

Denmark introduces fat-related food tax - alexholehouse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15137948

======
tomfakes
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
movement, and I'm trying that out now to see how it works for me.

~~~
ddfisher
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.

~~~
tomfakes
This guy is an interesting read, he's a medical doctor and there's a lot of
technical stuff that you may need to lookup to see if hs's actually BSing or
not - <http://www.archevore.com/>

There's a lot in there about why the Common Wisdom is built on bad science -
the big one is the 7 Countries paper that cherry picked the countries to get
the results they wanted, and ignored the 14 countries that didn't show the
required results. This is where Saturated Fat = Bad came from.

The book Good Carbs, Bad Carbs opened my eyes to why Atkins works - lots of
science references in there.

With personal experimentation this year, I'm beginning to work out what I can
eat and not have problems in the short term. This experience is lining up with
the paleo diet. It's much harder to tell if the long term problems will follow
the same way, but if I feel physically better now, that can't be bad. I am
thinner, healthier, more muscular and have better endurance than at any other
point in my life, and I'm 44.

YMMV

~~~
endtime
My experience: I went from 22% bodyfat to 12% in 4-5 months of archevore. I
didn't do the diet to lose weight; that was just a nice side benefit (and the
most noticeable/measurable effect). My exercise was consistently low over this
period.

------
ewanmcteagle
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of
saturated fat with cardiovascular disease:

[http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725...](http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract?papetoc)

------
tomjen3
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 actually raising
taxes.

In other words this is just an excuse for more revenue, nobody (not even the
government) expect this to actually improve the health of the average dane
(which is about as bad as the health of the average American twenty years
ago). Add to it that we have single payer public health care here and it
should make it clear why they try to get away with this stupidity.

The entire thing is even more stupid because the government who created this
tax lost the recent election but the parties who won haven't cancelled the law
(despite the fact that they could increase the tax rates without breaking any
of the promises they made during the election).

~~~
jmarovt
"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.

------
tzs
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 large combo from a fast food burger joint can easily
have more calories than half a large pizza, and many people will eat that
every day. (And I'm not talking about getting the biggest, most decked out
burger offered...I'm talking middle of the line, such as a double at a place
that offers singles, doubles, and triples).

I realize there is much more to healthy eating than just watching calories,
but for most people in obese first-world countries the problems from obesity
dwarf any other nutritional problem they are likely to have, so first things
first.

~~~
recursive
Diet soda is free!

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

------
holgersindbaek
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.

~~~
Erwin
This is political FUD at its best.

The extra fat fee is results of a law passed in March, under the old
conservative government. It's just coming into effect now starting October
1st. It's not an act by the the newly elected government. That government
barely picked its cabinet 24 hours ago. Not even Stalin could manage to
create, approve and roll out to all relevant parties a new set of rules within
24 hours.

If you dig into this page, you can see that it passed 102-1, with only the
Liberal Alliance voting against:
[http://www.ft.dk/samling/20101/lovforslag/l111/beh3/16/forha...](http://www.ft.dk/samling/20101/lovforslag/l111/beh3/16/forhandling.htm?startItem=#nav)

So it was a law initiated by the Conservative side and with joint support of
both left and right side parties (except the ultra liberal one and the far-
left Good Looking Peoples' Party).

Obviously the new government is not going to cancel a law they voted for
themselves but this is a conservative-initatied law.

As for new government "gathering money where they can", due to the inclusion
of a famously centric party (amusingly called "The Radical Left", not to be
confused with the right wing conservative party called "Left" which was part
of the previous government) we're looking at a set of financial changes likely
to benefit workers - tax on work will be decreased and the far left parties
had to drop their ideas of an extra "millionaire tax".

Rather than go through with some weird vague idea of making everyone work 1
hour per week with no extra pay, the government will increase the retirement
age as part of financing.

------
pnathan
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 the line and restrict the
governmental power?

I don't know. I know there are ideological answers here, but I don't think
those are the best answer.

Madison posed a similar question a long time ago.

 _Would it be wonderful, if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the
Convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial
structure and regular symmetry, which an abstract view of the subject might
lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet,
or in his imagination?_

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._37>

~~~
hartror
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.

~~~
anamax
> 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.)

~~~
hartror
> Except that things aren't that straight forward.

Such as?

Re Babies:

There examples of both tax being charged and bonus being paid for having
children depending on what is needed by the society. China has the One Child
Policy, a successful attempt to reduce their burgeoning population. Australia
has a Baby Bonus which pays parents of middle income or less families when
they have a baby.

Babies are an interesting one as depending on the population growth they are
either a public service or public menace.

------
techiferous
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-...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-
eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html#good-carbs-not-no-carbs)

And an overview here: [http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-
eating-p...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-
plate/healthy-eating-plate-vs-usda-myplate/index.html)

~~~
tomfakes
The big thing that sticks out here, and makes all the science hard to prove or
disprove, is that no-one actually sticks to the diet they are assigned in a
trial!

Almost everyone agrees that you shouldn't eat the processed crap - but after
that, the results become harder to get out of trials.

------
recursive
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.

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

~~~
recursive
My personal experience is consistent with the simple fact-based reasoning that
I laid out. I may give this book a read though. The missing factor that many
people seem to miss is that exercise is a bigger factor in health than diet,
and you can't exercise effectively (at least endurance exercise) without
carbohydrates.

~~~
Poyeyo
My personal experience is totally opposite to yours. Eating fats makes me more
energetic and more fit at the same time.

However, I'm strict with the 'no carbs' thing. If you mix fat and carbs
nothing you say is conclusive.

------
frankus
I never quite understood how people would come to the conclusion that eating
fat makes you fat.

They're examining an insanely complicated biological system with all sorts of
intricate feedback loops and then singling out one type of nutrient basically
because it weighs less per calorie.

------
Madsn
While most danes don't mind high taxes in general, this is one of those taxes
that only makes sense on the surface. I think it's fair to say the foundation
is shaky at best - extra tax on olive oil and nuts because they are fatty?
Really?

------
skylan_q
Saturated fat makes you fat? Tell that to this guy: <http://high-fat-
nutrition.blogspot.com/>

~~~
chc
You can find a blog to support any cockamamie idea you like.

"Homeopathy doesn't work? Tell that to this guy!"

"Astrology is bunk? Tell that to this guy!"

"Having sex with a virgin doesn't cure AIDS? Tell that to this guy!"

That guy doesn't appear to have done a lot of legitimate scientific research,
so I'm not sure why anybody would listen to him over all the people who have.
And all his videos of his kid eating unhealthy stuff as though it has _any
significance at all_ make my quackdar start blaring. Like, when the kid learns
to walk, is he going to post videos of her running across tracks in front of
an oncoming train to prove that's just fine as well?

~~~
skylan_q
Maybe you can judge him by the company he keeps and who he speaks with in
these matters? Others, who "have done a lot of legitimate scientific research"
in the areas of obesity and health look up to him as a well respected
researcher.

You really need a better attitude about approaching these things. :(

~~~
chc
I don't see how skepticism is a bad attitude to take when approaching alt-med
theories. The vast majority is utter fiction.

------
maeon3
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.

