atip n-12 final information transfer(1)-1

8/13/2019 ATIP N-12 Final Information Transfer(1)-1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/atip-n-12-final-information-transfer1-1 1/164

JjJLt ? [ ^^-r n- )4

As Minister of Healthy Living, Youth and Seniors I am please to reply to the email you sent on July 7 ,h t o

Minister Oswald, regarding taxation of unhealthy food as a health promotion strategy.

You are absolutely co rrect in identifying chronic disease as a major challenge for public he alth, and the

burden it creates for both i l l individuals and for the health care system.

In recent years there have been numerous reports and studies which have made recommendations on

obesity and chronic disease prev ention strategies, and many o f these have suggested a tax o n

'unh ealth y' foo ds, such as a ' junk food tax', a 'fat tax', or tax on sugar-swe etened beverages. The u ti l ity

of such strategies is sti l l the su bject of research and debate . W hile it is clear tha t they could provide a

way of raising considerable revenue, which might be directed to prevention and health promotion, it is

much less clear that they would have any meaningful impact on consumer behaviour, food

consumption, and thus public health. My department has examined this issue in the past and continues

to m on itor ne w resea rch. I wo uld refer you to a summ ary of the issues involved in an article w ritte n by

one of my staff in 2006 [attac hed] as we ll as a more recent overview of the sugar-sweetened beverages

issue. We continue to monitor this issue and should more convincing evidence emerge, we would

certainly revisit the policy options.

Thank you for your interest in this topic

JR



THE

Summary Overview

Over the past few years there has been increasinginterest in nutrition advocacy circles and in the popularpress about the idea of a so-called "fat tax", "junk food

tax" or "snack tax". In this review I will address severalbasic issues connected to small taxes on food includingtheir intended purpose, how they work, pros and cons andimplications for dietetic practice.

Background

The concept of a small tax on selected food products isrooted in two big ideas. Firstly, strong scientific evidencethat l inks diet to chronic disease, together with, concernsover the increasing prevalence of obesity has fuelled callsfor strategies to reduce intakes of dietary fat, sugar, salt

and overall food energy (1). Secondly, as food costs areimportant factors in consumer food choice, it is thought tobe possible to change eating behaviour through theapplication of economic levers. The two ideas intersect inthe fact that energy dense foods are amongst the leastcostly of foods (2).

In 1994, Dr. Kelly Brownell of Yale University suggestedtaxing unhealthy foods, a proposal that was quicklylabelled "the Twinkie Tax" and ridiculed by opponents (3).Since then several types of small taxes on food havebeen proposed, the most common of which are styled:"Junk food tax"; "Fat tax"; and "Snack Tax". An alternativeeconomic strategy, the application of subsidies to healthyfood choices, is beyond the scope of this discussion (4).

Defini t ions

The terms "junk food tax", "fat tax", or "snack tax", lackcommon clear definitions. "Junk food" is more of aconceptual category than it is a nutritional one, althoughthe term is widely used as shorthand to refer to some or

©2006 Dietitians of Canada. All rights reserved.

May be reproduced for educational purposes.

Taxing Food

all of high fat or sugar snack foods, fast foods,, soft drinkand candy (5). "Fat tax" embrac es a variety of schemes ttax foods based on their total fat content, or specificalthe saturated fat or trans-fat component. For exampMarshall suggests that products could be taxed if theraised cholesterol concentrations but be exempted if th"ratio of polyunsaturates to saturates (and trans fatacids) were more favourable" (6). Targeting foods fotaxation based on their fat {or indeed, other nutriencontent provides a clearer nutritional criterion than that ojunk-food / non junk food. "Snack food", like "junk food", a more ambiguous concept. For examp le, Health Canadrefers to snack foods "like potato chips and pretzels" bualso to the concept of healthy nutritious snacks from thfood groups (7), while examples from Industry 1 Canada owhat are considered as snack food include cheese curlspopcorn, corn chips and potato chips (8).

Why a tax?

Advocates identify two potential positive outcomes odifferentiated food taxes. The first is the potential foprompting changes in individual eating behaviour that arconsistent with current nutritional advice on healthy eatinand that will contribute to changes in populatioconsumption patterns leading to reduced levels of obesitand chronic disease. This rationale is generally favoureby public health groups and consumer health lobbies anis often proposed as part of a broader comprehensivhealth promotion/public health strategy, citing thexperience of cigarette taxation as a component of comprehensive tobacco control strategy (9). The seconoutcome is revenue generation that could be'directed tsupport nutritional health promotion programs. For thireason, some critics who doubt the likeliness of the firsoutcome nevertheless support such taxes.

Dietitians of Canada

Les dietetistes du Canada



THE INSIDE STORY

Opt ions fo r t ax in te rven t ion

Taxes on food may be applied at the retail level in the

form of general or targeted sales taxes. In Canada, foodis already differentially taxed through the Goods andServices Tax (GST) and Provincial Sales Tax (PST).Foods and beverages subject to GST are listed byCanada Customs (10). There is, arguably, a high degreeof congruency between what is in this list and what wouldbe likely to be on a "junk food" or "snack food" tax list. Anumber of states from the United States of America haveat different times experimented with levying special taxeson soft drinks and specific snack foods or have excludedthese products from tax exemptions given to foodproducts (11).

There are also options for levying taxes at different

stages in the food system. Approaches tried in the U.S.include:

> Manufacturers tax - payable on production volume (e.g.soft drinks or syrups) or as a percentage of salesrevenue, andWholesalers and distributors tax - payable on amountof product sold.

In several jurisdictions these types of taxes weresubsequently repealed due to industry lobbying andthreats to commercial development (12).

on total fat, saturated fat or sugar could have an impacton consumption of fats, sugars and overall calories forsome groups, although with no "particularly advantageous

effects" for the socio-demographic groups amongst whichobesity and unhealthy diets are of the most concern (14).The authors suggest that combining economicinstruments with public information campaigns may be afruitful avenue for further ex ploration. A U.S. stifdy thatattempted to simulate the effects of a fat tax on dairyproducts concluded that a 10% tax on fat content had littleimpact on the quantity of dairy products consumed by anygroup, though there was an overall predicted 1.4%reduction of average total fat intake (15), Otherresearchers have proposed combining taxation of lesshealthy options with'subsidies for healthier alternativessuch as fruits and vegetables, as a potentially moreeffective strategy in improving diet quality and healthoutcomes (16).

Food taxes would almost certainly raise revenues. TheUSDA analysis cited above estimated that a 1%: tax onpotato chips translates into twenty seven million dollars ofrevenue that could be spent on education programs.Governments are often reluctant to allocate specificrevenue streams to specific purposes. A :notableexception is VicHe alth - a very successful Australianhealth promotion foundation supported through tobaccotaxes (17). More often,, monies go into general revenuesfrom where they are reallocated according to changingneeds and government priorit ies.

Would junk food taxes be ef fect ive?

While there have been few attempts to demonstrate theactual impact of such taxes with real world examples,several recent economic modelling studies haveattempted to gauge the likely impact of such taxes, takinginto account factors such as current levels ofconsumption, price elasticity and substitution strategies. AUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) modelsuggests that "small" taxes on snack foods would beineffective in changing patterns of consumption and wouldhave litt le impact on diet quality or heath outcomes (13).Even a 20% tax on salty snack foods would result in onlya 4-6 ounce reduction in annual per capita consumption.

Moreover, as the authors point out, there is no guaranteethat any consumption changes prompted by such taxeswould be nutritionally bene ficial.

An analysis carried out for the Danish Food and ResourceEconomics Institute indicated that differential taxes based

It should be noted that food taxe s are regressive in nature

since they disproportionately affect lower incomepopulations where a higher percentage of income is spenton food. Modelling the distributional effect of hypotheticaltaxes on saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, sodium andcholesterol using data from the National Food Survey, arecent United Kingdom analysis showed that the poorest2% of people wo uld pay 0.7% of total income on a fat tax,while the richest group w ould pay only 0.1 % of totalincome (18).

Implementat ion issues

If the idea of a "junk food", "snack food" or "fat tax" gainedpolit ical and public support, there would be at least twokinds of implem entation challenge s to address. The first isin deciding wh at to tax. It is diff icult to link specific foods tospecific health impacts so the idea of tax on specific foodand beverage products runs counter to the message thatit is overall dietary intake that matters. There wou^ld haveto be broad agree men t on the pa rt of policy makers,

©2006 Dietit ians of Canada. All rights reserved.May be reproduced for educational purposes.

Dietit ians of Canada

Les diet&tistes du Canada



e

practitioners and industry on what constitutes "junk-food"

or "snack food" and therefore is taxable.

The second challenge recognises the complexity ofadministering a differential retail tax. Given that newproducts are constantly appearing on the market, and thatmanufacturers may change product specifications, acontinual monitoring, evaluation and classification systemwould be required. Retailers would need to adopt newtechnologies and/or accounting systems to charge thetax, and tax remittance and collection systems wouldhave to be developed. Restaurants would be faced withan even more complex task. It may be that tax levies atthe manufacturer or distributor level would be relativelyeasier to administer and would underline the idea that

healthier choices are an industry as well as consumerresponsibil ity. In either case, both producers andconsumers would likely bear a share of the costs.

References:

1) Shields, M. (2005) Overweight Canadian children aadolescents, Nutrition: Findings from the CanadCommunity Health Survey. Statistics Canahttp://www.statcan.ca/enalish/research/82-620-MiE/2005001/articles/child/cobesitv,htm

2) Drewnowski, A. (2003) Fat and Sugar: An EconoAnalysis. Journal of Nutrition, 133S, 838S-840S.

3) .Brownell, K.D. (1994) Get Slim With Higher TaxNew York Times, Op-Ed., Dec. 15th.

4) Jeffery, R.W., French, S.A., Raether, C. and Bax

J.E. (1994) An Environmental Intervention Increase Fruit and Salad Purchases in :a CafetePreventive Medicine, 23, 6: 788-92.

Impl icat ions for d ie te t ic pract ice

While economic incentives and disincentives are apotential addition to the array of public policy instrumentsavailable to encourage healthy eating, there is as yet noclear cut empirical evidence on which to judge the meritsof junk food or similar taxes. The Institute of Medicineconcludes that there is insufficient evidence to

recommend either for or against taxing these foods, whilea recent Canadian think-tank on addressing obesityconcluded that the relationship between economicpolicies such as the role of tax incentives anddisincentives and their influence on eating behaviours ispoorly understood and requires further research (19).

5) CDC School Health Policies and Programs Stu(2000) Fact Sheet: on Foods and Beverages Sooutside of School Meal ProgramhttD://www.cdc.Qov/HealthvYouth/shoDs/factsheetsdf/outside food.odf

6) Marshall, T. (2000) Exploring a fiscal food policy: tof diet and ischaemic heart disease. British Medical 320:301-04.

7) Health Canada (1997). Canada's Food Guide - FocChildren 6-72 years - Background for Educators andCommunicators. Minister of Public Works and GoveServices Canada. Cat. H39-308/1-1997e

8) htto://slrateais.ic.oc.ca/canadian Industry statistics/DE/cis311919defe.html

It would be useful to develop more robust definitions ofterms such as "Junk Food" and "Snack Food" as a m eansto defining exactly what foods would be targeted and why.

Continuing media discourse about food tax proposalsdoes provide an opportunity for dietitians to engage thepublic in discussions about the importance of healthy

eating and the role of public policy in supporting healthychoices.

9) Institute o f Medicine (2005) Food Marketing to ChildYouth: Threat or Opportunity? The National AcademPress, Washington D.C.

10 ) http://www.era-arc.gc.ca/E/oub/gm/4-3/4-3r-e.html

11) Lohman, J.S. (2002) Taxes on Junk Food.httD://www.coa.ct.oov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R-10

12 ) Jacobson, M.F. and Brownwell, K.D. (2000) SmallSoft Drinks and Snack Foods to Promote Health, AmJournal of Public Health. 90 (6) 854-7.

Written by Paul Fieldhouse, PhD and reviewed by KimRaine, PhD, RD and Carmen Connolly.

13 ) Kuchler, F.; Tegene, A. , Harris, M. (2005) TaxingFoods: Manipulating Diet Quality or Financing InfoPrograms?. Review of Agricultural Economics, 27 (

©2006 Dietitians of'Canada, All rights reserved.May be reproduced for educational purposes. Dietitians of CanadaLes dietet/stes du Canada

http://www.statcan.ca/enalish/research/82-620MiE/2005001/articles/child/cobesitv,htm


http://www.cdc.qov/HealthvYouth/shoDs/factsheets/o

http://www.era-arc.gc.ca/E/oub/gm/4-3/4-3r-e.html

http://www.coa.ct.oov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R-1004.htm

http://www.coa.ct.oov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R-1004.htm

http://www.era-arc.gc.ca/E/oub/gm/4-3/4-3r-e.html

http://www.cdc.qov/HealthvYouth/shoDs/factsheets/o





THE INSIDE STORY

14) Sme d, S., Jensen, J.D., and Denver, S, (2005)

Differentiated Food Taxes as a Tool in Health and NutritionPolicy. Food and Resou rce Econom ics Institute,Frederiksberg.

15) Chouinard, H.H., Davis, D.E. LaFrance J.T. and Perloff,J.M. (2005) The Effects of a Fat Tax on Dairy Products.Working Paper 1007, Department of Agricultural andResource Economics and Policy. U. California.

16) Cash, S.B., Sunding, D.L. and Zilberman, D. (2005) FatTaxes and Thin Subsidies: Prices, Diet, and HealthOutcom es, Ada Aqriculturae Scandinav ica Se ction c: 2, 3-4: 167-174.

17) htto://www.vichealth.vic.aov.au/Content.asox?tooiclD=3

18) Caraher, M. and Cowbum, G. (2005) Taxing Food:Implications for Public Health Nutrition. Public HealthNutrition. 8 (8): 1242-9.

19) Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada (2005) AddressingObesity in Canada: A Think Tank on Selected R esearchPriorities. Oct 6-7, Ottawa.http://ww2.heartandstroke.ca/Paae . asp?PaoelD-1613&ContentlD=2016a&ContentTvoelD=1

©2006 Die t i t ians o f Canada. A l l r igh ts reserved.May be reproduced fo r educat iona l purposes.


Les dietetistes du C anada

http://www.vichealth.vic.aov.au/Content.asox?tooiclD=3

http://ww2.heartandstroke.ca/Paae



http://www.vichealth.vic.aov.au/Content.asox?tooiclD=3



References

Ahmed, H. M. (2009). Obesity, fast food manufacture, and regulation: Revisiting opportunities for

reform. Food and Drug Law Journal, (54(3), 565-75.

Andrey eva, T., C haloupka , F. J., & Brovmell, K. D. (2011). Estim ating the potential of taxes on

sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Preventive

Medicine, 52(6), 413-416. doi:10.l016/j.ypmed.2011.03.013

Andreyeva, T., Long, M. W., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). The impact of food prices on

consum ption: A system atic review of research on the price elasticity of dema nd for food.

American Journal of Public Health, 100(21 216-222. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008,151415

Braillon, A. (2012). Taxing "sin drinks": From economy to sugar con trol. Preventive Medicine,

54(3-4), 283-2 83.

Braun, J. L., & Heal, B. A. A. (2004). Obesity: Implications for health care society. Health Policy and

Economics, 2(1), 29-32.

Brow nell, K. D., Farley, T., W illett, W. C , Popkin, B. M., Chaloup ka, F. J., Thomps on, J. W., &

Ludwig, D. S. (2009). The pu blic health and econom ic benefits of taxing sugar-sw eetened

beverages. New E ngland Journal of Medicine, 361(16), 1599-1605.

doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723

Brownell, K. D., &. Frieden, T. R. (2009). Ounces of prevention—the public policy case for taxes

on sugared beverages. New E ngland Journal of Medicine, 360(18), 1805-1808.

doi:10.1056/NEJMp0902392



Brownell, K. D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2009, October 6). The soda-tax solution. Los Angeles Times, p. A23.

Buhler, S.> & Raine, K.. (2010). Reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: Does taxation have

a role?. Practice-Based Evidence in Nutrition, December 2010, 1-9.

BySes, 1. (2005, June 4) . 'Fat tax' on thin ice with researcher. The St. Albert Gazette, pp. 11-12.

California Center for Public Health Advocacy. (2002). Nutrition and Physical A ctivity for Children and

Adolescents. Davis, California: Author.

Caraher, M., 8c Coveney, J. (2004). Public health nutrition and food policy. P ublic Health

Nutrition, 7(5), 591-598.

Caraher, M , & Co wbu rn, G. (200 5). Taxin g food: Implications for pub lic health nutrition.

Public H ealth Nutrition, 5(8), 1242-1249.

Cash, S. B., Goddard, E. W., & Lerohl, M. (2006). Canadian health and food: The links between

policy, consumers, and industry. C anadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54(4), 605-

629. doi:httD://www.blackwellpublishing.comyiournal.asp?ref-0008--3976

CAS H, S. B., SUN DING, D. L., & ZIL BER MA N, D. (2005). Fat taxes and thin subsidies:

Prices, diet, and health outcomes. Acta Agricuiturae Scandinavica: Section C, Food

Economics, 2(3), 167-174.

Cawley, J. (2004). An economic framework for understanding physical activity and eating

behaviors. American Journal of Preventive M edicine, 27, 117-125.

doi:10.10l6/j.amepre.2004.06.012

http://www.blackwellpublishing.comyiournal.asp/?ref-0008--3976

http://www.blackwellpublishing.comyiournal.asp/?ref-0008--3976



References

Ahmed, H. M. (2009). Obesity, fast food manufacture, and regulation: Revisiting opportunities for

reform. Food an d Drug Law Journal, 64(3), 565-75.

Andreyev a, T., Chaloupk a, F. J., & Brow nell, K. D. (2011). Estimating the potential of taxes on

sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce consumption and generate revenue. Preventive

Medicine, 52(6), 413-416. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.03.013

Andreyeva, T ., Long, M . W., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). The im pact of food p rices on

consum ption: A system atic review of research on the price elasticity of dem and for food.;

American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 216-222. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.151415

Braillon, A. (2012). Taxing "sin drinks": From economy to sugar control. Preventive Medicine,

54(3-4), 283-283.

Braun, J. L., & Heal, B. A. A. (2004). Obesity: Implications for health care society. Health Policy and

Economics, 2(1), 29-32.

Brown ell, K. D., Farley, T., Willett, W. C , Popkin, B. M., Chaloupka, F. J., Thomp son, J. W., &

Ludw ig, D. S. (2009). The public health and economic benefits o f taxing sugar-sweetened

beverages. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(16), 1599-1605.

doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723

Brownell, K. D., & Frieden, T. R. (2009). Ounces of prevention-the public policy case for taxes

on sugared beverages. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(1$), 1805-1808.

doi:l0.1056/NEJMp0902392



Brownell, K . D., & Ludwig, D. S. (2009, October 6). The soda-tax solution. Los Angeles Times, p. A23.

Buhler, S., & Raine, K. (2010). R educing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: Does taxation have;

a role?. Practice-Based Evidence in Nutrition, December 20 JO, 1-9.

Byles, I. (2005, June 4). 'Fat tax' on thin ice with researcher. The St. Albert Gazette, pp. 11-12.

California Center for Public Health Advocacy. (2002). Nutrition and Physical Activity for Children and

Adolescents. Davis, California: Author.

Caraher, M., & Coveney, J. (2004). Public health nutrition and food policy. Public Health

Nutrition, 7(5), 591-598.

Caraher, M., & Cowburn, G. (2005). Taxing food: Implications for public health nutrition.

Public Health Nutrition, 5(8), 1242-1249.

Cash, S. B., Goddard, E. W., & Lerohl, M. (2006). Canadian health and food: The Hnks between

policy, consum ers, and industry. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54(4), 605-

629. doi:http://wAvw.blackweIlpublishing.comyiournal.asp?ref= :0008-3976

CA SH, S. B., SUN DING , D. L., & ZILBER MA N, D . (2005). Fat taxes and thin subsidies:

Prices, diet, and health o utcom es. Ada Aghculturae Scandinavica; Section C , Food

Economics, 2(3), 167-174.

Cawley, J. (2004). An economic framework for understanding physical activity and eating

behaviors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 117-125.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.012

http://wavw.blackweilpublishing.comyiournal.asp/?ref=:0008-3976






Centre for Science in the Public Interest. (2005). Testimony of: BillJeffery, LL.B. national coordinator of the

centre for science in the public interest. Pre-budget hearings. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

Center for Science in the Public Interest. (2009). Taxing sugared beverages would help trim state budget

deficits, consumers' bulging waistlines, and health care costs. Washington, DC; Author.

Chaloupka, F. J., Pow ell, L. M., & Chriqui, J. F. (2011). Sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity

prevention: Policy recommendations. Journal of Policy Analysis an d Management, 30(3),

662-664. doi:http://www 3.mterscience.wilev.com.proxvl.lib.umanitoba.ca/cgi-

bin/ihome/34787

Chaloupka, F . J., Powell, L. M., & Chriqui, J. F. (2011). Sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity:

The potential imp act of public policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Managem ent, 30(3),

645-655. doi:http://www3.interscience.wiley com.proxvhlib.umanitoba.ca/cgi-

bin/ihorne/34787

Chaufan, C , Hon g, G. H., & Fox, P. (2009). Taxing "sin foods" - obesity prevention and public

health policy. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(24), el 13-el 13.

doi: 10.1056/NEJMopv0909847

Chouinard, H . H., Davis, D . E., LaFrance, J. T., & Perloff, J. M. (2007). Fat taxes: Big money

for small change. Forum for Health Economics and Policy, 10(2)

doi:http://www.bepress.com.proxvl.lib.umanitoba.ca/fhep

Chouinard, H ., Davis, D., L aFrance, J., & Perloff, J. (2005). Th e effects of a fat tax on dairy

products. Unpublished manuscript.

http://www3.mterscience.wilev.com.proxvl.lib.umanitoba.ca/cgibin/ihome/34787


http://www3.interscience.xn--wileym-f16m.proxvhlib.umanitoba.ca/cgibin/ihorne/34787


http://www.bepress.com.proxvl.lib.umanitoba.ca/fhep

http://www.bepress.com.proxvl.lib.umanitoba.ca/fhep







Chriqui, J. F., Eidson, S. S., Bates, H., Kowalczyk, S., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2008). State sales tax

rates for soft drinks and snacks sold through grocery stores and vending machines, 2007.

Journal of Public Hea lth Policy, 29(2), 226-249. doi:10.l057/jphp.2008.9

Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada. (2011). Extra sugar, extra calories, extra weight, more

chronic disease: The case for a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

Daniells, S. (2007, December 7). Fat tax - proposed again by academia, dismissed by industry. Food

Navigator USA. Retrieved from http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-proposed-again-b y-

academia-dismissed-by-industry

Dharmasena, S., & Capps, O., J. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a proposed

national tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to combat the U.S. obesity problem. Health

Economics, 2/(6), 669-694. doi:10.1002/hec.l738

Duffey, K. 1, Gordon-Larsen, P., Shikany, J. M., Guilkey, D., Jacobs, D., J., & Popkin, B. M.

(2010). Food price and diet and health outcomes: 20 years of the CARD IA study. Archives

of Internal M edicine, 170(5), 420-426. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.545

Edwards, R. D. (2011). Commentary: Soda taxes, obesity, and the shifty behavior of consumers.

Preventive Medicine, 52(6), 417-418. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.20l 1.04.011

Epstein, L. H., Dearing, K. K., Roba, L. G., & Finkelstein, E. (2010). The influence of taxes and

subsidies on energy purchased in an experimental purchasing study. Psychological Science

(Sage Pub lications Inc.), 2/(3 ), 406-414.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Fat-tax-proposed-again-byacademia-dismissed-by-industry






Faith, M. S., Fontaine, K. R., & Baskin, M. L. (2007). Toward the reduction of population

obesity: Macrolevel environmental approaches to the problems of food, eating, and obesity

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.205

Faulkner, G., Grootendorst, P., Nguyen, V.H., Ferrence, R., Mendelson, R., Donnelly, P., Arbour-

Nicitopoulos, K. (2010). Economic Policy, Obesity and Health; A Scoping Review . Toronto, .

Ontario: Exercise Psychology Unit.

Fieldhouse, P. (2006). Taxing food. Dietitians o f Canada, August 2006. Retrieved from

http://politiquespubliques.inspq.qc.ca/fichier.php/t46/DCTaxingFood.pdf

Fineberg, H. V. (2004). An economic analysis of eating and physical activity behaviors:

Exploring effective strategies to combat obesity doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.016

Finkelstein, E. A., Zhen, C., Nonnem aker, J., & Todd , J. E. (2010 ). Impact of targeted beverage

taxes on higher- and lower-income households. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(22),

2028-2034. doi: 10.100l/archinternmed.2010.449

Finkelstein, E., French, S., Variyam, J. N., & Haines, P. S. (2004). Pros and cons of proposed;

interventions to promote healthy eating. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 163-

171.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.017

Fletcher, J. M., Frisvold, D ., & Tefft, N . (2010). Taxing soft drinks and restricting access to

vending machines to curb child obesity. Health Affairs, 29(5), 1059-1066.

doi: 10 .1377/hlthaff.2009.0725





Fletcher^ J. M., Frisvold, D . E., & Tefft, N. (2011). Are soft drink taxes an effective mechanism

for reducing obesity? Journal o f Policy Analysis and Managem ent, 30 (3), 655-662.

doi:http://www 3.interscience.wiley.com.proxvl.lib.uniajiitoba.ca/cgi-bin/jhome/34787

Fletcher, J. M., Frisvold, D. E., & Tefft, N. (2011). The proof is in the pudding: Response to

chaloupka, pow ell, and chriqui. Journal of Policy Analysis a nd Manag ement, 30(2), 664-

665. doi:http://vAvw3.interscience.wilev.com.proxyl.lib.umanitoba.ca/cgi-biii/ihome/34787 :

Fletcher, J. M., Frisvold, D.} & Tefft, N. (2010). Can soft drink taxes reduce population weight?

Contemporary Economic Policy, 25 (1), 23-35. doi:http://www.blackwell-

svnergy.com.proxy l.lib.umanitoba.ca/loi/coep/

Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service. (2000). Estimation o f Food Demand and

Nutrient Elasticities from Household Survey Data (USDA Publication No. 1887). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Forshee, R. A. (2008). Innovative regulatory approaches to reduce sodium consumption: C ould a

cap-and-trade system work? Nutrition Reviews, 66(5). 280-285.

