Tax Hike For Fast Food, Carbonated Soft Drinks

[george]

Public Health Minister calls for tax hike for fast food, carbonated soft drinks

BANGKOK: -- Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla on Monday urged the future government to increase taxes for fast food, carbonated soft drinks and sweets according to their sugar ratio.

Following a meeting to plan a campaign against coronary heart disease to mark World Heart Day on September 30, Mongkol said about 38 million Thais are at risk of coronary heart disease if this situation remains unchanged and their life span will be shorter.

He said risky lifestyles and diets must be changed, such as by avoiding food that is too salty, sweet or fatty.

A policy-level solution for the elected government should be tax increases on food and drinks, especially carbonated soft drinks, snacks and fatty fast food.

Mongkol said the tax calculation should be according to the sugar ratio and nutritionists could help by considering which foods registered with the Food and Drug Administration were harmful to health.

"If such foods are pricey, people would consume less of them and reduce their health risks. They would turn to cheaper and nutritious food," he said, adding manufacturers should also be encouraged to use natural sweetening substances - for example, Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni - in traditional Thai sweets.

--The Nation 2007-07-23

[peter991]

If Khun Mongkol na Songkhla is really concerned about the health of his nation's people - forget the fast food, lollies and soft drinks - concentrate on the real killer - alcohol.

Tax alcoholic drinks on their alcohol concentration. Beer and spirits are too cheap.

I can get a carton of Archer beer (750ml) - 1 dozen bottles for 270 baht. It mosts more than that for a dozen large bottles of Coca Cola!

Thai spirits are also far too cheap. Or is that the goal - keep the masses blind drunk ... on cheap Thai whisky?

Peter

[Tywais]

"If such foods are pricey, people would consume less of them and reduce their health risks."

And the tax coffers fuller?

[boes]

It's a very good initiative but why doesn't he enforce the law himself ? It will not cost him any votes.....

[spot]

With Alcohol, you know what your getting.

The problem with a lot of food (especially fast food) is that it's not always clear what's in it.

Sometimes you think you are getting something relatively healthy, and it's probably full of stuff that can kill you in the long run. Even stuff from the supermarket such as breakfast cereal is full of sugar - that one always gets me.

Alcohol is alcohol...No misunderstanding there.

[PeaceBlondie]

It's been a long time since I checked, but beer, wine and alcoholic drinks can have lots of additives.

At least Pepsi Max has no sugar!

[lazeeboy]

It's been a long time since I checked, but beer, wine and alcoholic drinks can have lots of additives.

At least Pepsi Max has no sugar!

hurt the poor man on low wages ,tax petrol and booze and let the low income thai treat there kids

[swain]

It's been a long time since I checked, but beer, wine and alcoholic drinks can have lots of additives.

At least Pepsi Max has no sugar!

But they have shown that it has high levels of sodium benzoate

Current Health Care Issue: Is Sodium Benzoate in Sodas Bad News?

Tuesday June 26, 3:00 am ET

Does Sodium Benzoate in Soft Drinks Cause Cell Damage, Premature Aging, Cirrhosis of the Liver, and Other Degenerative Diseases?

PASADENA, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Jun 26, 2007 -- In May, a new scare, one of many health care issues in the news, erupted over soft drinks because of evidence that an ingredient known as sodium benzoate may cause serious cell damage. The controversy was based on research from a British university suggesting that this common preservative found in soft drinks like Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.

Interestingly, this has been known for some time. According to Vision.org life and health writer, Alice Abler, in a current science article about the preservative much of the same information was published eight years ago in Free Radical Biology and Medicine (December 1999) by University of Sheffield professor Peter Piper.

Consumers who are worried by this health care issue should be reassured that sodium benzoate is quickly absorbed into the human gastrointestinal tract and metabolized, resulting in hip uric acid, which is soon excreted. Benzoic acid and sodium benzoate are not considered carcinogenic and are often added to certain acidic foods to slow the growth of molds and fungi. However they can combine with ascorbic acid in beverages to turn sodium benzoate into a very toxic substance: benzene.

In mid-May 2007, beverage giant Coca-Cola settled a lawsuit alleging that sodium benzoate could combine with the ascorbic acid in the beverages to create carcinogenic benzene. After Coca-Cola and PepsiCo removed the ascorbic acid known as vitamin C from beverages, both companies maintain that their products are safe for human consumption.

