Archive for month: October, 2011

With Denmark having just been the first country to introduce a “Fat Tax”, the online community has been awash with criticism.  Will governments in Australia and New Zealand impose similar legislation onto us in the future?

What’s happening in Denmark?

Denmark already had additional taxes on sugar, chocolate and soft drinks, but they have just introduced a tax on saturated fat.  A tax of 16 kroner ($2.95 AUD/ $3.72 NZD) per kilo of saturated fat, where the product contains over 2.3% fat, will be passed onto the consumer.  This would add about 50 cents AUD to the price of a pack of butter.  So if my calculations are correct, that would add on about $2.50 AUD to the one litre tin of coconut oil I bought last week – but under 30 cents AUD to the same volume of cheap, nasty vegetable oil?  The calculation sounds overly complex and it based on the fat used in creating a product, rather than the percentage fat in the final product.  This sounds like a recipe for Frankenfoods, rather than whole, unprocessed foods…

The motives of Denmark, which are to increase the countries average life expectancy, may be honourable.  However, their execution is based solely on the incorrect lipid hypothesis; despite it now becoming more widely accepted that saturated fat is not the cause of obesity and heart disease.

I also have serious concerns about a government deciding what we should or should not eat.  Where people have access to health information and resources it should be their choice what they eat.  This is even more imperative where the government in question is basing their health views on incorrect, outdated fads such as the lipid hypothesis.  Such a fat tax penalises eating a healthy Paleo diet, despite this being, what I would consider, the healthiest diet going.

Would a “Fat Tax” target the right fats?

What about Australia?

With 60% of Australian adults and 40% of children being classed as obese, the “Obesity Policy Coalition” is lobbying for a “fat tax”, using the proceeds gained from “unhealthy” foods to subsidise “healthy” foods.  I've found it very hard to get to the bottom of what this coalition considers “unhealthy” foods, but have written to them to ask them to clarify this (I'll keep you updated if I get a response).  Looking on their site however, I fear they subscribe to the lipid hypothesis – which may mean they would endorse taxing on a similar basis to Denmark.

A proposal was bought to the Australian government in 2009 by the “National Preventative Health Taskforce” calling for a tax on “unhealthy foods” (again, I've not been able to see exactly what they define as “unhealthy” in this context).  This was not responded to by the government.  Indeed the federal health minister Nicola Roxon has recently said that the government are putting their efforts into tackling obesity using methods other than administration.  Hopefully this means no “fat tax” in Australia in the near future.

And New Zealand?

The “Food Industry Group of New Zealand” last week spoke out on the new tax in Denmark, saying it is very unlikely to have any positive effects on obesity levels.  They feel the tax will make food more expensive and could actually put health of children and elderly at risk.  They will not be recommending a similar fat tax in New Zealand.

So it looks like in this part of the world, we’ll continue to be free to make our own food choices.  I'm interested to see how the new tax is received in Denmark and how it changes the eating habits and health of the nation.

What do you think?  Should government dictate what we eat, using taxes?  Would a tax on all foods that aren't Paleo be justified?

Should Governments Tax What We Eat?

While the idea of a fat tax may come from a desire to improve public health, it raises serious concerns — especially for those of us following a whole food, Paleo lifestyle. When policies are based on outdated nutrition science, like the lipid hypothesis, there’s a real risk that foods rich in healthy fats (think butter, coconut oil, and grass-fed meat) could be unfairly penalised — while ultra-processed, low-fat, high-sugar alternatives are left untouched.

In Australia and New Zealand, the discussion around fat taxes continues to surface, particularly as obesity rates climb. But instead of blanket taxes, perhaps what we really need is better education, clearer food labelling, and support for accessing nutrient-dense, unprocessed foods — not punishment for making informed, ancestral-based choices.

What’s your take? Would a fat tax change the way you eat, or how you shop? Do you think governments should have a say in our food choices at all? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Rethinking Public Health: Education vs. Legislation

The debate over a so-called “fat tax” highlights a deeper issue: should governments attempt to legislate health outcomes through taxation, or should the focus instead be on education and empowerment? For many Australians following a Paleo or whole foods lifestyle, the concern isn’t just about higher prices — it’s about the unintended consequences of using outdated nutritional models to guide public policy.

For decades, dietary guidelines have been rooted in the belief that saturated fat is dangerous — despite growing evidence suggesting otherwise. If taxes are based on these old assumptions, nutrient-dense staples like coconut oil, pastured butter, and grass-fed meat could become more expensive, while highly processed “low-fat” alternatives — often loaded with sugar, seed oils, and preservatives — are overlooked.

It’s easy to understand the appeal of simple solutions like taxing so-called “bad” foods. With obesity and chronic illness rising, action feels urgent. But are these policies truly effective? Evidence from Denmark and similar trials suggests otherwise. Short-term behaviour change is rare, while long-term shifts in eating habits are better achieved through transparency, affordability of real food, and clear education on nutrition.

The Paleo Perspective: Real Food Isn’t the Enemy

For those of us who follow a Paleo diet, rich in high-quality animal fats, seafood, vegetables, and minimally processed ingredients, the prospect of being penalised for choosing traditional, whole foods is both frustrating and illogical. We don’t need more barriers to buying nourishing staples like pastured eggs, grass-fed beef, and wild-caught seafood — we need support.

Instead of taxing the average family’s grocery trolley, why not:

• Remove GST from fresh produce, meat, and unprocessed pantry staples

• Offer incentives for farmers and producers to grow real, organic food

• Fund public awareness campaigns that clearly explain the damage caused by ultra-processed food and refined seed oils

• Support school programs that teach basic cooking skills and nutritional literacy

• Encourage local councils to back farmers markets and community gardens

Taxing Fat But Not Sugar? The Flawed Logic

Another major flaw in these proposed taxes is inconsistency. Why are some naturally occurring fats targeted, while refined carbohydrates and sugar-laden processed foods are not? It’s possible to buy fat-free, sugar-packed breakfast cereal and avoid a tax — while being penalised for choosing grass-fed butter. It just doesn’t make sense.

A truly health-focused policy should encourage people to eat foods with recognisable ingredients. That means whole vegetables, good fats, clean protein, and avoiding things that come in a packet with a long list of additives. Paleo eaters already do this — but they often pay more to do so.

Food Freedom vs. Food Fear

Food choices are deeply personal. Whether someone is eating Paleo, vegetarian, carnivore, or anything in between, decisions should be based on informed consent — not fear of government-imposed penalties. A fat tax doesn’t educate people about what to eat; it simply adds confusion and financial burden.

What we need is not more control over our shopping baskets — but more autonomy, backed by accurate science and better access to the right foods. The best public health outcomes don’t come from forcing change through taxation. They come from empowering individuals to understand their bodies, access clean food, and make consistent, confident decisions that align with their health goals.