Frank, L. D. (2004). Economic determinants of urban form: Resulting trade-offs between active

and sedentary forms of travel. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2 7, 146-153.

doi:10.1016/j.arnepre.2004.06.018

Garson, A., J., & Engelhard, C. L. (2007). Attacking obesity: Lessons from smoking. Journal of

the American College of Cardiology (JACC), 40(16), 1673-1675.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.proxvl.lib.uniajiitoba.ca/cgi-bin/jhome/34787

http://vavw3.interscience.wilev.com.proxyl.lib.umanitoba.ca/cgi-biii/ihome/34787


http://www.blackwellsvnergy.com.proxy/






http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.proxvl.lib.uniajiitoba.ca/cgi-bin/jhome/34787



Goncalvesova, E. (2011). Is a tax on junk food moving a step closer? European Heart Journal, 32 , 1823-

1831. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehrl 84

Gonzalez-Zapata, L., Alvarez-Dardet, C , Millstone, E., Clem ente-Go mez, V ., Holdsw orth, M.,

Ortiz-Moncada, R. , . . . Horvath, K. Z. (2010). The potential role of taxes and subsidies on

food in the prevention of obesity in europe. Journal of Epidemiology & Community H ealth,

64(Z), 696-704. doi:10.1136/jech.2008.079228

Goodman C, Anise A (2006). What is known a bout the effectiveness of economic instruments to

reduce consumption of foods high in saturated ats and other energy-dense foods for preventing

and treating obesity? Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe (Health Evidence Network

report; http://www.euro.who.int/document/e88909.pdf, accessed 14 June , 201 2. ,

Harper, T. A., & Mooney, G. (2010). Prevention before profits: a levy on food and alcohol advertising.

The Medical Journal of ustralia, 192(7), 400-402.

Hill, J. O., Sallis, J. F.„ & Peters, J. C. (2004). Econ omic analysis of eating and physical activity:

A next step for research and policy change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27,

111-116. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.010

Holt, E. (2010). Romania mulls over fast food tax. Lancet, 375(9720), 1070-1070.

Holt, E. (2011). Hungary to introduce broad range of fat taxes. Lancet, 378(9193), 755-755.:

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(l 1)61359-7

Jacobson, M. F. (20 09). Soft drinks: Time to tax. Nutrition Action Health Letter, 36(2), 2-2.

http://www.euro.who.int/document/e88909.pdf





Kamerow , D. (2010). The case of the sugar sweetened beverage tax. BM J: British Medical

Journal (Overseas & Retired D octors Edition), 341(7765), 132-132.

Kim, D ., & Kaw achi, I. (2006). Food taxation and pricing strategies to 'T hi n out" the obesity

epidemic. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(5), 430-437.

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.007

ICnickman, J. R., & Orleans, C. T. (2004). Integrating economic thinking into research on the

dynamics of obesity: Challenges and opportunities doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.014

Kuchler, F., Tegene, A ., & H arris, J. M. (2005). Taxing snack foods: Ma nipulating diet quality

or financing information prog rams? R eview of Agricultural Economics, 27(1), 4-20.

doi:http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/iournal.asp?ref==l 058-7195

Kuchler, F., Tegene, A., & Harris, J. M. (2004). Taxing sn ack foods: What to ex pect for diet and tea

revenues, (USDA Publication No. 747-08). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Laurance, J. (2009). Time for a fat tax? lancet, 373(9675), 1597-1597. doi:10.10l6/S0140-

6736(09)60893-X

Lin, B., Smith, T. A., Lee, J., & Hall, K. D. (2011), Measuring weight outcomes for obesity

intervention strategies: The case of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Economics and Human

Biology, 9(4), 329-341.

doi:http://www.elsevier.com/wps/fma7ioumaldescription.cws home/622964/description#de

scription

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/iournal.asp?ref==l


http://www.elsevier.com/wps/fma7ioumaldescription.cws






Lusk, J. L., & Schroeter, C. (2011). When do fat taxes increase consumer welfare? Health Economics, epub

ahead ofprint. DOI: 10.1002/hec.l789

Maddock, J. E. (2010). Soda taxes, obesity, and the perils of complexity. American Journal of

Health Promotion, 25(2), 91-91. doi:10.4278/ajhp.25.2.91

Magnusson, R. S. (2008). What's law got to do with it? part 2; Legal strategies for healthier

nutrition and obesity prevention. Australia & New Zealand Health Policy (ANZ HP), J, 1-17.

doi: 10.1186/1743-8462-5-11

Mann, J. (2004). Cutting the fat: How a fat tax can help fight obesity. Available fromhttp://www.ecologic.org.nz/

Marshall, T. (2000). Exploring a fiscal food policy: The case of diet and ischaem ic heart disease.

BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition), 320(1230), 301-304.

doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7230.301

McCoIl, K. (2009). "Fat taxes" and the financial crisis. Lancet, 373(9666), 797-798.

Mytton, O., Gray, A., Rayn er, M., & Rutter, H. (2007).- Could targeted food taxes improv e :

health? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, (57(8), 689 -694 .

Mytton, O., Clarke, D,, & Rayner, M. (2012). Taxing unhealthy food and drinks. BMJ: British

Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired D octors Edition), 344(1857), 30-33.

National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity. (2010). Findings for model

sugar-sweetened beverage tax legislation. Oakland, CA: Author.

http://www.ecologic.org.nz/

http://www.ecologic.org.nz/



Nederkoo m, C , H averm ans, R. C , Giesen, J. C. A. H., & Jansen, A. (2011). High tax on high

energy dense foods and its effects on the purchase of calories in a supermarket, an

experiment. Appetite, 5(5(3), 760-7 65. doi: 10 .1016/j.appet.2011.03.002

Nnoaham , K. E., Sacks, G., Rayner, M .. Mytton, O., & Gray, A. (2009). Modelling income

group differences in the health and economic impacts of targeted food taxes and subsidies.

International Journal of Epidemiology, 38(5), 1324-1333. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp214

Pomeranz, J. L. (2012). Advanced policy options to regulate sugar-sweetene d beverages to

support public health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 33(\), 75-88.

doi:10.1057/jphp.2011.46

Powell, L. M,, Chriqui, J., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2009). Associations between state-level soda

taxes and adolescent body m ass index. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), S57-63.

POW ELL, L. M., & CH AL OU PK A, F. J. (2009). Food prices and obesity: Evidence and policy

implications for taxes and subsidies. Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 229-257.

doi: 10.1111/j. 1468-0009.2009.00554.X

Pratt, M., Macera, C. A., Sallis, J. F., O'Donnell, M., & Frank, L. D. (2004). Economic

interventions to prom ote physical activity: Application of the SLOT H mode l. American

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 136-145. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.06.015

Roehr, B. (2009). US "soda tax" could help tackle obesity, says new director of public health.

BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition), 339, b3176-b3176.



Roehr, B. (2010). Taxing junk food reduces consumption and improves health outcomes, finds

20 year study. BMJ: British M edical Journal (Overseas & Retired D octors Edition),

340(7146), 557-557.

Rudd Report. (2009, fall). Soft drink taxes: A policy brief. Rudd Center or Food Policy and Obesity.

Retrieved from

http://www.va]eruddcenter.org/resoiirc&s/upload/docs/what/reports/RuddReportSoftDrinkTaxFall2009:pd

f

Rutledge, K., & Raine, K.. (2005). Economic incentives and disincen tives for healthy eating a nd physical

activity; A summary o f evidence. Edmonton, AB: Author?.

Sacks, G., Veerman, J. L.. Mo odic, M., & Swinburn, B. (2011). Traffic-light' nutrition labelling

and 'junk-food' tax: A modelled comparison of cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention.

International Journal of Obesity, 35(1), 1001-1009. doi: 10.103 8/ijo.2010.228

Schroeter, C, Lusk, J., & Tyner, W. (2008). Determining the impact of food price and income

changes on body weight. Journal of Health Economics, 27(\), 45-68.

doi:http://vvvvvv j.elsevier.com/wps/find/iournaldescription.cws home/505560/description#de

scription

Schroeter, C , Lusk, J., & Tyner, W. (2005). Determining the impact of food price and policy changes\on

obesity. Indiana: Purdue University.

http://vvvvvvj.elsevier.com/wps/find/iournaldescription.cws







Scott-Thomas, C. (2009, September 1). Illinois raises taxes on candy and soft drinks. Food Navigator USA.

Retrieved from http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/IUinois-raises-taxes--on-candy~and--soft-

drinks

Seeman, N., & Luclani.P: (2002). The economics of fat. FraserF'orum.

Shue, B. K. (2009). The price of soft drinks. Journal o f the California Dental Association, 57(11), 757-

758.

Smed, S., Jensen, J. D., & Denver, S. (2005). Differentiated food taxes as a tool in health and nutrition policy.

Food and Resource Economics Institute, volume number, 1-15.

Smed, S., Jensen, J. D., & Denver, S. (2007). Socio-economic characteristics and the effect of

taxation as a health policy instrument. Food Po licy, 32(5-6), 624-639.

doi:httrJ://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/iournaldcscription.cws home/30419/descrimion#desc

ription

Standing Committee on Health. (2006). Evidence HESA Publication No. 019). Ottawa, ON: Canadian

Government Printing Office.

Strnad, J. (2005). Conceptualizing the "fat tax ": The role of food taxes in developed econom ies. Southern

California Law Review, 78, 1221-1326.

Sturm, R., Powell, L. M., Chriqui, J. F., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2010). Soda taxes, soft drink

consumption, and children's body m ass index. Health Affairs, 29(5), 1052-1058.

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.006l

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/IUinois-raises-taxes--on-candy~and--softdrinks


http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/iournaldcscription.cws







Sturm, R. (2004). The e conom ics of physical activity; Societal trends and rationales for ,

interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 126-135.

doi:10.l016/j.amepre.2004.06.013

Sugarman, S. (2009). No more business as usual: Enticing companies to sharply lower the pubjic

health costs of the products they sell. Public Health (Elsevier), 123(3), 275-279.

doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2008.12.020

The Retail Sales Tax Act of Manitoba. (2003). Food and beverages (C.C.S.M. Publication N o. 029).

Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Government Printing Office.

Thow , A. M., Quested, C , Juventin, L., Kun, R., Khan, A. N ., & Sw inbum , B. (2011). Taxing

soft drinks in the pacific; Impleme ntation lessons for improving he alth. Health Promotion

International, 26(\\ 55-64. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq057

Tiffin, R., & Arnoult, M . (2011). The public health impacts of a fat tax. European Journal of.

Clinical Nutrition, 65(4), 427 -433 . doi:10.1038/ejcn.2010.281 ' |

Tiffin, R., & Salois, M. (2012). Inequalities in diet and nutrition. Proceedings of the Nutrition-

Society, 7/(1), 105-111.

Tortolero, S. R., Popha m, K ., & Jacobson, P. D. (2009). Improving information on public health

law best practices for obesity prevention and control. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethicsl

37(2), 99-109. doi;10.11H/j.l748~720X .2009.00396.x



Vartanian, L. R., Schw artz, M, B ., & Brownell, K. D. (2007). Effects of soft: drink consumption

on nutrition and health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Public

Health, 97(4), 667-675. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.083782

W ang, Y., C , Coxsom P ., Shen, Y., Goldm an, L., & Bibbins-Dom ingo, K. (2012). A penny-per-

ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would cut health and cost burde ns of diabetes.

Health Affairs, 31(1), 199-207. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0410

Waterlander, W. E., Steenhuis, I. H., de Boer, M., Schuit, A. J., & Seidell, J. C. (2012).

Introducing taxes, subsidies or both: The effects of various food pricing strategies in a web-

based supermarket randomized trial. P reventive M edicine, 54(5), 323-330.

Wilson, N. (2007, August 28). The best recipe? Combining food taxes with subsidies on healthy foods

[Review of the article Could targeted food taxes improve health?]. Journal o f Epidemiology Community

Health. Retrieved from http://jech.bmj.eom/content/6l/8/689.abstract

Winkler, J. T. (2010). Tax on sugared drinks, how to raise the prices of unhealthy foods. BMJ:

British Medical Journal (Overseas & R etired Doctors Edition), 341, c4177-c4177.

doi:10.1136/bmj.c4177

Yach, D. (2008). The role of business in addressing the long-term implications of the current food crisis:.

Globalization and Health, 4. doklO.l 186/1744-8603-4-12

Yaniv, G.> Rosin, O., & Tobol, Y. (2009). Junk-food, home cooking, physical activity and

obesity: The effect of the fat tax and the thin subsidy. Journal of Public Econom ics, 93(5-6),

823-830. doi:http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578/

http://jech.bmj.eom/content/6l/8/689.abstract

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578/

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578/

http://jech.bmj.eom/content/6l/8/689.abstract



No author. (2007). Proceedings from the Wingspread Conference Center '07: Potential Policy and Research

Options for Making U.S. Food an d Agricultural Policy Serve Public Health Goals. Racine, Wisconsin.



• At present, 25 states impose small taxes on soda and other beverages with addedsugar.

• A 2009 report/from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Taxing SugaredBeverages Would Help Trim State Budget Deficits, C onsumers' Bulging W aistlines,and Health Care Costs outlines the health and fiscal benefits of a soda tax,

• President Barack Obam a has lent his support for a soda tax wh ich could benefit

children's health and the nation's wealth. "I actually think it's an idea that we shouldbe exploring. There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda."

• A January 2010 CBS New s opinion poll found that 60 % of those surveyed opposeda junk foo d tax.

In ternat ional• Romania will become the first country in the world to introduce a tax on junk food.

The new tax will apply to individuals or organizations that produce, import or processfood with a high content of salt, fats, sugar and additives. The new tax, to beintroduced in March 2 010, will be used for health programs in the coun try. Theministry justified its proposal stating that a significant number of people in Europesuffer from obesity, increasing the risk of diabetes, hypertension a nd premature

death due to u nhealthy food.• Taiwan is considering similar action. The Bureau of Health Promotion is drafting a

bill to levy the special tax on food deeme d unhealthy, such as sugary drinks, candy, .cakes, fast food and alcohol. Revenue from the tax would finance groups promoting |health awareness or subsidize the national health insurance prog ram. If approved itwou ld come into effect next year.

Mi lk Subs id ies• In 2008 a milk subsidy proposal wa s introduced in the NWT legislature, with an

estimated cost of $1.0 - $1,5million per year. This was not successful.• Milk is an eligible product in the Federal Food Mail progra m, wh ich serves some

Manitoba communities. This program has recently been comprehensively reviewed

anplafinaj report is pending.

H ( I ) (b) i t )

• The"N'orthe7hTlealthy Food" Initiative [RRF l] was established as an interdepartmentalgovernment response to the N orthern Food Prices Report, and continues to operateunder the leadership of AN A. HLYS , MH, MA FRI, HCMO an d Conservation are thepartner departm ents. Northern Healthy Food Initiative was given a mand ate to

pursue a limited number of priority items from the report, with a focus on remotecomm unities. The items identified above were not part of the m andate.



ADVISORY NOTE FOR MINISTER OF HEALTHY LIVING, YOUTH & SENIORS

Type: Dec is ion X Discuss ion In form at ion D

In i t ia ted by : Min is ter X DM D ADM Branch

Div is ion /B ranch : Healthy Living & Popu lationsTit le: Junk Food LevyDate: January 27, 2010AIMS Log Number : HLYS 10-00090

H M(0 M

»(0M (0

w(i)U)(\)

Current S ta tus :

Junk Food Tax

Canada



f

C e r q u e i r a , E l i za b e t h ( H L S C A )

From: Fieldhouse, Paul (MHHL)Se nt: March-10-10 2:44 PMTo: Robertson, Mark (MHHL)Su bje ct: FW: Media request: Soda tax/junk food taxAtta ch m en ts: pf taxing food dc currentissues.pdf

Hi Mark - for your considerat ion and forwarding as appropr iate.

. _ comments w ere acc urate : th is is a complex issue th a t has been the su bject of much

and ongoing debate over everything f rom the concept i tsel f to implementat ion to potent ia l outcomes.

Th e de pa rtm ent o f He althy L iv ing, Seniors and Youth [previously H ealth and Hea lthy Liv ing] has

previously undertaken some internal analysis of the issue, and cont inues to monitor developments.

There is a considerable amount of l i terature on th e topic - b oth academ ic and popular commentary -

th a t can be read i ly accessed. [An examp le is attached. Please note this doe s not represent the views of

the department - M ark - I d on't know if you want to include th is or no t. I t is th e Cu rren t Issue s paper

I d id for DC in 20 06 : no dep ar tm ent a f f i l ia t ion is given]

Promo t ion of heal thy e at ing at school has been a major th ru st in th e last few ye ars. The Man itoba

Publ ic Schools Act requires that al l publ ic ly funded schools in Manitoba have a wr i t ten nutr i t ion pol icy.

Governm ent has provided a range of supp orts to schools to help the m achieve th is , such as handbooks,

gu ide l ines, workshops and a to l l - f re e l ine. In fo rm at io n on th is in i t ia t ive can be found at

h t tp :/ /www.qov .mb.ca /hea l thvschoo ls /food inschoo ls / index .h tm l

Government o f Ma nitoba con tr ib ute s funding support fo r school nour ishm ent program s, such asbre ak fas t and snacks, thro ug h th e Chi ld Nu t r i t io n Council o f Mani toba.

The Nor thern Heal thy Food In i t ia t ive is an in terdepar tmenta l in i t ia t ive led by Abor ig ina l and Nor thern

A f f a i r s th at works w i th no r th ern reg iona l par tners to increase access to a f for da b le nu t r i t ious food in

northern and remote communit ies. Projects include gardening, greenhouses, smal l l ivestock product ion,

f re ez er loan pro je cts and school cur r icu lum.

Nutr i t ion programs are also del ivered by RHAs and other heal th agencies and non-government

organisat ions

Dr. Paul FieldhouseNutrition Policy <5 Research AnalystHealthy Living, Youth and Seniors300 Carlton St.Winnipeg, ManitobaCanada R3B 3M9

Phone 2 4 786 735

http://www.qov.mb.ca/healthvschools/foodinschools/index.html

http://www.qov.mb.ca/healthvschools/foodinschools/index.html



Fax 204 948 2366

Email [email protected]

i

Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and maycontain legally privileged or confidential information. A ny unauthorized us e, disclosure, distribution, orcopying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this E-mail by mistak e, and p leasedelete it and the attachm ents (and all copies) in a secure manner. Thank you.

Message de confidentialite : Ce m essage et tout document dans cette transmission est destine a la personne oaux personnes a qui il est adresse\ II peut contenir des informations privileg iees ou confidentielles. Touteutilisation, divulgation, distribution ou copie non autorisee est strictement defendue. Si vous n'etes pas ledestinataire de ce cou rriel, veuillez en informer I'expediteur et effacer l'original (et toutes les pieces jointe s) demaniere securitaire. Merci.

2

mailto:[email protected]




THE INSIDE STORY

Tax ing Food

Summary Overv iew

Over the past few years there has been increasinginterest in nutrit ion advocacy circles and in the popularpress about the idea of a so-called "fat tax", "junk food

tax" or "snack tax". In this review I will address severalbasic issues connected to small taxes on food includingtheir intended purpose, how they work, pros and cons andimplications for dietetic practice.

Ba c k g r o u n d

The concept of a small tax on selected food products isrooted in two big ideas. Firstly, strong scientif ic evidencethat links diet to chronic disease, together with, concernsover the increasing prevalence of obesity has fuelled callsfor strategies to reduce intakes of dietary fat, sugar, saltand overall food energy (1). Secondly, as food costs areimportant factors in consumer food choice, it is thought tobe possible to change eat ing behaviour through theapplication of economic levers. The two ideas intersect inthe fact that energy dense foods are amongst the leastcostly of foods (2).

In 1994, Dr. Kelly Brownell of Yale University suggestedtaxing unhealthy foods, a proposal that was quicklylabelled "the Twinkie Tax" and ridiculed by opponents (3).Since then several types of small taxes on food havebeen proposed, the most common of which are styled:"Junk food tax"; "Fat tax"; and "Snack Tax". An alternativeeconomic strategy, the applicat ion of subsidies to healthyfood choices, is beyond the scope of this discussion (4).

Def in i t ions

The terms "junk food tax", "fat tax", or "snack tax", lackcommon clear definit ions. "Junk food" is more of aconceptual category than it is a nutrit ional one, althoughthe term is widely used as sh orthand to refer to some or

all of high fat or sugar snack foods, fast foods, soft drinksand candy (5). "Fat tax" embraces a variety of schemes totax foods based on their total fat content, or specificallythe saturated fat or trans-fat component. For exampleMarshall suggests that products could be taxed if theyraised cholesterol concentrations but be exempted if the

"ratio of polyunsaturates to saturates (and trans fattyacids) were more favourab le" (6). Targeting fpods fortaxation bas ed o n their fat (or indeed , other [nutrient)content provides a clearer nutrit ional criterion than that ofjunk-food / non junk food. "Snack food", like "junk-food", isa more ambiguous conce pt. For example, Health Canadarefers to snack foods "like potato chips and pretzels" butalso to the con cept of healthy nutritious snacks jfrom thefood groups (7), while examples from Industry Canada ofwhat are considered as snack food include cheese curls,popcorn, corn chips and potato chips (8).

Why a tax?

Advocates identify two potential positive outcomes ofdifferentiated food taxes. The first is the potential forprompting changes in individual eating behaviour that areconsistent with current nutrit ional advice on healthy eatingand that will contribute to changes in populationconsumption patterns leading to reduced levels of obesityand chronic disease. This rationale is generallyifavouredby public health groups and consumer health lobbies andis often proposed as part of a broader comprehensivehealth promotion/public health strategy, cit ing theexperience of cigarette taxation as a component of acomprehensive tobacco control strategy (9). The secondoutcome is revenue generation that could be directed to

support nutrit ional health promotion programs.' For thisreason, some crit ics who doubt the likeliness of the firstoutcome ne vertheless support such taxes.

©2006 Diet it ians of Canada. All r ights reserved.May be reproduced for educational purposes.

Dietit ians of CanadaLes dietetistes du Canada

1/4



THE INSIDE STORY

Opt ions for tax in tervent ion

Taxes on food may be applied at the retail level in theform of general or targeted sales taxes. In Canada, foodis already differentially taxed through the Goods andServices Tax (GST) and Provincial Sales Tax (PST).Foods and beverages subject to GST are listed byCanada Customs (10). There is, arguably, a high degreeof congruency between what is in this l ist and what wouldbe likely to be on a "junk food" or "snack food" tax list. Anumber of states from the United States of America haveat different times experimented with levying special taxeson soft drinks and specific snack foods or have excludedthese products from tax exemptions given to foodproducts (11).

There are also options for levying taxes at differentstages in the food system. Approaches tried in the U.S.include:

» Manufacturers tax - payable on production volume (e.g.soft drinks or syrups) or as a percentage of salesrevenue, andWholesalers and distributors tax - payable on amountof product sold.


on total fat, saturated fat or sugar could have an impact

on consumption of fats, sugars and overall calories forsome groups , although with no "particularly advantageouseffects" for the socio-demographic groups amongst whichobesity and unhealthy diets are of the most concern (14).The authors suggest that combining economicinstruments with public information campaigns may be afruitful aven ue for furthe r exploration . A U.S. study thatattempted to simulate the effects of a fat tax on dairyproducts concluded that a 10% tax on fat content had littleimpact on the quantity of dairy products consumed by anygroup, though there was an overall predicted 1.4%reduction o f average , total fat intake (15). O therresearchers have proposed combining taxation of lesshealthy options with subsidies for healthier alternativessuch as fruits and vegetables, as a potentially more

effective strategy in improving diet quality and healthoutcomes (16).

Food taxes would almost certainly raise revenues. TheUSDA analysis cited above estimated that a 1% tax onpotato chips translates into twenty seven million dollars ofrevenue that could be spent on education programs.Governments are often reluctant to allocate specificrevenue streams to specific purposes. A notableexception is VicHe alth - a very succes sful Australianhealth promotion foundation supported through tobaccotaxes (17). More often, monies go into general revenuesfrom where they are reallocated according to changingneeds and government priorities.

Would junk food taxes be ef fect ive?

While there have been few attempts to demonstrate theactual impact of such taxes with real world examples,several recent economic modelling studies haveattempted to gauge the likely impact of such taxes, takinginto account factors such as current levels ofconsum ption, price elasticity and substitution strategies. AUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) modelsuggests that "small" taxes on snack foods would beineffective in changing patterns of consumption and wouldhave little impact on diet quality or heath outcomes (13).Even a 20% tax on salty snack foods would result in onlya 4-6 ounce reduction in annual per capita consumption.Moreover, as the authors point out, there is no guaranteethat any consumption changes prompted by such taxeswould be nutritionally be neficial.

An analysis carried out for the Danish Food and ResourceEconom ics Institute indicated that differential taxes base d

It should be noted that food taxes are regressive in naturesince they disproportionately affect lower incomepopulations where a higher percentage of income is spenton food. Modelling the distributional effect of hypotheticaltaxes on saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, sodium andcholesterol using data from the National Food Survey, arecent United Kingdom analysis showed that the poorest2% of people would pay 0.7% of total income on a fat tax,while the richest group would pay only 0 .1 % of totalincome (18).


if the idea of a "junk food", "snack food" or "fat tax" ga inedpolitical and public support, there would be at least twokinds of implem entation c hallenges to address. The first isin deciding what to tax. It is difficult to link specific foods tospecific health impacts so the idea of tax on specific foodand beverage products runs counter to the message thatit is overall dietary intake that matters. There would haveto be broad agreeme nt on the part of policy m akers,




Les dietettstes du Canada



ISSUESTHE INSIDE STORY

practitioners and industry on what constitutes "junk-food"

or "snack food" and therefore is taxable.

The second challenge recognises the complexity ofadministering a differential retail tax. Given that newproducts are constantly appearing on the market, and thatmanufacturers may change product specifications, acontinual monitoring, evaluation and classification systemwould be required. Retailers would need to adopt newtechnologies and/or accounting systems to charge thetax, and tax remittance and collection systems wouldhave to be developed. Restaurants would be faced withan even more complex task. It may be that tax levies atthe manufacturer or distributor level would be relativelyeasier to administer and would underline the idea thathealthier choices are an industry as well as consumerresponsibil ity. In either case, both producers andconsumers would likely bear a share of the costs.

References:

1) Shields, M. (2005) Overweight Canadian children andadolescents, Nutrition; Findings from the CanadianCommunity Health Survey. Statistics Canada.http://www.statcan.ca/enQHsh/research/82-620-MIE/2005001/articles/chiid/cobesitv.htm

2) Drewnowski, A. (2003) Fat and Sugar: An EconomicAnalysis. Journal of Nutrition, 133S, 838S-840S.

