Hold onto your Twinkies. Last week Denmark passed a “fat tax,” a tax on foods with high saturated fat content and the first of its kind in the world. This tax is well-intentioned, but it doesn’t have a place here in the U.S.
One of the main reasons for imposing the fat tax is to curb obesity, which afflicts about 10 percent of the Danish adult population, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development health data, while the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 33.8 percent of American adults are obese. The obesity epidemic is a serious problem in America, and we need to do a better job of addressing that. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told University of South Carolina students during a lecture that “the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11.”
My reaction to the fat tax was outrage at the level of infringement on personal choice that the Danish government is demanding. I’m a big fan of fat, and I’m disturbed by the idea of the government restricting my access to the foods I like. Also, I have my mom for that.
In recent years, proposals for instating a tax on soda have been raised in the U.S. in order to target problems associated with soda’s high sugar content. However, the feasibility of a fat tax here in the U.S. is questionable. A fat tax would be unlikely to pass through the legislative system because voters would have an aversion to raising sales taxes.
The effectiveness the fat tax has not yet been proven, and some studies show that taxes on food products need to be egregiously high to affect a significant reduction in consumption. The inability of advocates of the soda tax to get their bill passed in the U.S. so far does not portend success for a fat tax. Finally, the tax is likely to have the most negative impact on people in the poorest demographic, who tend to buy more fattening food because it is often cheaper and more easily accessible.
Although a fat tax is not likely to pass anytime soon in the U.S., Denmark’s pioneering of these kinds of measures should at least incite us to more assertive action. The challenge with obesity is that it is hard to target its cause, as it results from a combination of various socioeconomic factors. For example, it is no easy task to simply root out the hold that fast food and soda have on American culture. We are presented with an onslaught of junk food marketing from childhood through to adulthood. According to the documentary “Killer at Large,” children on average watch 51 hours of advertisements for food products on TV per year, 95 percent of which is for junk food. Ronald McDonald or Chester Cheetah are figures not so dissimilar from Joe Camel.
However, smoking was once a cultural norm that efforts by the government and social activists were able to turn around. A similar model should be used on obesity as was used on the war on smoking. Obesity, like smoking cigarettes, can cause fatal health problems and affects a huge population of the U.S. A greater push for education about healthy living and subsidizing healthy foods are examples of steps that the government should develop further.
Maybe the Danish can survive without their pastries, but Americans should maintain their right to eat junk food at their own discretion.
Natalie Friedman is a Weinberg senior.
She can be reached at [email protected]
