Denmark scraps fat tax in another Big Food victory

Denmark has scrapped the world’s first “fat tax”, which was charged on foods high in saturated fats, after just one year. Plans to introduce a tax on sugar have also been abandoned. In making the announcement, the Danish government said the tax had been criticised for increasing prices for consumers…

Fzxpqyzw-1353023792
The move to end the tax appears to be a political one. Sam Howzit

Denmark has scrapped the world’s first “fat tax”, which was charged on foods high in saturated fats, after just one year. Plans to introduce a tax on sugar have also been abandoned.

In making the announcement, the Danish government said the tax had been criticised for increasing prices for consumers and companies, and for putting Danish jobs at risk.

The government also said that because the tax pushed up the price of dairy products, meat and processed foods, some Danes had begun crossing the border into Germany and Sweden to stock up on cheaper food.

The impact of the tax

The tax was introduced in October 2011, in an attempt to limit the population’s intake of fatty foods, and reduce obesity rates. According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47% of Danes are overweight and 13% are obese.

Despite the reasons given for scrapping the tax, it does not appear as though a formal evaluation of the impact of the tax has been conducted. Accordingly, it is not possible to comment on what impact the tax actually had on consumer behaviour and costs to businesses and the economy.

The decision comes as a disappointment to public health advocates who have recommended taxes on unhealthy foods as a way of addressing obesity and other health concerns. A formal evaluation of the impact of the tax could have been used to inform other governments, such as the United Kingdom and Ireland, currently considering taxes on unhealthy foods.

A political decision

The move to end the tax appears to be a political one. Denmark currently has a minority government in place, and requires support from multiple parties to pass legislation in parliament. The announcement came as part of negotiations on the 2013 budget.

While we can only speculate on the political influences behind the decision, we do know that powerful multinational food and beverage manufacturers, often referred to as “Big Food”, are strongly against taxes on unhealthy foods. Trade associations representing the food industry have campaigned vociferously to avoid these types of taxes. Given the enormous influence of Big Food, it is reasonable to expect that they had at least some influence over this decision.

A formal evaluation of the impact of the tax doesn’t seem to have been conducted. Vox Efx

This echoes the failure of the European parliament to introduce traffic-light labelling on foods, following the successful €1 billion lobbying campaign by Big Food in opposition to the proposed labels.

The tremendous influence of corporate power on public decision making is a major public health concern. As the high rates of diabetes, heart disease and cancer continue to put enormous burden on our society, the public health implications of business decision making – particularly with respect to food environments – needs to be more thoroughly investigated than it currently is.

Situation in Australia

In Australia, there has been no indication by governments that new taxes on unhealthy foods are being considered. Other regulatory options to tackle obesity, such as restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, are also not on the government agenda. This is despite convincing evidence that these interventions are likely to work and be cost-effective.

Instead, governments are leaving the processed food industry to regulate their own efforts to improve food environments. Detailed analysis has shown how Big Food’s own advertising codes that claim to protect children from junk food advertising have resolutely failed. The food industry continues to promote their products despite childhood obesity sitting at record levels.

Implications for other governments

While we don’t know know if Denmark’s fat tax would have had its desired impact on public health, the worry is that other governments may see Denmark’s short-lived and un-evaluated experiment as a political failure and a warning not to investigate similar options themselves.

The biggest concern is that governments around the world appear to be acting in favour of corporate interests, whilst not considering the long-term health of society.

The hope is that governments will show the political will to continue to investigate and evaluate cost-effective strategies to improve population diets and prevent obesity. These may be in the form of the Danish fat tax or others, such as taxes on soft drinks. Other options may be bans on the marketing of unhealthy foods, or restrictions on serving sizes, such as the limit recently imposed in New York.

Join the conversation

10 Comments sorted by

  1. Ian Donald Lowe

    Seeker of Truth

    "The tremendous influence of corporate power on public decision making is a major public health concern."
    Indeed. In fact, I would say the tremendous influence of corporate power on public decision making in all areas should be the major public concern of our times.

    "The food industry continues to promote their products despite childhood obesity sitting at record levels."
    The food industry markets directly at children, purposely to promote their unhealthy products to children and undermine parental…

    Read more
    1. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Ian Donald Lowe

      I'm with you on this one, Ian. Fat and sugar consumption are perfectly normal components of good health - in moderation and balancing intake with output.