3) Brownell, K.D. (1994) Get Slim With Higher Taxes"New York Times, Op-Ed., Dec. 15th.

4) Jeffery, R.W ., French, S.A., Raether, C. an d Baxter,

J.E. (1994) An Environmental Intervention toIncrease Fruit and Salad Purchases in a Cafeteria,Preventive Medicine, 23, 6: 788-92.

Impl icat ions for d ie te t ic pract ice

While economic incentives and disincentives are apotential addition to the array of public policy instrumentsavailable to encourage healthy eating, there is as yet noclear cut empirical evidence on which to judge the meritsof junk food or similar taxes. The Institute of Medicineconcludes that there is insufficient evidence torecommend either for or against taxing these foods, while

a recent Canadian think-tank on addressing obesityconcluded that the relationship between economicpolicies such as the role of tax incentives anddisincentives and their influence on eating behaviours ispoorly understood and requires further research (19).

5) CDC School Health Policies and Programs Study(2000) Fact Sheet: on Foods and Beverages Soldoutside of School Meal Programs.httD://www.cdc.QOv/HealthvYouth/shDDs/factsheets/D df/outside food.odf

6) Marshall, T. (2000) Exploring a fiscal food policy: the caof diet and t'schaemic heart disease. British Medical Jour320: 301-04.

7) ^Health Canada (1997). Canada's Food Guide - Focus on

Children 6-12 years- Background for Educators andCommunicators. Minister of Public Works and GovernmenServices Canada. Cat. H39-308/1-1997e

8) http://strateqis.ic.gc.ca/canadian industry statisths/cis.nsfDE/cis311919defe.html

It would be useful to develop more robust definitions ofterms such as "Junk Food" and "Snack Food" as a m eansto defining exactly what foods would be targeted and why.

Continuing media discourse about food tax proposalsdoes provide an opportunity for dietitians to engage thepublic in discussions about the importance of healthyeating and the role of public policy in supporting healthy

choices.

9) Institute o f Medicine (2005) Food Marketing to Children aYouth: Threat or Opportunity? The National AcademiesPress, Washington D.C.

10) htto://www. era-arc, oc. ca/E/oub/gm /4-3/4-3r-e.html

11) Lohman, J. S. (2002) Taxes on Junk Food.htto://www.caa.ct.oov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R^.100 4.htm

12) Jacobson, M.F. an d Brownwell, K.D. (2000) Small Taxes Soft Drinks and Snack Foods to Promote Health, AmericaJournal of Public Health. 90 (6) 854-7.

Written by Paul Fieldhouse, PhD and reviewed by KimRaine, PhD, RD and Carmen Connolly.

13 ) Kuchler, F. ; Tegene, A. , Ham's, M (2005) Taxing SnacFoods: Manipulating Diet Quality or Financing InformationPrograms?. Review of Agricultural Economics. 27 (1) 4-2



Diet i t ians of Canada

Les d ie t& t is tes du Canada

http://www.statcan.ca/enQHsh/research/82-620MIE/2005001/articles/chiid/cobesitv.htm


http://www.cdc.qov/HealthvYouth/shDDs/factsheets/D

http://strateqis.ic.gc.ca/canadian


http://www.caa.ct.oov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R%5e.1004.htm

http://www.caa.ct.oov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R%5e.1004.htm


http://www.cdc.qov/HealthvYouth/shDDs/factsheets/D





CURRENT ISSUETHE INSIDE STORY

14) Smed, S., Jensen, J.D., and Denver, S. (2005)Differentiated Food Taxes as a Tool in Health and NutritionPolicy. Food and Resource Economics Institute,Frederiksberg.

15) Chouinard, H.H., Davis, D.E., LaFrance J.T. and Perioff,

J.M. (2005) The Effects of a Fat Tax on Dairy Products.Working Paper 1007, Department of Agricultural andResource Economics and Policy. U. California.

16) Cash, S.B., Sunding, D.L and Zilberman, D. (2005) FatTaxes and Thin Subsidies: Prices, D iet, and HealthOutcomes, Acta Aariculturae Scandinavica Section c; 2, 3-4:167-174.

17) httD://www.vichealth.vic.aov.au/Content.asDX?tQDiclD=3

18) Caraher, M. and Cowburn, G. (2005) Taxing Food:Implications for Public Health Nutrition. Public HealthNutrition, 8 (8): 1242-9.

19) Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada (2005) AddressingObesity in Canada: A Think Tank on Selected R esearchPriorities. Oct 6-7, Ottawa.htto://ww2.heartandstroke.ca/Page.aso?PaaelD=1613&ContentlD=20169&ContentTvoelD=1

©2 0 0 6 D ie t i t i a n s o f Ca n a d a . A l l r i g h t s r e se r ve d .May be reproduced fo r educat iona l purposes.

Diet i t ians of Canada

Les d ie te tis tes du Canada

http://www.vichealth.vic.aov.au/Content.asDX?tQDiclD=3

http://www.vichealth.vic.aov.au/Content.asDX?tQDiclD=3



Manitoba

Re q u e s t f o r Ba c kg r o u n d e r Co r r e sp o n d e n ce Un it

1074- 300 Carlton Street

Phone: 788-63 56 - Gai l Wiggins

Date: Nov 28 2008 Fax: 947-9314

Minister ia l Log # ; HLIVM08--03650

Cl ient Name:

Context : (background)

v " -J e-mai led the p re m ie r- which was referred to Minister Osw ald, suggest ing a'Lard-Ass Tax' to pay for recruitment of addit ional health care workers. {A response tothis recruitment issue is being prepared separately by Workforce}

. roposes taxing 'unhealthy foods' and removing PST on i tems that encouragegood health and fitness.

Current S ta tus:

The issue of food taxes has been, and cont inues to be, d iscussed by governments andacadem ic rese archers, in Canada and internat ionally , over the past decade .

Most recently in Can ada, food taxes were one of the issues con sidered by the S tandingCommittee on Health of the House of Commons, dur ing an examinat ion of chi ldhoodobesity .

In the department, Dr. Paul Fieldhouse has made a particular study of the issue of junkfood taxes. A recent article is attached for information.

Currently there is only, at best, weak evidence that junk food taxes would be effective inachieving pub l ic health goals of in f luencing food choices. Such taxe s would certa in lyraise revenue - wh ich could potentially be targete d to other healthy eating program s -

and could have a symbolic value. Most studies have considered the impact of tax ratesof up to 30%. I t has been show n, even with smal l taxes, that the effect would beregressive - that is,-there would be a greater economic impact on lower incomeconsumers .

It is well known that the cost of fruits and vegetables is higher per 100kcaloriesthanhigh fat and sugar products, and that high costs of healthy foods is one barrier to



healthier eating. The re is evide nce to suggest that lowering the relative cost of healthierfood choices may be more effective than taxing ' junk foods'.

Providing tax relief or other form s of subsidy on health-prom oting good s and activit ieshas been considered. Current examples of relevant init iatives include the low-costchildren's bike helmet cam paign that the departme nt has sponso red for the last 3 years- providing over 42,00 0 b ike helmets at very low cost and many for no cost, and the$500.00 annual child f itness credit provided by the provincial government, which

matches the federalcredit to support children involved in activity programs.

Caut ionary Notes :

Junk food taxes co ntinues to be a topic of discussion in nutrit ion policy circles in

Recommended Response :

Provide information as above.Enclose copy of attachment if desired.

Prepared by : Dr. Paul FieldhouseTelephone: 786 7350

Please l is t s ta f f who m ust rev iew le t ter before i t goes in for s ignature:

Dr. Paul FieldhouseMr. Mark RobertsonM s. Marie O'Neill

Return to CU by ( leave b lank) :



Does the taxman have a role innutritional health?


Annual Conference

Vancouver

June 2007

Dr. Paul Fieldhouse

Manitoba Health & Healthy Liv ing

University of Manitoba



Food taxes - a

TWROUCYPODCAST

Br i t i s h Co l u m b i a Se l ec t

S t an d i n g C o m m i t t ee o nHeal th 2006

" Investigate the feasibi l i ty ofnew junk food taxes on non-

nutri t ive foods and beverages"

pirited discourse

• Tax jun k food to fightobes ity: CMA head• Canadian Press

• W edn esda y, March 22, 2006

nzherald .co.nz

Push for tax on junk food salesI2 :00AM Thurs day August 07 ,2003By Martin Johnston



DIFFERENTIATED FOOD TAXES AS A TOOL IX

HEALTH AND XUTRITION POLICY

The Effects of a Fat Tax on Dairy Products

lIiG Oh '} ' " " ^ n - ^* * / ,

"HayleV"HrChotUitafdDavid E. Davis "

Jeffrey T . LaFrancc "JeffievM. Pe-rloff''

Siane Smed* Jorgeai Dejgaavtl .Uewseit niul Sigrid DenverFood and Resource Economics Institute, KVL

Rolighedsvej 25BK-195S Frederiksberg C

E-mail: sjaaifc^foidk, iorge& afoidk

^^W ^" * « i f tS , 0

*f t

< ? *

C&O

T o ,

H,<wtf*

IN L C O N O M I C S O l :

u r r e n t I s s u e s

«*>/'/.,

- > , , ,

* * ./ t o . °

E: culture Information 8 uM n N B 747*08

1-"()(.)U M A K K E I ' S

AUBU' tJWW

" W *»#,* %

Taxing Snack F ood s: Wh at to E xpec t forD ie t and Tax Reve nues

THE INSIDE STORY

An Economic Analysis of Eat ing and Physical Act ivi ty

B e h a v i o r sExploring Effective Smri-e-gle.s to C>>ml>at Obesity

I I . t f t v v V I'iMflx-W. M i l . 1'liLJ

Taxing Food



Economics as ain

choice

Cost is secondbehind taste/quality / freshness

Food expenditureincreases withincome

A v e r a g e w e e k l i y e x p e n d r t u r e p e r p e r s o n o nm e s- 't an ir si nt s a n d f o u r m afc n- f o o d c a t e g o o e s b y

h o u s e h o l d i ri oo rrr ae g i r o u p

A v e r a g e w e e k l y 3

2 0

-15

I O

5

0

L e s s C h a n $ 2 0 , 0 0 0

EO $ 2 G , 0 0 D t o $ 7 9 , 9 9 9$ 6 0 , 0 0 0 o r m o r - e

Restaurants Meatand f ish

Fini te andvegetables

Dai iyp roduc tsand eaas

Bakeryand crthe r

cerealp roduc ts



% income spent onfood inversely relatedto total income

% i n c o m e o n f o o d at h o m e 2 0 0 5

6 0 -;

5 0 ;

4 0 I

3 0

2 0 -

1 0 '-.

0 4 -

l"'l: 1

C .2 < ; expenditure



03 m

5 3

oZx03 Q _

" D CDCD Z J

CD- * »

OoQ .

O Tl

S °D O- ! Q .I—H

i =•CD O

C D

(I)

O=r03Z5

CQCD

Percentagechancje =? Q

_j> _ s N J U J 4^ -

o o o o o o

Fresh fruits andvegetables

Total fruits andvegetables

Ce-real andbakeiy

Daiiry

:'Red meats

Poultry

[Sugar and sweets

If at s and oils

SSL Qa. c£

5" 5'

o

to1rooOo

I Soft drinks



dnoj6-9ixioo=ui Aq saue/v A |p i| t© |g •

o p # | 9 u i a A i f i p j p o oj j € | p u » l y i Q *

JB9Uj|jo u pu eiue p pue eoud uosM^eq d!qsuo r|B|9^ .

pueuiep jo A;!0!|SB|3



TypesoJ ecanxSnix

• Taxes• Taxowdits

• Subsidies- Consumer

- Producer

• Pricipfl ilisiteg ies - p

• Coupons/discounts

.o.p.

etc



Taxation & Public Policy

Efficiency in meeting public policy goal

Legal and financial impacts

Economic efficiency

Fairnessimplicity



Rationale for

• Change consumerbehaviour

• Generate revenue

- Use for targeted

programs

• Symbolic / catalytic

taxes on food



Perverse outcomes

• Regressive nature of impact

• No guarantee of 'healthier'alternate choices

• Reduction of revenue

• Competitiveness

• Black markets



Deciding what to tax

• Categories of food commodities- Definitions

- Drawing the line

• Nutrient content

-Which nutr ient /s?

- Both good and bad

- Single food focus



Tax

• Consumer

• Manufacturer

• Distributor

ilicy options



Canada R evenue Agency / Manitoba Finance

GST/HST M emoranda Seriesm**m*

4.3 Bii-stc Groceries January 2007

Thr. memorandum piovide r. de:.iitetl in fc-.mn lien -:n ierc»-»a:ed b.v.ic sioceiy product'. .i% thevielate to (he sow h aari ien.jce'. o>: i.unionized ;a\i\ tax-GST HST> provision* of ihe Excise T.vAcruh.vA.ci).

Hole Tin:, uiHu cuc i i t i i isp la^s ; GVT Hi I MiiucixiKkuM - i j . J ^ w Gi9ee>ia. 4J3i«iNweinbei iS ?- . Due IOIIW uuuib?! of

l ev i v i w. . lie caaagej Ims aoi l>e*u rifle-tuned Tt:v nseiao taud its tacrcpo u'.a; poiiey -.litiaienK ?-?SR tin iuppi'' ctFondttt Chctciaa. P-31S T*\ SM/«.- nf D e-Aifohdtzed WMC. P- 'U C*-Sf //5f JAIAC o/CeiteinI<c C U WJ. lcel-JiiyShtfott. Fiozo: Yoghint Ftoziit Pitikims PtujucK. ?-_-4A/w«i>.f t>/C.-iW iu* v*?ri«<: . P-23H.V« ni; i i t jo'"Oni«. u T p n t f a o i C ofPiep&t(IF<>&i".?-2K

lAp£kciifi&!\JC>i71i*7ttFt0aiic!zC&!i>HQtil} Described o: 'Diettny

Si'ffylentou: ".isid ?-*41 Sfer.ntit; vfQihvi .^hai'tu Si-wA'/Vsw "-"». «« Poispap'n Itji a/ Pr.f: W o/Sc':e-J:i t T! .v iht

£\?i;c T.x\.ic:

l**™-*** r*ta'M&f JT-MW-W in>*-±

BULLETIN NO. 029

issued May 2000

Revised May 2003

THE RETAIL SALES TA X ACT

FOOD AND BEVERAGES

http://acruh.va.ci/

http://acruh.va.ci/

http://acruh.va.ci/



in C

GST on about one-third of food

expendituresper annum

$2bn annually in revenue

GST on soft drinks, snack foods,chocolate, candy etc

GST on some 'healthy' choicesNo GST on some 'unhealthy' choices

No evaluation of impact of GST on foodconsumption



US S tate M an ufa ctu rer / .D is t r ibutor Food Tax

• Arkansas - levy on soft drink syrups, powders and bottledsoft drinks

• Maine - tax on soda proposed - revenue for HealthPromotion Fund [inactive]

• Missouri - 'inspection tax' paid by manufacturers and

distributors of soft drinks

• Rhode Is. - tax on volume of beverage containers sold

• Tennessee - tax on volume of import, manufacture andsales of soft drinks

• Virginia - tax on every wholesa ler or distributor ofcarbonated soft drinks



Evidence on food taxation - theory

• Direct-empirical

• Indirect

- Causal Extrapolation

- Associational

- Modeling / simulation



Evidence on food 1

• Direct-empirical

• Indi rect

- Causal Extrapolation

- Associational

- Modeling / simulation

axation - practice

X

x

V x



Conclusions

• Review and reform of GST/PST may be worth exploringfurther

• Combination of taxes and incentives may be better thaneach alone

• Rigorous prospective research is needed to draw firm

conclusions

• Weight of current evidence and commentary suggeststhere are more promising avenues to explore. E.g.subsidies for 'healthy foods'



V 2 ^

A D V I S O R Y N O T E F O R T H E M IN I S T E R O F H E A L T H Y L I V I N G

Di vis ion /B ran ch : Heal thy L iving\Healthy Populat ionsSu bje ct: Fat taxes and junk food taxes

I ssue Sum m ary :So-called 'fat taxes' and 'junk food taxes' have been much discussed in public and professionalarenas. What are the pro's and con's and have such taxes been successful ly implemented inother jurisdictions?

B a c k g r o u n d :There is strong scientific evidence linking diet to chronic diseases such as diabetes,cardiova scular dise ase and cancer. Th e powerful morbidity and mo rtality effects of diet,together with growing sense of an epidemic of obesity have led some public health scholars andpublic interest advocates to call for taxes on food. It has been sugg este d that to compens ate foran unhealthy food environment [some have called' it a toxic food env ironm ent], foods high incalories, fat or sugar be subjected to special taxes, and that the cost of healthful foods such asfruits and vegetables be subsidised. .

Such proposals fall into two genera! categories.1. 'Junk food' taxes on less nutrit ious foods such as soft drinks, candy or snack foods.2. More ambit ious taxes that would apply to a much broader range of foods and food

com pon ents. [For examp le, tax food s on the basis of their conten t of saturate d or trans fatbecause of the contribution of these fats to coronary hearth disease, rather than tax shackfoods in gene ral]

'Junk food' is a conceptual category, usually used pejoratively, that has no precise scientificme aning . It is often us ed as shortha nd to refer to some or all of, high fat or sugar snack foods,fast food s, soft drinks and cand y. The C entre for Disease C ontrol in the US defines junk foodas: "Foods that provide calories primarily through fats or added sugars and have minimal

amounts of vitamins and m inerals'1

Advo cates su ggest that a tax based on the fat and sugar content of foods w ould discourageconsumption, provide revenue for education programs, and reduce costs incurred by the healthsystem in treating obesity and related chronic-diseases.

Cur ren t Sta tus :In countries around the w orld, there is a growing dem and for governm ent act ion on junk food.Common issues revolve around food taxation and food advertising and availability of food inscho ols. There are rapid deve lopme nts in this arena and the summ ary below does not pretendto be exhaustive.

Canada

In Canada there is already a sales tax applied to foods that are not considered 'basic groceries';it comprises the GST and PST.

The supply of basic groceries, which includes the majority of supplies of food and beveragesmarketed for hum an consum ption is zero-rated. Certain categories of foodstuffs, for example,carbonated beverages, cand ies and confect ions, and snack foods, including products dispensedin vend ing m achine s are, howeve r, taxable at 7% or 15% . Full details are contain ed in CanadaCustoms and Revenue Agency Form 4-3: Basic Groceries. (Attachment 1). In Manitoba, theRetail Sales Act (RSA) applied to Food and Beverages uses GST guidelines for determiningwhether a food or beverage product qualifies for an exemption under the RST. ManitobaFinance Taxation Division, Bulletin No. 029 [Revised May 2003] contains full details

(Attachment 2).



Dietitians of Canada is currently studying the issues of junk food taxes.

United States

As of mid-2000, seventeen (17) US States and two (2) major cities imposed soft drink or snack

food taxes. [Attachment 3}. Some states put the money into general revenues, but others .target it to support specific programs [but in no case to subsidise prices of healthful foods].

Taxes apply to soft drinks, candy , chewing gum or snack foods and m ay be levied at thewholesale or retail level and in terms of a fixed tax per volume of product or as a percentage of :

sales price,

The soft drink and snack food indu stries oppo se special taxes on their produc ts. Partly for that ,reason, several U S juVisdictions have redu ced or repealed their snack taxes . [Attachmen t 4]. Insome instances jurisdictions capitulated to threats from food manufacturers to withdraw fromeconomic development ventures, or even to relocate.

Examples of soft drink and snack food taxes applied at a manufacturers level are shown inattachment 5.

Un i ted Kingdom (UK)

The UK Commons Health Select Committee is examining a ban on children's advertising byfood and drink companies , a big extension of school sport hours, tax breaks for gyms, a ban onfatty products in school dispe nsers, and fat taxes.The big fast food ch ains and Coca-Cola are tobe asked by the com mittee to answ er charges that they have targeted children to make profitsfrom products that damage health. The committee is due to summon Coca-Cola, McDonald'sand possibly Cadbury to give evidence to prove they ha ve not been targeting children to sellfattening products that damag e children's health. The big supermarkets w ill also be asked toexplain their m arketing strategies.

The Lancet called on the UK go vernme nt to ban sports and pop stars celebrities from promo ting :

unhealthy food in a bid to stem the rising tide of obesity in Britain. It also called for legislation toforce the junk food industry to "clean up its act".

In November 2003, the UK Food Standards Agency launched a consultation on defusing the"obesity time b omb", raising the possibility of bans on TV advertising aimed at children, andhealth warnings on foods high in salt, sugar and fat.

*(OW0)



h (0 (0 2&( t)U) (:»



H CO W (c

Prepared by:Phone:

Date:

ADM:

Dr. Paul Fieldhouse786 7350

May 27 th , 2005

Marcia Thom son

Contact :Phone:

Dale Brownlee786 7398



d-

116 n - rtA P<m s n/^-



f S .

CONCEPT PAPER

Div i s i o n /B ra n c h : He al th Ac c o u n ta b i l i t y , Po li c y a n d P lan n in gPo l icy & P lann ing Branch (Hea l thy Popu la t ions )

Issue : Jun k Food Tax .

BACKGROUND:

There is strong scientific evidence linking diet to chronic diseases such as diabetes,cardiovascular disease and cancer. The pow erful morbidity and mortality effects of diet,together with growing sense of an epidemic of obesity have led some public healthscholars and public interest advocates to call for taxes on food. It has been suggestedthat to compensate for an unhealthy food environment [some have called it a toxic foodenvironment], foods high in calories, fat or sugar be subjected to special taxes, and thatthe cost of healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables be subsidised.

Such proposals fall into two gen eral categories.1. 'Junk food ' taxes on less nutritious foods suc h as soft drinks, candy or snack foods.2. More ambitious taxes that wou ld apply to a much b roader range of foods and food

com ponen ts. [For example, tax foods on the basis of their content of saturated ortrans fat because of the contribution of these fats to coronary hearth disease, ratherthan tax snack foods in general]

'Junk food ' is a conceptual category, usually used pejoratively, that has no precisescientific m ean ing. It is often u sed as shorthan d to refer to som e or all of, high fat or sugarsnack foods, fast foods, soft drinks and candy. The C entre for Diseas e Control in the US

defines junk food as: "Foods that provide calories primarily through fats or added sugarsand have minimal amounts of vitamins and minerals'1

Advocates suggest that a tax based on the fat and sugar content of foods woulddiscourage consumption, provide revenue for education programs, and reduce costsincurred by the health system in treating obesity an d related ch ronic-diseases.

Advocates and critics alike often draw analogies between fat tax proposals and cigarettetaxation.

CURRENT SITUATION:

In countries around the world, there is a growing demand for government action onjunkfood. Com mon issues revolve around food taxation and food a dvertising and availabilityof food in schools. There are rapid developments in this arena and the summ ary below isnot meant to be exhaustive.

Canada

In Canada there is already a sales tax applied to foods that are not considered 'basicgroceries'; it comprises the GST and PST.

The supply of basic groceries, which includes the majority of supplies of food! andbeverages marketed for human consumption is zero-rated. Certain categories of



e

In Manitoba, the Retail Sales Act (RSA) applied to Food and Beverages uses GSTguidelines for determining whether a food or beverage product qualifies for an exemptionunder the RST. Manitoba F inance Taxation Division, Bulletin No. 029 [Revised M ay 2003]contains full details. [See attachm ent 2].

It is worth noting that confectionery or snack food items that are sold from a school orcommunity club canteen, cafeteria or vending machine, and food and beverages so|d byschools and community clubs for fundraising are exempt from the provincial RST.

The leader of British Columbia's Green Party is calling for a junk food tax in BritishColumbia Scho ols. The BC Educa tion Minister said she would l ike to ban junk food fromschools, but it was up to school boa rds to make that decision.

The Centre for Science in the P ublic Interest [in both Canad a and the US ], hasrecommended taxing soft drinks or snack foods to help pay for expanded nutrit ioneducation campaigns.

United States (US)

As of mid-2000, seventeen (17) US States and two (2) major cities imposed soft drink orsnack food taxes. [See attachm ent 3 ]. Some states put the mon ey into general revenues,but others target it to support specific programs [but in no case to subsidise prices ofhealthful foods].

Taxes apply to soft drinks, candy, chewing gum or snack foods and may be levied at thewholesale or retail level and in terms of a fixed tax per volume of product or as apercentage of sales p rice.

The soft drink and snack food industries oppose special taxes on their products. Partly forthat reason, several US jurisdictions have reduced or repealed their snack taxes. [Seeattachment 4]. In some instances jurisdictions capitulated to threats from foodman ufacturers to withdraw from econ omic de velopmen t ventures,- or even to relocate.

Uni ted K ingdom (UK)

The UK Commons Health Select Committee is examining a ban on children's advertisingby food and drink com pan ies, a big extension of school sport hours, tax breaks for gyms, aban on fatty prod ucts in scho ol dispense rs, and fat taxes.

The big fast food chains and Coca-Cola are to be asked by the committee to answercharges that they have targeted children to make profits from products that damagehealth. The comm ittee is due to summ on C oca-Co la, McD onald's and possibly Cadburyto give evidence to prove they have not been targeting children to sell fattening productsthat dam age c hildren's h ealth. The big supermarkets wil l also be asked to explain theirmarketing strategies.

A November 14 editorial in the Lancet called on the UK governm ent to ban sports and. popstars celebrities from promoting unhealthy food in a bid to stem the rising tide of obesity inBritain. It also called for legislation to force the junk fo od industry to "clean up its act".

In November 2003, the UK Food Standards Agency launched a consultation on defusing



5

Other

In New Zealand, the Minister of health has recently total ly dismissed claims that,thegovernment is considering a health tax on fat.

Sweden already has negotiated voluntary restrict ions on TV advertising for soft drinks,snacks and junk food aimed at chi ldren.

Italy's health minister, Girolamo Sirchia, asked restaurants to reduce the size of theirportions. (Ital ians respo nde d by dem anding a reduction in prices too). Mr. Sirchia alsohas proposed making Friday a day of fasting, building on tradit ional rel igious values tosupport healthful practices.

i« d) (^) ic)n

, ,s » o) to o



p i UH<

a-bU' • ) / ,

/ v.

