The UK government want to implement a "fat" tax on junk food products to help control obesity. As well as this, they want to impose a £1,000 fine on fast food restaurants (see http://www.metro.co.uk/news/854379-...ercome-obesity). Apparently this will stop people eating takeaways and fast food as much and "encouraging people to eat more healthy food."

Personally I think this is going too far. Why punish everyone for the actions of a few who have no self control? Most people know to eat in moderation and enjoy fast food as part of a healthy diet/lifestyle and I think this is what the government are missing.

The people who may not always eat the healthiest should be given advice on how to improve their diet (In an ideal world >>) instead of having things like this forced upon everybody, it's not fair and I don't believe it will work.

My Latin teacher in high school, who was, shall we say, very well rounded, said once that she would be perfectly happy to pay a fat tax and that it wouldn't stop her from buying junk food if she wanted to eat it. So I don't think this tax would stop people buying junk food, and as you said, most people eat junk food in moderation. I enjoy the occasional chocolate bar or pizza, but on the whole I eat pretty healthily. I think the government should focus more on making healthier options more affordable rather than increasing the cost of the unhealthy ones. Just think how cheap a burger and fries from Macdonalds is compared to buying something healthy from a cafe, restaurant or shop.

I disagree, I find that most often people go to a fast food restaurant or buy fattening foods because they are either cheaper or more accessible. Obviously it will not solve the obesity problem (people will still buy the foods they really like no matter what probably) but if the unhealthy foods are more expensive then the healthy foods then it may make a difference to some lower income families.

It's much easier for a government to place a tax on things then it is to make things cheaper... I think they're trying though...

Because they are talking about more people than the extreme examples of morbidly obese people you see on TV. What most people consider to be "average" weight, is actually the low-end of being obese. If you did a study of what people in England weigh, you'd discover that the average has been creeping up for quite some time. (Holds true in other countries too.)

They'd be better off raising awareness about the food industry in general and putting pressure on America to stop subsidizing the big corporations and their criminal disregard for peoples health. Which is the reason why fast food or takeaways are so cheap (and unhealthy) in the first place even in countries outside of the US. (I'm not even going to touch on the cruelty to animals, food growers and workers that's the natural result of the way they do business but there's plenty to be upset about besides the health issues.)

So honestly, even though I'm generally not a fan of these types of taxes anything that raises awareness of just how bad fast food is for you (and costly even though your meal might be dirt cheap) is a step in the right direction, imo. Food, Inc. is an eye opening documentary and while it doesn't really deal with obesity it hammers home the point of how a whole fast food meal can possibly be cheaper than a serving of fresh vegetables from the grocery store--it's not because fast food is really cheaper to produce that's for sure.

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Eric...96770299&sr=8-1

I believe they no longer have vending machines in schools. When I first started high school they did have some, but after a few years they removed them all. They also stoped selling cookies in the school cafeteria and had to stop making foods with high salt content. However salads were still more expensive than fries.

I'm not sure more sport is necessarily the answer. I probably had between 3-4 hours of sport a week during my entire school career, but it was largely pointless. More often than not we did things that weren't active at all, such as dodgeball in which a majority of people were hit within the first minute and spent the rest of the class on the bench, and even if the lesson was something like lacrosse or tennis, most people just stood around because there was nothing the teachers could do to make them participate. However I don't recall a single girl that could be described as anything close to obese. In fact, most girls were well within the correct BMI for their health if not lower. There was only one girl you might have called overweight in my class. Sports lessons are just not effective enough.

The other problem with programs aimed at school children is that it stops abruptly when the child leaves school. Just 19% of the UK's population is under 16 according to the national statistics. 1 in 4 adults are classed as obese as opposed to just 1 in 10 children.

Here is what should be done: Give people information and let them decide for themselves.

But here's the sticky part: It's claimed that saturated fat is really, really bad for you. But it's not. Polyunsaturated fat is bad. Saturated fat helps you lose weight (yes, I know, they tell you the opposite).

So you have a woefully misinformed populace, plus a nanny state. That spells disaster.

What people have to do, and should do, is educate themselves, and make an informed decision.

It's blatantly just another way for the government to try and raise more revenue, it's not about combating obesity at all because adding tax onto junk food won't stop people eating it and I strongly doubt that it's going to encourage people to eat less of it either. It's not enough that we already pay VAT, income tax, council tax, NI payments, and the rest but now they want to tax junk food too. Puhlease.

Making crappy food more expensive doesn't make healthy food less expensive automatically, or any more accessible to low-income families. It also doesn't make healthy food any quicker or more convenient to a family that may be relying on fast food as they don't have a whole lot of time to prepare healthy meals - or they may simply not have a clue how to cook.

