[stanlas]

Concerned by the growing number of obese people (almost a quarter of all adults in 2009) in the UK and on its potential impact on the NHS (it already costs the NHS over a billion pounds a year), this petition would try to tackle the problem by:

1) Increasing VAT on all foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fat by five percentage point (inspired by measures recently introduced in Denmark) to reduce unhealthy consumption patterns

2) Following the recommendations of the October 2008 'Models of Nutrient Demand, Tax Policy & Public Health Impact' Report by using the money raised from part 1 to subsidise fruit and vegetables (therefore allowing poorer people to eat more heathily)

3) Encouraging higher levels of participation in sport and exercise by giving every person who has an income of under 30,000 pounds (roughly three quarters of the working population), is unemployed or is still in training and education free 'sport vouchers,' which can be used to pay for access to anygyms or sport-related activites (such as dance classes) in the UK (the vouchers will each have a maximum value of 100 pounds per year)

[andrewpeters]

Whoa we gotta bad ass here...

[bornfishy]

What about the vast majority of us, who are completely healthy and enjoy fatty foods as part of a balanced diet? Rather punishing the healthy majority for the actions of the unhealthy minority, no?

[andrewpeters]

Is your name David Cameron? No?

[andrewpeters]

IDGAF! (I don't give away food)

[Scott1541]

(Original post by andrewpeters)
Whoa we gotta bad ass here...

More like we gotta fat ass over here

[stanlas]

(Original post by andrewpeters)
Is your name David Cameron?

No it isn't. Cameron only really wanted the fat tax; as far as I am aware the subsidy for the gym and subsidies for fruit and vege have nothing to do with Cameron's policies.

(Original post by bornfishy)
What about the vast majority of us, who are completely healthy and enjoy fatty foods as part of a balanced diet? Rather punishing the healthy majority for the actions of the unhealthy minority, no?

If you lead a healthy diet, then the impact of the extra tax should be minimal (as you don't eat a lot of fatty food) and you will benefit from the subsidies

(Original post by andrewpeters)
Whoa we gotta bad ass here...

I'm ony trying to get a petition passed.

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
Concerned by the growing number of obese people (almost a quarter of all adults in 2009) in the UK and on its potential impact on the NHS (it already costs the NHS over a billion pounds a year), this petition would try to tackle the problem by:

1) Increasing VAT on all foods containing more than 2.3% saturated fat by five percentage point (inspired by measures recently introduced in Denmark) to reduce unhealthy consumption patterns

2) Following the recommendations of the October 2008 'Models of Nutrient Demand, Tax Policy & Public Health Impact' Report by using the money raised from part 1 to subsidise fruit and vegetables (therefore allowing poorer people to eat more heathily)

3) Encouraging higher levels of participation in sport and exercise by giving every person who has an income of under 30,000 pounds (roughly three quarters of the working population), is unemployed or is still in training and education free 'sport vouchers,' which can be used to pay for access to anygyms or sport-related activites (such as dance classes) in the UK (the vouchers will each have a maximum value of 100 pounds per year)

Thank you for posting in the HoC. Out of interest, would you happen to have any statistics that show the effects of the proposals of this petition?

[ElizM_94]

(Original post by Scott1541)
More like we gotta fat ass over here

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL both your comments are hilarious

[MacDaddi]

You can't force people to do anything. The only one who should care about how much you weigh is YOURSELF. The government should not tell people how much they should exercise. Raising prices won't help the problem either as we have seen with Tobacco and Alcohol.

Seriously. You can't force people to do anything they don't want to do. If you do, it ends up with consequences.

And on a side note, I exercise regularly, eat responsibly and am generally healthy. Why should I pay more for the occasional treat?

[Alexandra's Box]

That does actually seem quite reasonable.

And it is not really a small minority who eat lots of unhealthy food - even if someone looks slim they could be 'fat on the inside.'

Plus it would save lots of NHS money in the long run.

[KCosmo]

(Original post by bornfishy)
What about the vast majority of us, who are completely healthy and enjoy fatty foods as part of a balanced diet? Rather punishing the healthy majority for the actions of the unhealthy minority, no?

I'm not saying that I agree with these proposals, but surely people who have a balanced diet wouldn't be affected financially, as the extra money they spend on fatty food they would get back on cheaper healthy food? And also give a financial incentive to eat healthier?

[Mr Dangermouse]

No.


I wouldn't be particularly opposed to point 3 though. Has it been costed?

[stanlas]

(Original post by toronto353)
Out of interest, would you happen to have any statistics that show the effects of the proposals of this petition?

Not very many, but for:

1) I remember reading that the Denmark one was meant to cut fat consumtion by 10 percent and bring in several hundred million dollars (so in the UK a similar tax would probably yield similar results, except the amount raised will be higher due to a larger economy)

2) Impossible to provide specific statistics, as the amount of subsidies offered should be equal to the money raised from part 1

3) In a rough estimate, about 40 million people zould be eligable. That means that the maximum cost of the gym scheme would be 4 billion- however, that assumes that everyone uses it (unlikely)

[andrewpeters]

(Original post by stanlas)
If you lead a healthy diet, then the impact of the extra tax should be minimal (as you don't eat a lot of fatty food) and you will benefit from the subsidies

Please elaborate.

[stanlas]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
The only one who should care about how much you weigh is YOURSELF.

Obesity costs the NHS over a billion a year, and this will increase over time. The whole society is affected by this problem

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Raising prices won't help the problem either as we have seen with Tobacco and Alcohol.

It will certainly help. And we wouldn't just raise prices; we would lower the price of healthy food (its a dual approach to the problem)

(Original post by MacCuishy)
And on a side note, I exercise regularly, eat responsibly and am generally healthy. Why should I pay more for the occasional treat?

If you eat healthily, then:
1) Part one will have a limited impact only on you
2) Part two will benefit you
3) Part three will benefit you

[toronto353]

(Original post by stanlas)
Not very many, but for:

1) I remember reading that the Denmark one was meant to cut fat consumtion by 10 percent and bring in several hundred million dollars (so in the UK a similar tax would probably yield similar results, except the amount raised will be higher due to a larger economy)

2) Impossible to provide specific statistics, as the amount of subsidies offered should be equal to the money raised from part 1

3) In a rough estimate, about 40 million people zould be eligable. That means that the maximum cost of the gym scheme would be 4 billion- however, that assumes that everyone uses it (unlikely)

It's something that I'll certainly think about supporting as an MP, but without any data, it makes it difficult for me to make a fully informed decision.

[TopHat]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
You can't force people to do anything. The only one who should care about how much you weigh is YOURSELF. The government should not tell people how much they should exercise. Raising prices won't help the problem either as we have seen with Tobacco and Alcohol.

Seriously. You can't force people to do anything they don't want to do. If you do, it ends up with consequences.

And on a side note, I exercise regularly, eat responsibly and am generally healthy. Why should I pay more for the occasional treat?

In fairness, given you are eating responsibly, this petition would mean you'd pay less in the long run. Sure, your occasional treat costs more, but your much more frequent responsible eating of vegetables and the like is now cheaper.

[stanlas]

(Original post by andrewpeters)
Please elaborate.

Consider this:

1) You eat a healthy diet
2) Eating a healthy diet includes eating fruit and vegetables
3) This petition would subsidise fruit and vege
4) Subsidising fruit and vege will lower the price

Conclusion: you will be better off as you will pay less to maintain your current diet

[acedlol]

Fatties.