"Denmark introduces world's first food fat tax" reports that Denmark has passed laws to tax food that contain more than 2.3% of saturated fats in order to discourage Danish citizens from eating these foods, which include butter, pizza, meat and oils. In response, some citizens have begun hoarding the affected foods, whilst some scientists have suggested that it is not fat, but salty, sugary and processed carbohydrate foods that should be taxed to deter consumption.
What is wrong with this proposal? Why is it foolish? Perhaps more importantly, why don't the Danish scientists and politicians, and the BBC News, seem to realize how seriously flawed the reasoning is?
OK. We can let the BBC off the hook - there job is just to report, not give their opinion. Still, they could have requested an opinion to report that was not so defective. That would have provided some welcome balance against the unjust and irrational proposal.
Or am I wrong?
Is the Danish proposal both sensible and just? It is, after all, exactly the same line of reasoning that is typically used to justify such state interference as taxing cigarettes and alcohol, banning the smoking of cigarettes in restaurants, banning the sale of alcohol to mature adults, banning the sale and use of a range of drugs that many people enjoy, such as heroin, yaa baa and marijuana. If the fatty food tax is just and reasonable, then perhaps all those other things are, too, whilst if the fatty food tax is not just, then the same excuse will also fail for all of the other cases where it is used. A lot of government policy depends on whether this tax is fair and reasonable or not. So, in Thailand, should there be a high tax on fatty pork to discourage Thai citizens from eating such unhealthy things as khao kha muu (ข้าวขาหมู)? Does the Thai government have a duty to start taxing this tasty but unhealthy food along with durian, potato crisps, all deep fried food and so on?
What do you think? Is the tax on fatty foods, and the suggestion that sugary and salty foods also be taxed, a good idea or not? Why or why not? And remember, your arguments will also apply to taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and likely the legal status of many currently illegal substances.
Finally, this reminds me of the question I asked in response to Mur's post on whether rich Americans should be forced to pay higher taxes than they now do: since it means taking their property, what justifies any tax on citizens?
__________
References
And closely related, on the topic of banning cigarettes, is "Cigarette vending machines banned in England", in which the BBC reports on a new law which bans the sale of cigarettes via vending machines in England, a move that has the support of numerous groups such as Cancer Research, the British Heart Foundation, the government's Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, and the National Children's Bureau (2011). About the only dissenting voice is that of the British Beer and Pub Association, whcih is probably a bit biased in its opposition, and which does not present any strong argument to oppose the new law.
ReplyDeleteI don't like this either - it displays the same failure in critical thinking by experts.
I think that there is something seriously wrong in the thinking of the numerous groups who, according to the report, support the new law.
Since obesity is now an equally serious health problem and economic cost to nations, logical consistency requires that dairy farmers who produce butter and cream be severely punished for producing and selling such a dangerous good, which should be banned from display in supermarkets and elsewhere.
And ...
References
Cigarette vending machines banned in England. (2011, October 1). BBC News. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15132529
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThe laws you have strong opposite opinions about has passed in Denmark which is one of the best well-being countries and is well known for its dairy products. I assume that its government has spent a lot of money on treatments for its nations, so its politicians may think that the best way to protect nations from illness and to save money is to cut off the basic reasons of onset of diseases which are related with people's lifestyle.
I think that as a democratic country develops, the nations' freedom depends more strongly on its authority. It may be because its government should take care of the whole citizens, not an individual.
Therefore, It is natural that these kinds of laws are irrational and unjust from the views of certain people.
I would like to hear Danish government's situation.
As you questioned us, Danish government maybe make other laws which focus on salty, sugary, and carbohydrate products, and other countries can come along with Denmark and England.
These laws look like unreasonable measures that are only relevant to minority, causing majority to experience unfairness, but I don't think the number of people who have potential diseases because of bad habits of eating will be reduced unless governments interfere them.
I will correct my mistake in the first sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe laws you have strong opposite opinions about have been passed~~~
Sunny,
ReplyDeleteYes.
Diseases caused by obesity are costing nations more every year, and that cost, as well as saving lives, is the reason given for the tax on butter, pork chops and other fatty foods.
The government does have an obligation to take care of all citizens, and to treat them equally with regard to human rights.
It's your last sentence where I think the problem is, for two reasons. First, private groups and individuals can take action to improve health and solve problems. For example, we know that many people who were once addicted to drugs like alcohol can recover from that addiction, and that people can also make the lifestyle changes necessary to avoid obesity and other serious health problems that damage national economies, so the premise that the government is the only solution is false: well known facts show that government interference is not needed. But the more important reason is the moral one: even in a democracy, things do not become right just because a law is passed, even if it has overwhelming popular support. When governments do the sort of thing that the Danish government has done, they violate the human rights of their citizens, and that is unjust and immoral. Of course, the many medical and other experts disagree with me; they are all completely wrong.
Medical professionals are very good at providing important factual information that must be taken into account, and they are very good at understanding and explaining the correlations and causal connections between things like taxes and eating behaviour. I am sure that the facts they provide on these issues are correct, and I am also sure that the cause and effect analyses are likely correct. But they seem incompetent at reasoning clearly and correctly about the moral issues, and what is just or unjust is more important than the facts when deciding what laws may or may not be passed by government.
I'll present later my argument why such laws, which are exactly the same as high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, laws banning teh advertising of alcohol and tobacco and laws against other drugs, such as heroin, marijuana, and so on, are immoral.
Hint: such laws turn citizens into slaves, and I think that slavery is wrong, even if it's done with "good" intentions, as such unjust laws often are (maybe - I think there is in many cases a much nastier reason behind the nice public relations front).
But your classmates might like to share their ideas first. And I have to go to work now.
Why are so many medical doctors so consistently wrong in their recommendations for government policy on health issues?
ReplyDeleteAnd why are their awful ideas so popularly accepted by a large majority of citizens?
First, the problem in their reasoning: in order to make the necessary connection between the (generally correct) factual observations and conclusions about the dangers of things like butter, heroin, obesity, cigarette smoking, alcohol (wine, beer, whisky and so on), the doctors seem to accept the premiss that if something is unhealthy for an individual, then it is right to control that something, in particular, it is just to punish people who want to do that something. The punishment includes: high taxes, bans, criminalization, restrictions on advertising and sales, and so on.
Perhaps the necessary premiss that being unhealthy is a sufficient reason to justify interference and punishment is plausible, but is it really right? Should we accept it?
If we accept this premiss, what follows from it? What other actions would the government be morally required to take? Some examples, as usual, will be very useful to help us get a clearer idea of what is involved here.
One example would be that pork should be very highly taxed to stop people buying such unhealthy food - this is exactly what the Danish government has recently done, on the advice of its medical experts, and pork farmers should be highly taxed to make it a less attractive business, and restaurants banned from advertising ham, bacon and other unhealthy pork products. Another example would be that overweight people could be justly imprisoned, and treated as criminals, until their weight was acceptable.
I'm sure you can think up more examples of what logically follows from accepting the premiss that unhealthiness justifies punishment to stop the unhealthy behaviour.
So, where does that leave the premiss? Is it really right, or might it be seriously flawed? And if flawed, what is the problem?
The examples I've given, and your own, can suggest that there is something seriously wrong with it, but they don't tell us what is wrong.
Hint: slavery comes next.