New Weapon to Fight Obesity AND Global Warming

WASHINGTON - Nov. 21, 2016 - PRLog -- A newly released UK study recommends imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods - especially meat and dairy - to help combat global warming, claiming that it could annually save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

        Recently, voters in five U.S. cities joined Berkeley, CA, and Philadelphia in approving added taxes on sugary soft drinks as a means of fighting the obesity epidemic and its ever growing medical costs.

        "These developments suggest an increased willingness by the public to use taxation as a long-overlooked but very powerful weapon against important societal problems, much as it was used so effectively against the problem of smoking.  There is a growing tendency to demand and vote for additional targeted tax measures in the future," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

        Professor Banzhaf has been called "Mr. Anti-Smoking," "One of the Most Vocal and Effective Anti-Tobacco Attorneys," "The Man Behind the Ban on Cigarette Commercials," and "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry."

        While each of the two movements can continue separately, it's logical to expect that advocates for the two different causes will unite to increase pressure to pass new measures which address both.

        For example, organizations seeking a higher tax on meat because of concerns about global warming could multiply their support by forming a coalition with other activists concerned about the obesity epidemic, since many organizations claim that consumption of fatty meats can contribute to obesity.

        To further strengthen their clout with the legislature, they might logically also seek to include in their lobbying coalition those concerned about public health generally, and the ballooning costs of related medical care, based upon evidence that excessive consumption of meat, especially beef, is a significant contributor to heart disease and other expensive cardiovascular problems, says Banzhaf.

        Banzhaf originated the modern movement to use legal action as a weapon against obesity, starting with a fat law suit against McDonald's which cost the fast food giant over $12 million.  So far, there have already been about a dozen successful fat law suits with impressive results, and a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision just opened the door to such suits much wider, said Banzhaf.

        Professor Banzhaf has been called the "Ralph Nader of Junk Food," "The Man Big Tobacco and Now Fast Food Love to Hate," "a Major Crusader Against Big Tobacco and Now Among Those Targeting the Food Industry," and "The Man Who Is Taking Fat to Court."

        Consumers asked to pay 40% more for beef, as the study suggests, would probably dramatically shift their food choices to include more fish and vegetables, thereby not only helping to reduce global warming, but also to get rid of unhealthy weight and slash their risks of heart attacks, says Banzhaf.

         Or, as one researcher put it, "If you'd have to pay 40% more for your steak, you might choose to have it once a week instead of twice."

        The increased taxes can also be justified, at least in the U.S., because our farm subsidies and other governmental programs arguably use taxpayer dollars to subsidize - and thereby promote - the consumption of beef and similar products to which many object, says Banzhaf.

        Since even 1-cent-per-ounce tax on soft drinks - such as those adopted by several California cities, much less the 2-cents-per-ounce tax adopted in Boulder - could translate into increased prices to the consumer of 20%, these increasingly popular measures could slash the consumption of sugary soft drinks as well as cardiovascular diseases, although such measures would have little impact on global warming.

        Moreover, even soda taxes too small to reduce consumption directly could have a significant impact if a portion of the tax were earmarked for anti-soda commercials similar to the anti-smoking messages Banzhaf got on radio and TV in the late 1960s which slashed smoking for the first time in the U.S.

        Interestingly, the concept of increasing taxes on those foods most likely to promote obesity - those relatively high in calories but low in nutritional value  - would likely also target some carbon intensive foods, so that climate advocate could join in supporting proposals to tax them more heavily.

        Moreover, taxes designed to reduce unhealthy eating may well have more political appeal than those aimed at global warming, says Banzhaf, because the huge costs imposed by obesity are being felt by non-obese consumers now, whereas the effects of global warming are less clear and far less immediate.

        Also, the majority of voters who are not obese are beginning to resent the minority whose obesity is driving up their health insurance premiums and taxes - much as the overwhelming majority of non-smokers is increasingly tired of paying the costs for diseases smokers inflict upon themselves.

        Finally, a large increase in taxes on especially fattening foods will likely produce immediate cost savings, whereas no directly observable climate effects from taxes on meats are likely to be seen soon.

        The concept of using financial disincentives to reduce unhealthy behaviors in nothing new.

        In the 1980s, Banzhaf helped persuade the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to recommend higher health insurance premiums for those who smoke, and also for those who are obese.

        Shortly thereafter, he helped persuade the federal government to approve higher premiums for those who smoke (but not the obese), and some health insurance companies began to adopt them.

        Many years later, his legal petition to HHS persuaded the federal government to permit health insurance companies to charge more for applicants who are obese, as well as those who are smokers.


http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhafATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf