Posted on by

Denmark Introduces World’s First Tax on Fatty Foods

20 Replies

Denmark has introduced over the weekend the world’s first ever tax on fatty foods, the BBC reports. Effective immediately any food whose saturated fat content is 2.3% or higher will be taxed at a rate of $0.08 per ounce. Tax money will be used in obesity fighting efforts.

Danes are considered big lovers of butter, and Danish butter is considered one of the world’s finest. Anyone who has had Danish butter cookies will surly agree. But now a small pack of butter will cost an added 40 cents. Additional products that are included in the tax are oils, meats, and some savory snacks.

But is saturated fat the right target?

Some experts, US included, would much rather see sugar taxes. They assert that consumption of refined carbs and empty calories from soft drinks seem to be impacting obesity rates more significantly than the consumption of fats.

Interestingly enough, the obesity rate in Denmark is 10% (much lower than our 30%). Pre-emptive strike by the Danish government?

Can you imagine this tax happening here?

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App  RSS Subscription or  Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Get Fooducated

Download APP

Subscribe

Follow

  • Andrea

    Wow, that’s incredibly misguided legislation. Americans are eating more “low-fat” products than ever, and yet we’re fatter than we’ve ever been. Ever stop to think it’s NOT the “fatty” products, people???   

    • Bbbbhhtj

      They are pigs!

      • Brooke

        Interestingly, I have heard that there are in fact, more pigs than people in Denmark. 

    • Gerome

      Andrea, believe it or not — sat fat does not make you any fatter that other calories (generally speaking). So, maybe the goal of this legislation is NOT to encourage weight loss. May it’s to lower the risk of heart disease. You think? 

  • Guest

    Denmark already has a sugar tax. Do your research.

  • mrsC

    Denmark added tax on high sugar junk food in July 2010.

  • Brian

    This tax exists despite a lot of research that shows that it is in fact carbohydrates most responsible for obesity, not fat. See “Why We Get Fat, and What To Do About It,” by Gary Taubes, and the research he cites for the facts. Saturated fat has also been show to help prevent heart disease when taken from the correct sources. (See also Taubes’ book.) Very misguided legislation.

    • Gerome

      Brian, there is such a massive body of research that contradicts Gary Taubes’ theories, that anyone who would bother to read his books, so read his critics. Here’s one: http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake
      To suggest that heart disease and saturated fat are not linked is as outragous as the claims made by the cigarette industry when they denied a link between cancer and smoking. Please, stop with the Gary Taubes and start citing scientists who study nutrition.

      As far as this legislation — it’s facinating, and will almost certainly reduce consumption of foods that are subject to the tax. (There is plenty of valid researcg that show the relationship between price hikes and consumption reduction — again, look at cigarettes, prices and smoking rates.) The fascinating part? That the government actually had the ability and fortitute to tell the dairy lobbyists (are there any in DK?) to sit on the sideline while the country took action that would hurt the dairy business.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Janice-Blawat/1527764001 Janice Blawat

        Thank you for the reference, Gerome, but I read it and was not impressed by the sensational, yet unfounded, accusations. Real science, please.

        • http://twitter.com/OnNutrition Carol Plotkin

          Here’s an interesting discussion of the role of reducing saturated fat intake in the prevention of cardiovascular disease from a symposium held in (of all places) Denmark. http://www.ajcn.org/content/93/4/684.long. It seems that Denmark is the first to experiment with the effects of taxation on consumer consumption. We should all pay attention and not be so sure of what the results will be. 

      • Brian

        Your reference is a scientific journalist as well, so I’m not sure if that is better or worse than referencing Taubes. And you are correct, there is a lot of evidence that support both sides of the story as far as saturated fat is concerned. We could probably argue those points til we’re blue in the face. I digress. My point was that if they are trying to prevent obesity, they should tax carbohydrates (ie: sugar and highly refined carbohydrates), as it is pretty well proven that if you restrict carbohydrates, most people will lose weight. Whether or not it’s healthy (to restrict all or most carbohydrates) may be another discussion. The main point of Taubes’ book is that people get fat because they eat (too many) carbohydrates. It’s not a health book, although people may realize a more healthy lifestyle after reading the book and learning about the food they eat. 

        • Gerome

          Brian (and Janice). Yes, I referenced another science writer — who referenced Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven. Now, go to “Google Scholar” and punch in Taubes’ name, and then Reaven’s. You find a marked difference in the the results. Taubes is not a nutrition researcher. His results are opinion articles — Reaven’s are publications of research. See the difference? Janice, there are reams of peer-reviewed research projects that dispute Gary Taubes’ assertions.

          But, I think you are both missing a key point, and perhaps it is because the article may have misled you too. Why do any of us think that Denmark is attempting to fight obesity with this legislation? I think it’s CAD, particularly since overweight and obesity are low in Denmark. I tried and could not find a good article on what the goals of the tax were. So, who knows what they are trying to accomplish.

          If they’re trying to get people to lose weight by taxing butter, I’ll agree with you wholeheartedly that this will have little effect. Healthier eating? Longer life? Eh, maybe a little less butter and a little more olive oil would not be a bad thing. Really, you’ll have a hard time mounting an argument that relies on research that would contradict me.

  • Pingback: Trashfood » Blog Archive » La tassa sui grassi saturi della Danimarca

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Janice-Blawat/1527764001 Janice Blawat

    You know, any fat that is clearly fat is not as dangerous as things like fast food that use a lot of fat you can’t see. I mean, when you put butter on toast you know what you’re doing, but when you order food you can’t see how the cooked it. And I agree that hidden sugars and starches are just as much of a problem. Especially when they’re fried.

  • http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com Nancy – The Frugal Dietitian

    What kind of oils??  All oils including olive oil? Margarine?

  • JMN

    In reply to those who think it will reduce consumption: I live in Denmark. As far as I can tell, this tax will add about 80 cents per pound of butter. But, frankly, given the cost of living here, that really won’t make any difference. I pay 14$ for a pint of good beer, 5-6$ for a take out coffee, and 3$ a liter for organic milk. And, yes, my salary is high to make up for this (and for the high tax rate). So? A small added tax on butter, etc isn’t really going to affect my budget. Everything is pricey here (expect wine) and the standard of living is marvelous.

  • Pingback: Wonders never cease…

  • Guest

    Yeah, Denmark already has a sugar tax and taxes on all kinds of foods and drinks. ‘Foreign’ food, which is basically anything not traditionally Danish, is considered a ‘luxury food’ and taxed additionally. So this is more a continuation of an existing practice than anything new.

  • Pingback: “DENMARK INTRODUCES WORLD’S FIRST TAX ON FATTY FOODS” – (Fooducate, 03/10/2011) | musing&munching

  • Pingback: La tassa sui grassi saturi della Danimarca | Trashfood