All taxing fast food/junk food does is put less money in the pocket of people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck. It doesn't solve any of the underlying problems of -why- people might be eating that way (besides just the obvious "it's tasty and I like burgers" reasons). Someone who is in that position will probably just pay the tax.

I would really like to see, instead of this "punish the fatties" method, more emphasis on education: teach people about healthy eating. It seems intuitive, but just look at the prevalence of ridiculous "detox" diets and dangerous diet pills and so forth. If the average consumer truly understood how this stuff worked, those things would not be that popular.

Bring back some form of "home ec" as part of classes in school. Hell, wrap it into the physical education classes. Teach kids how to make some simple, easy meals that are low cost, taste good, and can be frozen and reheated for convenience. Teach them the basics of nutrition and metabolism so they understand why healthy eating is so important. Teach them to shop well - a field trip to the grocery store with a budget and a shopping list.

A lot of these are things parents should be doing, but it seems these are skills that many people lack; parents can't really teach what they don't know and practice in their own lives.

I believe taxes are good when used appropriately. A tax like this is certainly not the case. This is either a very poorly thought out plan, or the excuse of how it is supposed to help is merely a ruse. It does not do as is claimed to be intended, just as Prohibition in the States did not stamp out alcohol consumption, and is an example not to be embraced by others. The idea that taxation of a fattening food will decrease obesity numbers is ridiculous, and I'd imagine has nothing but hypotheticals to support it.

It's worth noting that the article states the £1000 assessment will be "used to fund healthy eating campaigns and litter-picking." The local government may be more interested in the latter (and, frankly, I think the whole assessment should go toward nutrition education), but the funds for these campaigns have to come from somewhere, and why not fund them from the problem end?

I say taxes them to the hilt, and then beat the life out of them. I'm speaking of course of fast-food chains. I'm sick and tired of seeing McDonald's pedophiliac grin and Burger King's psychotic smile. *shudders* I'm not happy with Starbucks either, they call themselves a coffee shop? Use half the money to pay thugs to beat the crap out of the likes of Wal-Mart and the other half to invest in more healthy, community centered businesses.

But that's just me. 83

I pack my son's lunch because school lunches, IMO, are no better than McDonald's. Sure, it would be easier to hand him a couple bucks, but that's not helping him. I just let him have a school lunch once a week--pizza.

I simply vote with my wallet. I don't like the junk they serve at fast food joints; therefore, I don't visit them very much.

The main reason most junk foods are cheaper than healthier alternatives is because their ingredients, such as corn-based *anything* or meat products, are subsidized by the United States government. I imagine the same is the case for the government of the UK. Why would we tax what we're subsidizing? That's incredibly bureaucratic and convoluted. God knows our government needs any more of that.

Let's just reduce or remove the current subsidies and/or apply them to healthier alternatives. Or, you know, stop subsidizing food altogether since we (the United States) already overproduce.

I'm not automatically opposed to such a thing. I think "vice" taxes are fine and seem to work to some extent in social engineering. I like my fast food and I'm continually gobsmacked by the protectionist, aggressive tariff/subsidy chain of serving people unhealthy crap in the US, but I liked smoking too when I did it. As long as there's not an out and out ban on such things, and if the taxes aren't so aggressive that they simply promote criminal behavior to sustain them as alternatives, I don't think there's anything wrong with them. I'm not even opposed to such taxes simply to "put money into the pockets of government." It's not like governments sit around and accumulate wealth for the sake of being wealthy in most democracies. If more money comes in, more money is spent, simple as that. That's pretty much the rule when legislators are beholden to taxpayers, regardless of what the "common sense" notions of such things is.

I totally agree with HP's post. I went on a healthy eating course as part of my GCSEs and it gave me a better insight to nutrition and was very interesting. I think some of that should be included in food tech classes in secondary schools, not just as a separate course.

My mum took one look at the school dinners menu at primary school and went "No way!" because it was chips and everything, and so I've typically always taken a packed lunch into school.

When I went into secondary school, there were vending machines selling chocolate and crisps and fizzy drinks, but they were restricted to before and after school and ended up being removed after a couple of months anyway. In year 11, we were allowed to go up to the Sainsbury's but it was such a long walk, my friend and I just didn't bother!

Now in sixth form college, not only does the little cafe sell all kinds of chocolate bars and fizzy drinks, we've got two supermarkets, 2 99p stores selling lots of junk food and a ton of fast food restaurants within walking distance. Unfortunately, we only get 15 minutes for break, so if I do buy food out (I normally take a sandwich or something), it's typically fast food because it can be prepared quickly and easily and doesn't cost a lot.