      Cigarette smoking, on the other hand, has no safe level of consumption, and cannot contribute to good health. A much better focus for taxation.

      report
  2. Comment removed by moderator.

  3. Jason Calvert

    logged in via Twitter

    People should certainly take responsibility for their own health. I agree with this concept under a couple of conditions:

    a) They are willing and able to foot the bill for the medical costs they are imposing on themselves in the future

    b) They are fully informed of the impacts that consumption of certain foods at certain levels has on their health. And I don't just mean have access to information. I mean they can also fully digest any provided information too.

    Sadly, in many cases I think…

    Read more
    1. Steve Brown

      logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

      In reply to Jason Calvert

      "People over-consuming saturated fats for their own pleasure are imposing health costs on the government"

      Jason, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare puts saturated fat consumptions amongst Australians at only 13% of total energy intake. A tiny amount.

      http://www.aihw.gov.au/risk-factors-nutrition/

      Look at most processed foods these days- saturated fats aren't contained in any of them. Everything is cooked in or contains polyunsaturated fat seed oils. Saturated fats just aren't widely consumed here anymore, at least not in the amounts they are consumed in other countries like France who aren't experiencing an obesity epidemic.

      I agree that it's everybody's personal responsibility to make wise food choices but that can only happen if people are well informed.

      report
  4. Mark Dressler

    logged in via email @gmail.com

    Glad to hear that the tax was scrapped. The underlying assumptions about what makes people fat are so wrong. Saturated fat from grass fed animals is a vital part of a healthy diet. Saturated fat doesn't make you fat and of itself doesn't cause heart disease. High-quality saturated fats are already very expensive; think locally produced (boutique) dairy products and locally grown meat.

    If anything is to be taxed, it should be hydrogenated fats, trans fats, seed oils and sugar; that would increase the prices of all the snackfoods which are found in the middle aisles at the supermarket or near the checkouts, as well as cheap white bread and fast take-away foods. That's where big food politics comes into play.

    report
  5. Alberto Alemanno

    logged in via Facebook

    Having followed and written about the Danish fat tax over the last year, I do agree with what Gary wrote about this fiscal scheme. However, contrary to what is stated, we don't dispose of "convincing evidence that these interventions are likely to work and be cost-effective" (The Lancet's article does not provide us with no evidence whatsoever on this point). The Danish fat tax could have been the first policy experiment to provide us with some empirical evidence on its effectiveness. Unfortunately it was scrapped for political reasons that are far from public health concerns. For an analysis of where we stand on fat taxes after the Danish decision, see http://albertoalemanno.eu/articles/the-future-of-fat-taxes-after-denmarks-withdrawal-of-its-fiscal-scheme

    report
  6. Steve Brown

    logged in via email @yahoo.com.au

    A very foolish government initiative based off a litany of junk science. There is not one iota of good evidence that saturated fats are causing the epidemic of obesity and related diseases we are seeing now, and plenty of good evidence against it (the French, Swiss, Tokelau, Masaai etc).

    We simply can't trust our governments to get involved in these matters. Their advice is based on economic and political imperatives, not health ones. They need to keep the food supply as cheap as they possibly can for a variety of reasons as well as not earning the ire of certain agricultural lobbies. That means researchers who come bearing the 'evidence' which fits with what our politicians need to hear get the job of drafting dietary guidelines.

    Don't get your science from economically and politically interested stakeholders.

    report
  7. Phillip Baker

    PhD Candidate at Australian National University

    Its interesting some of the comments that have followed this article - its almost like a small group of people are organized into astro-turfing a 'no nanny-state' mantra. Very Institute of Public Affairs-ish.

    Great article Gary, I think you are absolutely right - this is about government caving in to powerful food industry interests. Yes, a degree of personal responsibility is warranted, but until governments address the commercial determinants of toxic food environments the onslaught of obesity…

    Read more
  8. Alison Moore

    Senior Lecturer in Modern European History, University of Western Sydney

    Taxing entire macronutrients is not a good solution for a number of reasons. There is a lot of emergent biomedical research suggesting that fat is not per se the cause of either obesity or in CVD. Obesity, diabestes and CVD are continually rising while fat consumption has been declinied markedly throughout the affluent West since the mid 1970s.

    No one food is the source of any health condition on an epidemiological scale. But....excess kjoules relative to engery expenditure is the big problem…

    Read more