<3&(j I { £ ; { . ,v. /



v-*

- ^

v^

S>

O

c r

0

/



PREPARED BY: Paul Fie ldh ou se CONTACT: Dale Brow nlee786-7350 . 786-7398

Marj Watts786-7357

DATE: D ec em be r 23, 2003-12-23

A D M : Dw ight Barna786-7263



Sanderson, Jan (HCMO)nt: March-14-10 12:57 PM

o: Robertson, Mark (MHHL); Fieldhouse, Paul (MHHL)' Thomson, Marcia (FSH)

ub ject : RE: Media request: Soda tax/junk food tax

Sanderson, Acting Deputy Minister, Healthy Living, Youth & Seniors

Executive Officer,

Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet

- 332 Bannatyne Avenue, Wpg MB R3A 0E2

Fax: 204-948-2585

[email protected]

www.go v. mb. ca/healthychild

Robertson, Mark (MHHL)

o: Sanderson, Jan (HCMO); Williamson, Matthew (LEG); Keith, Kelly; Fieldhouse, Paul (MHHL)Samain, Chad (LEG); Thomson, Marcia (FSH); Thomson, Marcia (MHHL); Kowalchuk, Lenore; MacKe'nzie, Debbie

RE: Media request: Soda tax/junk food tax

his request from Paul. Additionally, please find a ttached a paper that Paul

this topic a couple of years ago.

. comments were accurate: this is a complex issue that has been the subject of much and

j

23 0 ) M (» (*)is a cunaioeraoie amoun t of literature on the topic - both academ ic and pop ular comm entary - that can

{An example is attached. Please note this does not represent the views of the

otion of healthy eating at schoo l has been a major thrust in the last few y ears . The M anitoba P ublic

rksho ps and a toll-free line. Information on this initiative can be found at

l


http://www.go/

http://www.go/

http://www.aov.mb.ca/healthvschools/foodinschools/index.html

http://www.aov.mb.ca/healthvschools/foodinschools/index.html

http://www.go/




(;

"ir your jurisd iction has ever considered an adde d/increased tax on soft drinks o r, even m ore gen erally on jun k food ingeneralAny background you can provide me with would be appreciated

Also if you could please provide a posit ion statement on the issue of reforming the tax system to encourage healthiereating habits. I 've spoken to one health advocate who is call ing on the federal government to review howithe GST isapplied to foods and would like to know at the provincial level If that idea is supported. j

Kelly KeithHealth Communications CoordinatorManitoba Communications Services(204) 945-8525

3



The Government of Manitoba contr ibutes funding support for school nourishment programs, such as breakfastand snacks, through the Chi ld Nutr i t ion Counci l of Manitoba.

The Northern Healthy Food Init iative is an interdepartmental init iative led by Aboriginal and Northern Affairsthat works with no rthern regional partners to increase access to af fordable nutr i tious food in northern andremote communit ies. Projects include gardening, greenhouses, small l ivestock product ion, f reezer loanprojects and school curr iculum.

Nutr i t ion programs are also del ivered by RHAs and other health agencies and non-government organisat ions

F r o m : Sanderson, Jan (HCMO)Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:51 PMTo : W illiamson, M atthew (LEG); Keith, Kelly; Fieldhouse, Paul (MHHL); Robertson, Mark (MHHL)Cc: Samain, Chad (LEG); Thom son, Marcia (FSH); Thomson , Marcia (MHHL); Kowalchuk, Lenore; M acKenzie, Debbie(CHTS); Findiater, Katie (LEG); Robertson, Mark (MHHL)Su bj e ct : Re: Media request: Soda tax/junk food tax

Hi. I would suggest that we ask paul fieldhouse to prepare a brief list of the considerations (bullets) inherent in this issue,stopping short of taking a p rovincial position. Mark, is that doable this afternoon so it can be circulated to the group beforesharing with the journalist?

Fr o m; Williamson, Matthew < [email protected] > To: Keith, Kelly; Fieldhouse, Paul (MHHL); Robertson, Mark (MHHL)Cc: Samain, Chad (LEG); Thomso n, Marcia (FSH); Thomson, M arcia (M HHL); Sanderson, Jan (HCMO); Kowalchuk,Lenore; Mackenzie, Debbie (CHTS); Findiater, Katie (LEG)Se nt: Wed Mar 10 12:58:31 2010S ub je ct : RE: Media request: Soda tax/junk food tax

FY! - !\ /as asked about this by Richard Cloutier last week. She was non-co m mitta l on introdu cing junkfood taxes, mentioned it's very co mplicated and basically posed the question back to Cloutier how wou ld you fairlydecide which foods are taxed and w hich are no t, and where do you stop.

Fr o m: Keith, Kelly [mailto:[email protected] ] Se nt : W ednesday, March 10, 2010 12:48 PMTo: Fieldhouse, Paul (MHHL); Robertson, Mark (MHHL)Cc: Williamson, Matthew; Sama in, Chad; Thom son, Marcia (FSH); Thom son, M arcia (MHHL); Sanderson, Jan (HCMO);Kowalchuk, Lenore; MacKenzie, Debbie (CHTS)Subject: FW: Media request: Soda tax/junk food taxImp or ta nce : H igh

G ood a f t e rnoon .

Ca nw es t New s is wo rk ing o n a s to ry regard ing tax ing soda (a nd junk food) - see fu l l reques t co p ied

be l ow . C an s om e one p l ea s e p rov i de any i n fo on w he t he r M an i t oba has ev e ry c ons i de red an

add i t iona l / inc r eas ed tax on so f t d r inks or jun k food ? A lso , if we cou ld prov ide in fo on wha t we havedone in regards to hea l thy ea t ing tha t wou ld be he lp fu l as we l l ( such as the Spr ing 2010 Hea l thy

Eat in g Cam pa ign I no t i ced on - l ine) . Th is i s requ es ted fo r t oda y , p lease prov ide as soon as poss ib le .

Thx .

R e q u e s t -I'm working on a story toda y on "soda tax es" tha t have recently been proposed in several US states and cities inorder to encourage healthy e ating h abits and to fight obesity. I'm looking for a Canadian angle and am wondering a)

2









Cc: Cathcart, SindaS ub je ct : RE: Status of the Junk Food Tax Paper

! have no idea what request you are talking about. Do you have an AIMS number, or a date when it was assigned?

From: Portz, MarinaSent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:46 PMTo: Stevens, CindyCc: Bemi, Jill; Cathcart, Sinda

Subject : Status of the Junk Food Tax Paper

3 3 U ) \Jo) of the Junk Food Tax Paper.

Thanks

Marina Portz

Scheduling Assistant to theMinister of Healthy Living, Youth and Consumer Affairs310 - 450 BroadwayWinnipeg MB R3C 0V8Phone: (204) 945-2221

Fax: (204) 948-2703

Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information. Any unauthorized

u s e , disclosure, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this E-mail by mistake, and please delete it and the attachments (and

all copies) in a secure manner. Thank you.



C e r q u e i r a , E l i z ab e t h ( H L S C A )

Fr o m: Bem i, Jili [Ji l l [email protected]] Sen t: February-21-12 7:27 PMTo: Robe rtson, Mark (HLYS)Su bje ct: Re: Status of the Junk Food Tax Paper

Yes I foun d out th at w as the case. Thanks

Jiil Bemi

Assistant to the Deputy Minister

Culture, Heritage & Tourism

112, Legislative Building204-945-4192

F r o m : Robertson, Mark (HLYS) F mailto:[email protected] t : Tuesday, February 2 1 , 2012 05:16 PMTo: Bem i, JillS u b j e c t : RE: Status of the Junk Food Tax Paper

Hi Jill:

33 ( 0 (" H b. \ fL\ fA

Marcia and 1 me t w ith Cindy and last week to discuss this paper. 1 bel ieve that L was going to review 't

paper and then provide feedback to us.

So, the paper is done, we are just waiting feedback before it proceeds

All the Best!

Mark

F r o m : Bemi, Jill rmallto:Jil l [email protected] S e n t : February-21-12 2:25 PMTo: Robe rtson, Mark (HLYS)S u b j e c t : FW: Status of the Junk Food Tax Paper

Hi Mark . Can you advise of the status of this? Or wha t it is?

F r o m : Portz, Marina

S e n t : Tuesday, February 21 , 2012 2:19 PMTo: Bemi, Jill; Stevens, CindyCc : CcS u b j e c t : RE: Status of the Junk Food Tax Paper

$*i)U>) Mark Robertson would be famil iar with i t .

F r o m : Bemi, Jill

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:47 PMT o : Portz, Ma rina; Stevens, Cindy










\ ° \ b ) L ^ ) A

n (O M W ^ /

7_ Y^f^J



ManitobaHeal thy Liv ing, Seniors and Consumer Af fai rsAssistant Deputy MinisterCross-Department Coordination InitiativesHealthy Living, Seniors and Consum er Affairs1010-200 Graham Avenue, Winnipeg, MB Canada R3C 4L5T 204-958-4895 F 204-948-4748Marcia.thomson(5)qov.mb.ca www.manitoba.ca

June 25, 2013

Mr. Nick Bergamini1915-130 Albert StreetOttawa, ON KIP 5G4

Dear Mr. B ergamini:

Re: You r request for access to inform ation under Part 2 of The Freedom of

Inform ation and Protection of Privacy - Our File No. HLSCA 059.13

On April 16, 201 3, we received your request for access under The Freedom of Information andProtection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to the following records:

'Any and all documents including reports, correspondence, policy papers orstudies im plementing a junk food tax (sometimes called a sugar tax or fattax) in Manitoba.'

On April 26 , 201 3, we informed you that we would require an extension of an additional 30 daysto respond to you r request as we were required to consult third parties or other public bodies.

I am pleased to advise you that your request to access to these records has been granted in part.W e are attaching copies of the documents for your convenience. Some docum ents have beengranted in full and other have been severed in accordance w ith the appropriate sections of The

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Where there were severaldrafts in the files, we only provided the final versions o f the docum ents.

Nam es of individuals have been severed from correspon dence as we felt this would fall within

the following exception:

D isclosure harm ful to a third party's privacy

17 (1) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personal information to anapplicant if the disclosure w ould be an unreasonab le invasion of a third pa rty's privacy.

http://www.manitoba.ca/

http://www.manitoba.ca/



We are obliged to withhold all records that fall within the following exception:

Cabinet confidences

1 9 0 ) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information thatwou ld reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet, including

(b) discussion pap ers, policy analyses, proposals, advice or similar briefing material

submitted or prepared for submission to C abinet;(c) a proposal or recom mend ation prepared for, or reviewed and approved by, a

minister for subm ission to Cabinet;

It is our view is that it is important to h ave full and frank discussions take place and, in o rder toencourage such candour and ensure that these discussions are and remain confidential; we reliedon the following discretionary ex emptions un der section 23 of the Act in refusing access to thoserecords. Section 23(1) states:

Advice to a public body

23 0') The head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant if

disclosure could reasonably be expected to reveal

(a) advice, opinions, proposals, recomm endations, analyses or policy optionsdeveloped by or for the public body or a m inister;

(b) consultations or deliberations involving officers or employees of the public body ora m inister;

(e) the content of draft legislation, regulations, and orders of ministers or theLieutenant Governor in Council; or

(f) information, including the proposed p lans, policies or projects of a public body, thedisclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in disclosure of apending policy or budgetary decision.

Some records included information provided b y other provinces in confidence and therefore fellwithin the following Section:

Inform ation provided by another governm ent to departm ent or governm ent agency

20(11 The head of a department or governm ent agency shall refuse to d iscloseinformation to an applicant if disclosure could reasonably be expected to revealinformation provided , explicitly or im plicitly, in confidence by any of the following ortheir agencies:

(b) the governm ent of another province or territory of Canada;

In our consultation w ith Manitoba F inance, it was felt that some records fell within the followingSection:

D isclosure harm ful to econom ic and other interests of a public body

28(1) The head of a public bod y may refuse to disclose information to an applicant ifdisclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the econom ic or financial interests ornegotiating position of a public body or the Gov ernment of Manitoba, including thefollowing



(e) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in anundue loss or benefit to a person, or premature disclosure of a pending policydecision, including bu t not limited to,

(i) a contemplated chan ge in taxes or other source of revenue,

Subsection 59(1) of The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides that you

may m ake a complaint to the Manitoba Om budsman abou t this decision. You have 60 days fromthe receipt of this letter to make a com plaint on the prescribed form to M anitoba Om budsman ,750 - 500 Portage Avenue, W innipeg MB R3C 3X 1, (204) 982-9130.

Should you have an y questions concerning your app lication, please feel free to Ms DebbieNelson at204-788-6654.

Marcia ThomsonAccess and Privacy Officer

Cc:Att.

Debbie Nelson, E xecutive Director, Healthy Living Seniors & Consumer Affairs



^-V

P u f f , M a y ( H L S C A ) „

P ro m : Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)S en t: February-27-13 3:00 PMT o : 'MHIKNETS ub je ct : RE: Current Awarene ss Alert: What's new for 'Fieldhouse, Paul: Junk food taxation' in

PubMed

He llo there - I wo uld l ike nos 1 and 2 please.Thank you

Tame your Email http://emailcharter.org

Paul Fieldho use, PhD.

Nutr i t ion Pol icy & Research Ana lyst

He al th y Liv ing, Seniors and Consumer A ff a i rs

ph 204 786 7350

fax 204 948 2366

[email protected]

Co nf id en t ia l i ty No t ice: This message and any at tachm ent to i t are intended fo r th e addressee

only and may contain legal ly pr ivi leged or conf ident ial informat ion. Any unauthorized use,

disc losure, d ist r ib ut io n, or copying is st r ic t ly pro hibi ted . P lease no t i fy th e sender i f you have

received th is E-mail by m istake, and please delete i t and the at ta ch m en ts (and all copies) in a .

secure manner. Thank you.

Message de c onf ident iah'te : Ce message et to ut document dans ce tt e t ransm ission est d est ine

a la personne ou aux personnes a qui i l est adresse. I I peut conteni r des informat ions

privi legiees ou conf ident iel les. To ute u t i l isat io n, divulgat ion, d is tr ib u t io n ou copie non autor iseeest st r ic tement defendue. S i vous n'etes pas le dest ina tai re de ce cou rr ie l , veui llez en inform er

I 'expedi teur e t e f facer 1'original (e t toutes les pieces jo in tes ) de maniere secur i ta i re. Me rci .

From: MHIKNET [mai l to:[email protected]] S e n t : February-27-13 2:22 PMT o : Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)S u b je ct : Current Awareness Alert: What's new for 'Fieldhouse, Paui: punk food tax ation ' in PubMed

Greetings, '

This is your cu rrent awa renessa ler t for the w ee k- please let me know i f you wo uld l ike to receive the ful l text of any ofthese articles,

Kind regards,

Connie Flook

l

http://emailcharter.org/









yiHIKNET Library Services $

Jeil John Maclean Health Sciences Library

niversity of Manitoba

70 Bannatyne Ave.

MB R3E0W3

1-877-789-3804

ax : 1-204-789-3923

[email protected]

' flubM edR esults ^ ^ V : v ^ , < : ^ . . -

3

es Rev. 2013 Feb;14(2):l 10-28. doi: 10.111 l/obr.12002. Epub 2012Nov 23.

Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and

beverage taxes and subsidies for improving publichealth: a systematic review of prices, demand andbody weight ou tcom e^Powell L M Chriqui JF, Kh an T , Wada R, Challoupka FJ.

Health Policy and Administration, School of Pubiic Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL,US A. powelil(g),uic.edu *

i

A b s t r a c t f

Taxes and subsidies are increasingly being considered as potential policy instruments to incentivizeconsumers to improve their food and beverage; consumption patterns and related health outcomes. This studyprovided a systematic review of recent U.S. studies on the price elasticity of demand for sugar-sweetenedbeverages (SSBs), fast food, and fruits and vegetables, as well as the direct associations of prices/taxes withbody weight outcomes. Based on the recent literature, the price elasticity of demand for SSBs, fast food,fruits and vegetables was estimated to be -1.21, -0.52, -0.49 and -0.48, respectively. The studies that linkedsoda taxes to weight outcomes showed minimal impacts on weight; however, they were based on existingstate-level sales taxes that were relatively low. Higher fast-food prices were associated with lower weightoutcomes particularly among adolescents, suggesting that raising prices would potentially impact weightoutcomes. Lower fruit and vegetable prices were generally found to be associated with lower body weight

outcomes among both low-income children and adults, suggesting that subsidies that would reduce the cost offruits and vegetables for lower-socioeconomicpopulations may be effective in reducing obesity. Pricinginstruments should continue to be considered and evaluated as potential policy instruments to address publichealth risks.

© 2012 The Authors, obesity reviews © 2012 International Association for the Study of Obesity..

2





\

PMCID: PMC3556391 [Available on 2014/2/1]PMID: 23174017 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Related citations

2.Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2012 Sep-Oct;8(5):507-13. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2012.05.001. Epub 2012 May 9.

Legal and policy app roaches to the obesityepidemic.Mello M.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts,USA.

A b s t r a c t

Although 85% of the American public believes that obesity is an "epidem ic," great controversy exists whatrole the government, public policy, and law should play in addressing the problem. This keynote addressdiscusses the philosophical and econom ic justifications for treating obesity as a public health problemmeriting government intervention and explores the possible legal and policy solutions.

Copyright © 201 2 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. Allrights reserved.PMID: 22695172 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Related citations

¥j3.Health Econ. 2012 Nov;21(ll):1367-74. doi: 10.1002/hec.l789. Epub 2011 Sep2.

W hen do fat taxes increase consum er welfare?Lusk JL, Schroeter C.

Department of Agricultural Econom ics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74 078, USA.iavson,lusk(g?,okstate.edu

A b s t r a c t

Previous analyses of fat taxes have generally worked within an empirical framework in which it is difficult todetermine w hether consu mers benefit from the policy. This note outlines on sim ple means to determinewhether consumers benefit from a fat tax by comparing the ratio of expenditures on the taxed good to theweight effect of the tax against the individual's willingness to pay for a one-pound weight reduction. Ourempirical calculations sugge st that an individual would have to be w illing to pay about $1500 to reduceweight by one pound for a tax on sugary beverages to be welfare enhancing. The results suggest either that asoda tax is very unlikely to increase individual consumer welfare or that the policy must be justified on some

3



other grounds that abandon standard rationality assumptions.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PMID: 21887810 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Related citations

"si

4



Duff , May (HLSCA)

From: Fieldhous e, Paul (HLSCA)Sen t: January-30-13 3:53 PMT o : Heikkinen , Jeffrey (MAFR I); Gauer, Elaine (MAF RI); Ma jeran, Jennell (ANA); Dunnigan, Don

(MAFR I); Durnin-Richards, Debora (MAFRI); Ozunko, Randy (M AFRI); Carlson, Grant(MAFRI)

Su bje ct: RE: help required: notes from yesterday Milk equalization re: outl ine

I think I may have me ntion ed previously that HLSCA has done some work on the ' po p' levy idea


Paul Fieldhouse, PhD.

Nutr i t ion Pol icy & Research Analyst

Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs

ph 204 786 735 0

fa x 204 948 23 66

[email protected]

Co nf ide nt ia l i ty No t ice: This message and any at tachm ent to i t are intended fo r th e addressee

only and may contain legally privi leged or conf ident ia l informat ion. Any unauthor ized use,

d isc losure, d i s t r i b ut ion , ov copying is st r ic t ly pro hibi te d. Please no t i fy th e sender i f you have

received th is E-mail by m istake , and please de lete i t and the at ta ch m en ts (and all copies) in a


Message de con f iden t ia l i te : Ce message et to ut document dans ce t t e t ransmission est des t ine

a la personne ou aux personnes a qui il est adresse. I I pe ut c on ten ir des inform at ion spr iv i legiees ou conf iden t ie l les. Tou te u t i l isat ion , d ivulgat ion, d is t r ib ut io n ou copie non autor isee

est st r ic tement defendue. S i vous n'etes pas le des t inatai re de ce cou rr ie l , yeuil lez en inform er

I 'expedi teur et ef facer ! "or ig inal (et toutes les pieces jo intes) de maniere secur i ta i re. Merci .

F r o m : Heikkinen, Jeffrey (MAFRI)S e n t : January-29-13 10:12 AMT o : Gauer, Elaine (MAFRI); Majeran, Jennell (ANA); Dunnigan, Don (MAFRI); Durnin-Richards, Debora (MAFRI); Ozunko,Randy (MAFRI); Carlson, Grant (MAFRI)

Cc : Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA) •Su bj ec t: RE: help required: notes 'from yesterday Milk equalization re: outl ine

Comments:

1. There is an updated version of the outl ine that reflects most if not all of the points made here if anyone wants

to see it. (NB - I wr ote it m ainly writ te n as a guide for myself,.especial!y th e ne w bits, so I can't guarantee th ey 'l l

be easy to f ollow ; pre ttying it up does not strike me as a good use of time com pared to wo rking on the re port

i tself).

l







2; I'm go ing to push back slightly re gardin g point 5. For reasons we we nt ove r at various other time s during the a.

conference call, I do n't see the harm in at least mentioning the pop idea. I'm talking a sentence or two , not a

major section. (Frankly I think it's a good idea, and I say this with an open can of Coke next to me!) Of course,

one "con " point that would need to be worked into this quick mention is the fact that this would requireadm inistrative apparatus th at doe sn't currently exist. I see that as a drawback of the suggestion, and a serious

one, but not as sufficient reason to not me ntion it at all.

3. On point 6, tenta tively 1 plan to include this but this is negotiable, or rathe r, even more negotiable than

everything else. My recollection is tha t we left that not-quite-resolved o n the con ference call because I

slamm ed on the accelerator t o make sure the admin aspects were discussed be fore Randy had to go (so if

there's uncertainty on this point, that's largely my fault).

4. One thing blatantly missing fro m th e previous version of the outl ine, besides any mention of budgetary

considerations, was the point th at a programm e like this might be seen as a tax on S outhern families. That has

been added to the cautionary notes section.

As Elaine said, I've agreed to try to have a draft of the whole thing by Friday. Any and all suggestions for what should be

in it are welcom e, and I wil l try to ensure that all reasonable and some unreasonable p oints of view that come to m y

attention are represented. The earlier in the week they come, the less chance I'll be against a wall in terms of having

time to include them.

F r o m : Gauer, Elaine (MAFRI)S e n t : 3anuary-29-13 9:14 AMT o : Heikkinen, Jeffrey (MAFRI); Majeran, Jennell (ANA); Dunnigan, Don (MAFRI); Durnin-Richards, Debora (MAFRI);Ozunko,- Randy (MA FRI); Carlson. Grant (MAFR I)Cc: Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)S u b j e c t : help required: notes from yesterday Milk equalization re: outline

• Please read these notes over, and add as req uire d, as I was not able to take ex cellent notes yesterday, but .

noted a few things: Paul, if you wo uld l ike to add com ments please do . (have attached the o utl ine as circulated

for reference)

• There wil l be a follow up conference call, bujt will be asking when people can participate, as it would be good tohave everyone invo lved. Mond ay afternoons do not work for everyon e. Will sti l l be early next week, not later,

as Jeff is to have outl ine t urn ed into th e first draft of the project re port by Friday.

NOTES ABOUT OUTLINE:

1. Executive sum mary needs to include rec om me ndation s (as this may the only page some read)

2. The main part of the rep ort needs an introd uctio n, (mandate, purpose, com mitte e mem bers...)-

3. The collection, destina tion, administ' ' --•- rhnnirj also have a budg et sect ion; one which is a ball

park figure, (however, need to detai ^ V 'me up wi th the figures). Jeff, check the five

options l isted in the advisory no te, c ^ re. Pros and cons needed here to o.

4. Cautionary notes should be a stand ^ ~ ^ ^ s and cons of the options stay with the

app ropriate sections, (was no t sure ed to be included as wel l , and then repeated

in a separate section)

5. Point 7a about alcohol and pop is' jde alcoho l, not pop, due to the governm ent

having control over one but not the other.

2



o

6. Under question #2, consumers, the discussion came up about vouche rs. Is it to be included? Was the ou tcom e

of this discussion tha t it could m ean double benefits for people wh o are em ployed by agencies such as hydro?

Vouchers could benefit low income families, but these are primarily federal reserves, which do not receive

provincial / RM assistance (was that correct?)

7. Questions 4 and 5 are linked. Two m ain points emerged: regulatory app roach and the private partnership

approach, both with good and weak points.

8. Cautionary notes: Governm ent may wish to discuss this option with pote ntial partners, to im prove the plan and

to fi l l out more details before proceeding.

9. Appendices may also include the list of commu nities and their po pu latio n, budget calculation detalls{?)

is/aine O&uerL&m J Use SpeciatiSt,HAf%?S

€e»s (2€4) yei-eyetElaine.Gauercaiqov.mb.ca

3



C e r q u e i r a , E l i z a b e t h (H L S C A )

Fro m: Stevens, Cindy [[email protected] ] Sen t: February-28-12 9:51 AMTo: Thoms on, Marcia (HLYS); Robertson, Mark (HLYS)Cc : Cathcart, SindaSu bjec t: Fw: Fw: Junk Food Levy

Hi Marcia and Ma rk - please see t 3^0) Cy_ comm ents on the paper. Can you please incorpo rate these and my

comm ents from last night and send another version? Thanks.

Cindy Stevens

Deputy Minister

Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Tourism

Manitoba Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs

From: Cathcart, SindaSe nt: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 09:47 AMTo: Stevens, CindyCc: Rondeau, Jim

Subjec t : Fw: Fw:

Please see com men ts...and the n can you send some feedback? Thanks Cindy... .

Sinda

From: Jim rmailto:[email protected] ] Se nt: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:09 PMTo: Cathcart, SindaSu bjec t: Re: Fw:

My comm ents '

r \S* A

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 27, 2012, at 9:28 PM, "Cathcart, Sinda" <Sinda.Catlicartfg.leg.gov.mb.ca > wrote:

v i ; ^ '•- s v .

Cheers,

Sinda

F r o m: Thomson, Marcia (HLYS) rmailto:Marcia.Thomson(a)Qov.rnb.ca1 Sent : Monday, February 27, 2012 05:08 PMTo: Cathcart, SindaCc: Stevens, Cindy; Sorin, Darlene; Bemi, Jill; Robertson, Mark (HLYS); Duff, May (HLYS); Overbeeke,Susan (HLYS)

l





http://sinda.catlicartfg.leg.gov.mb.ca/


mailto:Marcia.Thomson(a)Qov.rnb.ca1

mailto:Marcia.Thomson(a)Qov.rnb.ca1






Subject:

Good afternoon Sinda,

Please find attached "DraiY V of the Healthy Living Levy.

Thank you.

F r o m : Robertson, Mark (HLYS)S e n t : February-27-12 5:01 PMT o : Tho mson , Marcia (HLYS)Cc: Harmer, Corinne (HCD); Duff, May (HLYS); Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS)

Subject: Levy

Hi Marcia:

Please find attached

All the Best!

