Limited Time: Grab your FREE Box of Dark Chocolate Almond Bars Get Yours>>Close
Open
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53

Thread: It's official - Denmark is raising taxes on saturated fat

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Herning (soon rhus), Denmark
    Posts
    629

    It's official - Denmark is raising taxes on saturated fat

    - and that's from tomorrow on.

    The government has decided that we Danes have to pay 13-14 DKK (2-3usd) per kilo of saturated fat; that includes fat in meat, dairy, any animal fats, oils and other cooking ingredients (some are also fair to leave out, like mixed products, margarine etc.). Anything with a fat percentage over 2,3 will have higher prices.

    How freaking insane and absolutely STUPID is that?! They claim it's because it's what's makes us fat. Try sugar, I say... and omega-6'es... and generally bad eating habits. *sigh*

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sudbury, Ontario
    Posts
    208
    Donchya just love it when the "big people" aka governments, inflict their stupidity on us smart folk?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    652
    Gawd, I truly thought Danes were smarter than that. What a bunch of maroons, at least those in gooberment.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,507
    And I thought it was stupid when the Canadian gov't brought in the sugar tax. Taxes on a single donut because it was a sugary snack, but if you bought 6 that was considered 'food' and was non-taxable.
    Newcomers: If you haven't read the book, at least read this thread ... and all the links!
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread17722.html

    F/49/5'4"
    Jan. 1, 2011: 186.6 lbs PBSW Mar. 1, 2011: 175.8 lbs
    CW: 146.8 lbs
    GW 140 lbs
    A proud member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by belinda View Post
    And I thought it was stupid when the Canadian gov't brought in the sugar tax. Taxes on a single donut because it was a sugary snack, but if you bought 6 that was considered 'food' and was non-taxable.
    That's not a sugar tax, it applies to anything that's considered food for immediate consumption--restaurant meals, pre-made sandwiches or salads, whatever. It has to do with them making a distinction between ready-made food and groceries when it comes to the GST. It's a weird, arbitrary line (buying 6 doughnuts in bulk counting as groceries, but 5 as a snack), but it's nothing to do with whether or not the food contains sugar.
    If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive. --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    London, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Owly View Post
    That's not a sugar tax, it applies to anything that's considered food for immediate consumption--restaurant meals, pre-made sandwiches or salads, whatever. It has to do with them making a distinction between ready-made food and groceries when it comes to the GST. It's a weird, arbitrary line (buying 6 doughnuts in bulk counting as groceries, but 5 as a snack), but it's nothing to do with whether or not the food contains sugar.
    I stand corrected but I think people were bandying about 'sugar tax, sugar tax!' when this was introduced. It's still stupid.
    Newcomers: If you haven't read the book, at least read this thread ... and all the links!
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread17722.html

    F/49/5'4"
    Jan. 1, 2011: 186.6 lbs PBSW Mar. 1, 2011: 175.8 lbs
    CW: 146.8 lbs
    GW 140 lbs
    A proud member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by belinda View Post
    I stand corrected but I think people were bandying about 'sugar tax, sugar tax!' when this was introduced. It's still stupid.
    It is stupid. I personally think that if you're buying food at the grocery store, unless it's something like the sandwich counter at Safeway, it shouldn't be subject to GST. All it does is reward people who buy bulk quantities of things over those who don't. Incidentally, the same thing also applies to things like single-serve yogurts if they are not packaged in multiples--so buy one little container, you'll pay tax, but buy a dozen with a cardboard thing around them, and you're not. Other oddities: single-serve bottles of water count (unless they are packaged together by the manufacturer), but big bottles are tax-free, and salted nuts are taxable, but unsalted ones aren't. It's ridiculously complex.

    And the sugar tax thing has a bit of grounding in that snack foods and soft drinks are always considered taxable.
    If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive. --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Owly View Post
    That's not a sugar tax, it applies to anything that's considered food for immediate consumption--restaurant meals, pre-made sandwiches or salads, whatever.
    We have the same thing in Norway. Food has about half the VAT compared to all other goods and services, so when you order at McDonald's, take-away will be cheaper than eating there, since the former is a food purchase while the latter is a restaurant service.

    We actually do have a sugar tax though, which makes soda and chocolate more expensive than other foods. One of the big grocery store chains here is also lobbying for removing tax on fruits and vegetables. It's not in law yet, but that particular chain supposedly reduce their prices on fruits and vegetables as if they were tax free.

    Another thing they started doing (and that the other chains soon followed) was to reduce prices on "healthy" foods--marked so by an official entity with a specific logo. This is all good, but the labelling is a bit off, as a chicken filet has the logo but a beef steak doesn't. Apparently there are criteria for max fat and salt content to get the logo, but still, most steak cuts should pass those.

    I'm suspecting maybe it's because red meat is not considered healthy, or because the producers would lose too much money by having reduced prices on beef. As I understand it, the logo and certification is optional and thus controlled by the brand owner, meaning they can chose not to have the logo on a product that does fit the criteria.

    Also, the food doesn't have to be healthy to be labeled, only more healthy than alternatives in the same product group, so there are already "healthy" frozen pizzas out there, with the official logo on the box...
    Norak's Primal Journal:
    2010-07-23: ~255lbs, ~40.0"
    2011-11-03: ~230lbs, ~35.5"
    2011-12-07: ~220lbs, ~34.0"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by norak View Post
    Another thing they started doing (and that the other chains soon followed) was to reduce prices on "healthy" foods--marked so by an official entity with a specific logo. This is all good, but the labelling is a bit off, as a chicken filet has the logo but a beef steak doesn't. Apparently there are criteria for max fat and salt content to get the logo, but still, most steak cuts should pass those.

    I'm suspecting maybe it's because red meat is not considered healthy, or because the producers would lose too much money by having reduced prices on beef. As I understand it, the logo and certification is optional and thus controlled by the brand owner, meaning they can chose not to have the logo on a product that does fit the criteria.
    The reduction in price is likely a subsidy. That is to say, your govt, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided to use public funds to help one group over another, i.e. chicken producers over beef producers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by js290 View Post
    The reduction in price is likely a subsidy. That is to say, your govt, in it's infinite wisdom, has decided to use public funds to help one group over another, i.e. chicken producers over beef producers.
    I don't think so. The green keyhole symbol is a backed by the Nordic governments (Sweden, Norway and Denmark), but using the symbol is optional. Also, in Norway, it's the same company that owns the main brands of chicken/poultry and beef. This company is again owned by the farmers themselves. They choose to put a keyhole symbol on their chicken but chose not to on their beef. The price reduction on "keyhole" products is done by a few major grocery brand chains. The government or the producers is not the ones reducing the price, the stores are.
    Norak's Primal Journal:
    2010-07-23: ~255lbs, ~40.0"
    2011-11-03: ~230lbs, ~35.5"
    2011-12-07: ~220lbs, ~34.0"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •