Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Fat tax' to fight obesity
News.com.au (Australia) ^ | June 9, 2003 | Rachel Morris

Posted on 06/08/2003 2:24:14 PM PDT by SamAdams76

BISCUITS, cakes and processed meals could be loaded with a "fat tax" as part of a shock tactic to combat Australia's spiralling obesity epidemic.

High-fat foods could be subject to the plan, which the Australian Medical Association says may be the way to reduce weight and ultimately save the health system billions.

The AMA will ask the Federal Government to consider the tax as part of an overall strategy to combat obesity. Recent studies have shown 47 per cent of women and 63 per of men are overweight or obese.

Diabetes Australia has also backed discussion of the plan at a federal level amid estimates more than one million Australians are afflicted by diabetes and that by 2010, 70 per cent of the population will be above their healthy weight range.

The British Medical Association has endorsed a similar plan to impose a 17.5 per cent value-added-tax on fatty food, except for takeaway meals which are already taxed. A similar tax has successfully been introduced on unsaturated fat products in Sri Lanka.

AMA vice president Mekesh Haikerwal said the doctors' group would be happy to put the tax idea "on the table" for discussion with the Federal Government.

A tax on fatty food would help to create a healthier society but "shock tactics" were needed to arrest the spread of obesity, he said.

"The discussion needs to be had," Dr Haikerwal said. "There needs to be a giant wake-up call, obesity is a major drain on our resources, on our health systems and workplaces."

Australian health ministers will meet next month to consider a national strategy to battle obesity levels with new evidence showing that within the next decade four-out-of-10 children will be overweight.

Diabetes Australia spokesman Alan Barclay said the plan was "definitely worth considering for the battle against diabetes". But he warned forcing companies to rethink the fat content of their products could result in foods high in sugar and starch.

There is already evidence some companies are changing the ingredients in snack foods. The recipe for Mars bars has been changed amid health fears over a fatty ingredient.

Hydrogenated vegetable fat has been removed from the popular chocolate bar because of its links with high cholesterol levels and heart disease.

"It needs to be targeted," Mr Barclay said. "Not all fats are bad for you."

He said there were about 600,000 registered diabetics in Australia with an estimated one million more undiagnosed or with pre-diabetes symptoms.

Diabetics spent an average of $10,000 a year on their condition, he said, with those with complications spending $20,000.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: pufflist; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: supercat
Trans fat [Hydragenated oils] is listed at the moment. It's buried in that long list of ingredients.

As far as the rest of your question as to why they're even in the ingredients, I don't know.

I found out about this the hard way. I exercised three times a week on a mountain bike, shot rifle and pistol on the weekends and watched what I ate. I have never smoked or drank.

I did eat a lot of snack foods in front of the TV, just like everyone else but I thought that "low fat" foods were safe.

I had a single blockage in one artery to my heart which was removed the first of last month. While they installed the main artery plug in my groin, I was "given" a hernia.

I go to therapy three times a week now.
41 posted on 06/08/2003 3:41:00 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
If they do it to vegemite, there will be a revolution.
42 posted on 06/08/2003 3:42:22 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Why would you want government intrusion at that level? Your quote is the equivalent of saying "as long as they don't tax me, I don't care how high the rate is..." For a moment I thought I was on du.com.
43 posted on 06/08/2003 3:44:36 PM PDT by Petronski (I"m not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: redhead
Hi, redhead, nice to see you.

You'll be happy to hear that my brother who has heart problems is quitting the Pritikin diet in favor of some sort of "Mediterranean" plan, which I believe is a big improvement.

His nutrition people finally convinced him that all that "low fat" carb stuff was making his problems worse.
44 posted on 06/08/2003 3:44:55 PM PDT by Sam Cree (HHDerelict)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
The sound in the background is that of Rush and a large swath of the rest of talk radio saying "see, I told you so." They called this evolution 7+ years ago.

Here we go again. Just as with tobacco, junk science, deep pockets, and insatiabile government appetities.

Now there's an idea. How about a fat tax tax refund) on government when IT grows too fast?
45 posted on 06/08/2003 3:46:33 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
9 billion down the rathole to pay for obesity-related illnesses doesn't bug you?

I think the better solution is to let them start paying for their own health care costs ---one way would be to have insurance plans that match the needs of the buyers. If you use little health care, then you should be in a low-user group with low premiums. If you want an extravagant policy then you should pay for it.

I think we need to get away from the idea that health care is something the government can do for you, or that health care is only going to doctors for medicine and surgery. Health care is really a do-it-yourself program, you have to eat and drink right, exercise and all the rest. Getting to be 400 pounds and then thinking there's some magic cure out there for your heart and other problems that you don't have to pay for is just bad thinking.

46 posted on 06/08/2003 3:50:36 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
...he warned forcing companies to rethink the fat content of their products could result in foods high in sugar and starch.