Mark

Mark Robertson

Director

Healthy Living & Populations


2089 - 300 Carlton Street

Winnipeg MB R3B 3M9

Phone: 204-788-6654

Fax: 204-948-2366

Email: [email protected]

Web: http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthvliving

2


http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthvliving

http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthvliving




Confidentiality N otice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and m ay contain legally privileged or confidentialinformation. Any unauthorized u se, disclosure, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this E-mail bymistake, and please delete it and the attachments (and all copies) in a secure manner, Thank you. '

Message de confidentiality : Ce m essage et tout document dans cette transmission est destine a la personne ou aux personnes a qui i! est adresse\ 11 pcutcontenir de s informations privilfigiees ou confidentielles, Tou te utilisation, divulgation, distribution ou copie non autorisee est stnctem ent deTendue.1 Sivous n'etes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, vcuillez en informer I'expeditcur et efface: I'original (et toutes les pieces jointes) de manibre s^curitairelMerci.

<Draft 1 Cabinet submission Healthy Living Levy.docx>

3



C e r q u e i r a , E l i z a b e t h ( H L S C A )

F r o m : Thom son, Marcia (HLYS)Se nt: March-01-12 3:27 PMTo: Robertson, Mark (HLYS)Su bjec t: Fw: Junk Food Levy

Mark, please add this information.

F r o m : Stevens, Cindy < [email protected]> To: Thomson, Marcia (HLYS)Cc: Robertson, Mark (HLYS); Bemi, Jill (LEG)Sent: Thu Mar 01 15:25:44 2012S ub je ct : RE: Junk Food Levy

This is a goo d pap er - tha nk s to ai l of you for the hard work on this. I hav e giv en Ji l l so me min or edi ts to i tNX/DU^ al so J^G -isne e#Ky~bi+ «5 informa+'of? b efoy e.I .senei it fo rw ar d '

23 GOteH^ ) ^ ' '-" " ••- ---• : :

v

* * wu uiu nt\c tu includ e i t in the narrative. I f yo u co uld ge t i t to Ji ll and m e by tom orro wi l l u m i n g , we win add i t and send the paper on. Thanks.

Cindy SlovensDeputy Minister 'Manitoba Culture. Heritage and TourismManitoba Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs204-945-4136cindy.stevens(S>lea.q6v.mb.ca

F r o m : Thomson, Marcia (HLYS) rmailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:59 PMTo : Stevens, CindyS u b j e c t :

In the interests of moving this along, I am sending you this second draft. ;

v , / ^ / / v ' . I do n't know if youhad furth er discussions with Min ister or anyone else on this today. Sinda has had the be nefit of draft 1 .For you r feedba ck,

Marcia

i









iii)0>)Ct)



vc^ '\

Duff, May (HLSCA) ; K % M i U & ^ , W ^ t ^

F r o m : Duff, M ay (H LY S) < 1 ^ , # *«** d ; ^ A ^ X * S U tS e nt : M ay-0 8-1 2 3:34 PM j t ^ 0 f * - V » * C A J O ^ * ^T o : Lambo o-Miln, Andrea (HLYS)Su bje ct: FW: an-pf-hlys-junk food levyAt ta ch m en ts : pf-ADM#2872-Junk Food Options Paper.doc; an-pf-hlys-junk food levy.doc

*~a!ifry Living & Population2094-mo CarltonSt'Aflrmlo&g, Manitobar- -v s . . •- u Q

~ i , , ' • , - i . . * • - . - - .

F r o m : Robertson, Mark (MHHL)

Se nt : January-28-10 4:15 PMT o : Duff, May (MHHL)Subject: FW: an-pf-hlys-junk food levy

Hi May:This advisory note is approved.

All the Best!Mark

F r o m : Duff, May (MHHL)Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:08 PM

T o : Robertson, Mark (MHHL)Subject: an-pf-hlys- junk food levy

for your review and approval, looks good. Due for tomorrow.

i



Ap p e n d ix 1AD VISORY NOTE FOR THE MINISTER OF HEA LTH Y LIVING i

D i v i s i o n /B ra n c h : Health Accoun tability, Policy and PlanningPolicy & Planning Branch (Healthy Populations)

I ssue :

BACKGROUND:

• From a nutritional scienc e point of view problem atic issues arise in attemp ting to linkconsumption of specific food' products to health outcom es. How ever, a draft reportfrom the World Health Organisation (WHO) entitled Diet, nutrition and the prevention ofchronic diseases was released for public discussion in April 2003 and hassubstantiated much of the criticism made against fast food and junk foodmanufacturers in relation to their high salt, fat and sugar products and'the deleteriouseffects of their ov er-consum ption.

• The U.S. Adm inistration is challenging the WH O report, arguing that conclusions arebased on faulty science. Howe ver, nutrition experts from the U.S. and around theworld see this as a thinly veiled a ttempt to placate the fast food and sug ar industries.

• The WH O report also noted that several countries use fiscal measures to promoteavailabil ity of and access to certain io o ds : others use taxes to increase or decreaseconsumption of food.

M&U)())



n o y ^ 0 ^Li)(* if) * *(i)(?)k)

Curren t s i tua t ion :

In Manitoba, The Retail Sales Act applied to Food and Beverages parallels GST

guidelines for determining whether a food or beverage product qualifies for an exemptionunder the Retail Sales Tax (RST). Man itoba Finance Taxation Division, Bulletin No. 029[Revised May 2003] contains full details.

Food or beverage s sold throu gh vending m achines are subject to tax. This include s.salesof food and beverages normally exempt as basic groceries, such as milk and raw fruit.

Confectionery or snack food items that are sold from a school or community club canteen,cafeteria or vending machine, and food and beverages sold by schools and communityclubs for fundraising are exem pt from the provincial RST.

D i scuss ion :

The 2001 study, Food and Nutrition in Manitoba Schools, reported that just over half of the500 responding schools had vending machines installed. The most common vendingitems were soft drinks, fol lowed by fruit juices as a distant second. Bottled water wasmentioned by 10% of respondents. A relatively low proportion of machines dispensedcandy, chips or chocolate bars. Only three schools reported vending hot items such assoup and pasta, while other minor cold items included ice cream, muffins, desserts andsandwiches.

The volume of sales generated through vending machines in schools in Manitoba isunkno wn. Schools do not report this incom e to Man itoba Edu cation in an identifiable wa y;it is included in an 'other' category. An estima te of the potential revenue from R ST appliedto such sales would require gathering information from a cross section of schools, orobtaining glob aj^gtes, f igures from suppliers, such as Coca C ola.

S3 0%a) (f)

W W W ^ M C * ) *(^ )



i^WOX^ ^(I)M(^

3fr( J



Current s i tuat ion :Ca nad a: A sales tax is applied to foods that are not con sidered 'basic groceries'; it

comprises the GST and PST. The supply of basic groceries, which includesthe majority of supplies of food and beverages marketed for humanconsumption is zero-rated. Certain categories of foodstuffs, for example,carbonated beverages, candies and confections, and snack foods, includingproducts dispensed in vending machines are, however, taxable at 7% or15%.

U.S.: Seve n states or cities currently levy a ma nufac turer level tax on soft drinks

[Appendix 1], e.g.



Arkansas:

WestVirginia

State law requires that The Soft Drink Tax shall be collected by every

distributor, m anufacturer, or who lesale dea ler on the f irst sale in the State ofArkansas.- Soft Drink Syrup - $2.00 per gallon of soft drink or simp le syrup .- Can D rinks - $.21 cents per gallon of bottled or can ned soft drink produ ct.- Powd ers - $.21 cents for each gallon produced by powders or base

products.

Reven ue collected from a soft drink tax is used to sup port universitymedical, dental and nursing schools.

Others have been unsuccessful in introducing such a tax.

Ca lifornia: In 20 02 , a Bill wa s introduced to impo se a surtax on distributors,manufacturers and wholesaler dealers of $2 per gallon of soft drink syrup orsimple syrup and $0.21 per gallon of bott led soft drinks sold in the state.Revenues were to be deposited in a newly created California Child Health

and Achievement Fund directed to diminishing the human and economiccosts of obesity.

Due to a lack of legislative support, the Bill was eventually drasticallychanged to address sales of carbonated beverages in schools, while the taxproposal was dropped .

Dis c us s i on :

In 2002, soft drink sales in Canada grew at 4.2% in volume over the previous year toreach an estimated 6.5 bi l l ion l i tres. Overall per capita consum ption of soft drinks grew to211 litres in 20 02 . '

m * (A )

In December 2002, Manitoba Health subscribed to 'Food for Thought', a COMPAS marketresearch opinion poll. The sam ple was 1,200 Ca nadian s. The opinion survey indicatedthat two thirds of the public attributed obesity to the increased availability of unhealthy and

high calorie food, while only one third blamed individual lack of wil lpowe r. Respond entswanted mandatory labelling and health risk advertising by fast food restaurants, bu t wereoppos ed t o t ax i ng unhea l t hy f ood . The quest ion asked , and the results are shownbelow.

Would you support or oppose a s

SupportNeutralOpposeDon't

Know/Refused

Overall

243703

Women

243694

Decial tax on consumers when tUniversityGrads293672

ATL

244684

QC

313643

hey purchase fatty or hiqh caloric foods?*O N

204733

MB-SK

232715

AB

272693

BC

242732



3S CO L°) ^



Current s i tuat ion:No jurisdiction in the world is currently levying a tax on trans fats.

In June 2003, Denmark became the first country in the world to introduce restrictions onthe use of industrially produ ced trans fatty acids. Oils and fats are now forbidden on theDanish market if they con tain trans fatty acids exceed ing 2 per cen t. Th e Dan ish Ministerfor Foo d, Agriculture and Fisheries has called for commo n Europe an Union l imit values fortrans fatty acids in foods.

In Canad a, new regulations published on January 1, 2003 make nutrit ion labell ingmandatory on most food labels; update requirements for nutrient content claims; andpermit for the first time in Cana da, diet-related h ealth claims for foo ds. New labellingrequirements include listing of trans fat content. Food manufacturers have until January2006 to comply with the new regulations.



q(0 0 ) 6 ) ^ O/(*0 (V)

^ ( l ! ( * , ) ( . .

3 o^?As j



0U. f 4- ^cCM?<L



Out 6^ 'SCJT&L^

^e-hhn ^ t^h mtoJ-'(y\s?\




From: ( 7 0 >Sent: June-08-12 3:56 PMT o : pu) ' Fieldhouse, Paul (HLYS); Robe rtson, Mark (HLYS )Cc: 1 homson, Marcia (HLYS)Sub ject: Junk food tax informationAt tach me nts : SUMMARY OF JUNK FOOD.DOCX

I received this infor ma tion fro m fr^l ) and meant to pass it on to you last wee k but i t looks as thou gh I never

sent the ema il.

Anyway, here it is - be tter late than never. I suspect you may already have all this inform atio n anywa y.

/ 7 ( j )

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail m essage (including any attachments) is confidential and m ay also be privi leged, and all rights to privilege areexpressly claimed and not waived. Any use , dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure of this message and any attachme nts, in whole or in part,by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.

1



SUMMARY OF JUNK FOOD/FAT/SOFT DRINK TAXES

E U R O P E A N J U R I S D I C T I O N S :

DENMARKApp lied t o: butter, oil -f o od s that are high in saturated fats. Only applied to foods with a saturated fatcontent of higher than 2.3%.How much: $3.00/kg of saturated fat in a given product (would increase the price of a burger by about$0.15 and a small package of butter by $0.40). It works by imposing tax rates on the percentage of fatused in making a product rather than the percentage that is in the end-produc t. (Note: D enmark alreadyhas higher fees on sugar, chocolate bars and soft drinks.)W ho pay s: both consumer and producer. It is estimated that it will cost Danish businesses $28 million inthe first year.

HUNGARYApplied to: foods with high fat, sugar and salt content (although apparently only pre-packaged food).Additional taxes w ere introduced at the same time for soft drinks and alc ohol.How much: .047 (article didn't say what unit that would be applied to, but perhaps a litre?). Th e WallStreet Journal reports that it would translate as: ($ 1.63) for a litre of energy drinks, 400 forints ($2.16) fora kilogram of chips, 100 forints ($0.54) for a kilogram of ice cream, and 500 forints ($2.71) for akilogram of instant soups and sauces. Sodas will be taxed 10 forints ($0.05) a litre. Re venu e repo rtedlygoes toward state health care costs.Who pays: the producer, although cost is iikely to be transferred to the consumer.

FRANCEApplied to: soft drinks. France has also recently imposed limits on the frequency that ketchup andmayonnaise are served in schools.How mu ch: a hike from 3 to 6 eurocents per litre.

Who pays: the consumer

THE US (some examples...complete tables available in Chriqui et al)

ARKANSAS

Applied to : soft drink syrup or simple syrup

How much: $2.00/gallon on syrup, $0.21/gallon bottled drinks

Who pays: distributors, manufacturers, wholesale dealers

ALABAMA

Applied to : ice cream, soft drinks

How much: complicated -see Chriqui et al (in the fat tax folder)

Who pays; manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers

RHODE ISLAND

Applied to: soft drinks

How much: $0.04/case of soft drinks

Who pays: the manufacturer



TENNESSEEApplied to: soft drinksHow much: 1.90% of gross receipts of soft drinksWho pays: manufacturer and retailer

VIRGINIAApplied to: soft drinksHow much; $50-$33,000, depending on gross receiptsWho pays: w holesaler and distributor

WASHINGTONApplied to : ice cream, yogurt, cheese, soda syrupHow much: 0.138% of gross receipts on dairy products, $1/gallon on syrupWho pays: manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers

THE ARGUMENT:

• Researchers at Oxford Univ ersity and Nottingham University claim that a 17.5 percentValue Added Tax (VAT ) on unhealthy food could save up to 3,200 lives a year, andreduce occurrences of serious complications from obesity, such as heart attacks anddiabetes, (http://money.howstiiffvvoi-ks.com/fat-tax.htm1

• The revenue potential from a mod est new (or extra) lax of five cents per 12-ounceserving is consid erable. Using the US as an example, states wou ld see increasedrevenues of more than $7 billion annually, ranging from about $13 million in Wyomingto about $878 million in California.

• Sugared beverage s are the only food or beverages that have been proven to increase therisk of weight gain and obesity, leading to countless other health problems.

• Obesity is a national health problem .• For each additional sugared drink consumed per day, the likelihood of a child's becoming

obese increases by 60% .• Soft-drink taxes can impact lower-incom e consumers more than higher-inc om e ones,

though the impa cts can be studied ahead of time and adjusted if necessa ry. The revenuesraised can also be allocated in a targeted manner to lower income households throughexpanded health care services and prevention programs,

S O M E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S :

• One academ ic pap er found that the effects of a fat tax on nutrients purchased is difficult

to predict given that food purchases are highly interdependent; taxing food to reduce totalcalories purchased could lead to the opposite effect as a result of cross-price elasticities.(Allais, Bertail and Nichele, 2009?)

• It also found that a tax on sugar-fat pro ducts has quite different im pac ts on total nutrientspurchased dependin g on incom e class. In particular, they assessed that a 10% increase in

http://money.howstiiffvvoi-ks.com/fat-tax.htm1

http://money.howstiiffvvoi-ks.com/fat-tax.htm1



the price of sugar-fat products decreases household total energy purchased by 0.79% forwell-off versus 1.20% for modest households. (Ibid)

• The researchers found that taxing prepared meals has the highe st effect on total energypurchased. This tax leads to additional nutritionally beneficial effects for sodium, retinolor vitamin A (mainly found in fruits and vegetables), betacarotene (which is consistent

with the result that prepared meals and fresh vegetables are substitutes), and vitamin D(mainly found in fish). However, these positive effects are at the expense of vegetalprotein, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat, and vitamins Bl, B6, and E. Taxingthe cheese/butter/cream category w as found to have the second highest impact on caloriespurchased for well-off households, while for modest households it is taxing sugar-fatproducts (Ibid).

• An exam ple of how such a tax could unfairly im pact the poor: Researchers calculatedthe percentage increase in tax revenue w hen France goes from an economy without a fattax to an econom y with a 10% fat tax, finding that governm ent revenue increases by16.3%, 9.26%o, and 16.59%), respective ly. These substantial effects were due to highlyinelastic price elasticities. If the tax is implemented over the three targeted food ,

categories, the gov ernmen t w ould get additional tax revenues equal to €4.31 and €4.96per household per four-w eek period from well-off and m odest households,

respectively.

» Som e doctors have warne d that such taxes will not only be ineffective in reducing obesityand promo ting healthy eating but will disproportionately affect the poor. Dr Adamescu(Romania): "Poor people in Romania eat very fatty foods at home. If those products aretaxed they will turn to even cheaper products and will have an even more nutritionallyunbalanced diet." (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews= ::56769)

* Studies in other countries have suggested the same. A report commissioned by Frenchauthorities when a possible levy on unhealthy foods was being considered in 2008 wasprefaced by the statement that it could "most heavily" affect the poor.

(http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56769) * Dr Timo thy Armstrong , coordinator at the W HO 's department for Health Promotion, told

IPS: "The majority of studies on taxes have found them to be regressive from an equityperspective. We recom men d fiscal policies promoting health are considered by countriesbut that an assessment is carried out of the risk of any unintentional effects of suchpolicies on vulnerable po pulations." (hrtp://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56769)

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=::56769




http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56769






C e r q u e i r a , E l i z a b e t h ( H L SC A ,) ^ _ _

F r o m : Overbee ke, Susan (HLYS)Se nt: June-18-12 10:03 AMT o : Duff, May (HLYS)Cc : Robertson, Mark (HLYS) ->/ }f j )Su bje ct : Task Status Report: REOPENED by ADM HLSCAM 12-00357 RUSH : 3oUJ \P/

fo r Jt i j ^ i£a&£Htat f f ta$ss<

Impor tance: High

Hi Matjj

Sending a reminder that this pending is due today.

Thanks,

Sue

Original TaskS u b j e c t : REOPENED by ADM HLSCAM12-00357 RUSH: Request from Minister for Junk Food Tax PaperP r i o r i t y : High

S t a r t d a t e : Thu 2012-02-23D u e d a t e : Mon 2012-06-18

S t a t u s : In Progress% c o m p l e t e : 0 %A c t u a l w o r k : 0 hours

R e q u e s t e d b y : Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS)

New Request from Marcia follow ing a me eting on Wednesday June 6 th at 11 :30am on Junk Food Tax. Request is for

Hea lthy Living Levy Paper based on this Background info:

Good morning May,

As requested by Marcia can you please have staff prepare a Healthy Living Levy Paper. Background to this paper can befound in AIMS.

AD M Due Date: June 18th

, 2012

Jill, cc'ing you as we are unsure how to p roceed wh en the request comes fro m th e AD M . Do we need to give the D M's

office a heads up? Or should the request just be sent up through the channels once complete?

Thank you,

Jessica West

i



Fro m : Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS)Sent: June-08-12 10:10 AMTo: West, Jessica (HLYS)Subject : FW: healthy Living levy

Hi Jess,

AIMSIog#isM12-00357.

Sue

From: Thomson, Marcia (HLYS)Sent: June-07-12 5 :42 PMTo: Robertson, Mark (HLYS); Duff, May (HLYS); Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS)Subject : healthy Living levy

a 36) Go 0 ;

Due: June 18

Sue, please iden tify an Aims number.

Thanks,Marcia

From: Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS)Sent: February-23-12 4:30 PM

To : Duff, May (HLYS) dlfl)(b)

Sub ject: FW: HLSCAM12-00357 RUSH: ^OK ~ * V 7 for Junk Food Tax Paper

Importance: High

Hi May,

This has already been referred to your Branch in AIMS.

D u e D a t e: T u e s d a y , F e b r u a r y 28t h (I c lar i f ied the due date with Jil l. Sh e requires it forCind y's review by end of W ed ne sd ay , bu t Marcia wi l l app rove i t f i rst. ) j

There are no a t tachments in A IMS for background.

2



Tha nk you,

Sue

Phone: 204.945.7860

Fax: 204.948.4748

F r o m : Bemi, Jill rmailto:[email protected] Sent: February-23-12 3:33 PM

T o : Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS) r \ / .Sub jec t : H LSCAM.12-00357 R U SH : 2 S U j O / for Junk Food Tax PaperImp or tanc e: H igh

, „ h* . Please have staff work on this and provide DMO

with a draft by end of day Thursd ay , February 29 th .

Jill Bemi

Assistant to the Deputy Minister

Manitoba Culture, Heritage & Tourism

Manitoba Healthy Living, Seniors and Consumer Affairs

Room 112, 450 Broadway

Winnipeg MB R3C. 0V8

Phone: 204-945-4192

Fax: 204-948-3102

3





%

4- scope- ? f fy?

tissue



( 2 D

r



Thank you.

/ " 7 C ( /

F r o m : Stevens, CindyS e n t : Monday, October 01 , 2012 5:02 PMTo: C p C O :ie!dhouse, Paul (HLYS)Cc: RoDertson, Mark (HLYS); Thomson, Marcia (HLYS); Bemi, Jill; Duff, May (HLYS)S u b j e c t : RE: Food tax in northern European countries

W e wi l l prepa re a br ief ing not on this - Ji l l wi l l put in a forma l reque st.Cindy StevensOepi'ty MinisterMpniktbii Culture Hvniayt} find TO[ni.<mivi-diiiiiJiJrj ri&illtfty LiVulCj. iS?J f i ) i 'S SIKJ OC'iISU i'i'i&i' Aii3ti'$

204-345-4-t 36cindv.stevens(a).lBQ.aov.mb.ca

From:C H O ^S e n t : Monday, October 01 , 2012 4:50 PMTo: Fieldhouse , Paul (HLYS)Cc: Robertson, Mark (HLYS); Stevens, CindyS u b j e c t : Food tax in northern European countries

Hello Paul,

2 3 0 ) U> ) hat I touch base w ith you in regard to providing him w ith a bit of feedback on how some of the

nor the rn European countries incorp orate the tax on some foods (i.e. 'built in ' tax to foo d cost). He mentioned Norway,

Sweden , Finland as examples, h 2 - 3 > ( j / C i> / if you could please provide feedback over thecourse of the next week, it wil l be greatly app reciated.

Thank yo u Paul.

)nLo

2



Duf f , May (HLSCA)

From: Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)Sen t: October-03-12 10:39 AMTo: . Shirtliff, Justine (HLYS)Su bje ct: FW: Food tax in northern European countriesAttachments: image001.jpg

Hi JustineCould you look into this please? I think what is wanted is a table.showing what food taxes are levied in various countri-a m ou nt and to w hat foods they apply, and how they are applied.

Eg. Country x 15% Value Added Tax Foods taxed (or exempt=) Included in sticker price/Added at-till

I vaguely remember seeing something like this in one of the food taxation papers we looked at recen tly.

Thankspaul

Tame your Email http://emaHcharter.org

Paul Fieldhouse, PhD.N utr itio n Policy A Research Analyst

Healthy Living, Youth & Seniors

ph 204 786 7350fax 204 948 [email protected]

C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y N o t i c e ; T h i s m es sa g e a nd a ny a t t a c h m e n t t o i t a r e i n t e n d e d f o r t h e a d d r e s s e eon ly and may conta in lega l ly p r iv i leged or c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e ,

d i s c l o s u r e , d i s t r i b u t i o n , o r c o p ying is s t r i c t l y p r o h ib i t e d . P le as e n o t i f y t h e s e n d e r i f y o u h av e

r e c e i v e d t h i s E-mail by m is take , and p lease de le te i t and the a t tachmen ts (and a l l cop ies ) in a

s e c u r e manner. Thank you .

Mes sage de co n f ide n t ia l i t e : Ce message e t tou t documen t dans c e t t e t ransm iss ion es t de s t in e

a la pe rsonne ou aux pe rsonnes a qu i i l es t ad res se . I I pe u t co n te n i r des in fo rm a t io ns

p r iv i leg iee s ou con f iden t ie l les . Tou t e u t i l i sa t ion , d ivu lg a t ion , d i s t r i bu t io n ou cop ie non au to r i see

e s t s t r i c t e m e n t d e f e n d u e . 5 i v o u s n'etes p as le d e s t i n a t a i r e d e ce c o u r r i e l , v e u i li e z .e n i n f o r m e

I ' e x p e d i t e u r e t e f f a c e r I'original ( e t t o u t e s l e s p i e c e s j o i n t e s ) d e m a n ie r e s e c u r i t a i r e , M e r c i .

nUlrom:Se nt: October-01-12 5:06 PMTo: Stevens, Cindy (LEG); F ieldhouse, Paul (HLYS)Cc: Robertson, Mark (HLYS); Thomson, Marcia (HLYS); Bemi, Jill (LEG); Duff, May (HLYS)Subject: RE: Food tax in northern European countries

l

http://emahcharter.org/



http://emahcharter.org/



Duff, May (HLSCA)

Fr o m: Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)Se nt: October-24-12 3:13 PMTo:

Su bje ct: RE: taxation 01 OODS etc

Just so folks know - Manitoba has been looking at this, but noth ing I can share right n ow o utside o ne-to-on e private

discussions.

paul .



Nut r i t ion Pol icy & Research AnalystHealthy Liv ing, Seniors and Consumer Affairs

ph 204 786 73 50

fax 204 948 2366

[email protected]

Conf ident ia l i ty Not ice: This message and any at tachment to i t are intended for the addressee

only and may contain legally privi leged or conf ident ia l informat ion. Any unauthor ized use,

d isc losure, d is t r ib ut io n, or copying is str ict ly prohibi ted. Please noti fy the sender i f you have

received this E-mail by mistake, and please delete i t and the attachments (and al l copies) in asecure manner. Thank you.

Message de conf ide nt ia l i te : Ce message et to ut document dans ce t t e t ransmission est dest in

a la personne ou aux personnes a qui i l est adres se. I I peut co nten ir des inform ation s

privi iegiees ou conf iden tiel les. Toute ut i l isa t ion , divulgation , di st r ib ut io n ou copie non autorisee

est st r ic tement defendue. Si vous n'etes pas le dest ina tai re de ce co urr ie l , veui llez en inform e

I 'expedi teur et ef facer l 'or ig inal (et toutes les pieces jo intes) de maniere secur i ta i re. Merci .

F r o m :S e n t : October-24-12 1:48 PMTo:

pit)_c .. field ho use , Paul (HLYS);

S u b j e c t : taxation of SSBs etcI m p o r t a n c e : High

l







Hi all, I've been asked to do a quick scan of what P/ts are doing in the area of SSB taxation. Can't recall if we did an issue

sum ma ry on this but if there is one can you send. Quick turnarou nd on this one, wou ld appreciate any assistance, tx

2




F r o m : Cerque ira, Elizabeth (HLYS)Se nt: October-25-12 9:36 AMT o : Lam boo-M iln, Andrea (HLYS)Subjec t : FW : MGI Inquiry

Here is the email.

