Fast food tax to do a fat load of good

The kaleidoscope of crazy on display at McDonald's Tecoma construction site is a sign of things to come if we allow militant health crusaders to dictate who can do business and where.

Among the unwashed hippies, wizards and bored grandmas protesting against the job-creating fast food outlet are the usual members of the fun police whose answer to any societal ill is to call for a ban or greater taxes.

Not only are they campaigning for a fat tax but they want planning laws changed so that proposed fast food outlets can be blocked from opening on health grounds.

One wonders whether such bans would extend to a family run fish and chippery? What about a quaint French bistro or Indian takeaway? Are we concerned about the fat content of creme brulees and butter chicken or is it only Maccas that earns the ire of the anti-fat brigade?

It is easy to demonise multi-national fast food retailers but the fat content of food served at many cafes and restaurants rivals that of burger chains and yet no one is blockading their businesses or proposing the imposition of new taxes.

There is something decidedly snobby about this debate; those who look down their noses on fast food and anyone who dares consume it, no matter how infrequently, are driving the agenda.

In May the Federal Government, under the tin-eared leadership of Julia Gillard, committed $463,000 of your hard-eared tax dollars to a three-year study to investigate the merits of introducing a fat tax that would hit fast food retailers. That despite the Henry review of the Australian taxation system rejecting the idea as hopelessly flawed.

And it appears that our government has taken no notice of the Denmark experience.

The Danes very kindly offered themselves up as guinea pigs, imposing a fat tax that was far more comprehensive than anything under consideration in Australia. It was a mammoth failure.

The hugely unpopular policy was abandoned after a year without saving a single soul from obesity. The tax hit the poorest the hardest and anecdotal evidence suggests that rather than divert spending from fatty foods to healthy options, Danes ended up spending less on fruits and vegetables as the tax ate into their food budget.

Denmark found out the hard way that trying to modify consumer behaviour by simply increasing prices is simplistic and doomed for failure.

"The fat tax is one of the most maligned we have had in a long time," said Mette Gjerskov, Denmark's minister for food, agriculture and fisheries. "Now we have to try improving the public health by other means."

To give the Danes credit, their tax was at least all-inclusive and applied to all products that contained more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat, unlike the Australian proposal which is focused purely on fast food.

The preoccupation with fat is puzzling given that sugar is considered by nutritionists as much as an evil as fat, if not more so. Will the health warriors next propose a chocolate tax? Or an increase in the price of all those supposedly healthy "diet" foods that are low in fat but full of sugar?

Earlier this year researchers from the University of California released a study showing that meals bought from Subway, a retailer that has built its corporate image on healthy eating, contain more salt and as many calories as a meal bought from McDonald's.

When it comes to food, perception isn't always reality.

There is no doubt that a tax on fast foods will have its greatest effect on those from the lowest socio-economic groups. The question is whether the tax would be ultimately beneficial in encouraging those on low incomes to make healthier choices or whether it would simply mean they spend more of their disposable income on fast food.

Obesity rates are highest among that group, but as the Danish experience has taught us, trying to coerce them into munching salads is a recipe for disaster.

IF WE are going to have a national approach to changing eating habits then why not focus on the young? Home Economic classes that disappeared from the school curriculum can be vital in not only teaching children about nutrition but actually taking them through an entire recipe from start to finish.

They learn quickly how to prepare several tasty, healthy dishes and that knowledge is often shared with the entire family.

They also learn that fast food is not cheaper than fresh as many public health advocates claim.

The fat hysteria, particularly the handwringing over childhood obesity rates, continues to be fed by health bodies, the media and government agencies, despite figures showing that rates have stabilised in the past decade. Yes, we are fatter than we should be but we're not in the midst of a diabolical health crisis and are healthier than most of the world; according to the UN only Japan has a life expectancy higher than Australia.

Zealot anti-fast food campaigns are often less about genuine health concerns and more about weak-willed parenting. As a mother, I am responsible for what my child consumes and that parental prerogative is not compromised by the existence of the 24-hour McDonald's down the road.

In this age of diminished responsibility, no one seems to be accountable for their actions -- it is much easier to call for the government to remove temptation by banning or taxing products instead of exercising some measure of self-control.

Fast food is not nicotine; in moderation it is not detrimental to one's health and those who choose to indulge should be able to do so without the fat police working themselves up into a rich, righteous lather.

Source: The Sun Herald, 12 August 2013