Fat tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fat tax, also known as "Twinkie tax", "junk food tax," and "snack tax," is a tax on calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods. The tax has been proposed as one means to address the obesity problem. The consumption of junk food is supposed to decline if it becomes more expensive. The revenue from the tax would be used to promote healthy nutrition and anti-obesity programs.

1 Proposal
2 Purposes of the tax
3 Firestorm and Controversy
4 Growing Support
5 References

[edit] Proposal

The concept was pioneered in the early 1980s by Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., director of The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Brownell proposed that revenue from junk-food taxes be used to subsidize more healthful foods and fund nutrition campaigns. It is estimated that a national tax of 1 cent per 12-ounce soft drink would generate $1.5 billion annually, and a national tax of 1 cent per pound of candy, chips and other snack foods would generate revenues of up to $314 million.

In a 1994 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Brownell noted that food costs were out of balance, with healthy foods costing more than unhealthy ones. In subsequent years it has become clear that agriculture subsidies contribute to this problem by favoring calorie-dense foods and neglecting fruits and vegetables. Making healthy foods cost less could be a major tool in improving nutrition.

[edit] Purposes of the tax

To decrease consumption of unhealthy foods, or at least function as a disincentive to unhealthy eating
To generate revenue earmarked for relevant causes: improving diet, increasing physical activity, obesity prevention, nutrition education, etc.
To be applied in ways that stores can manage and people can understand
To focus on maximizing health benefits, not monitoring dietary choices per se

[edit] Firestorm and Controversy

The New York Times Op-Ed piece that proposed the "fat tax" elicited controversy and outrage nationwide. Author Kelly Brownell became the focal point of this controversy, especially from Rush Limbaugh, who spoke out adamantly against the tax and the general principle of governmental intrusion into food choices and a possible invasion of privacy.

The major arguments against the so-called Twinkie tax are:

Big Brother argument: Government should not interfere with people’s lives and tell them what to eat and what not to eat
Could affect poor people disproportionately
Interfere with personal liberties and freedom of choice
Additional bureaucracy is undesirable

On the other side of the debate, the junk-food tax generated strong shows of support in other circles. For example, Brownell’s proposal was listed as number seven on the list of U.S. News & World Report's `16 Smart Ideas to Fix the World.” Because of this and other work, Brownell was named by Time Magazine as one of the "World's Most Influential People."

[edit] Growing Support

In December, 2003, The World Health Organization proposed that nations consider taxing junk foods to encourage people to make healthier food choices. According to the WHO report, "Several countries use fiscal measures to promote availability of and access to certain foods; others use taxes to increase or decrease consumption of food; and some use public funds and subsidies to promote access among poor communities to recreational and sporting facilities."

Bruce Silverglade, director of legal affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said his nonprofit nutrition advocacy organization welcomed the recommendations and has spent years fighting for measures like a Junk Food Tax. The proposal got even more traction when New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz proposed taxes on junk food and entertainment contributing to sedentary lifestyles to fund nutrition and exercise programs.

Other advocates of the tax point to the effect taxes have had on alcohol and tobacco use. Five studies published between 1981 and 1998 found that drinking declined as the price of alcohol increased. The same holds for tobacco. In California in 1988, Proposition 99 increased the state tax by 25 cents per cigarette pack and allocated a minimum of 20% of revenue to fund anti-tobacco education. From 1988 to 1993, the state saw tobacco use decline by 27%, three times better than the U.S. average.