E l i z a b e t h C e r q u e i r a

C l e r k , H e a l t h y S c h o o l s a n d M a n i t o b a i n m o t i on

P H : 204 -786 -7345

F ax : 204 -948 -2366

Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information.Any una uthorized use, disclosure, distr ibu tion , or copying is strictly prohib ited. Please notify the sender if you have received this E-mal by mistake, and pleasedelete it and the attachments (and all copies) in a secure manne r. Thank you.

Message de confidentialite: Ce message et tout document dans cette transmission est destine a la personne ou aux personnes a qui il est adresse\ II peut contendes informations privil£giees ou confidentielles. Toute utilisation, divulgation, distribution ou copie non autorise'e est strictement defendue. Si vous n'etes pas le

destinntiiire de ce courriel, veuiilez en informer I'expediteur et effacer I'origina (et toutes les pieces jointes) de maniere s^curitaire. Merci.

F r o m : Robertson, Mark (HLYS)S e n t : October-24-12 3:41 PMT o : Cerqueira, Elizabeth (HLYS)S u b j e c t : FW: MGI Inquiry

Hi Elizabeth:

Please find following the email I mentioned,' Healthy Chiid would like us to respond to this email.

Ail the Best!

Mar

F r o m : +WPG1038 - HEALTHY CHILD (CYO-HCMO)S e n t : October-24-12 3:02 PMT o : Robertson, Mark (HLYS)S u b j e c t : FW: MGI Inquiry

This c om m en t came in ro oui: general mailbox — would this be for your department?

Thank you

CM r t s t tkve j tc\ I/UA£I/\,Adm inistrative Assistan t, Triple PHealthy Child Manitoba Office332 Bannatyne AvenueWinnipeg MB R3A 0E2

p: (204) 945-2481f: (204) 948-3790

i

&



"T he greatest mistake w e m ake is l iving in constant fear that we will ma ke o ne " - Joh n M axwell J

"Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail messag e (including any attachments) is confidential and may be subject to privilege, including Crown

privilege. All rights to privilege are expressly claimed and are not waived. Any use, copying, distribution or disclosure of this messag e or any

attachment, in whole or in part, by anyone other than the intended rec ipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error

please delete this message and all attachments, in a secure ma nner without making any copies and notify the sender by telephone."

F r o m : + W P G 7 2 5 - M a n i t o b a G o v e r n m e n t I n q u i r y ( C H T )

S e n t : O c t o b e r - 2 4 - 1 2 2 : 5 0 P M

T o : + W P G 1 2 4 4 - H e a l t h y S c h o o l s ( H L T H ) ; + W P G 1 0 3 8 - H E A L T H Y C H I L D ( C Y O - H C M O )

S u b j e c t : F W : M G I I n q u i r y

Healthy Schools,

Healthy Child Manitoba:

The fol lowing e-mai l is for your a t tent i on.

Thank you,

Manitoba Government Inquirymgi(5>gov.mb.ca

no)Or ig ina l Message—

Sent: Octobe r 24, 2012 12:22 PM

To : +WPG725 - Manitoba Governm ent Inq uiry (CHT)

Subject: MGI Inquiry

no)Below is the result of your feedback form . I t was subm it ted by

on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 12:22:28_ _ _

no)comm ents: I would l ike to make a com men t abou t taxing junk f ood . Why not use the extra taxes for education, prevention, and services for people

trying to lose wt and/or both. Pu tting ugly faces on packaging ESP for you ng people n ot good for self esteem ESP troub les w ith w t. Seems shaming

is not the answer. Also eating fruit and veg more is great but why not substantially drop prices so junk high costs become less appealing. Also

refram ing the social aspect of acceptance w ith eating junk needs ove rhau l. By the way High caffiene d rinks shou ld not be sold to anyong under 18.

Submit: Submit

T r a c k i n g :2



Recipient Read

Lamboo-Miln. Andrea (HLYS) Read: 2012-10-25 10:15 AM



^tuc$-y^-^ &

Duff, May (HLSCA)

From:Sent:To:Subject :A t t a ch me n ts :

Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)November-14-12 1:40 PM

Robertson, Mark (HLYS)Email ing: BBC News - Denmark to abolish tax on high-fat foodsimage001.gif; image002.gif; image003.png; image004.png; image005.gif; image006.jpg;image007.jpg; image008.jpg; image02 1.png; image 026.jpg; image02 7.jpg; image028.jpg;image029.jpg; image030.jpg; Image031.jpg; image032 .png; image033.png

Just FYI!

Skip to content

Skip to loca l navigat ion

Accessibility Help

Q

NEWS

Home

US &

CanadaLatin America

UK

Africa

Asia

Europe

Mid-East



• Business

. Health

• Sci/Environment

• Tech

• Entertainment

• Video

10 November 2012 Last updated at 12:48 ET

Sha re this page

Del ic iousDiggFacebookreddi tStumbSeUponTwit terEmai lPr int

Denm ark to abol ish tax on high-fat foo ds

he tax increased the cost of butter and other foods with more than

2.3% saturated fat

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Denmark introdu ces foo d fat tax

• Doctors urge UK ' t rans-fa t ba n'

The Danish governme nt has said it intends to abolish a tax on foods which are high in saturated fats.

The measure, introduced a little over a year ago, was believed to be the world's first so-called "fat tax".

Foods containing m ore than 2 .3% saturated fat - including dairy produce, me at and proces sed foods - weresubject to the surcharge.

2



3 '

' But autho rities said the tax had inflated food prices and put Danish job s at risk.

The Danish tax ministry said it was also cancelling its plans to introduce a tax on sugar, the AFP news agencyreports.

The ministry said one of the effects of the fat tax was that some D anes h ad b egun crossing the border intoGerma ny to stock up on food there.

According to the Danish National Health and Medicines Authority, 47% of Danes are overweight and 13% areobese.

The tax was introduced in October 2011, in an attempt to limit the population's intake of fatty foods, i

Th e me asure added 16 kroner ($2.70; £1.50) per kg (2.2lb) of saturated fats in a product, Increa sing the priceof a 250g pack of butter by 2.20 kroner. I

Th e decision to get rid of the tax was a greed as part of the centre-left m inority gove rnme nt's budget!negotiations.

Several supermarkets have reportedly said they will reduce their prices once the tax is abolished.

More on This Story

R e l a t e d S t o r i e s

• Denmark introduce s foo d fat tax

01 OCTOBER 2011, EUROPE

I

• Doctors urge UK 'trans-fat ban'

16 APRIL 2010, HEALTH

R e l a t e d I n t e r n e t l i n k s

• Danish government

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites j

Share this pageDelicious

Digg

Facebook

reddit

StumbleUpon

3



Twi t ter

Emai l

Pr int

Mo re Europe stor ies

RSS

Tens of thousands of worke rs stage protests and strikes across Europe against rising unem ployment and

austerity measures.

• EU 2013 budge t talks in cr is is

• Deputy premier resigns in Croatia

Top stor ies

Israel ki l ls Hamas mi l i tary chief

• 'No s i gn ' of Petraeus info leak

• Obam a: Wealthy m us t pay more tax

• Abor t ion 'would have saved wi fe '

• 'Rogue planet' is yo un g wa ndere r

Features & Analysis

• KaSaiHdrns of a di lemm a Wa tch

US cattle country in uproar at deadly-virus lab plan

IMy stolen face

4



The media mix-up that ruined my life

BaSHlMarching orders

How m uch change at the top for China's m iiitary?

Q&S$Modem-day Caesars

Why do Americans idolise their generals?

Most Popular

Shared

1. 1 : Abo r t ion 'wo uld have saved wi fe"

2. 2: Israel ki l ls Ham as m i l i tary chief

3. 3: Veg etative patient 'no t in pain'

4. 4 : The media mix -up that ru ined my l i fe

5. 5 : DNA research sto ps MRSA outbreak

Read

1. 1 : Obam a: We al thy mu st pay mo re tax

2. 2: Israel ki l ls Hamas mi l i ta ry chief.

3 . 3 : The media mix-up that ru ined my l i fe

4. 4 : Abo r t ion 'wou ld have saved wi fe '

5 . 5 : 'Rogue p lanet ' is yo un g wande rer6. 6: Petraeus to tes ti fy ove r Bengha zi

7. 7: Veg etative patie nt 'no t in pain'

8. 8 : Great whi tes 'not f rom meg ashark '

9. 9: Israel str ik es Gaza

10. 10: In pictures; Israel i a ir str ikes



Video /Aud io

1. 1: South Korea's toilet theme park Watch

2. 2 : P i lo t escapes f rom f ighter je t Wa tch

3. 3: 'Gaza ope ration starte d' , sa ys Israel W atch

4. 4 : Madonna, Psy and Gangnam Sty le Watch

5. 5: Pr ince Ch arles' Ho bbit bir thda y Watc h

6. 6: US catt le cou ntry in upro ar at virus - lab plan Watch

7. 7: President Obama news con feren ce Watch

8. 8 : One-minute Wo r ld News Watch

9. 9: 'Al ien ' planet detected circl in g dying star Watch

10. 10: 'Per fect ' d iamond se l ls for $2 im Watch

Elsewhere on the BBC

Services

Mobi leConnected TV

• News feeds• Alerts• E-mail news

About BBC News• Edito rs' blog• BBC Col lege of Journ a l ism• News sou rce s• Media Ac tion



Duff, May (-HLSCA)

F r om ; Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)Sen t: Novemb er-29-12 3:49 PMT o : 'MHIKNETSu bje ct: RE: Current Awareness Alert: What's new for 'Fieldhouse, Paul: Junk food taxation' in

PubMed

Yes please - may I have bo th of the se?Thank you

Tame your email http://emailcharter.org


Nutr i t ion Pol icy &. Research Analyst


ph 204 786 735 0

fax 204 948 2366

[email protected]

Co nf ide nt ia l i ty No t ice: This message and any at tachm ent to i t are in tended fo r t he addressee

only and may contain legal ly priv i leged or conf ident ial information. Any unauthorized use,

disclosure, distr ibut ion, or copying is str ict ly prohibi ted. Please not i fy the sender i f you have

received this E-mail by m istake, and please delete i t and th e a ttac hm en ts (and all copies) in a


Message de co nf ide nt ial i te : Ce message et tou t document dans ce tt e transm ission est d est ine

a la personne ou aux personnes a qui i l est adresse. II pent contenir des in format ions :

priv i legiees ou conf ident iel les. Tou te ut i l isa t ion , divulgat ion, di st r ib ut io n QU copie non autoriseeest s t r ic tement defendue. Si vous n'etes pas le dest inataire de ce counsel, veui l lez en informe

I 'exped i teur e t e f facer I 'or iginal (e t tou tes les pieces join tes ) de maniere securitaEre. M erc i .

F r o m : MHIKNET [mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: November-29-12 3:26 PMT o ; Fieldhouse, Paul (HLYS)

S u bj ec t: Current Awareness Alert: What's new for 'Fieldhouse, Paul: Junk food taxation" in PubMed

Greetings,

This is your current awareness alert for the w eek - please let me know if you w ou ld l ike to receive the full text o f any of

these articles.

Kind regards,

Connie Flook

l










MHIKNET Library Services (/

Neil John Maclean Health Sciences Library

University of Manitoba

770 Bannatyne Ave,

Winnipeg, MB R3E0W3

tel.: 1-877-789-3804fax: 1-204-789-3923emai l : [email protected]

ht tp: / /mhiknet . l ib .umani toba.ca/

PubMed Results

Items 1 -2 of 2

1 .Obe s R ev. 2012 Nov 2 3. doi: 10.1111/obr. 12002. [Epub ahead of print]

Assessing the potential effectiveness of food and

beverage taxes and subsidies for improving publichealth: a systematic review of prices, demand andbody weight outcom es.

Powell LM, ChriQui JR Khan T. Wada R, ChaloupkaFJ.

Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, 1L,US A; Institute for Health Research and P olicy, University of Illinois at Chicago , Chicago, IL, USA .

A b s t r a c t

Taxes and subsidies are increasingly being considered as potential policy instruments to incentivizeconsumers to improve their food and beverage consumption patterns and related health outcomes. This studyprovided a systematic review of recent U.S. studies on the price elasticity of demand for sugar-sweetenedbeverages (SSBs), fast food, and fruits and vegetables, as well as the direct associations of prices/taxes withbody weight outcomes. Based on the recent literature, the price elasticity of demand for SSBs, fast food,fruits and vegetables was estimated to be -1.21, -0 .52, -0.49 and -0.48, respectively. The studies that linkedsoda taxes to weight outcom es show ed m inimal impacts on weight; however, they w ere based on existingstate-level sales taxes that were relatively low. Higher fast-food prices were associated with lower wei'ghtoutcomes particularly among adolescents, suggesting that raising prices would potentially impact weight

outcomes. Lower fruit and vegetable prices were generally found to be associated with lower body weightoutcomes among both low-income children and adults, suggesting that subsidies that would reduce the cost offruits and vegetables for lower-socioeconomic populations may be effective in reducing obesity. Pricinginstruments should continue to be considered and evaluated as potential policy instruments to address publichealth risks.

© 2012 The Authors, obesity reviews © 2012 International Association for the Study of Obesity.

PMID: 23174017 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Related citations

2


http://mhiknet.lib.umanitoba.ca/

http://mhiknet.lib.umanitoba.ca/




2.BMJ. 2012 Nov2 1;345 :e788 9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7889.

Denmark cancels "fat tax" and shelves "sugar tax"because of th re a t of jo b losses,Stafford N.

Hamburg.

PMID: 23172946 [PubMed - in process]

Related citations

" ^ 4

3



Duff, May (HLSCA)

F r o m : Duff, May (HLYS)Se nt: Decem ber-04-12 11:54 AMT o : Mclnne s, Janean (HLYS)S ub jec t: Healthy l iving Food Levy discussion paperAt tachments: a t tach_view.docx

Is this the report you are looking for.Also I do not believe we have access to any TB min ute s, I wi ll ask Jessica Isidro

i



Duff, May (HLSCA)

From : Duff, May (HLYS)Sent: Decem ber-04-1211:54 AMT o : Mclnn es, Janean (HLYS)Su bje ct : Healthy living Food Levy discussion paperAt tachments: a t tach_view.docx

Is this the report you are look ing fo r.

Also I do not believe we have access to any TB minu tes, I will ask Jessica

1



Healthy L iv ing Food Levy - D iscuss io n Paper DRAFTJu ne 2012

SUBJECT:Introduction of a health-related co nsumer levy to generate reven ue for healthy living

initiatives

ISSUE SUMMA RY:

Health-related food taxe s con tinue to be discussed as a policy option for obesityprevention and for addressing other health goals. In the past two years, Denmark hasintroduced a 'fat tax', H ungary a "junk food tax" and France a tax on swee tened drinks.Peru has annou nced plans to tax junk food and other countries are considering su chtaxes. Increasingly, attention has been focused on sugar-sweetened beverages as adiscrete taxable category.

BACKGROUND:

Healthy Living and the prevention of chronic disease has been declared to be a keypriority area provincially and at the national and international levels. Th e U nited Nations:(UN) has described it as a global emergency. In September 2011, the Government ofCanada endorsed a UN Declaration as part of a global commitment to galvanize actionagainst the growing threat of chronic diseases to world health and to nationaleconomies.

Manitoba has signalled a comm itment to prevention through its participation in, andagreemen t to, two recent FP T initiatives - Curbing Childhood Obesity: A Federal,Provincial and T erritorial Framew ork for Action to Promote Healthy Weights, and,Reducing the S odium Intake of Canadians: A Provincial and Territorial Report onProgress and Recom mendations for Future Action.

The powerful morbidity and mortality effects of diet, together with growing concern overobesity have ted some public health scholars and public interest advocates to call fortaxes on food as a policy measure to discourage consumption of foods high in calories,fat and sugar.

A major problem confronting any food tax proposal is scientific uncertainty about thecomplex nature of relationships between diet and health. There is a danger in focusingon one individual nutrient without considering the whole diet and the particularcharacteristics of the individual consumer. The appropriate tax strategy with respect tbindividual foods may depend heavily on overall eating patterns. A good strategycontingent on one pattern may be a poor strategy under ano ther pattern. Currently,there is a lack of data on the dietary patterns of Canadians.

PURPOSE:



CURRENT STATUS:

Canada

No jurisdictions h ave introduced a specific 'junk food tax' to date.

<?aC(w-v;

U.S.

Currently, 23 U.S. States have levies on sugar-sweetened beverages - usually in theform of excise taxe s. Proposals to introduce such levies have bee n defeated in anumber of states and cities.

A new policy adop ted in June 201 2 by the American Medical Association supports theidea of using revenue from taxes on sugar-sweetened sodas as one way to help pay forobesity-fighting programs, but stops short of fully endorsing such taxes. Tworecommendations to support such taxes put before the group's policy-making body inprior meetings failed to pass .

The American Beverage Association, an industry group, opposes such taxes, statingthat funding anti-obesity programs through discriminatory taxes on sugar-sweetenedbeverages is misguided.

In te rna t iona l

Examples of health related food taxes

Count ry

US

Norway

Samoa

Australia

FrenchPolynesia

Fiji

Nauru

Datein t r oduced

Various

1981

1984

2000

2002

2006

2007

Foods taxed

Sugar sweetened drinks (in 23

states)Sugar, chocolate, and sugarydrinks

Soft drinks

Soft drinks, confectionary, biscuits,and bakery products

Sweetened drinks, confectionary,and ice cream

Soft drinks

Sugar, confectionary, carbonated

Tax rate

1-8%

Variable

0.40 tala/L (£0.11; €0.14$0.18)

, 10%

60 franc/L (£0.41; €0.55;$0.66) for imported drinks

5% on imported drinks

30% import levy

Finland 2011drinks, cordial, and flavoured milksSoft drinks and confectionary Soft drinks €0.075/L



c

DateCountry in t ro duc ed Foods taxed Tax ra te

sweetener

2 3 CO (z) &

Autho rs and Con tac ts :Contac t (s ) : Mark Robertson

Healthy Living & Populations

788 66 54 Mark.Robertson(S)qov.mb.ca



Duff, May (HLSQA)

From: Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSC A)Sen t: December-05-12 11:46 AMTo : Thom son, Marcia (HLSCA)Cc: Nelson, Debbie (HEALTH)Su bjec t: danish tax repealed

Denmark's tax on foods high in saturated fats has been repealed by the Danish parliament only one year after being introduced.The fat tax was levied on all foods containing more than 2.3 % fat, including milk, butter, chee se, o il, and meats, as Well asfrozen pizzas and other processed foods.Companies complained that the tax was a bureaucratic nightmare, increasing administrative costs and putting jobs at risk, andconsumers in Denmark were making shopping trips to Germany and Sweden to avoid the tax.

In announcing the repeal of the fat tax, the Danish tax m inistry said it had also cance lled plans to introduce in January a sugarTax.

Look forward to our discussion when I return.

Tome your Email http://emailcharter.org

Dr. Paul Fieldhouse

Nutr i t ion Pol icy &. Research Analyst

(Government of Manitoba

300 Carl ton St.

Winnipeg, ManitobaCanada R3B 3M9

Phone 204 786 7350

Fax 204 948 2366


Con fidentia lity No tice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and maycontain legally privileged or confidential information. Any unauthorized use,, disc losure , distribution, orcopying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this E-mail by mistake, and pleasedelete it and the attachments (and all copies) in a secure manner. Thank you.

Me ssage de co nfide ntialite : Ce message et tout document dans cette transmiss ion est destine a la personne ouaux personnes a qui il est adresse. II peut contenir des informations privilegiees ou confidentielles. Tputeutilisation, divulgation, distribution ou copie non autorisee est strictement d^fendue. Si vous n'etes pas le

destinataire de ce courriel, veuillez en informer l'expediteur et effacer 1'original

(et toutes les pieces jointes) demaniere securitaire. Me rci.

l







S h a t t u c k , C i a r a ( H E A L T H )

Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)January-21-13 4:07 PMShattuck, Ciara (HEALTH)food taxesFieldhouse 2006 Taxinc Food.rjdf; HLSCA-PF-Northern European Food taxes - Oct 3.docx;Healthy Livina I e(*y / ^L()Lhj " ; " n ^aper.docx; [ f^U) hi

j • ..... HLSCAM 12-00357 healthy living levy inppCfunnat AUG O7.docx

Here's a few things. I have dozens and dozens of articles on the issue if vou are inte reste d-

Regards

paul

Tame your Email htto://emailcharter.ora

Dr. Paul FieldhouseNutrition Policy & Research Analyst

Government of Manitoba

300 Carlton St.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Canada R3B 3M9

Phone 204 786 7350

Fax 204 948 2366


Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and maycontain legally privileged or confidential information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, orcopying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have rec eived this E-mail by mistake, and pleasedelete it and the attachments (and all copies) in a secure manner. Thank you.

Message de confidentialite : Ce message et tout document dans cette transmission est destine a la personne ouaux personnes a qui il est adresse. II peut contenir des informations privilegiees ou confidentielles. Touteutilisation, divulgation, distribution ou copie non autorisee est strictement defendue. Si vous n'etes pas ledestinataire de ce courriel, veuillez en informer I'expediteur et effacer I'original (et toutes les pieces jointes) demaniere sec uritaire. Merci.

From:Sent:To:Subject:At tachments:

l





KjUls^^-xuJ^

Taxing Food

Summary Overview

Over the past few years there has been increasinginterest in nutrition advocacy circles and in the popular

press about the idea of a so-called "fat tax", "junk foodtax" or "snack tax". In 'this review I will address severalbasic issues connected to small taxes on food includingtheir intended purpo se, how they work, pros and cons andimplications for dietetic practice.

Background

' The concept o f a small tax on selected food products isrooted in two big ideas. Firstly, strong scientific evidencethat links diet to chronic disease, together with, concernsover the increasing prevalence of obesity has fuelled calls

for strategies to reduce intakes of dietary fat, sugar, saltand overall food energy (1). Secondly, as food costs areimportant factors in consumer food choice, it is thought tobe possible to change eating behaviour through theapplication of economic levers. The two ideas intersect inthe fact that energy dense foods are amongst the leastcostly of foods (2).

In 1994, Dr. Kelly Brownell of Yale University suggestedtaxing unhealthy foods, a proposal that was quicklylabelled "the Twinkie Tax" and ridiculed by opponents (3).Since then several types of small taxes on food havebeen proposed, the most common of which are styled:"Junk food tax"; "Fat tax"; and "Snack Tax". An alternativeeconomic strategy, the application of subsidies to healthy

food choices, is beyond the scope of this discussion (4).

Definitions

The terms "junk food tax", "fat tax", or "snack tax", lackcommon clear definitions. "Junk food" is more of aconceptual category than it is a nutritional one, althoughthe term is widely used as shorthand to refer to some or

all of high fat or sugar snack foods, fast foods, jsoft drinksand candy (5). "Fat tax" embraces a variety of sphemes totax foods based on their total fat content, or specificallythe saturated fat or trans-fat component. For example

Marshall suggests that products could be taxed M theyraised cholesterol concentrations but be exempted if the"ratio of polyuns.aturates to saturates (and trans fattyacids) were more .favou rable " (6). Targe ting! foods fortaxation based on their fat (or indeed, othejr nutrient)content provides a clearer nutritional criterion tfoanjthat ofjunk-food / non jupk food. "Snack food", like "junk food", isa more ambiguous concept. For examp le, Heaijth Canadarefers to snack foods "like potato chips and prptzels" butalso to the concept of healthy nutritious snacks from thefood groups (7), while examples from Industry panada ofwhat are considered as snack food include cheese curls,popcorn, corn chips and potato chips (8). I

Why a tax?

Advocates identify two potential positive ou comes ofdifferentiated food taxes. The first is the pctential forprompting changes in individual eating behavio jr that areconsistent with current nutritional advice on healthy; eatingand; that w ill contribute to changes in populationconsumption patterns leading to reduced levels] of obesityand'chronic disease. This rationale is generally favouredby public health groups and consumer health lobbies andis often proposed as part of a broader comprehensivehealth promotion/public health strategy, citing theexperience of cigarette taxation as a component of acomprehensive tobacco control strategy (9). The second

outcome is revenue generation that could be directed tosupport nutritional health promotion programs'. For thisreason, some critics who doubt the likellness !of the firstoutcome nevertheless support such taxes. .

©2006 Dietitians of Canada. Ail rights reserved.May be reproduced for educational purposes. Dietitians of CanadaLes dietetistes du Canada

1/4



Options for tax intervention

Taxes on food may be applied at the retail ievei in theform of general or targeted sales taxes. In Canada, foodis already differentially taxed through the Goods andServices Tax (GST) and Provincial Sales Tax (PST).Foods and beverages subject to GST are listed byCanada Customs (10). There is, arguably, a high degreeof congruency between what is in this list and what wouldbe likely to be on a "junk food" or "snack food" tax iist. Anumber of states from the United States of America haveat different times experimented with levying special taxeson soft drinks and specific snack foods or have excludedthese products from tax exemptions given to foodproducts (11).

There are also op tions. for levying taxes at differentstages in the food system. Approaches tried in the U.S.include:

- Manufacturers tax - payable on production volume (e.g.soft drinks or syrups) or as a percentage , of salesrevenue, andWholesalers and distributors tax - payable on amountof product sold.


on total fat, saturated fat or sugar could have an impacton consumption of fats, sugars and overall calories for

some groups, although with no "particularly advantageouseffects" for the socio-demographic groups amongst whichobesity and unhealthy diets are of the most concern (14).The authors suggest that combining economicinstruments with public information campaigns may be afruitful avenue for further exp loration. A U.S. study -thatattempted to simulate the effects of a fat tax on dairyproducts concluded that a 10% tax on fat content had littleimpact on the quantity of dairy products consumed byjanygroup, though there was an overall predicted 1;.4%reduction of average total fat intake (15). Otherresearchers have proposed combining taxation of lesshealthy options with subsidies for healthier alternativessuch as fruits and vegetables, as a potentially moreeffective strategy in improving diet quality and healthoutcomes (16).

Food taxes would almost certainly raise revenues. TheUSDA analysis cited abo ve estimated that a 1% tax onpotato chips translates into twenty seven m illion dollars ofrevenue that could be spent on education programs.Governments are often reluctant to allocate specificrevenue streams to specific purposes. A notableexception is VicHealth - a very successful Australianhealth promotion foundation supported through tobaccotaxes (17). More often, monies go into general revenuesfrom where they are reallocated according to changingneeds and government priorities.

Would junk food taxes be effect ive?

