Thu, Aug-27-20, 17:58
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,908
|
|
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000
BF:
Progress: 50%
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
If the tax money is spent on something genuinely health-promoting that would be a plus, but realistically if I decided I wanted some junk food an eight percent higher price wouldn't deter me from buying it so don't know if it will others.
|
My guess is that it won't affect most people, unless they really, truly can not afford it. Since taxes are shown as part of the purchase price on the shelf in the UK, chances are that 8% will only be looked at as an 8% price increase - they'll complain but pay it anyway, because they want that particular junk food.
Quote:
Energy density? I wonder if that would include sugary foods like fat-free candies and sweet drinks that are a bit lower in absolute energy density but not healthy. Hopefully the unhealthy food definition won't expand to include high energy density nutritious foods like meat, dairy or natural fats that some people still picture as unhealthy.
|
Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that's exactly what will happen. If they expand it to starch based junk (instead of just sugary junk), then they're dangerously close to putting a junk food tax on the staff of life: Bread, and other staples, such as pasta, rice, and flour. Even just using the term energy dense implies fats, since fats have more than twice the cals/gram as carbs and protein. And fats still have a widely held reputation as the baddest of the bad baddies in the dietary world, and that's not likely to change any time soon, unless they really start listening to those who actually know what they're talking about, such as Maholtra and Mosley.
Quote:
Chris Thomas, IPPR senior health fellow, said: "In July, the Government made welcome commitments to tackle obesity, but faced with the scale of the obesity epidemic, it was just one small step, not a giant leap.
"The disastrous impact of obesity on our health and society demands we go further.
|
If they leave it at sugars, and expand into starch based foods (such as chips/crisps, and biscuits/cookies), then that would certainly help.
The problem is that when it comes to taxing the chips and cookies, it's far more than likely they'll be going after fat, not starch, for the exact reasons I stated above.
|