France to tax foods "too fat, too sweet, too salty"

[PicBuddy]

A report from inspectors submitted to the health and finance ministers recently recommends that excise duty should be increased on sweetened and alcoholic drinks, and the value added tax (VAT) on foods deemed “too fat, too sweet, too salty than strictly necessary” be raised from 5.5 per cent to 19.6 per cent.

The authors point to the medical problems caused by being obese or overweight, notably high blood pressure, diabetes and cancer, and describe how treatment will weigh on public finances.

MORE...
France chews over tax to fight obesity - The National Newspaper

[Food Network Fan]

I think maybe you need to read the forum rules if you didn't when you signed up.

Food Network Fans - Forum Rules

[PicBuddy]

Originally Posted by Food Network Fan

I think maybe you need to read the forum rules if you didn't when you signed up.

Food Network Fans - Forum Rules

Yep, I did read that. And I don't see posting a food news in food news to be a violation of anything it says in the rules.

Could you be more specific as to what is wrong with that post? Thanks!

[Food Network Fan]

What exactly are we supposed to discuss about the food in that story? Other than the use of government politically regulate it?

[PicBuddy]

Originally Posted by Food Network Fan

What exactly are we supposed to discuss about the food in that story? Other than the use of government politically regulate it?

That's a fair enough question. Items that come to my mind are;

If this were to go through, would people be more inclined to select healthier food choices due to the somewhat large increase in taxes? Let's say two products on the shelf suddenly fall into two different categories due to the new regulations; One with an average amount of sweetness, saltyness, etc., or one outside of the 'average'. Would consumers select the lower cost / healthier items?

It's an interesting study to watch, and I think it would be quite interesting to see the results.

Can't say what we would do. Certainly a person has the right to select whatever they want to eat, but the underlying reason here is that the added taxes revenues could be used to offset the negative effects of higher consumption of foods deemed “too fat, too sweet, too salty than strictly necessary”.

I would LOVE to be able to buy foods, such as frozen prepared foods that do not contain higher amounts of salt than "strictly necessary", just as an example. Yet with no motivation in place for the food producers or consumer (like their wallet), there's not really anything in place to drive food quality in that direction. And of course I am not just talking about France, anywhere. That just so happens to be news from France. And if that isn't though provoking 'food news' I don't know what is...

If you had let's say a favorite snack food, one with only the amount of salt necessary, and one deemed "too much", and the prices varied on the tax by up to 15%, would you change your selection based on what you may want more, or leave the price as the primary concern?

[Food Network Fan]

You can always freeze things yourself. Watch Alton tonight and he will give you some examples of how to do that.

Products are sold based on what makes a profit for the company. What you are suggesting about tax brings a political aspect to it I am not going to get into.

The market drives what anyone sells, there are health food stores that cater to everything from no salt to no wheat products, fully vegetarian. The prices are higher because they sell less of that stuff. If there were to be a big demand for them more of the traditional market would pick it up. Years ago you didn't see whole grain breads on the regular bread shelf. That became popular in a smaller market and expanded. Same with the whole "low carb" thing. When specialty high priced items become more popular, they become mainstream. If people won't buy it, they won't sell it.

[Chefnot]

You can always freeze things yourself. Watch Alton tonight and he will give you some examples of how to do that.

Would love to watch that, but I'll be outside. We are freezing our tomatoes this year for the first time.

[bakerman]

Yeah this could easily become political. I am a little conflicted on this subject, as I think that this may push manufactures to lower the amount of bad stuff in their products, but on the other hand people need to be responsible for their own health, the resources are out there.

[PicBuddy]

Actually this post was not intended to be "political" at all. I guess if a person were looking hard enough, almost -anything- is political. Actually trying to determine if something may be considered political to another, is political.... Hahah! (Just kidding)

What I thought would be an interesting discussion would be what people would do if there were two different price levels of their favorite things. For ANY reason, not just a weird "fee", but for -any- reason at all. On which is based on the bare standards of items required, or one which is more expensive and may or may not taste better.

Now, totally agreed there that the "resources are out there", there are options, yet in some areas they are very few and far between. Let's say that this "entity that will remain unnamed" determined that sweet items included corn syrup thus putting food makers into a position of having to shift production to something that may be a little more expensive to produce (perhaps 8% more), yet their bottom line would be 4% higher after their returns, because uhm......... Let's just say because a giant chain with buying power lowered their purchase price for items "too sweet" and embraced whatever alternative products may be out there.

I believe a good example of this, is where stores like Whole Foods drawing so well that it has inspired health type sections with greater variety in our local standard type grocery stores (HEB is our fave and an example of that market shift in attention). So more now than ever you may be able to find two types of cola and cheese doodles. One that you may like better, might not contain the best of ingredients, and for some -any- reason got more expensive. Then you have the other one, where the price is suddenly equalized due to the chain lowering the purchases prices on the original item, what would people buy.

Sorry if that's a confusing question. My wife and I have discussed it and we would more than likely buy what tastes better, regardless of the price, yet figure in the quality of the ingredients on a rational level compared to our frequency of intake on that particular item.

Basically, for me, if I only eat a bag of cheese doodles once a month, there's the health one, and then the good one, yet not as health and more expensive, I would go with the later. Yet if it were an every day item, we would consider the former more perhaps.

[Food Network Fan]

Some people wont shop at whole foods because of the price. They could choose on their own to lower the prices and I am sure the people willing to shop there would go up. But it must not be advantageous for them to do so, or they would do it to increase their number of shoppers. If they can't afford to lower the price to match the other traditional chains, what you seem to be saying is the traditional chains should be forced to raise their price (unwillingly by some "entity") so it equals what you would pay at Whole Foods or Trader Joes. Meaning the store couldn't sell what they normally sell at the standard price. Do you know what happens when people can't afford to buy those things? They buy cheaper things that have little nutritional value at all. Dried beans, rice, corn breads, tortillas, lards to make up for flavor from not being able to afford meat. Those are staple ingredients of poverty and the health issues become worse. Because what you are suggesting raises the price for people who can't afford to buy better quality items to begin with. Making what they can afford to buy more expensive really isn't going to improve their diet.