While there have been few attempts to demonstrate theactual impact of such taxes with real world examples,several recent economic modelling studies haveattempted to gauge the likely im pact of such taxes, takinginto account factors such as current levels ofconsumption, price elasticity and substitution strategies. AUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) modelsuggests that "small" taxes on snack foods would beineffective in changing patterns of consum ption and wouldhave little impact on diet quality or heath outcomes (13).Even a 20% tax on salty snack foods would result in onlya 4-6 ounce reduction in annual per capita consumption.

Moreover, as the authors point out, there is no guaranteethat any consumption changes prompted by such taxeswould be nutritionally beneficial.

An analysis carried out for the D anish Food and ResourceEconomics Institute indicated that differential taxes based

It should be noted that food taxes are regressive in nature

since they disproportionately affect lower incomepopulations where a higher percentage of income is spentoh food. Modelling the distributional effect of hypotheticaltaxes on saturated fat, monounsaturated fat, sodium \ andcholesterol using data from the National Food Survey, arecent United Kingdom analysis showed that the poorest2% of people would pay 0.7% of total income on a fat tax,while the richest group w ould pay only 0.1 % of totalincome (18).


If the idea of a "junk food", "snack food" of "fat tax" gainedpolitical and public support, there would be at least twokinds of implementation challenges to address. The first isin deciding what to tax. It is difficult to link specific foods tospecific health impacts so the idea of tax on specific foodand beverage products runs counter to the messagelthatit is overall dietary intake that matters. There would haveto be broad agreement on the part of policy makers,

©2006 Dietitians of Canada. All rights reserved.May be reproduced for educational purposes.


Les dietetistes du Canada



THE INSIDE STORY

practitioners and industry on what constitutes "junk-food"or "snack food" and therefore is taxable.

The second challenge recognises the complexity ofadministering a differential retail tax. Given that newproducts are constantly appearing on the market, and thatmanufacturers may change product specifications, acontinual monitoring, evaluation and classification systemwould be required. Retailers would need to adopt newtechnologies and/or accounting systems to charge thetax, and tax remittance and collection systems wouldhave to be developed. Restaurants would be faced withan even more complex task. It may be that tax levies atthe manufacturer or distributor level would be relativelyeasier to administer and would underline the idea thathealthier choices are an industry as well as consumerresponsibility. In either case, both producers andconsumers wo uld likely bear a share of the costs.

References:

1) Shields, M. (2005) Overweight Canadian children andadolescents, Nutrition: Findings from the CanadianCommunity Health Survey. Statistics; Canadahttp://www.statcan.ca/enalish/research/82-620 -MIE/2005001 !/articles/child/cobesitv.htm

2) Drewnowski, A. (2003) Fat and Sugar. An'EconomiAnalysis. Journal of Nutrition, 133S , 838$~840S.

3) Browne!}, K.D. (1994) Get Slim W ith Higher Taxes"New York Times, Op-Ed., Dec. 15th.

4) Jeffery, R.W., French, S.A., Raether, C. and BaxteJ.E. (1994) An Environmental Intervention toIncrease Fruit and Salad Purchases in a i CafeteriPreventive Medicine, 23, 6: 788-92.

Impl icat ions for dietet ic pract ice

While economic incentives and disincentives are apotential addition to the array of public policy instrumentsavailable to encourage healthy eating, there is as yet noclear cut empirical evidence on which to judge the meritsof junk food or similar taxes. The Institute of Medicineconcludes that there is insufficient evidence to

recommend either for or against taxing these foods, whilea recent Canadian think-tank on addressing obesityconcluded that the relationship between economicpolicies such as the role of tax incentives anddisincentives and their influence on eating behaviours ispoorly understood and requires further research (19).

5) CDC School Health Policies and Programs Study(2000) Fact Sheet: on Foods and Beverages Soldoutside of School Meal Programs,httD://www.cdc.oov/HealthvYouth/shDDs/factsheets/Ddf/outside food.odf

6) Marsh all, T. (2000) Exploring a fiscal food policy: the caseof diet and ischaemlc heart disease. B ritish Medical Journal320:301-04.

7) Health Canada (1997). Canada's Food Guide - Focus onChildren 6-12 years - Background for Educators \andCommunicators. Minister of Public Works and GovernmenServices Canada. Cat. H39-308/1-1997e

8) http://strateQis.ic.ac.ca/canadian industry statistics/cis.nsf/lDE/cis311919defe.html

It would be useful to develop more robust definitions ofterms such as "Junk Food" and "Snack Food" as a m eansto defining exactly wh at foods wou ld be targeted and why.

Continuing media discourse about food tax proposalsdoes provide an opportunity for dietitians to engage thepublic in discussions about the importance of healthy

eating and the role of public policy in supporting healthychoices.

9) Institute of Medicine (2005) Food M arketing to Children andYouth: Threat or Opportunity? The National AcademiesPress, Washington D.C.

10) htto://www. era-arc, ac. ca/E/pub/a m/4-3/4-3r-e.htm l

11) Lohman, J.S. (2002) Taxes on Junk Food.http://www.cQa.ct.aov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R-1004.ht m

12) Jacobson, M.F. and Brownwell, K.D. (2000) Small Taxes oSoft Drinks and Snack F oods to Promote Health,' AmericanJournal of Public Health. 90 (6) 854-7.

Written by Paul Fieldhouse, PhD and reviewed by KimRaine, PhD, RD and C armen Connolly.

13 ) Kuchler, P.; Tegene, A. , Ha rris, M. (2005) Taxing SnackFoods: Manipulating D iet Q uality or Financing InformationPrograms?. Review of Agricultural Economics. 27(1) 4-20.

©2006 Diet i t ians of Canada. Al l r ights reserved.May be reproduced for educat ional purposes.


Les dt'etetistes du Canada

http://www.statcan.ca/enalish/research/82-620MIE/2005001!/articles/child/cobesitv.htm




http://www.cdc.oov/HealthvYouth/shDDs/factsheets/D

http://strateqis.ic.ac.ca/canadian


http://www.cqa.ct.aov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R-1004.htm

http://www.cqa.ct.aov/2002/olrdata/fin/rot/2002-R-1004.htm


http://www.cdc.oov/HealthvYouth/shDDs/factsheets/D





THE INSIDE STORY

14 ) Smed, S., Jensen, J.D., and Denver, S. (2005)Differentiated Food Taxes' as a Tool in Health and NutritionPolicy. Food and Resource Economics Institute,Frederiksberg.

15) Chouinard, H.H., Davis, D.E., LaFrance J.T. and Perloff,J.M. (200 5) The Effects of a Fat Tax on Dairy Products.Working Paper 1007, Departmen t of Agn'cultural andResource Economics and Policy. U. California.

16) Cash, S.B., Sunding, D.L. and Zilberman, D. (2005) FarTaxes and Thin Subsidies: Prices, Diet, and HealthOutcomes, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section c; 2, 3-4:167-174.

17) http:/M/ww.vicheaIth.vic.qov.au/Content.asox?topiclD=3

18 ) Caraher, M. and Cowburn, G. (2005) Taxing Food:

Implications for Public Health Nutrition. Public HealthNutrition. 8 (8): 1 242-9.

19) Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada (2005) AddressingObes ity in Canada: A Think Tank on Selected ResearchPriorities. Oct 6-7, Ottawa.http://ww2.heariandstroke.ca/PaQe.aso?PaaelD=1613&Co ntentlD=20169&ContentTYoelD=1

©2 0 0 6 D ie t it i a n s o f Ca n a d a, A ll r ig h t s r e se rve d . W f f Dietitians of CanadaMay be reproduced fo r educat iona l purposes. J S W Les dr&6tfstes du Canada

http://ww2.heariandstroke.ca/PaQe.aso?PaaelD=1613&Con

http://ww2.heariandstroke.ca/PaQe.aso?PaaelD=1613&Con



*} p*£j&



6 p ^ ^



l l a ( e0*) t K

Cf*af&)



seJ.e&s-c

AD VISORY NO TE FOR THE MINISTER OF HEA LTHY LIVING,

SENIORS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Div i s i on /B ranc h : Hea lthy Living and Pop ulations

S ub jec t: Food tax mod alit ies in Northern Europe

Date: Oc tobe r 5t h 2012

Log :

In i t iated by :

HLSCAM12-01870

Min is te r X DM D ADM Branch

Is s ue Sum m ary :In countries wh ere g oods and services (or equivalent) taxes are levied they m ay apply

to al l or selected food produ cts, and may b e incorporated into the 'st icker price" or beadded s eparately at the till. The table below shows how northern Europe an countriesaddres s this issue.

B a c k g r o u n d :As above

Curren t S ta tus :

Sales taxes in N orthern Europe take the fo rm of VAT or Value Added Tax. Thesetaxes are included in the 'st icker pr ice' of goods and services to which they apply.

Al l countr ies have a Standard Rate of VAT; some have a reduced rate which appl iesto specif ied goods, often including food ' some have exemptions or zero-ratedcategories.

C o u n t r y

N o r w a y

S w e d e n

Fin land

D e n m a r k

Un i tedK i n g d o m

S t a n d a r dVAT taxrate

2 5 %

2 5 %

2 3 %

2 5 %

2 0 %

Foods taxed

All

All i

All

All

C o n f e c t i o n e r y ,snack foods , so f td r inks e tc

ReducedTax ra te

1 5 %

1 2 %

1 3 %

No

No

Zero taxra te

na

na

na

na

BasicFoods tu f f s

I n add i t i on some coun t r i es l evy o the r t ypes o f f ood t axes



N e l s o n , D e b b i e ( H E A L T H )

F r o m: Duff, May (HLSCA )Se nt: January-21-13 4:23 PMT o : Overbeeke, Susan (HLSCA); Mclnnes, Janean (HLYS)Cc : Nelson, Debbie (HEALTH); Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA)Su bje ct : FW: Food Levy update Jan 2013 - Obesity Tax - HLSCAM 12-002288At tac hm en ts: Food Levy update Jan 2013.docx

Impor tance : High

For Marcia's review and approval

unr:i-yny tjy!ng & Population

TO?4-30?) Cahton Si,: . * » , - :f ; .'; , ' j .--,. ..1-4 .R /it . ' - ; ,~ I J - f ; v-\ ?*>

: . . . - 1 , • • " < ' . ' \ ' . . i J " ' > •' >\ ' ' ' *

E- M afi; Nidu?f@c$g v. rrp - cj^

Hi,

G i ve n t h e ve r y l i m i t e d i n fo r m a t i o n i n t h i s r e q u e s t a n d t h a t w e d o n o t kn o w wh o ,1.70 J " is , the DM O has

sugges ted tha t a shor t 1 '£.3(j)(b) Upd ate based on the Junk Food Levy w ou ld be suf f ic ien t , i .e . progress

regard ing the levy s ince las t rep or te d , and /o r any po ten t ia l co r re la t i ons to wha t the U.5. is do ing . The DM O

has a t tem pte d to ge t i n fo r m at ion , and th i s is a ll tha t was p ro v ided .

A D M O Du e Da te : Ja n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 1 3

Thanks ,

Sue

F r o m : Bemi, Jill [mailto:[email protected] S e n t : January-11-13 12:39 PMTo : Overbeeke, Susan (HLYS)Cc : Mc lnnes, Janean (HLYS) -\,:%S u b j e c t : HLSCAM12-02288 Request for \lKi)j>) Update - Obesity Tax

Please see attached background (and unfortu nately , tha t is all the ba ckground we have}.

Sinda would l ike feedback regarding this idea. @ ^->Uj\jpJ update wo uld be great.

DUE TO DM O: JANUARY 2 5/13

1





MFQEasaAnaia H R » I E F Q R THE MiiwsifeR OF WEALTHY -LW.W&<r . . .

Subject : Food Levy

Log (i f applicable): HLSCAM12-02288

Br an ch /D ivis ion : Healthy Living and Populations,

Current Status:

• The pow erful morb idity and mortality effects of djiet, toge ther with growing concernover obesity have led public health advocates toj call for taxes on food as a policymeasure to discourage consumption of foods high in calories, fat and sugar.Consum ption of Sugar Sweetened Beverages has been linked to obesity anddiabetes in children. Increasingly, attention has been focused on sugar-sweetenedbeverages as a discrete taxable category.

• No Canadian jurisdictions have impleme nted such levies.

' 36(dQ>)

• Similar legislation from several U.S. States and internationally is available foranalysis. Denmark recently revoked its 'fat tax1 based on ineffectiveness andunpopularity.

• Public support is likely to be mixed. Many health agencies and advocates willwelcome this; Manitoba wo uld be the first Canadian jurisdiction to take action in thisarea. Public opinion polls in several jurisdictions indicate much higher levels ofsupport if revenues generated are target to children's health programs.



23G)G0G9

Previous correspondence from Mihister Rondeau to members of the public hasstated that:

In recent years there have been numerous reports and studies which have maderecommendations on obesity and chronic disease prevention strategies, and manyof these have suggested a tax on-'unhealthy' foods, such as a 'junk food tax', a 'fattax', or tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The utility of such strategies is still thesubject of research and debate. While it is clear that they could provide a way ofraising considerable revenue, which might be directed to prevention and healthpromotion, it is much less clear that they would have any meaningful impact onconsumer behaviour food consumption, and thus public health. My department has

examined this issue in the past and continues to monitor new research.

Prepared by:

Contact :Phone:

Date:

ADM:DIVISION:PHONE:

Dr. Paul Heidhouse786-7350 {

i

Debbie Nelson788-6654

i

January 21t h 2013 ''

Marc ia ThomsonHeal thy L i v ing , Seniors and Consumer Af fai rs94-5-4895



' 3 )S h a t t u c k , C i a r a ( H E A L T H ) _

i

F r o m : Fieldhouse, Paul (HLSCA) ISen t : January-24-131:15 PM IT o : Shattuck, Ciara (HEALTH ) ISu bje ct: more stuffA tta ch m en ts : convergence nutri tion PROM ISING STRATEG IES-07.18.11.pdf; phoannual2005 BCJ.pdf

Here's a couple of more reports .. sorry i f you already have them

Tame your Email http://emailcharter.orq

Dr. Paul Fieldhouse

Nutr i t ion Pol icy & Research Analyst

Government o f Mani toba

300 Car i ton St .

Winn ipeg, Mani toba

Canada R3B 3M9

Phone 204 786 7350

Fax 204 948 2366


onfidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment to it are intended for the addressee only and mayontain legally privileged or confidential information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, oropying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this E-mail by mistake, and please

de confidentialite : Ce m essage et tout document dans cette transm ission est destine a la personne ou

tion, distribution ou c opie non autorisee est stricteme nt d^fendue. Si vous n'etes pas;letaire de ce courriel, veuillez en informer I'expediteur et effacer ['original (et toutes les pieces joihtes) d e

http://emailcharter.orq/



http://emailcharter.orq/



CONVERGENCEPAR TN ER SH IPHealthy People, Healthy Places

Li f t i ng Up WRat wor k ] '

PolicyLinkPrevention A

nstrtuteu l i ng pw u r t l l o f l

ol i l ia cn-if-' «H tet tn inumt] r * i l l « Wn g



f 1

CONVERGENCEPARJNiRSHlPHealthy People, Hea lthy Places

THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

KAISER PERMANENTE

THE KRSSCG FOUNDATION

NEMOURS

ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION

W.K. KELLOCC FOU NDATION

M i i : !! u : I ! ; i

•. ' •

isiii 3

anE

ealthyLivim

i.e-'s tor

n

Prepared byPrevention Institute

Principal AuthorsVirginia Lee, MPH.CHESLeslie Mikkelsen, RD, MPHJanarii Srikantharajah, BALarry Cohen, MSW

Technical AdvisorCenters for Disease Control and Prevention

i'I

Program DirectorPolicy-dink

© 2008, aoii by Convergence PartnershipAll rights reserved.

www. co n verge n cc partn e rs h p.o re



Contents

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION.

METHODOLOGY

REFERENCES



2 Promis ing st rategies for creat ing heal thy eat ing and act ive l iv in g env ironm ents CONVERGENCE PARTNERSHIP:

Preface

Where people l ive, work, and play signif icant ly impacts

their health. People thr ive when they l ive in communi

ties with parks and playgrounds, grocery stores selling

nutr it ious food, and neighbors who know one another.

Without a healthy environment, people are more l ikely

to suffer f rom obesity or one of the many chronic dis

eases confront ing the United States r ight now, includ ing

diabetes, asthma, and heart disease.

Place affects health, and not all places have equal

access to environments where healthy choices are

available. Some neighborhoods, schools, and work

places foster health more effect ively than others. As a

result , low-income communit ies and communit ies of

color suffer disproport ionately from poor environments

and the result ing poor health.

Healthy communit ies require heal thy environments-

neighborhoods, schools, childcare centers, and

workplaces. People need environments structured in

ways that help them access healthy foods and easily

incorporate physical act ivity into their daily rout ines.

Creat ing healthy environments cannot be done in

isolat ion by any one organizat ion or f ie ld ; it requires

coordinated and comprehensive efforts.

As individual funders we have been engaged in dif fer

ent comprehensive efforts to create access to healthy

foods and physical act ivity. Through the Convergence

Partnership, a collaborat ion among funders, we can

maximize our impact by coordinat ing our ef forts. The

partnership steering committee includes The California

Endowm ent, KaiserPermanente,The Kresge Found at ion,

Nemours, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundat ion, and

the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention serves as technical advisors

on the steering committee. In 2007, PolicyUnk was

selected as the program director to develop and imple

ment a strategic p lan, ident ify potent ial new members,;

engage with those already in the f ie ld , and seek creative:

ways to advance the overall vision of the partnership-

healthy people in healthy places.

Promising Strategies for Creating Healthy Eating and.

Active Living Environments offers a comprehensive and

cross-cutting review of policy, strategy, and program'

recommendat ions to realize this vision. Prevent ionInst itute developed this document for the partnership'

based on over 200 interviews and conversat ions with

diverse stakeholders and const ituencies. Promising

Strategies serves as a launch pad for further discussion,

a catalyst to understand how specific efforts Fit into a

broader picture, and ident if ies areas for collaborat ion

across sectors and fields.

We appreciate the part icipat ion and input of a diverse

group of stakeholders—represent ing various perspec

t ives from public health, sustainable food systems,

economic development, t ransportat ion, pr ivate in L

dustry, planning, educat ion, cl imate change, among

others—that contr ibuted to creat ing the comprehensive

mix of policies, strategies, and programs found in the

following pages. In part icular, we would l ike to thank

Virginia Lee, Leslie Mikkelsen, Janani Srikantharajah;

and Larry Cohen of Prevention Institute for ensuring

broad input in creat ing this report .

This document is part of a larger strategy to identify

high-impact approaches that wil l move us closer to our

vision of healthy people in healthy places. In addit ion

to this document, the partnership wil l release other

policy br iefs on topics such as the built environment,

access to healthy foods, and access to physical act iv

ity. These reports wil l include informa tion on promising

strategies, and policies that can help create healthy

eat ing and act ive l iving environments.



Preface 3

We will not act alone. We will foster partnerships among

funders, advocates, and pract i t ioners, and sup port spe

cific efforts to advance our goals. We are dedicated to

encouraging environm ental, p ol icy, pract ice, and orga

nizational change, with core values grounded In equity

and social just ice. Mo tivated by the work currently tak ing

place across the nation, we look forward to supporting

the growing movement to create environments thatfacil itate healthy eating and active living.

Sincerely,

Convergence Pa rtnership



4 Promis ing st rategies for creat ing heal thy eat ing and act ive l iv ing enviro nme nts CONVERGENCE PARTNERSHIP

Introduction

There is growing recognition that creating healthy

places—neighborhoods, scho ols, and workplaces—is es

sential to supporting healthy eating and physical activity

behaviors. The following d ocume nt presents a compre

hensive and cross-cutting review of policy, strategy, and

program recommendations to create healthy eating and

active living environments. This review draws from the

most prominent and promising strategies for change

at nat ion al, state, and local levels.

The strategies are based on conversations with multiple

and diverse stakeholders and constituencies—represent

ing various perspectives from public health, sustainable

food systems, economic development, t ransportat ion,

pr ivate industry, planning, educat ion, cl imate change,

among others—engaged in accelerating and supporting

the movement for healthy communit ies.* The whole is

greater than the sum of its parts—each strategy builds

upon and reinforces the next to create an o verall synergy

that contributes to the vision of a healthy community.

This document has been created to encourage further

discussions and serve as a catalyst for practit ioners,

advocates, and community leaders to understand how

their specific efforts fit into a broader landscape of ef

forts. It also identif ies specific areas for collaboration

across sectors and fields in order to transform communi

ties in a high leverage and high impact way. By working

together, groups can more quickly and effectively build

a mult ifaceted approach to achieving hea lthy communi

ties where people live, work, play, and learn. (For moreinformation about the Convergence Partnership, visit

www.convergencepartnership.org ).

"Note: This document integrates perspec tives from a variety of Fields, andcommonplace terms from one field may be un familiar In others.

http://www.convergencepartnership.org/





Methodology 5

Methodology

The value of a broad scan of cross-cutting strategies

emerged from a June 2006 Convergence Partnership

meeting of national organizations focused on healthy

eating and active living and interested in developing a

coordinated and comprehensive approach to improving

food and activity environments. To capture the existing

wealth of knowledge and experience in the f ield, a na

tional scan was conducted to identify 1) priority areas of

organizations engaged in various efforts affecting the

health of communities; 2) key policies (including public

policy and organizational practice change) and strategies

where there was potential to have convergence (i.e., en

gagement of multiple and diverse constituencies); and 3)

opportunities to build momentum for changing food and

activity norms and environments. Formal interviews were

conducted with 112 practitioners, advocates, and commu

nity leaders engaged in efforts related to foo d and phys ical

activity (including public health, sustainable food sys

tems, transportation, planning, and others). In addition,

approximately 100 informal interviews and conversations

took place during meeting and conference sessions.

The scan iden tified many prom ising strategies that could

be translated into policies and organizational practice.

A subset of strategies was selected for the final list us

ing criteria developed by the Convergence Partnership

inc luding: 1) their abil ity to promote convergence-that

is , address multiple issues and facil itate collaboration

among stakeholders in various fields; 2) potential im

pact on eating and activity behaviors and their abil ity to

achieve m eaningful environm ental change; 3) their abil

i ty to serve as milestones toward continued significantchange; and 4) relevance to low-income communities

and communities of color. The process to ide ntify the pro

posed strategies was two -fold. As previously me ntioned,

experts and practitioners in the field were interviewed

and asked to identify the strategies they considered m ost

relevant, practical, and promising for creating healthy

food and physical activity environments. Subsequently,

although not a comprehensive review of evidence; recent

literature for the proposed environmental andi policy

strategies was identified and noted. The final l ist is a

mix of strategies, some with a strong evidence base and

others that are more innovative but nevertheless promis

ing. The list reflects the idea expressed by the institute

of Medicine (2005)1 that practitioners and policymakers

"need to proceed on the best available evidence, not

the best possible evidence." The following strategies

are delineated by the Convergence Partnership's ten-

point vision and offers a menu of options to promote

healthy eating and active living.



Methodology 7

• Establish grant and loan program s, technical assis

tance, and other incentives to attract retail grocery

stores, improve offerings at small stores, start and

sustain farmers' markets, and other innovative

means to improve access to high-quality fresh af

fordable Fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods

in underserved communities.

• Consider healthy food access (e.g., grocery stores,

farmers' markets, corner stores, restaurants,

comm unity gardens) in general plans and land use de

cisions and adopt zoning policies that support healthy

food retail in underserved communities.

• Leverage the purchasing power of federal Women,

Infants , and C hildren Program (WIC) and SNAP program

participants to encourage small stores and farmers'

markets to offer fruits and vegetables in low-income

neighborhoods through Electronic Benefit Transfer

(EBT) access at farmers' markets, WiC store certifica

tion to meet new food package guidelines, and SNAP

incentives.

• Increase SNAP ben efits to help more people purchase

healthy foods and improve outreach and efficiency in

SNAP delivery and n utrition educ ation.

• Develop strategiesforinve stinginnewa ndexistingfarm ers,

land acquisition, and access to c apital to ensure supp ort

forfamily farms in c omm unities across the country.

3. Healthy foods and beverages

are promoted in grocery and other

food stores, restaurants, and

entertainment venues.3

• Encourage restaurants to provide healthy foods and

beverages by reformulating existing menu items,

adding healthier menu items (e.g., fruits, veg

etables, and whole grains), offering affordable and

reasonably sized portions, providing healthier com

binations for meals, and making healthier items the

standard for children's meals.

• Promote in-season sources for locally and re

gional ly grown products in ' retai l , restaurant,

and enter ta inment venues.

• Promote strategies to require fast-food and chain

restaurants to l ist nutrient information (such as

calories, saturated fat, and sodium) on menuboards and table-service chain restaurants to l ist

nutr ient content on menus.

• Reduce point-of-sale marketing of energynjense,

nutrient-poor foods and beverages to children in

grocery stores, corner stores , and restaurants.!

• Place healthier food and beverage items at eye level,

the ends of aisles, and prominent places,- and in

crease overall shelf space dev oted to healthy items in

grocery stores, convenience, and small stores;

3 Anderson 2007; Brownson, Haire-Joshu, and Luke 2006 ; Calderon. Yucha, and Schaffer 2005; DHHS 2004 ; Farley and Cohen 2005; Institute of Medicine 2005 ;

Hughes and Lawrence 2005; James 2005; Lobstein and M illstone 2 007; Malson-Koffman et al. 20051 See, Mensah, and Olopade 2 006; Stirling, Lobstein, and

Millstone 2007; Summerbel! et al . 2005; The Keystone Center 2006; Verduin, Agarwal, and Waltman 20 05; Volpe 20 06.



Promising strategies for creating healthy eating and act ive l iving environments CONVERGENCE PARTNERSHIP

4. Schools offer and promote only

healthy foods and beverages to

students.4

• Improve the nutritional quality of competitive

foods and beverages and school meals by provid

ing appropriate portion sizes of healthy foods andbeverages (e.g., more whole grains, legumes, fruits,

vegetables, free sources of clean water, and less

saturated fat, trans fat, sod ium, and sugars).

• Allow for geographic preferences o f loca l and

regional sources for healthy foods and encourage

Farm to Sc hool program s.

• Provide free fresh fruit and vegetable snacks in all schools.

• Implement and enforce strong local wellness

policies to ensure healthy school food environments,

including prohibiting the use of foods as a reward

or punishment, l imit ing energy-dense, nutr ient-

poor foods at school celebrations, and offering only

healthy snacks (e.g., fresh fruits and vegetables).

5* Schools promote healthy

physical activities and incorporate

them throughout the day, including

before' and after school.5

• Establish joint use agreements that allow use of

public schools and facilities for recreation by thepublic during non-school hours.

• Ensure all children receive 30-60 minutes of

quality physical activity daily (including both comr

petitive and non-competitive activities) through

physical education classes, recess, and before,

and/or after, school programming.

• Ensure that children can walk and bicycle safely

to school, and promote Safe Routes to School

programs that include both infrastructure projects

(engineering) and non-infrastructure activities (educa.-

t ion, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation.

(See number a.)

• Limit the use of televisio n, video, video games, and

computers for non-educational purposes.

/i Ashe et al. 2007 ; Centers for Disease Control and Pre vention 1996 ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1997; Institu te of Medicine 2005, 2007:Keener et al. 200 9; Parker et al, 2009 ; Popkin 2005; Summerbell et al. 2005; Tercyak and Tyc 2006; Wechsler et al. 2004.

5 Srownson, Haire-Joshu, and Luke 2006 : Choi et al. 2005; Desjardins and Schwartz 20071 Ells et al. 2005; Ferreira et al. 2007 ; Flynn et al. 200 6: Gotay 2005;; Hill.

Peters, and Wyatt 2007; Institute of Medicine 2005; James 20051 Matson-Koffman et al. 20051 Kahn et al. 2002 ; Katz et al. 2005 ; Matson-Koffman et al. 2005;

Levlne et al. 2006; McCann 2006; See, Mensah, and Oiopade 2006; Owen et al. 2006; Popkin 2005; Popkin, Duffey, and Gordon-Larsen 2005 ; Ritchie et al ; 2005;

Sharma 2007; Schwartz and B rownell 2007 : Stirling, Lobstein, and Millstone 20071 Sum merbell et al. 2005; Tercyak and Tyc 2006; Volpe 2006.



Methodology 9

6. Workplaces and employers

offer and promote access to

healthy foods and beverages and

opportunities for physical activity.6

• Work sites allow flexible wo rk/b rea k time for employees

to easily engage in physical activity and encourage ac

tivity breaks for meetings longer than one hour.

• Provide healthy food and beverage options for employ

ees during the workday and at all meetings through

catering policies and healthy food and beverage offer

ings in workplace cafeterias and vending machines.

• Allow breastfeeding women sufficient break time to

pump, private space for expression of breastmilk,

and refrigerated space to store breastmilk.

• Locate work sites in regions tha t enable transit use and

walking and bicycling to the office, and encourage em

ployers to promote walk ing, bicycling, and taking transitto work through employee comm uter programs.

• Encourage workplaces to provide facilities that support

physical activity such as walking paths, facil it ies to

safely store bicycles during the workday, showers, and

gyms, or provide incentives or partial reimbursement to

employees for fitness club m emberships.

7. Healthcare organizations and

providers promote healthy eatiijig

and active living in their own

institutional policies and in their

clinical practices.7

• Adopt work site practices that promote healthyeating and activity, (See number 6.)

• Model healthy organizational practices by ensur

ing that healthy foods and beverages are available

and promoted in cafeterias, vending machines,

coffee carts, and other concessions.

• Adqp t standard s of practice tha t include routine screen

ing of BMI (Body Mass Index) and counseling and

behavioral interventions to improve dietary choices

and physical activity behaviors.

• Implem ent policies and practices in hospitals and out

patient medical facil ities (includ ing physician practices,

prenatal services, and community clinics) to support

successful initiation and continuation of breastfeeding.

• Establish policies and practices to support geographic

preferences to procure foods grown locally or regionally

for healthcare food service.

Ashe et al. 20 07; Brownso n, Haire-loshu , and Luke 20061 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2 007; Choi et al . 200 5; Gotay 2005; Hill, Peters,

and Wyatt 2007; Institute of Medicine 2005, 200 7: James 2005; Kahn et al . 2002 : Katz ct al. 2005; Labadarios et al . 2005; Matson-Koffman ct al . 2005;

Musaiger2004; Neumark-5ztainer2005; Patrick and Nleklas 2005; Plourde 2006; Schwartz and Brawnell2O07; Stirling, Lobstein,

and Millstone 2007; volpe 7 006.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2007; Hil l, Peters, and Wyatt 2007: Homer and Simpson 200 7; Institute of Medicine 2 005: Katz etal , 2005;

Maryon -Davls2oo5 ; Schwartz an d Brown e!! 2007 ; The University of California at Davis Human Lactation Center 2007; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2003 .



1 0 Promising strategies for crea ting healthy eating and act ive l iving env ironm ents CONVERGENCE PARTNERSHIP

8. Government and the private

sector suppo rt and promote

healthy eating and active living

environments.8

• Adopt policies, develop regulatory incentives', and

provide funding to support strategies in numbers 1-10.

• Promote a link between fund ing and regulations for

active living environments that promote w alking, bicy

cling, and public trans it and greenhouse gas reduction

strategies that are emerging at state and local levels.

• Form or build upon existing partne rships, coa litions, or

advisory boards to address access to physical activity

and healthy eating and promote policies and action

plans across multiple agencies and organizations

in support of healthy communities.

• Ensure government has dedicated staff responsiblefor oversight of improvements to support healthy

living environments.

• Encourage the involvement of public health and

school officials to integrate health impact and food

security considerations into planning and land use

decision-making processes.

• Use government and private sector influence on

their contractors to encourage healthy practices.

Encourage private-public partnerships to create new

parks and establish programs, such as Adopt-a-Park,

to help maintain the beauty and safety of parks.

9. Organizations, institutions,

and individuals that influence theinformation and entertainment

environments share responsibility

for and act responsibly to promote

healthy eating and active living.9

• Limit and mon itor marketing of energy-dense,

nutrient-poor foods and beverages to children through

television, other electronic media, food and bever

age packages, toys, licensed characters, contests,

or other m arketing approaches.

• Limit and monitor marke ting to children in digital media.

• Limit and monitor the m arketing of sedentary behaviors

in television and other electronic med ia.

Brownson, Haire-Joshu, and Luke zooG: Choi et al. 20051 D esjardins and Schwartz zoo? ; Ells et al. 2005 ; Fiynn et al. 2006; Hill, Peters, and Wyatt 2007; Institute

of Medicine 2003; James 2005 : Levine et al. 2006; Stirling. Lobstein, and Millstone 200 7; Matson-Koffman et al. 2005; See, Mensah, and Olopade 2006; McCann

2006; Popkin 2005; R itchie et al. 20051 Schwartz and Brownell 3007; Schwartz and Brownell 2007; Stirling, Lobstein, and Millstone 2007: Summerbell et al: 2005;Volpe20o6.

Alderman et al. 2007; Ashe et al. 2007; Dehghan, Akhtar-Danesh, and Merchant 2005; Ells et al. 2005; Hil l, Peters, and Wyatt 2007; Holdsworth, Kameli, and

Deipeuch 2007: Institute of Medicine 20 05: James 2005; Kumanyika 2006; Lobstein and Millstone 2 007: Ritchie e ta l . 2005; Sawa, Chadjioannou, andTornaritis

2007; Schwartz and Brownell 200?; See. Mensah. and Olopade.2006; Stanlon 2006; Siponar et al. 200?.



Methodology 11

10. Childcare organizations,

including preschool, after-school,

and early childhood settings, offer

and promote only healthy foods

and beverages to children and

provide sufficient opportunities for,

and promote, physical activity.10

• Adopt nutrition and physical activity standards

for childcare licensing.

• Offer m oderate, fu n, phys ical activity and play

daily (30 minute s for half day ; 60 m inutes for full day,

holiday, or vacation programs), including outdoor

activities whenever possible.

• Limit the use of television, video, video games,

and computers for non-educational purposes.

• Provide meals and sna cks tha t offer appropri

ate portion sizes of healthy foods and beverages

(e.g., whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and

free sources of clean water, and less saturated fat,

trans fat, sodium, and sugars).

• Promote flex ibility for geograph ic prefer

ences for locally and regionally grown

produce in childcare, after-schoo l, and school vacation

feeding programs.

•o Ashe et al . 2007; Baker 2007; Brow nson, Haire-Joshu, and Luke 2006; Flynn et al. 20o6;G otay 2005 ; Hil l, Peters, and Wyatt 2007; Institute of Medicine 2005,

2007; James 2005: Kahn e l al . 200 2; Katz et al . 200 5; Keener et al. 2009; Matson-Koffman et al . 2005; See, Mensah, and Olopade 2006; Musaiger 2004; Neumark-

Sztalner 2005; Patrick and Nickias 2 005; Parker et al. 200 9; Plourde 2006; Popkin 200 5; Ritchie et al. 2005; Rozln 2005 ; Savage, Fisher, and Birch 2007; Sharma

2007; Summerbell et al . 2005; Tercyak and Tyc 2006 ; The Keystone Center 2006; W ardlea oos.



1 2 Promising st ra teg ies for creat ing heal thy eat ing and act ive l iv ing envi ronmen ts CONVERGENCE PARTNERSHIP

References

Alde r man , j , , j . A. Sm ith, E.) . Fr ied, and R. A. Oaynard. "A ppl ica t ion o f Law to

the Ch i ldhood Obes i ty Ep idemic . " The Journal of Low, Me dicine & Ethics

3 S . n o . 1(2007) : 90-112.

Ande r son , A . S , "Nu t r i t i on In te r ven t ions in W omen in Low- Income Gr oups in

the UK." The Proceeding s of the Nutrition Society 66 . no. 1 (2007) : 25-32.

Ashe. M ., L . M. Feldste in, S. Graff , R. Kl ine, D. Pinkas, and L. Zel lers . "Local

Venues for Change: Legal Strategies for Healthy Environments." The

journal ofLaw, Medicines Ethics 35, no. 1 (2007) : 138-47.

Baker , S. S. "Counsel ing Parents on feeding Their Chi ldren." Current Opinion

in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 10, no. 3 (2007) : 355-9.

Brown son, R. C, D. Haire-Joshu, and D. A. Luke. "Shap ing the Context

of Health: A Review of Environm ental and Pol icy Approa ches in the

Prevention of Chronic Diseases." Annual Review of Public Health 27

C2006): 341-70.

Calderon, K. S., C. B. Yucha, and S. 0. S chaffer . "Obes ity-Related

Cardiovascular Risk Factors : In terve nt ion R ecom men dations to Decrease

Ado lescen t Obes i ty . " The journal o fPediatric Nursing 20, no. 1 (2005) :

Centers For Disease Contro l and Pre ventio n. "Guid el ine s for School and

Community Programs to Promote L i fe long Healthy Eating." Morbidity and

Mortal ity Weekly Report: Recommendations and Reports 45, no. RR-9

( W 6 ) : 1-33.

Centers for Disease Contro l and Prevention. "Guidel ines for School and

Community Programs to Promote L i fe long Phys ical Act iv i ty Among Young

Peop le . " Morbidity and Mortality Week ly Report: Recommen dations and

Reports 46, no. RR-6 (1997): 1-36-

Centers for Disease Contro l and Prevention. (2007) . Works i te , retr ieved from

h t t p : / / w w w . t h G c o m m u n l t y g u i d e . o r g / w o r k s i t e /.

Choi, B. C, D. f . Hunter , W. Tsou, and P. Sains bury. "D iseases of C omfor t:

Pr imary Cause of Death in the 22nd Century ." journal of Epidemiology

and Community Health 59, no. 12 (2005) : 1030-4.

Dehghan , M. . N . Akh ta r - Danesh , and A . T . Mer ch an t . "Ch i ldhood Obes i ty ,

Prevalence and Prevention." Nutrition journal 4 (2005 ) : 24.

Depar tment of Health and Human Serv ices Food and Drug Adminis trat ion.

Calories Count: Report of the Food and Drug Administration Working

Group on Obesity. W ash ing ton , DC: Depa r tmen t o f Hea l th and Human

Ser vices Food and Dr ug Admin is t r a t io n , 2004 .

Des ja r d ins, E . and A . L Schwar tz . "Co l lab o r a t ing to Com ba t C h i ldhood

Obesity ." Health Affairs (Millwood) 26 , no . 2 ( 2007 ) ; 567-71.

Ells, L. J.. K. Campbell, J. L idstone, S. Kel ly , R. Lang, and C. Summerbel l .

"P r even t ion o f Ch i ldhood Obes i ty . " Best Practice & Research Clinical

Endocrinology & Metabolism 19 , no . 3 ( 200 5 ) : 441 -54 .

Far ley, Tom and D eborah A. Co hen. Prescription for a Healthy N ation: A New

Approach to Improving Our Lives by Fixing Our Everyday World, Bos ton :

Beacon Press, 2005.

Ferreira, 1., K. van der Horst, W. Wendel-Vos, S. Krem ers, F. J. van Lenth e, and

J. Brug. "Environm ental Cor re lates of Phys ical Act iv i ty in Yout h: A Review

and Upda te . " Obesity Reviews B, no. 2 (2007) : 129-54.

Flynn, M. A., D. A. McNe i l , B. Matoff . D. Mutas ingw a, M . Wu, C. Ford, and

S. C. Tough. "Reducing Obesity a nd Related C hronic Disease Risk

in Chi ldren and Youth: A Synthes is of Ev idence with 'Best Pract ice '

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . " Obesity Reviews 7 Suppl 1 (2006 ) : 7-66.

Pr ison, E. A „ I . F. Sm ith, T. Joh ns,) . C her fas, and P. B. Eyzaguir re. "A gr icu l tura l

Biodivers i ty , Nu tr i t io n, and He alth; Making a Dif ference to Hunger and

Nu t r i t i on in the Deve lop ing W or ld . " Food Nutrition Bulletin 27, no. 2

(2006) : 167-79-

Gotay, C. C. "Behavior and Cancer prevention." journal of Clinical Onc ology 23,

no. 2 (2005) : 301-10.

Hi l l . J . 0 .. | . C. Peters , and H. R. Wyatt. "Th e Role of P ubl ic Pol icy in Treat ing the

Ep idemic o f G loba l Obes i ty . " Clinical Pharmaco logy & Therape utics 81 ,

no. 5 {2007 ) : 772-5-

Ho ldswor th , M. ,Y . Kam e l i .an d F . De lpeuch . "S takeho lde r V iews on Po l i cy

Options for Responding to the Growing Chal lenge From Obesity in France:

Findings From the Porgrow Project." Obesity Reviews 8 Suppl 2 (2007} :

53-61 .

Homer , C. and L. A. Sim pson . "Chi ld hoo d Obe sity : What 's He alth Care Pol icy

Go t To Do WHh\il" Health Affairs (Millwood) 26, no. 2 (2007) : 441-4.

Hughes, R. G. and M. A. Lawrence. "Global izat ion, Food and Health in Pacif ic

Is land Coun t r ies . " The journal of Clinical Nu trition 14, no. 4 (2005) :

298 - 306 .

Ins t i tu te o f Med ic ine . Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balanc e.

W ash ing ton , DC: The Na t iona l Academies Pr ess , 2005 .

Ins t i tu te o f Med ic ine . Progress In Preventing Childhood Obesity: How Do We

Measure Up? W ash ing ton , DC: The Na t iona l Academies Pr ess , 2007 .

James, W. P. "The Pol icy Chal lenge of Coexis t ing Un dernu tr i t ion a nd Nu tr i t ion-

Re la ted Ch r on ic D iseases . " Maternal & Child Nutrition i_, no. 3 (2005) :

197-203.

Kahn, E. B. Emily B., L. T. Leigh T. Ramsey, R. C. Ross C. Brow nso n, G. W. Gregory

W. Heath, E. H. Elizabeth H. Howze, K, E, Kenneth E. Powell, E. J. Elaine J.

S tone , M. W . Mumm y W. Rajab, and P. Phaed ra Corso. "The Effectiveness of

Intervent ions to Increase Phys ical Act iv i ty ; A Systematic Review. "American

journal of Preventive Medicine 22. no. 4 Supp l (2002) : 73-107.

Katz, D. I . , M. O'Co nnel l , M. C. Yeh, H. Nawaz, V. Ni ike. L M. And erson , S. Cory,

and W. Dietz . "Publ ic Health Strategies for Preventing and Contro l l ing

Overweight and Obesity in School and Works i te Sett ings: A Repor t on

Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Serv ices."

Morbidity and Mortality Week ly Report, Rep 54, no. RR-10 {2005) : 1-12.

Keener , D„ K. Good man, A. Lowry, S. Zaro, L. Kette l Khan. Recommended

Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the

United States: Implementation and Measurement Guide. A t lan la , GA:

U.S. Depar tment of Health and Human Serv ices and Centers for Disease

Con t r o l and Pr even t ion , 20 09 .

Kumanyika, S. "Nutr i t ion and Chronic Disease Prevention: Pr ior i t ies for U.S.

Mino r i t y Gr oups . " Nutrition Reviews 64, no. 2 Pt .2 (2006) : S9-14.

Labadar los , D., N. P. Steyn, C. Mgi j im a, and N. D ald la. "Review of the South

Afr ican Nutr i t ion Pol icy 1994-2002 and Targets for 2007: Achievements

and Cha l lenges . " Nutrition 21 , no . 1 ( 2005 ) ; 100 - 8 .

Leadership for Healthy Communit ies. Act ion Strategies for Healthy

Comm un i t ies , www . lead e r sh lp fo r hea l thyco .mmun i t ies .o r g \ac t lons t r a te -

g les (accessed January 2010) .

Lev ine, J .A ., M. W .V ande r W eg , J .O. H i l l , and R. C. Klesges. "Non-exerc ise;

Act iv i ty Thermo genesis : The Crouchin g Tiger Hidden Dragon of Societa l

Weight Gain. "Arteriosclerosis, Thromb osis, Vascular Biology 26, no. 4

( 2006 ) : 729 - 36 ,

http://3s.no/

http://3s.no/

http://www.thgcommunltyguide.org/worksite/


http://rhealthyco.mmunities.org/

http://actlonstrate/



http://rhealthyco.mmunities.org/


http://3s.no/



Re fe r e n ce s 13

Lobstein, T. an d E. Millstone, "CCntextftfrthe Porgrow Stiidy: Europe's Obesity

Crisis." Obesity Revtews',S

:Sdpp\'k (20 07): 7-16.

Maryon-Davis, A;-"^WeightTâtia'jfementinPrimary'CarepHow.'Can It Be Wade.

More Effective?''' fh'e Ptoc^Wngsofihi'hu&itiqî6ciefy-6^, noA {zoos)'.

97-103.

Matson-Koffman, D. M., J. N. Bfownstein, ]. A. Neiner, a'nd

;

M. L Greaney. "ASite-Specffic'Literatu'reReviewofPoilcyand Environmental Interventions

That Promote Physical Actlyiry and Nu tritlon for Cardiovascular Health:

What Works?" American Journal of Health Promotion 19, n o. 3 (2005):

167-93.

McCann, B arbara;.Community.pesigh for Healthy Bating: H ow Land Use and

Transportation Solutions'Cdn.Heipi'Princeton, NJ: R obertWoodjohnson

Foundation, 2006.

McMichael.'A. ). "Integrat ing'Nutrition wlth'Ecology: Balancing the Health

of Humans and Biosphere. * P ublic Health Nutrition 8, no. 6A (2005):

706-! 5..

Musaiger, A. 0. "Overw eight and Obesity,in the Eastern Mediterranean Region:

Can We Control It?" East'Mediterranean 'Health Journal 10, no. 6 (2004):

78.9-93.

Neumark-Sztaine.r,.D; ^Preventing .theiBroadSpectrum-of Weight-Related

ProblenfsYlW^'M^^

anda'P6sit ive4b&yi lmage,'"/ourrfafoyM

37 Suppl 2 (2005):'Si33 :49.

Owen. N., K. Glanz ,), F, Sallis, and Sv;H.:fcelde'r: "Evidence-Based-Approaches

to'Dissemination and.DjrTusipni^f.PriyslcalActivir^lnte.ryentlons.''

American Journqlvf Preventive'Medicine ji, no'. 4-Sup'pl (2006}: 535-44.

Papas, Mia A., Anthony'). Alberg, RcldEw ing, Ka thyj. Helzlsouer, Tiffany

L. Gary, and Ann'Cvklass en. "The Built Env irqnmentan d Obes ity."

Epidemlologic Reviews 29, no . 1 (200 7): 129-143.

Parker, Lynn, Annina Catherine Burns, and Eduardo Sanchez. Local

Government'Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity. W ashington, DC; The

National Academies Press, 2009.

Patrick,:H. and T.'A/NIcklas. "A'RevlewofFamiiy-:aVrd Social' Determinants of

Children's Eating Patterns an.d'D'ie.tiQuality.ô'u/via/ o f the American

College of Nutrition 24, no. 2 (2005): 83-92.

Plourde, G. "Preventing and Managing Pe'tJiatric Obesity.:Recommendations

for.Family Physicians." Canadian Family Physician Me"d'e'cln deFom ille

Canadien 52 (3006): 322-8.

Popkin, B. M. "Using Research on the Obesity Pandemic as a Guide to a

Unified Vision of Nutrition." Public Health Nutrition.8, no. 6A(zoo5):

724-9.

Popkin, B. M., K. Duffey, and P. Gordon-Lareen. "Environmental Influences

on Food Choice, Physical Activity and Energy Balance." Physiology &

Behavior 86 , no. 5 (2005): 603-13.

Ritchie, L D., G. Welk, D. Styne, D.E. Gerstein, a.nd'P. B..Crawford. "Family

Environment and Pediatric Overwe ight: What'is a Parent To Do?" Journal

of the'American Dietetic Association 105, no. 5 Suppl 1 (2005): S70-9.

Rozin. P. "The Meaning offoo d in Our Lives: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on

Eating and W eil-Being." Journal of Nutrition education and Behavior 37

Suppl 2 {2005): S107-12.

Savage, J. S., ]. 0. Fisher, and L L Birch. "ParentalInfluence on Eating

Behavior: Conception to Adolescence." Journal of Low, Medicine and

Ethics 35, no. 1 (2007); 22-34.

Sawa, S. C * M. Chadjjoanriou; an<J;M. J. Tornaritis. "Policy Options for

Responding to the Growing'Ch'a'llengefrom Obesity: Cyprus National

Findings." Obesrty^Rew'ews'8'Suppl 2 (2667): 37-45.

Schwartz, $ . B, and K.;D.:,£rqv!niell. "A-cU ro^s'j|e'«KarV.tb'Pi'event;Ghil(

Obesity: Creating. tWe1 Climate for,GHarige':"'7^^6urrt,(ir'o/'.ioW;'"',,;

EthlCS'35, no . 1 (20O7);78-89.

Childhood

Medicine &

See, C. Q.. E. Mens ah, and C. p. Olopade. "Obes ity, Ethnicity, and Sleep-

Disordered Brea thing: Medical and Health Policy Im'plicatlons." Cflnics In

Chest Medicine 27, n o. 3 (2006): 521-33, vi i i .

Sharma, M.;"lnternationa School-Based interventions for. Preventing O'besity

in Children," Obesity Reviews 8 , no. 2 (2007!: 155-67.

Stanton, R.JA. "Nutrition Problems in an Obesogehic Environment."'TTie

Medical Journal'ofAustralia 184, H'b/2 (iefofe): 76-9. !

Stirl ing, A., r. Lobste|n, and€.!Mlllston'e. "Methodology for Obtaining j

Stakeholder Assessments of Obesity Policy-Options in the Porgrow

Project." Obesity Reviews 8 Supple (2007): 17-27. j

I :

Summerbell.C. D.,E. Waters, LD . Edmunds, S. Kelly, T. Brown, and K. j .

Campbell. "Interventions' for Preventing Obesity In Children." Coihrane

Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 3 {200'$): CD001871. 1

Szponar, L. ). Ciok, A. Dolna. andM . Oltarzewski, "PolicyOptionsfor

Responding to the Growing Challenge From Obesity .'(Porgrow) in Poland."

Obesity Reviews 8 Suppl 2 (2007):' 91-8. ;

Tercyak, K. P. and V. LTyc. "Opporturiitldsand Challenges in the Prevention

and Control of Cancer and Other Chronic Disease's: Children's Dte;t

and Nutrition and Weight ah'd Physical ActlvltySjournal of Pediatric

Psychology 31, no. 8 (2006): 750T63- !

' iThe Keystone Center. (2006), The Keystone Forum;on Awoy-From'Home Foods:

Opportunities for-Preventing-WeighVGaln a nd Obesity, retrieved from

http:/i,www.keystone.org/spp/documents/Forum_.Report_I :lNALi5-30-o6. pdf. j ,

The University of California at Davis Human Lactation Center (UCD HLQ. AFair Start for Better Health: California Hospitals Must Clos?the Gap in

Exclusive Breastfeeding /?otes. the^'CalifomiawiC-Associa'tioh (CWA),

2007.I

j

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2063), BehavidraTiriterventJons to

PromoXe Breasrfeec'/ris-Recdm'm^ reprieved from

http://www.ah rq.gov/clini cy3rduspstf/brsifeed'/brfeedrr;p'clf,

Verduin, P.,45. Ag arwal, and S.iWattman. "Solutions to Obesity: Perspectives

From the Food Indu stry." The American Journal of Clinical Nutritltin 82,

no. 1 Suppl (2005); 259S-26iS. j

Viswanath.'K. and K. Bond. "Social Determinants and Nutrition: Reflections on

the Role of Communication." Journal of Nutrition Education a nd Behavior

39, no, 2 Suppl (2.007): S20-4.

Volpe, S. L "Popular Weight'Reduction Diets." T he Journal of C ardiovascularNursing 21, no : 1 (2.006): 34-9 .

i

Wardle, J. "Understanding thê! Aetiology of Childhood O besity: Implications

for Treatment." 77ie Proceedings of the N utrition Society'64,' no. i!(zoos):

73-9- ' !

Wechsler, H, M.L McKenna, SiM. Lee, and W.H. Dietz. "The.Role ofScfiools In

Preventing Childhood Obesity." The State Education Standard 5, no. 2

(2004): 1-12.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/Forum_.Report_I:lNALi5-30-o6




http://www.ah/

http://rq.gov/clini

http://rq.gov/clini

http://rq.gov/clini

http://www.ah/




l^lij^liiiJTikv;

H E A D Q U A R T E R S : \ : . ;,'. ,.

1438* WeJ$te;r iSti ^f i' S j i i t e ^ p j;

'1510663-2333f-510 663-96,[email protected]

C O M M U N I C A T I O N S . O F F I C E :

55 We st 39,trj .Stre et, n t h Fjtoor

New YorkyvNYiiopiS

1212:6'29'-9^7:o

f 2i'2--73Q.-2-9:a'i\

WAiyw-.poliGylink.GFg

Putting p**y*nlieh


http://waiyw-.poligylink.gfg/

http://waiyw-.poligylink.gfg/


atip n-12 final information transfer(1)-1

Documents