Benzene is also often found in drinking water, although U.S. government standards allow no more than five parts per billion of benzene in drinking water, and the World Health Organization recommends no more than ten parts per billion.

Benzoate is naturally present in fruit and some other foods -- perhaps in just the amount that is safe for the human body. Concerned consumers should pick foods and beverages as close to their original form as possible, avoiding any possible heath care issues.

[Scott]

The man is absolutely nuts and shouldn't be in gov't. This is only one of his many silly ideas. What the country needs is to educate it's people about what is and isn't healthy. Schools need to provide healthy foods and limit processed foods.

The difficulty with taxing "fast" foods is that you are opening Pandora's Box. First somebody has to determine what is "too much." Secondly, there are a lot of not "fast" foods that aren't healthy. There are fats which are healthier than others. I am sure that many of these proposals will some how move around locally produced unhealthy fats. Does he really think that he can tax the local street vendors who use very unhealthy oils and cook them over and over again at high temperatures making them even more unhealthy? I doubt it. I have a feeling that locally produced fruit juices with a ton of extra sugar will not get taxed, but Coke and Pepsi will. I am sure the local vendors won't, but McDonald's will.

Dietary issues are very complex and way beyond the scope of a gov't taxation program.

[geriatrickid]

The man is absolutely nuts and shouldn't be in gov't. This is only one of his many silly ideas.

Suggest you look up the definition of libel before you insult the Minister of Health.

Dr. M.'s proposal is in line with most public health department policies in the west. Want some examples? The Canadian GST (VAT) exempts food but not chips, soda, candy etc.that you buy at the local store. In the USA at least 17 states and D.C. have taxes on soft drinks, candy and other foods of low nutritional value.

Many national medical associations have recommended this type of tax. E.g. The president of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has lobbied for a junk food tax to fight against "the epidemic of childhood obesity". In May of this year in Norway, a trade tax known as "moms" was introduced that would double the tax on confectionary to further subsidise cheaper fruit and vegetables. Thailand is not alone on this.

The reason a tax was used was to add a "cost" to the consumption of junk food. More importantly, the small tax is aimed at those most at risk - young people. Kids, will have to spend more to gorge themselves on garbage and may think twice before spending extra money.

This policy is consistent with the internationally praised alcohol and tobacco use cessation efforts. It is also consistent with WHO recommendations to reduce the overall consumption of junk food.

As I have stated before, Dr. Mongkol na Songkhla is well respected and held in very high regard by the national and international public health communities. He has made an important contribution to Thailand's public health efforts and his long term vision and planning is what Thailand needs. This is a man that has dedicated his life to public service and it is deplorable that you should refer to him as "absolutely nuts" . His actions to date have saved more lives and helped more people in one day then you will accomplish in a lifetime.

Edited July 24, 2007 by geriatrickid

[Scott]

He is a Dr. and as such I respect what he is TRYING to do. There is no problem with his ideas on many of these issues. The problem is with his plan for implementation, which falls far out of the scope of the Health Department and into the arena of legislation.

Perhaps step one would be to make sure that these snack foods aren't sold in hospitals or any public health facilities, or places which receive funding from them. This is the type of thing that can be done through a policy change. Next, start with gov't schools--can he get them to limit or follow the suggestions of the Ministry, followed by the private schools. Once you get enough steam behind some of this and show it can work and can be implemented, then you can look at legislative change that is FAIR and enforcable.

Where I work, they don't sell coke or pepsi, on the pretext that it is bad for children. They do sell Fanta and lots of very sugary other drinks. They also sell sweetened cans of coffee. They sell sweetened milk as well. I won't even get into the issue of fat and the things that are deep fried.

When the school administration was approached about the unhealthy choices, they replied that it was the individual vendors who rent the space who decide what to sell. When pushed a bit further coke and pepsi were removed.

The point is, it might be better for him to soften his approach and get what he wants effectively.

Your input and knowledge, geriatickid, are helpful to those of us who are less informed in the area of public health. Thanks.

[steveromagnino]

The man is absolutely nuts and shouldn't be in gov't. This is only one of his many silly ideas. What the country needs is to educate it's people about what is and isn't healthy. Schools need to provide healthy foods and limit processed foods.

