without realizing it. Most people would not eat half a large pizza for lunch every day--they would be aghast at eating that many calories. Yet a lar…

Diet soda is free!

No, No. You still have to pay a deposit for the plastic bottle.

Re: Denmark introduces fat-related food tax

#30

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Mon, Oct 03, 2011, 2:58 AM UTC

anamax wrote: post #26

hartror wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be looked in this manner. It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness.

> It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness. Except that things aren't that straight forward. BTW - would you support a tax on child-bearing by folks who are likely to have "at risk" children? (It's pretty easy to identify those people.)

Hmm, I might support your last idea. Especially if it was complimented with an effort to make adoption of children to suitable couples easier/cheaper.