There are several arguments against the introduction of a ‘fat tax’. It could end up as a tax on the poor because low-income families are more likely to consume cheap, fatty food. It might also be just another revenue-gathering scheme for the government as it can be argued that there are already taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, but that does not stop people from smoking and drinking. Besides, what right does the government have to dictate what people should eat? Who would decide exactly which foods merit a ‘fat tax’? These questions aside, the most cogent argument against a food tax is that food alone is not responsible for obesity and ill health. Exercise and genetic factors, not to mention portion sizes, all have a part to play.
In defence of a tax on unhealthy food, I would contend that the government has a right to collect tax from products that cost millions of dollars every year in medical treatment and lost productivity. Statistics show that the obese are less likely to be employed and are, therefore, a greater burden on society. In any case, it would not be an outright ban on unhealthy food – people could still eat what they want – but higher prices would discourage over-consumption and reduce demand. Admittedly, it might be difficult to decide which foods would attract the tax, but a good start would be sugar-laden beverages such as ‘energy’ drinks, deep-fried takeaways, chips, chocolate and sweets.
To conclude, I think government intervention in the form of a new tax is justified when society’s well-being is at stake. Obviously, many people fail to make the connection between diet and disease and ultimately society pays for the costs of their consumption of unhealthy food.