Dietary issues are very complex and way beyond the scope of a gov't taxation program.

Sorry, I favour freedom of choice; since there is asymetric information in legal products like cigarettes (debate continues of whether they are healthy or cause cancer or what) and the massive marketing budgets of coke, pepsi etc can overwhelm most health initiatives in the west (where obesity rates are, er, ballooning) why not a tax on eating and drinking rubbish?

Have you ever watched Super Size Me or read Fast Food Nation? A great lesson in the power of the health lobby vs. the capitalists making a killing from selling junk food. Cereals, sugar, fried foods, etc - at the end of the day the majority of Thai people* are too uneducated and stupid not to drink, eat rubbish and whatever; let's at least get some tax from them and provide a financial incentive not to make themselves fat oafs. If I want to see a country of obesity, I can go hang out in South Auckland or pretty much anywhere in USA; THailand should be the land of smiles, not the land of lard piles.

Cooking oils with certain fats etc? high tax

soft drinks? high tax

chips? high tax

high caffeine? high tax

At the end of the day, this is nothing new; you aren't allowed to target alchoholic drinks at kiddies; there are taxes on other damaging products like cigarettes and imported music from Paris Hilton, we can do dis yo. There was advertising guidelines introduced for high caffeine energy drinks; we should have the same for coke; not more than 2 servings per day.

Plus as you say, regulations:

- no selling stuff like this within schools

- no advertising certain hours

and education:

- public messages

- mandatory warning signs at fast food joints

- advertising promoting healthy alternatives

but...then you will have all the ambassadors lined up doing 'a Thaksin' and complaining how unfair life is here; bear in mind tha Singapore's FTA with USA also involved legalising the sale of chewing gum. Fast food and junk is a fact of life. And a nice fact of life from time to time which causes health problems - user pays essay aiiiiiiiiight.

At the end of the day, the majority of kids eating the rubbish are the middle class. I think adults are dumb enough to get themselves drunk and screw everything up themselves; kids should at least have a shot at not growing up a fat diabetic, then come 18 they can choose to become Roy Keane or Roy Chubby Brown. Their choice.

Itz like I waz sayin.

* but possibly a lower portion are stupid compared to some other nationalities when it comes to obesity and diet.

[dkstoney]

Let's not forget the following for their high fat content:

avocados

olives

milk

cheese

ice cream (do you really want a tax on ice cream?)

eggs

deep-fried bananas

deep-fried taro

deep-fried shrimp (battered and unbattered)

deep-fried fish (battered and unbattered)

Hoi Tort (clam omelet)

Kai Jiaw (regular Thai omelet)

Moo Grop (3-layers pork--like bacon--but deep fried)

Deep fried chicken knuckles

All of the deep fried meat-on-a-stick vendors should also have to pay an exhorbitant social demise tax, particularly for their little hot dogs wrapped in bacon sticks.

But Thais don't want to look in their own backyard. They want to blame MTV, Pepsi, Tesco, and everything else from the west. They make plenty of junk food, but far be it from them to do any wrong. Screw that Mongkon na Songkhla. (Notice that his name is spelled correctly here.) Why can't they get someone in office who can spell their damned name correctly in English?!?!?!?!

[spot]

at the end of the day the majority of Thai people* are too uneducated and stupid not to drink, eat rubbish and whatever

Bit harsh.

It's not down to stupidity or lack of education, it's down to trust.

A lot of people trust the food makers - it's advertised on TV, so it must be OK...

[steveromagnino]

Let's not forget the following for their high fat content:

avocados

olives

milk

cheese

ice cream (do you really want a tax on ice cream?)

eggs

deep-fried bananas

deep-fried taro

deep-fried shrimp (battered and unbattered)

deep-fried fish (battered and unbattered)

Hoi Tort (clam omelet)

Kai Jiaw (regular Thai omelet)

Moo Grop (3-layers pork--like bacon--but deep fried)

Deep fried chicken knuckles

All of the deep fried meat-on-a-stick vendors should also have to pay an exhorbitant social demise tax, particularly for their little hot dogs wrapped in bacon sticks.

