(iStockphoto)
This week, Denmark begins a large-scale incentives trial of sorts by becoming the first country to impose a nationwide fat tax. From now on, foods in Denmark with saturated fat content above 2.3% will be taxed 16 Danish kroner ($2.87) per kilogram of saturated fat; which works out to a tax of about $1.28 per pound of saturated fat. The tax was reportedly preceded by weeks of Danes stocking up on items like butter, red meat and pizza.
The issue of taxing fatty or sugary foods (and more broadly, the effectiveness of behavioral nudges) has been a topic of repeated discussion on this blog. James McWilliams posted last December on studies which indicate that while taxing sugary sodas reduces consumption, others have shown soda taxes to be ineffective at reducing obesity rates. Proof, McWilliams argues, that taxing specific food items is ultimately ineffective, since consumers can simply substitute sugar from other non-soda sources.
Research also indicates that taxes on specific types of fatty foods need to be quite high before impacting our behavior. For example, the results of this 2007 study show that a 10% tax on dairy fat reduces fat consumption by less than one percentage point. Steve Sexton‘s post last month deriding the notion of mandated calorie counts fired up a lot of our readers. In it, he points to this Stanford study (ungated version here) that shows New York City’s calorie-count law to be fairly ineffective at reducing calorie consumption, at least when it comes to NYC Starbucks.
This all underpins what’s so interesting about the Denmark tax: instead of taxing a particular product, it casts a wide net around all saturated fats. Most importantly, it gets straight to the point: rather than gently reminding people of what they should (or shouldn’t) eat, it is a real fat tax.
But, why Denmark? The country’s obesity rate of 10% is traditionally below the average for OECD countries. Apparently, the Danish government isn’t satisfied with the life expectancy of its population, currently 78 years. A primary goal of the tax, reportedly, is to push that to 81. Which of course may carry its own economic ramifications.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Instead of punishing bad eating why not reward fit people with tax incentives and tax breaks since they will typically be less strain on government systems.
Fit people are getting a tax break by not buying these items.
While you’re at it, why not reward people who obey the speed limit instead of giving tickets for speeding? Or why not reward non-smokers instead of taxing the hell out of cigarettes?
The majority is going to be non-obese, so giving everybody a tax break will cost money while adding tax on saturated fat, often found in unhealthy food, will bring in money.
The majority may not be non-obese in America if we keep adding obese people at our current rate.
Will Danish women become even more sexy?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
I presume the Danish government introduced this tax because of the perceived threat that saturated fat causes both obesity and heart disease.
Science shows that both of these premises are false. The authors of a study published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2003;78:1331-1336 conclude a high saturated fat diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid levels, and further weight loss with a lipid-neutral effect may persist for up to 52 weeks.
Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (1997) 145 (10): 876-887 found that men who consumed the most saturated fats had a 27% decrease in coronary death and an 13% decrease in major coronary events compared to those men that consumed the least.
These are just 2 studies. However the scientific literature shows many, many examples where saturated fat has in fact many beneficial effects on human health.
I urge people to do their own research and come to their own conclusions with regards to the effects of saturated fat on health. Search my website (healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com) for the results of hundreds of studies and you will be surprised at what the scientific literature actually says.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
2
High saturated fat levels correlates well with foods that are generally unhealthy and lead to weight gain. While there might not be causation, this would still be a good way to target the foods in question in a way that is easily measurable and enforceable. It is the same as regulating cars based on engine displacement as a stand in for actual fuel economy or top speed.
Sometime, somewhere, someone is going to tax inactivity (a “Rump Tax”). I’m only half joking.
Unfortunately if the fat tax has any effect it probably will be to increase obesity. As others have pointed out saturated fat is not the problem everyone thinks it is. A growing number of scientists and doctors are coming to understand the refined carbs, processed vegetable oils and excessive omega-6 oils are the real problems. I say this as a retired and reformed dietitian who now enjoys plenty of butterand whole raw milk.
WTF??
Government should not engage in behaviour modification – at all. Government only ever interferes because it needs jobs to give out to faitful cronies, because it sees another opportunity of raising taxes and to strenghten it’s grip on it’s tiresome proles and underlings..
Anybody incidently who wants to save his family from the lard ogre should learn how to cook, and reinstall family meals at table.
I lived in Denmark and the US, and because there is universal healthcare in Denmark it makes sense. I eat healthier in Denmark, I think because of taxes. For example, in Denmark juice is cheaper than soda. Which is the opposite than in the US. Overall, in the US I tend to drink MUCH more soda than in Denmark.
We shouldn’t be concerned about reducing obesity rates, but about the justified price a person has to pay for healthcare. If you risk your health by eating a certain amount of saturated fat content, wouldn’t be fair that you will pay your healthcare instead of other people?