A year ago, NewScientist said about "tax on oil", introduced in Denmark. It was the first in the world to attempt to limit thus the consumption of products containing more than 2.3% saturated fat. Alas, under strong pressure from the food industry and in connection with the weak economy, the Danish government abolished tax and abandoned plans to introduce "tax on sugar."

Nobody likes taxes, but this was especially unpopular, because consumers did not smile to pay more for butter, dairy products and meat - products naturally high in fat. But the real reason for the cancellation was not public opinion and the interests of business circles. It was argued that the tax is raised costs threatened the jobs and forced the Danes to buy products in Sweden and Germany. The government agreed with this.

Marion was Nestl from new York University (USA) offers a look at the problem from a medical point of view. How effective tax in achieving the purpose for which it was introduced? And more broadly that the authorities can do to reduce the risk of obesity by dietary factors?

The aim was to reduce the consumption of such products. Thus, the authorities have set the task to increase revenue, reduce costs, associated with obesity and related diseases, and to improve health and increase longevity. One year is too small to assess the effect of health effects, but it is reported that the tax is brought to the budget of $ 216 million Now the money will be levied by the profits tax.

Business circles insist that the tax did not affect the amount of fat consumed by the Danes, but economists at the University of Copenhagen deny this. According to their calculations, fat intake dropped by 10-20% in the first three months after the introduction of the tax. However, it became the cause of the tax, unknown, because at the same time the Danish economy is in crisis and overall reduction in demand.

A recent analysis published in the journal BMJ, says that the minimum tax rate on food, which is able to produce measurable improvements in health is 20%. The price of Danish products, taxed, increased by 9%. It is enough just to call a political storm.

Ms. Nestl notes that in any case in the first place we should introduce a tax on sugary drinks, because obesity is becoming the result of excessive consumption of calories compared with what we burn. The extra calories, whether carbohydrates, proteins or fats are stored as fat. All dietary fats are a mixture of unsaturated and saturated fatty acids, and all of them give the same number of calories per unit mass.

Saturated fats increase the risk of developing coronary heart disease, but not much. A more serious risk factor are the fats that are prohibited in Denmark since 2003. Since saturated fatty acids vary in severity, the introduction of a single tax is hardly reasonable from a scientific point of view.

For these reasons, the tax obesity should not be aimed at a wide group of nutrients. Instead, you must focus on processed food, fast food or sweet drinks, i.e. the main sources of calories.

What else should we expect from the authorities? First, we note that they have something to do with obesity and related problems, not least because the state bears the main share of the cost of solving these problems. For example, in USA the corresponding loss of health $147-190 billion a year. That is, we must act urgently. But how?

Lesson Denmark is that small countries with open border is contraindicated to raise the prices of food, if the neighbors do not follow this example. Even more important lesson is that any attempt to make people eat less will face tough opposition of the food industry. The American States and individual cities that have already experienced: producers of soft drinks successfully invest tens of millions of dollars in lobbying legislators and convincing the public that the authorities are depriving citizens of the right to choose, and that such restrictions are hurting the economy.

Note and the paradox: obesity is especially common among people with low income, but the poor are the first to stand up against the tax.

If the government really wants to reduce the costs that are associated with chronic conditions coming from obesity, sooner or later will have to find a way to force the manufacturers of harmful products to take responsibility for health problems. Only then, according to Ms. Nestl, the war will change soon.

Prepared according to NewScientist.