..."Not all fats are bad for you."

He said there were about 600,000 registered diabetics in Australia with an estimated one million more undiagnosed or with pre-diabetes symptoms.

The diabetics know better than anyone that eating sugar, starch, or any signicant amount of carbs shoots up blood sugar, while eating protien or fat does not.

Atkins, Protien Power, Zone, Sugar Busters, Jenny Craig, and lots more, all rely on LOW CARB. Politicians would be rediculously stupid to foist a tax on fat.

47 posted on 06/08/2003 3:55:44 PM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Freedom_Loving_Engineer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
You make some good points. If we didn't have socialized medicine, obesity problems wouldn't belong to the taxpayer.

Additionally, if health insurance was only used for major illness, instead of every single medication or doctor's vist, everyone could afford it.

But when people think they are getting something for nothing, like "free" medical care, you get idiocy like this.
48 posted on 06/08/2003 3:58:22 PM PDT by Sam Cree (HHDerelict)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
The other side of the obesity equation is lack of exercise - should extra taxes be imposed on people whom the government says do not exercise enough?

Maybe a televison watching tax.

49 posted on 06/08/2003 3:58:46 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Hmmm... I did not know that.

I typically eat the "full fat" stuff anyway.

It seems that probably the best way to lose wait is not to focus on the fat, but instead the calories, am I right? (I probably should try to lose some to get me down to a bit more healthy weight, but man it is hard).
50 posted on 06/08/2003 4:02:15 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I'm a big fat, lazy bum that eats, drinks, and smokes way too much....but i don't smoke lite cigs, drink lite beer or eat low fat nuthin........if it's gonna kill me, bring on the whole charge right now...dammit..don't drag it out!!!!!!!! lol
51 posted on 06/08/2003 4:08:29 PM PDT by cajun-jack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: txflake
I agree. Tax the fat people. I mean, the food they buy or the sodas they guzzle are innocent, just as bullets are innocent in themselves.

I think you misunderstand - I am NOT in favor of the government imposing "lifestyle" taxes of any kind. This is exactly the kind of nanny-state crap that has caused ALL taxes to explode and has led to so many of us completely shirking ANY responsibility for how we lead our lives.

On every other point, I agree with you completely.

52 posted on 06/08/2003 4:09:11 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Maybe a televison watching tax.

Shhhhhh - don't give 'em any ideas.

53 posted on 06/08/2003 4:10:02 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
It seems that probably the best way to lose wait is not to focus on the fat, but instead the calories, am I right?

But you also have to focus on what kind of reactions your insulin is having because that will affect your energy and hunger levels. Sugar and simple carbohydrates get digested quickly, your body puts out extra insulin fast to bring down the blood glucose levels. Then you're blood sugar drops and you feel weak and hungry again so you want more food. You have to work at keeping glucose/insulin levels in a slower balance ----but carbs aren't bad right before a work-out when you're planning on burning glucose ---sometimes you need carbs, but you don't need them for watching television.

54 posted on 06/08/2003 4:13:48 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
Then how about an elevator tax for people who don't take the stairs?
55 posted on 06/08/2003 4:18:25 PM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
No, I mean it. If not actually taxing the obese ones, at least make them pay for their insurance by the body-weight pound.

If they need incentive to get to a normal size and thus reduce medical costs, so be it.

I'm all for any type of radical action until .gov admits that sugars and starches are at the root of obesity, not natural animal and vegetable products.

I am also for food entitlement programs covering essentially ONLY what WIC (women, infants and children) covers: eggs, milk, peanut butter, cheese.... wholesome foods, rather than Froot Loops and Lil' Debbie Star Crunches and Sunny Delight.

56 posted on 06/08/2003 4:22:54 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All
What ever happened to the days when a man ate what he wanted, drank what he wanted, smoked what he wanted and his heart exploded at 50?
57 posted on 06/08/2003 4:29:30 PM PDT by johnb838 (Understand the root causes of American Anger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
ehehehhe
58 posted on 06/08/2003 4:33:16 PM PDT by visualops (Just 'cause I'm only a tagline doesn't mean I can't order my own pizza demmit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY THINK THAT MONEY THE GOVERNMENT TAKES IN AS NEW TAXES HERE WILL ACTUALLY GO TO WHERE THEY PROMISE IT'S GOING TO GO?!

Exactly.

There are actually three separate issues here.
1. High Caloric Food.
2. Human Obesity.
3. Taxes.

Of the three, the third issue does not belong. The perpetual tendency for politicians and some citizens to tax objects or activities that they consider harmful or disagreeable is a misuse of the states power to tax.

59 posted on 06/08/2003 4:33:38 PM PDT by elbucko (Floggings will continue until morale improves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
Somehow I doubt a rationing program would include fat pigs like Jerrold Nadler and Michael Moore...

They would be exempt under the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

60 posted on 06/08/2003 4:47:47 PM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson