Bertrand Borg
Is a fat tax food for thought?
Taxing foods high in saturated fat is not enough to halt obesity, experts say. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
Denmark became the first country in the world to introduce a ‘fat tax’ on foods high in saturated fats. What if Malta follows suit?
It makes for sobering reading: almost one in every four Maltese is obese.
Last year, we spent more money on fatty foodstuffs and less on meat, fish and vegetables. We exercise less than anyone elsein the EU, and local men are the fattest in Europe.
If there is any consolation to be had, it is that the entire developed world is in the throes of an obesity crisis. Last month, an International Red Cross report revealed that obese people now outnumber the starving.
Given governments’ lack of success in getting citizens to adhere to the basic tenets of healthy living – exercise more, eat better, eat less – some are now trying to fix the situation using a well-worn policy tool: taxation.
Denmark set the ball rolling when it introduced a fat tax, but research into junk food taxes is underway in several other countries.
Hungary has introduced a flat rate on foods high in salt, sugar and fat, and Finland and Romania have said they want to adopt a Danish-style law in the near future.
Denmark’s ‘fat tax’ penalises foods with saturated fat contents above 2.3 per cent. A tax isthen levied on such foods, using a baseline rate of €2.15 per kilo of saturated fat.
Transposing Denmark’s tax onto local foods is fairly tricky, as the saturated fat content of any food varies depending on the recipe and cooking method used. But as calculations for a Danish-style ‘fat tax’ on Maltese foods reveal (see table), tariffs are unlikely to deter corpulent eating habits.
A ricotta pastizz would increase in price by 1.5c, while a Big Mac would become 2.1c more expensive. A Burger King Whopper with cheese would rise in price by just over 3c – almost as much as a portion of timpana, which would face a 3.4c increase. The foods worst hit by such a fat tax would be dairy products such as butter, cream and full-fat milk.
Whether or not such price hikes would serve as a nutritional deterrent remains a moot point.
Nutrition and exercise specialist Johanna Calleja, who calculated the saturated fat contents of the various foods for The Sunday Times, felt that while introducing a ‘fat tax’ might encourage people to opt for foods lower in saturated fat, it was not going to solve Malta’s obesity problem.
Comparing a fat tax to taxes levied on cigarettes, Ms Calleja said money is secondary – it isthe will to stop that is the main motivator.
What Malta needed, she said, were “lifestyle modification programmes aimed at helping people to increase their physical activity levels and educating them to adopt a healthy, balanced diet.”
The revenue from such a fattax, she added, could be used to fund such lifestyle modification initiatives.
Economist Gordon Cordina said the main intention of a fat tax would be to induce consumers to eat healthier. Given that healthy foods are generally more expensive than fatty ones, a successful fat tax “would either require a very hefty increase in fatty food products [prices], or the utilisation of the revenues from the fat tax to subsidise healthier food products,” he continued.
Academic research into various foods’ price elasticity – the extent to which a food’s consumption is affected by changes in price – seems to bear out Dr Cordina’s suggestions.
Research at the University ofIllinois has shown that subsidising healthy foods tends to have a more positive effect than taxing unhealthy ones.
Further research at the University of Reading found that while subsidising fruit and vegetables by around 15 per cent improved their consumption significantly, taxing fatty foods did not reduce their consumption.
The research report concluded that “to be effective, a fat tax would need to be combined with other interventions that are designed to reduce consumption”.
Philip Fenech, spokesman for the Malta Chamber for Small and Medium Size Enterprises – GRTU, said that while the principle behind the tax was fair, it made little sense to tax foods which were often eaten after a night out, rather than educate people to eat more healthily.
“Wouldn’t it be more positive to incentivise healthy foods instead?” he asked.
Dr Cordina also warned that it would probably be Malta’s poorest who would be worst impacted if such a tax were introduced.
Research in several Western countries has revealed a strong correlation between povertyand obesity, with people in low-income families muchmore likely to be overweight or obese than those from wealthier backgrounds.
There is little reason to suppose Maltese society is any different.
“It is possibly people in the lower income strata who consume more fatty foods as a proportion of their total income,” said Dr Cordina.
If a fat tax were introduced, there would have to be “some element of compensation towards this category” to guard against any negative repercussions.
Chef and restaurateur David Darmanin questioned the assumptions behind taxing foodstuffs high in saturated fats.
“Taxing cigarettes, which are universally harmful, is one thing. Taxing butter, which can be part of a healthy, balanced diet, is another.”
Setting aside fast foods, “there is no such thing as ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ food,” Mr Darmanin said, “and it is condescending and unfair of the government to say so.”
A fat tax, he added, would unfairly penalise restaurants which used copious amountsof butter, when people only ateat such restaurants on special occasions.
When contacted, a spokesman from the Health Ministry acknowledged that Malta had an obesity problem, and said that an information campaign specificallytargeting obesity was in the process of being launched. He also cited the government’s new online portal for health living at www.ehealth.gov.mt, as an example of ways in which the public could access expert health and nutritional advice.
Questions to the Finance Ministry concerning the possibility of such a fat tax being introduced were not answered by the time of going to print.
| Food | Saturated fat % | Fat tax levied (per portion) |
| Ricotta pastizz | 9.7% | 1.5c |
| Pea pastizz | 6.2% | 1.2c |
| Ħobż biż-żejt | 2.3% | 1.6c |
| Timpana | 4.9% | 3.4c |
| Imqaret | 2.9% | 0.7c |
| Bag of chips | 5.8% | 1.3c |
| Plate of spaghetti carbonara | 6.5% | 2.6c |
| Pack of butter (454gr) | 51% | 49c |
| Cheddar (300gr) | 17% | 11c |
| Ricotta cannoli | 4.8% | 1.5c |
Note: Calculations are approximate, and will vary depending on the recipe used.
Source: Johanna Calleja
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mark Farrugia
Nov 1st 2011, 08:06
While taxing the sat. fat foods is not a bad idea, it gives a distorted idea about human metaboliam. Surely, fatty foods tend to make humans fat but also does alcohol and even more in the case of excessive carbohydrates.
Why aren't then Carbohydrate foods such as sweets, pasta, potatoes, bread and other baked products a target food to be taxed?
One has to remember that pasta, bread and potatoes are the food of the poorer echelons in society. These can include pastizzi and other pastry food items.
The article being discussed indicates Big Mac and Burger King Whopper which if bought in USA are much cheaper making them the food of the poor in America on the same scale as pastizzi in Malta.
It is surprising how the article does not mention chocolates despite their very high fat content. These, together with crispy snacks are presented to children as the wonder food and are resulting in restless children. Which brings us to Mr Mizzi's comment about less Peripatetic PE teachers in schools. Mr Mizzi does not realise that in fact it is the duty of every class teacher to deliver a 30min. PE lesson daily. The primary school PE has the role of supporting these by further lessons. Yet, these PE lessons will not hinder children from eating wrong foods if they are presented to them by their parents.
Jairo Mifsud
Oct 30th 2011, 19:11
a new tax ..... we already have many useless taxes .... people have to know what dangers these food causes..... but they shouldn't be taxed for buying food ! we already pay 18% vat !
Suzanne Piscopo
Oct 30th 2011, 18:16
The ultimate goal of a fat tax is to deter consumers from consuming high fat foods….with the idea of improving their health status. But there are problems with this goal. I will merely concentrate on two issues.
Firstly, one cannot look at saturated fat content of food in isolation. What one needs to look at is nutrient density of the food.
You might have a food which has 5% saturated fat content, 20% unsaturated fat content, 60% carbohydrate content which is mainly sugars, very little protein, plus a whole array of additives.
In contrast, you might have another food which also has 5% saturated fat content, but then only 10% unsaturated fat content, 60% carbohydrate content which is mainly wholegrains, some protein, plus a variety of minerals or vitamins.
The latter is much more nutrient dense, lower in calories and has a greater health value.
Secondly, using subsidies and incentives to encourage greater production or consumption of healthier – more nutrient dense foods – rather than a tax on fat could work. It might also be fairer on all consumers. Once again, this is not a straightforward ‘one thing automatically leads to another’ scenario. It depends on the emotional, prestige, health value the consumer gives to the food, on the age of the consumer, and on his/her current economic status among others (See this recent report from the Economic Research Service of the USDA on the effect of food prices on children’s BMI- http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR118/ERR118_ReportSummary.pdf ). Subsidies and incentives require a lot of research and planning to be effective.
Whilst some form of fiscal measures might help to tip the balance towards greater consumption of healthier foods, the focus should always be on facilitating and encouraging a healthier truly Mediterranean-style diet…where a variety of foods from different food groups are consumed, in reasonable amounts, augmented with plenty of water and physical activity and where food is consumed (as much as possible) in a pleasant setting, preferably with friends and family.
And of course, this should all start when children are very young. We need to help shape informed healthier lifestyle habits at an early age. Support by different government departments, industry, the media, schools and parents for provision of healthier foods and opportunities for physical activity, and for effective health and nutrition education is crucial. Working together, in parallel, on different fronts is the way to go.
Mr Clayton Mangion
Oct 30th 2011, 17:59
So Far For Democracy ... Hello Communism!!! Ha tollu il buttier ax kulhadd juzah ara vera dal gvern sejjer al estreem . Kisirtu Poplu Malti Gonzi Pn ... Isthi .,,,
Katrina Portelli
Nov 3rd 2011, 17:48
Clayton Mangion- Firstly, remove the Mr from your name. It is not needed- we can tell from your name that you are a "Mr". There are people who have posted comments regarding this newspaper article who are doctors in the field of nutrition and you do not find Dr anywhere near their name.
Secondly, I wonder if you actually read the article, because there is absolutely no mention that ANY Maltese government is proposing or thinking of following Denmark's decision to tax fatty food. It was an informative article simply summarizing what Denmark did and reasons as to why they decided to do it- reasons which apply even more so to Malta as we have an alarming rate of obesity and child obesity - and of course an "intelligent" person such as yourself can understand the negative effects that such a condition may have on obese persons as well the Maltese tax payers who may have to pay for any treatment they may need as a result of their condition.
Read articles which are there to help you- don't associate them with politics ALL the time..unfortunately the old Maltese saying comes to mind; Jekk ma titkellimx, taqta figura ahjar".
Mr Marcel Mizzi
Oct 30th 2011, 16:28
I think that we should first consider what we are doing in schools. I recently found out that in Government schools there are no PE teachers. There is a shared one that goes around schools. Before we discuss tax on food, shouldn't we make sure that our schools are giving our kids a chance at getting used to exercising ?
No wonder we have obesity when during their formative years kids are not exposed to any kind of sports during their training !
James Wightman
Oct 30th 2011, 13:58
You can pay a small tax now or a big one later when we start having (we already do) fix, as a country, health problems due to overweight, poor knees, poor backs, poor hearts.
How do you want your tax small now or big later? A new twist on 'go large'.
Joseph Schembri
Oct 30th 2011, 16:30
mLater when ? And if I die before I get ''obese'' ? Get I life you ''health'' nuts. Can any body answer my question about my sports concern, further down in this column ?
Joseph Schembri
Oct 30th 2011, 12:03
I do not want to die healthy. We pay enough taxes as it is. You cannot force feed people. What if a
sportsman injures himself badly, do we start putting taxes on sports goods now ?
C Cassar
Oct 30th 2011, 19:15
Sports and excercise keep the majority who participate in them fit & healthy. Unhealthy foods keep the majority of those who eat them unhealthy. Sure they won't feel anything for quite a few years but then the damage is don and can't be undone. Why should those who make an effort to stay healthy and not be a burden on the tax-payer be punished? Thoise that can't be bothered to educate themselves using the abundant and esy to access information that is now available on nutition should pay for their lazyness.
The number of families I've seen in Malta feeding their kids cakes, milkshakes, burgers and pizzas is quite staggering. They're killing their own children because now they have come into a bit of extra cash, How very selfish of them.
Andre Fenech
Oct 30th 2011, 10:55
I totally agree with such a fiscal measure, nevertheless such a measure should be developed in conjunction with a national media campaign on nutrition. Too many people simply do not know what to eat and for God's sake we need to walk and exercise more, we've really become a nation of "couch potatoes". These people will also become a burden on society because of their dietary attitudes, the same applies to smokers and that is why cigarettes have become so expensive, the same should apply for fatty foods.
Obesity increases the likelihood of various diseases, particularly heart disease, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, certain types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. Who do you think pays for all the treatment, society in general? Let's teach our kids from a very young age the importance of sports and good nutrition.
stephen koludrovic
Oct 30th 2011, 10:17
One suggestion might be to reduce some of these useless talk shows that we are saturated with on TV, and put on a few aerobic shows instead.
Mr Joe Borg
Oct 30th 2011, 09:18
Why should I pay more because someone can't control himself.
E. Buhagiar
Oct 30th 2011, 09:09
Il-gvernijiet jafu li t-taxxa fuq is-sigaretti hija gholja immens ghax it-tendenza hija li min ipejjep se jibqa jpejjep indipendentement mill-prezz tas-sigaretti! Bazikament it-taxxa fuq ix-xaham mhux se tnaqqas wisq l-obezita imma tkun semplicement introjtu iehor ghal gvern.
Jien tal-idea li minflok taxxa fuq ix-xaham tal-ikel tiddahhal taxxa fuq il-Body Mass Index (BMI) ta' kull persuna u dan ikun ta' beneficcju ghal kulhadd specjalment ghal xi 4 membri tal-Parlament :-)
Mr Albert Borg
Oct 30th 2011, 10:19
ir raguni li gholiet it taxxa mhux biex in nies jiefqu primarjament, izda biex kemm jista jkun inqas nies jibdew.
R. Cilia
Oct 30th 2011, 10:36
Like :)
Anna Borg
Oct 30th 2011, 08:58
Why does it all have to come down to taxes?? How about reducing the prices of healthy food instead? At this point in time cooking a wholesome pot of minestra is proving to be much costlier that buying some pastizzi! Healthy food needs to be more financially accessible to those who are on a tight budget.
Stefan Zammit
Oct 30th 2011, 10:47
Keep dreaming, minestra is not much more expensive - water and a few veggies will not cost you more than a few euros if you buy them from the farmers' market (rather than supermarkets); pastizzi on the other hand are there ready to buy and being more tasty they suit the lazy Joe's and Cicca's thoughts.
wayne scicluna
Oct 30th 2011, 07:56
Just let us eat what we want in peace! All this propaganda about fat and slimness is really going too far now! Every person has a right to eat the way they choose. Some people seek food as comfort instead of drugs....should society penalize them? Having said that, I am neither fat nor overweight but just live and let live.
James Wightman
Oct 30th 2011, 13:55
Because there is a later social cost and ealth bill you, me and every one else pays for.