But Thais don't want to look in their own backyard. They want to blame MTV, Pepsi, Tesco, and everything else from the west. They make plenty of junk food, but far be it from them to do any wrong. Screw that Mongkon na Songkhla. (Notice that his name is spelled correctly here.) Why can't they get someone in office who can spell their damned name correctly in English?!?!?!?!

Mongkol because it is spelt with an L at the end in Thai. Stoney is spelt with Stony. Why can't we get some posters who can spell their own screen name correctly in english???!

BTW there are plenty of Thai companies that would be affected by this such as Serm Suk. Plenty of Thai dishes that should also be taxed. That is the whole point, it should be about encouraging healthy eating; softdrinks and fastfood WORLD WIDE are the biggest culprits as they are so visible. Back where i grew up, vending machines were banned at school to get rid of softdrinks, and yet there was no ban on kids bringing fruit juice loaded with sugar to school in their bag - consider fast food and softdrinks as the low hanging fruit.

But you'd like to turn this from being a logical debate on should there be a tax on unhealthy food to 'stupid xenophobic Thais'

FYI anti hypermarket protests were funded primarily by TRT backer CP - the chairman of the Thai retail assoc or whoever protests that sort of thing used to be also the head of 7:11; as were the clampdowns on non CP chicken farms in the bird flu era. Politicians can indeed play the nationalist card, but you have to dig deeper and not just take in the news you read.

At least as far as I can see in this case, it isn't being 'anti foreign' it is about being 'anti things that give people diabetes, cost too much and don't add anything'; at least if someone wants to use them, then fine, they should pay a tax equal to the cost of looking after a bunch of overweight diabetics later on.

Running this arguement of tax and coverage to its logical extreme, do you think cigarettes should also not be taxed, because after all there is no tax on eating kai jeeo and that is also unhealthy??!

And BTW yes, I would like a tax on icecream. Or at least restrictions on how it is made, level of preservatives and sugar; high unhealthiness = tax; frivolous junkfood = pay tax.

As for the locally made stuff.....taxes on ingredients used to make unhealthy rubbish. Will decrease usage; namely sugar, saturated cooking oils (or a ban on transfat which even the fast food restaurants are gradually migrating to anyway) and so on.

Passing on the costs, or having to be cost reflective will leave consumers financially better off in not eating gut rot. And ultimately, that is the aim of the tax.

not nationalistic; just good health. Total coincidence that USA happens to have invented most of the world's most popular gut rot; it is the world's best FMCG marketer, for the longest time was the most developed consumer market and has a massive local market that loves eating rubbish.

Edited July 24, 2007 by steveromagnino

[drummer]

Let's not forget the following for their high fat content:

avocados

olives

milk

cheese

ice cream (do you really want a tax on ice cream?)

eggs

deep-fried bananas

deep-fried taro

deep-fried shrimp (battered and unbattered)

deep-fried fish (battered and unbattered)

Hoi Tort (clam omelet)

Kai Jiaw (regular Thai omelet)

Moo Grop (3-layers pork--like bacon--but deep fried)

Deep fried chicken knuckles

All of the deep fried meat-on-a-stick vendors should also have to pay an exhorbitant social demise tax, particularly for their little hot dogs wrapped in bacon sticks.

But Thais don't want to look in their own backyard. They want to blame MTV, Pepsi, Tesco, and everything else from the west. They make plenty of junk food, but far be it from them to do any wrong.

Thats right - People eating Thai food are too fat already. Thai food is just as bad as any other food out there...

Voltaire once said "Common sense is not so common." A quick glance at the size of standand restaurant goers in Thailand vs the West (or even Japan these days) shows there is a clear waistline difference. Med research is showing that skinnier is healthier, almost always.

The more foods get processed the worse they are for you. Eggs from factory farms raise your cholestorol levels. Eggs from free range chickens LOWER your cholestoral. Moo Glop is fine as long as the pig was raised healthily. Why is Germany skinnier than America? Germans have much "fattier" foods than America does...

The rule of thumb is "eat foods that remember where they come from. Sugary coffee does not pose the same health risk that sodas do, or anything else processed. Moreover, India at least has pesticides in their sodas.

I for one think this is a great idea. Certinaly not the only thing that should be done,but a great initiative, even if nothing else comes of it.

Portland, Oregon, USA just passed legislation providing incentives for schools to buy their school lunches locally. Good for them, too. All the extra costs associated with eating processed foods, the pollution from shipping the food, and the tax money staying local are all worthwhile in and of themselves. Good for them.

[drummer]

at the end of the day the majority of Thai people* are too uneducated and stupid not to drink, eat rubbish and whatever

By that definition, Thais are for more smart, educated, and savvy than farang....

[TAWP]

I just love when I have to pay more because a fat lazy bastard cannot control his food and candy-intake and gets a heartattack at 35.

Spend money on education instead. Raising taxes is nothing short of Collective punishment.

[swain]

I support the taxes in the USA on cigarettes and alcohol ... and would have to say that I support it in Thailand as well if the money is being used for the purpose of education and or collective behavior modification and or medical studies into heart disease. Cigarettes are something like 6-8 dollars a pack in canada and I think somewhere close to 5 dollars in the USA. Its not a sin tax or a punishment, its a country trying to modify the unhealthy behavior of its people.

Don't get me wrong.. I love Burger King, and a good stiff drink. I know its not good for me. And YES it will modify my buying habits if its more expensive.

I can't get behind this type of taxing if the taxes are lining someones pockets, if its going to the greater good, so be it.

[TAWP]

So you feel taxes should be a tool for the government to be a morality police on how to live their lives?

[swain]

So you feel taxes should be a tool for the government to be a morality police on how to live their lives?

Morality has nothing to do with it. The Health of its people should be the concern of the government.

[farang prince]

All I know is that if they start taxing sex, I'm outta here.

[swain]

All I know is that if they start taxing sex, I'm outta here.

Actually if they legalized the sex industry and started taxing it, pumping the money back into aids prevention, disease control, and better working conditions for the women I would support this as well.

[steveromagnino]

So you feel taxes should be a tool for the government to be a morality police on how to live their lives?

nah mate. Taxes should be a market mechanism to be cost reflective.

You want 30b healthcare to look after you with diabetes; help subsidise the sidewalks as you shuffle along them with 100kg of body weight and ruin the client with your methane ridden flactulance as the result of a fast food diet?

No problem, be my guest, BUT pay your way.

Most people are too dumb to figure out to stop doing things that hurt them. I love whisky for instance, and am not immune to the odd cigar. But with a tax regime in place, then at least i end up paying for some share of the cost to the state - user pays is great.

But then again I was a pricing manager in a past life; so I do like to come up with obscure pricing schemes.

[Mid]

No problem, be my guest, BUT pay your way.

please explain how you propose to make this FAIR to all sections of society ?

a straight % is beneficial to the rich as the poor will subsidise them .

am I to assume your advocating tiered pricing to maintain equality ?

cheers

[samran]

So you feel taxes should be a tool for the government to be a morality police on how to live their lives?

yep, cause the taxes help check yours and others excesses, and help pay for your eventual hospital treatment from the 2 pack a day habit you had since you were 16. The cost of prodcuing a ciggy doesn't end when it rolls off the production line. The costs that it incurs on society is that of ill-health from a section of society, and the lowered productivity of those people over their lifetimes.

[swain]

No problem, be my guest, BUT pay your way.

please explain how you propose to make this FAIR to all sections of society ?

a straight % is beneficial to the rich as the poor will subsidise them .

am I to assume your advocating tiered pricing to maintain equality ?

cheers

Equality doesn't have anything to do with it. The remedy is the reward. The poor might not get their fair share of garbage food, whiskey, and cigarettes but they will live longer healthier lives.

Edited July 25, 2007 by swain

[Mid]

the concept has the following basic flaw ,

as a % of income the tax will be higher on those least able to afford it .

[samran]

the concept has the following basic flaw ,

as a % of income the tax will be higher on those least able to afford it .

I'm a big fan of consumption taxes. They are simple, easy to adminsiter (relatively), don't discriminate (thus lessening the ops for using loopholes to avoid taxes). Far superior to most types of taxes.

The biggest problem with consumption taxes however is that they hit lower income earners relatively more than higher income earners. By defenition, lower income earners spend most, if not all of their income on consumption goods. Meanwhile higher earners, get to save their some of their cash none of which is hit by a consumption tax, as it isn't spent.

There are ways to fix this though - none of which apply to sin taxes however on ciggies, petrol, alcohol and junk food

[astral]

An excellent idea, there are far too many obese youngsters these days.