Last edited by Sparklycookie : 4th Feb 2011 at 3:24 PM.

Give it a few more years for McDonalds to get established and for your children to grow up eating Happy Meals with toys.

"In Poland, McDonald’s in fact enjoys a considerable success, but mainly amongst young people (20-30 y.o.). It’s quite hard to find an older person in this fast-food or to meet a whole family."

http://www.tastingpoland.com/blog/mc_donalds_kebab.html

I always assumed this was common sense, but apparently it seems it isn't. I agree that the government or health service should push education and publicity on the long-term issues with eating junk food. It's not just obesity that this would help, but many other undelying health issues that eating such an unhealthy diet can cause. I share a house with several other girls, and the skinniest girl is the most unhealthy. She is a US size 2, but she can eat an entire swiss roll as a snack. In my area we have a recycling scheme and when I put the recycling out a few hours ago I counted four LARGE empty pizza boxes in the recycling. Considering they collect it on a weekly basis that is repulsive. She thinks that because she weighs so little, eating this kind of food isn't affecting her, but she is going to have enormous health problems in the future. I'd hate to see the inside of her arteries!



Don't worry, not all British families eat like this! We have a home-made meal almost every night, and we have vegetables for dinner twice a week (yes, just a plate of vegetables!) and salad for dinner twice a week!

I'll go back to the old "it's cheaper and more accessible" argument again.

Let's say you work from 6am to 6pm with a 45 minute commute both ways, my mother's work schedule.* You can either go to the grocery store and buy some meat, vegetables, cheese and tortillas for four people, (about $17.00), go home and cook it, then eat by about 8:30, or you can go to Taco Bell, and get food for four people for $8.00 and eat by about 7:15. (Which I wouldn't recommend given their "meat" among other reasons)
*Thankfully, my father gets us home around six, so I have time to cook us a very quick meal (usually frozen boneless/skinless chicken breasts and chopped vegetables.)




Companies like Walmart are going to start making healthier foods cheaper http://articles.latimes.com/2011/ja...-foods-20110121 The government may implement a "fat tax", but I doubt it would have the effect that the largest corporation in the world would by making healthy food more accessible.

Agree overall, especially the home ec point, except for the above sentence. It really does not take very much time to prepare a healthful meal, except inasmuch as cooking anything takes more time than simply eating something. Even then, dump some meat into a slow cooker in the morning, and by the time everyone gets home at night, it's done.

I recently read that the average American spends a total of 27 minutes a day preparing food. Total. Contrast to the Nielsen report that the average American also watches 4.5 hours of TV per day. I think apathy and laziness are better culprits than lack of time, ignorance (of how to cook) being at the root of all (because you don't have to be a Cordon Bleu chef to do better than fast food and Hamburger Helper).

Is that really true? In Australia you would be lucky to feed two people on fast food for $8.

Based on the campus prices for Taco Bell (which may be slightly inflated due to being on campus), you could feed two people for $9. It's still cheaper than every other place on campus, but you'd probably be able to go cheaper with certain meals you could make at home. Most pastas, so long as you don't go with the fancy preprepared stuff, are pretty cheap. I'm sure there are other things as well. But pare321 is right about fast food being more convenient due to the time factor. Both of my parents work, so dinners in my house are often things that can be done quickly and easily. On the nights that my parents work late, that often means fast food.

http://www.tacobell.com/whypaymore/

http://www.tacobell.com/menu/2-dollar-meal-deals

They've got "two dollar meal deals" in America.

You'd need pocket change for the tax though. It's 8.86% here. (I forgot about the tax) So you would get chips, taco/burrito and a drink for four people for around $9.00 total. There's four within ten miles of my house, one next door to my school.

My two cents, just personal experience:

When I lived in the US, I would buy stuff at McDonald's quite often, because of the low prices.

Now that I'm back in Eastern Europe (where McDonald's is not that cheap), I am tempted to buy something at McDonald's every now and then - but often decide not to, because it's too expensive. Even if I sort of really feel like it. And I'm pretty middle-class.

So I guess, making things cost more may have an impact on some people (like me).

It would make me think twice about buying junk food if it did cost more, but it irritates me because I'm not overweight, I just enjoy the occasional unhealthy snack, so why should I be charged a fat tax on those snacks? On the other hand I've had overweight people tell me that they wouldn't stop buying junk food if it had a fat tax on it. They'd rather pay a little extra for something they like and enjoy eating. So I don't think a fat tax would really solve obesity. It might stop some people buying junk food, but plenty more probably wouldn't stop, so you'd still have the problem.

Last edited by BewitchedPrue : 7th Feb 2011 at 7:44 PM.