Yikes!
"Denmark has introduced what is believed to be the world’s first tax on foods containing saturated fat.
The Danish government is applying a surcharge to foods with more than 2.3 per cent saturated fats, in a bid to combat obesity and heart disease.
…"
Does that include danish (oh, the irony)? I’d still pay extra for a good cherry danish
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.
They only did it because they need to preserve the hotness of the girls of Copenhagen. Second hottest in the world!
http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&&q=copenhagen+girls&biw=1024&bih=437
[quote]borrek wrote:
They only did it because they need to preserve the hotness of the girls of Copenhagen. Second hottest in the world!
I was in Copenhagen last summer. No lie about Denmark being the land of beautiful people (and bicycles). Expensive as shit though. This tax won’t help that!
Dumbasses should have meant TRANS-fats.
Not only does that news make me want to flip out.
But this: “It means customers will be paying about $3 more per kilogram of saturated fats in a product”
Typical idiot journalism speech, which can’t be translated to reality.
So if I was eating 9g worth of fat from coconut oil for example, that would be .027 cents extra per serving. So if there are 100 servings in a bottle, its like 3 cents extra which isn’t a big tax. But, I’m guessing that’s wrong.
So how big of a tax is it really?
If it is per pound of product, then meat goes up $1.30 per pound, which is a lot of money and making probably the most healthy thing a lot of people eat, more expensive.
[quote]borrek wrote:
They only did it because they need to preserve the hotness of the girls of Copenhagen. Second hottest in the world!
You could type any city+girls and get the same kind of results BRO
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.[/quote]
Yeah, I have been reading this too.
Having your health care include a gym membership would be more helpful.
If they’re going to tax a food item maybe sugar would be a better one?
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.[/quote]
Yeah, I have been reading this too.
Having your health care include a gym membership would be more helpful.
If they’re going to tax a food item maybe sugar would be a better one? [/quote]
I believe they already have a tax like that.
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.[/quote]
Yeah, I have been reading this too.
Having your health care include a gym membership would be more helpful.
If they’re going to tax a food item maybe sugar would be a better one? [/quote]
I believe they already have a tax like that.
[/quote]
lol
The problem with the saturated fat tax is that it occurs in so many cheap healthy foods. :-/
Glad I don’t live there.
Seriously, saturated fat is an essential part of the diet. Why encourage people to sabotage their diet any further??? Might as well tax anything with Vitamin E because an extreme overdose of it can cause problems…
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.[/quote]
Yeah, I have been reading this too.
Having your health care include a gym membership would be more helpful.
If they’re going to tax a food item maybe sugar would be a better one? [/quote]
I believe they already have a tax like that.
[/quote]
Never heard of a sugar-tax around here, but that doesn´t mean it´s not there, I guess.
From what I can gather, the only ones who think this tax is a good idea are the politicians who voted it in.
Danish politicians are dumbfucks though, the lot of them, so eh…
Last thing I heard about it was a headline in a newspaper a few days ago, stating that it would
probably be a fairly short-lived tax. Didn´t have time to read the article unfortunately. 
[quote]TigerBeans wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.[/quote]
Yeah, I have been reading this too.
Having your health care include a gym membership would be more helpful.
If they’re going to tax a food item maybe sugar would be a better one? [/quote]
I believe they already have a tax like that.
[/quote]
Never heard of a sugar-tax around here, but that doesn�´t mean it�´s not there, I guess.
From what I can gather, the only ones who think this tax is a good idea are the politicians who voted it in.
Danish politicians are dumbfucks though, the lot of them, so eh…
[/quote]
Glad to hear that problem is limited to Denmark. On this side of the ocean we’re blessed with non-dumbfuck politicians. 
LOL about a “short-lived tax.” Once voted in, a tax might on very rare occasions be adjusted downward slightly, but it never really goes away. It’s one area where you can count on dumbfuck politicians to never waver.
[quote]BobParr wrote:
[quote]TigerBeans wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Fucking masquerade.
Just when more and more studies keep saying that sat fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart disease.[/quote]
Yeah, I have been reading this too.
Having your health care include a gym membership would be more helpful.
If they’re going to tax a food item maybe sugar would be a better one? [/quote]
I believe they already have a tax like that.
[/quote]
Never heard of a sugar-tax around here, but that doesn�?�´t mean it�?�´s not there, I guess.
From what I can gather, the only ones who think this tax is a good idea are the politicians who voted it in.
Danish politicians are dumbfucks though, the lot of them, so eh…
[/quote]
Glad to hear that problem is limited to Denmark. On this side of the ocean we’re blessed with non-dumbfuck politicians.
LOL about a “short-lived tax.” Once voted in, a tax might on very rare occasions be adjusted downward slightly, but it never really goes away. It’s one area where you can count on dumbfuck politicians to never waver.
[/quote]
I will admit that I hate politics with a passion, so I could just be biased like that 
Googling “fedtskat” (fat tax) brings up a long list of either “fat tax sucks” or
“why the fat tax will fail”, so you are not alone with your opinions, the danish people are behind you as well
As a dane this pisses me off. To the one who claims it won’t last long. It will. The state needs it’s dough, sadly.
And yeah, we already got a sugar tax.
Danish article adressing the fat tax: http://ing.dk/artikel/122636-analyse-derfor-slipper-vi-aldrig-af-med-fedtskatten
what a bunch of Danish cock suckers (no offense to any Danes here, unless you agree with this tax)
Not that online polls are scientific but the one on CBC has 55% saying Canada should have a fat tax. Grrrr
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/10/should-canada-introduce-a-fat-tax.html
Dumbasses
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
As a dane this pisses me off. To the one who claims it won’t last long. It will. The state needs it’s dough, sadly.
And yeah, we already got a sugar tax.
Danish article adressing the fat tax: http://ing.dk/artikel/122636-analyse-derfor-slipper-vi-aldrig-af-med-fedtskatten[/quote]
I never claimed anything, don’t shoot the messenger, bro
Many good points in the article, unfortunately.
It is going to cost me a pretty penny considering my daily intake of saturated fat.