Melbourne Boot Camp

A Fat Tax has been discussed around the world since the mid-Nineties.

Now it seems that one country has decided to take it on board.

In a bid to reduce its rates of obesity and heart disease, the Danish Government is applying a surcharge to all foods that contain more than 2.3% saturated fat.

Will it work? If so, how will other governments go about implementing it?

How it will work
In 2004, the Danish Government made it illegal for foods to have more than 2% trans fatty acids.  In 2010, it began taxing all sugary foods in an attempt to put a stop to rising obesity levels and their associated health problems.

Governments around the world are also considering implementing a fat tax – but there is some debate as the best way to approach it.

At present there are three schools of thought:

1.  Increase the tax and cost of high fat foods, using the money to reduce the price of healthy food options;

2. Only tax foods with a poor food score (e.g. only red foods in the traffic light system); or

3. Spread a tax across a variety of food types.

However, many believe that a fat tax will create an unnecessary stigma and/or drive people to other unhealthy alternatives.

Which foods to target?
One of the biggest problems with applying a fat tax is deciding on what foods to tax.

High fat, high sugar, or high salt? Each has contra-implications for longterm health and wellbeing.

For instance, taxing only high fat foods would just drive people to eat high salt or high sugar foods instead.

Taxing these foods will also drive up prices. This may initially seem like a good idea, especially for less healthy foods. But, as the rising prices of cigarettes shows, increased prices don’t always result in reduced sales.

Other alternatives
An alternative to taxing foods is to create a health promotion strategy that increases education about nutrition, healthy food choices and occasional foods.

Many believe this is a much better solution to rising obesity rates and lifestyle diseases.  They argue that ‘banning’ unhealthy foods can lead to a spike in consumption rather than a reduction.

Also, unhealthy foods are not just consumed by overweight or obese people. There are many ‘thin’ people who consume large amounts of unhealthy food and yet a fat tax could create a stigma against the obese. This in turn may reduce their efforts to lose weight and improve their health.

There’s no denying that being overweight has a negative effect on your health and/or lifestyle. Creating a fat tax may be one option to help us change our food habits.  Cheaper prices might also make healthier choices more appealing.

Then unhealthy food providers could no longer argue that people consume fatty, salty and sugary foods because processed food is cheaper.

Written by Andrew Talati

A mystery public vegetable garden has just appeared in our local park, Edinburgh Gardens.

The timber planter boxes seem to be made from recycled pallets. What a great idea!

Inside the veggie box are a mixture of tomatoes, spinach, beetroot, corn, lettuce and even strawberries. They’re all looking mighty healthy. It’s a great example of how a vegetable patch can still flourish in an asphalt and dirt environment.

Sadly, it’s only a matter of time before the City of Yarra removes the guerilla planter boxes. The council requires that such projects go through the usual administrative channels to determine a suitable location in the public space.

Well, as a City of Yarra ratepayer, I’m more than happy to have this left for the community to enjoy.   North Fitzroy is littered with Victorian worker’s cottages, and most have very limited space to create a working veggie garden.

Perhaps this might inspire council to create a community space for projects just like these – and then they could be enjoyed by all the local residents.

Such public gardens have already been successful at CERES environmental park and  the Collingwood Children’s farm – but we could always do with more.

And, by the way, if you’re looking to create your own veggie garden at home, Sustainable Gardening Australia have a great handbook.

Written by Andrew Talati

It’s a sad day when a company that sells a cancer delivery system is suing the Australian Government for damage to their brand and trademarks. This is based on the proposal to introduce plain packaging with an olive green colour with the brand name. I maintain that if cigarette packaging does not influence or pursued prospective smokers why would you bother to sue?

Phillip Morris, one of the big American tobacco companies has threatened litigation if plain packaging legislation proceeds.

It’s funny how the tobacco company has suddenly become concerned of the government’s action being unconstitutional, well if taking steps to save lives is being unconstitutional it’s a very sad day.

The facts are chilling, 5,000 Australians a year die from smoking related illness with the costs to our health care system and our society $31.5 billion each year.

Written by Andrew Talati

There’s been quite a bit of talk recently about changing the way food products are labelled in an attempt to educate and encourage people to make healthier food choices.

Governments around the world are considering (and in some cases have already implemented) systems that provide ‘traffic light’ nutrition labels on food.

The general idea is that every food product you buy would have a label on the front advising you of the fat, sugar and sodium levels in terms of good (green), okay (amber), and too high (red).

It sounds like a good idea. The question is, will it work?

Traffic Light Labels
The primary idea behind traffic light labelling is to make it easier for the general public to choose healthier food options without the need for a lot of education.

By adding colour-coded labels to food, people will instantly know whether or not their food falls into a good, okay or not good category.

It also allows Governments and health promotion agencies to focus their attention on promoting the system rather than the larger job of providing nutrition education.

The idea of colour-coded food labels is quite good. Foods are assessed on the levels of fat, salt and sugar. Levels of each determine the colour-code of each category.

For example, a food that receives the green light in each category can be eaten regularly. A product that gets the red light should be avoided or, at the very least, eaten only on occasion. Amber foods can be consumed in moderation as they are neither high nor low.

Traffic Light Criteria
The criterion for categorising food is based on the amounts of fat, sugar and salt per 100gm. The 100gm measurement has been used for many years now to help people compare food products. Most of us have used this system at some time have compared two or three products to find the better option based on the nutritional content.

In essence, traffic light labels take this idea one step further. Colour-coding  information on the front of the packet will make it so much easier to choose a healthier product.

The following table shows how the content of foods will be categorised:

Green Amber Red
Total fat per 100gm <3 gm 3.1-19.9gm >20gm
Saturated fat per 100gm < 5gm 5.1-14.9gm >15gm
Sugar per 100gm <5gm 5.1 -14.9gm >15gm
Sodium (salt) per 100gm 120mg 121-599mg >600mg

Iphone Application
The Cancer Council of Victoria have actually released an application for the iPhone that compensates for the lack of movement by the government. Just search the iTunes app store under “Traffic Light Labelling.”

The Pros and Cons
As with many things, the traffic light system has both good and bad points.

While the system will help easier identification of good and not so good nutritional foods, the system doesn’t differentiate between healthy and unhealthy foods.

For example, many breakfast cereals may be perceived as healthy, but using the traffic light system they’ll get a green light for saturated fat, amber for sodium and a red light for sugar.

In this instance these foods are unhealthy but no labelling identifies them as such. However, people do need to use common sense. Even though a product may have two ‘green lights’ and one red light,  consumers still need to understand that a high sugar content is inherently unhealthy.

As a health promotion exercise and an attempt to improve the obesity problem on both a national and international level, the traffic light system is a simple way to encourage us to be more conscious of the foods we choose.

As with many Government health initiatives, while the traffic light system may encourage people to be more selective about their food choices, there are those who will continue eat what they want regardless of its health impact.

Obesity is clearly an issue in the Western world. Anything that can be done to help improve the health and wellbeing of our population is always a good thing.

And while there may be some issues with traffic light labelling, encouraging people to choose healthier food options can and will have a positive impact on the health of our nation.

Written by Andrew Talati

Many say that, when it comes to choosing nutritious food for your children, it’s a parent’s responsibility to read the nutritional information on the box and make the right choice.

But, unless you’re a dietician, it’s a pretty hard task when companies like Kelloggs include misleading and confusing information on their product boxes.

Kelloggs and  other big food conglomerates are currently pushing the boundaries of food labeling in lieu of the imminent threat of government legislation.

Kelloggs puts their RDI percentages are at the top of cereal boxes. But is their message misleading?

Take a box of Coco Pops, for example. The nutritional information tells us that sugars make up 12% of your DI (dietary intake). You’d automatically think this is OK, BUT… Coco Pops also contains 36 grams of sugar per 100 grams or 36.5%.

Does Kelloggs nutritional information give you a fair representation of the amount of sugar contained in a box of Coco Pops? No.

If we go by Kelloggs’ information,  10% DI looks a lot lower than 36.5% sugar. Once again, this is just a clever way of manipulating nutritional information to give a skewed impression of a product.

Kelloggs recently said: “We now focus much of our efforts on promoting healthier cereals, such as Sultana Bran.”

Hmmm… Sultana Bran may provide a 1/3 of  daily fibre needs, but what about its 28.4% of sugar? Can it really be a healthier breakfast cereal?

The problem is that so many products are sold as high fibre or low fat, and therefore apparently healthy. But what companies don’t say is that they’re also high in sugar.

Put simply, we need a better system to manage nutritional information. It needs to be easier to understand, so that you don’t require an intricate knowledge of RDI or grams per 100 grams or grams per serving to understand it.

I quite like the traffic light system – it doesn’t get much simpler.  It’s so simple, in fact, that the Grocery Council of Australia are fighting its introduction or any discussion regarding its merits.

When we know that childhood obesity  tripled between 1985 and 1995 (according to the Australasian Society for the study of obesity), this issue becomes all the more serious.

So the real question is not whether you can advertise whatever you like and put the onus back on to parents to make the right decision.

It’s whether the current system of self-regulation is working at all.

Written by Andrew Talati