Fart tax.

[Gavster]

Cool - I follow you on TikTok so see the social stuff

[Swervin_Mervin]

Cool - I follow you on TikTok so see the social stuff

Check you out Grandad

[Swervin_Mervin]

That's really interesting Gav. I've long conisdered taxes to be a highly lazy and questionably inefficent way of effecting change tbh. It just feels too much like the easiest way fo devolving responsibility for change to the individual, whilst being seen to do something about the problem at a political level. It's crude and invariably hits the less well off the most and probably has next to no bearing on the way of life for those over a certain income threshold.

See sugar tax - artificial sweeteners can get in the bin frankly, but what's happened is we now see "premium" products that cater for those who want the sugar option. Meanwhile, those guzzling 2-3l of soft drink a day carry on doing so either without care, or under the misguided assumption that they're somehow better off healthwise. Manufacturers make more ££ as it's now cheaper to produce, the Gov't has done their bit and yet nothing really changes

A "fart tax" will only serve to achieve the same end results imo. It will put a few producers out of business, and no doubt drive the gap to be filled by those operating at more commercial scale, or at a "premium" small scale. Meanwhile your average Joe will continue to shovel more stuff into their face than they really need to (even if it's plant-based) whilst those that can afford it will continue to eat whatever they like.

</grumble>

[dinny_g]

Cool - I follow you on TikTok so see the social stuff

Check you out Grandad

[Gavster]

That's really interesting Gav. I've long conisdered taxes to be a highly lazy and questionably inefficent way of effecting change tbh. It just feels too much like the easiest way fo devolving responsibility for change to the individual, whilst being seen to do something about the problem at a political level. It's crude and invariably hits the less well off the most and probably has next to no bearing on the way of life for those over a certain income threshold.

See sugar tax - artificial sweeteners can get in the bin frankly, but what's happened is we now see "premium" products that cater for those who want the sugar option. Meanwhile, those guzzling 2-3l of soft drink a day carry on doing so either without care, or under the misguided assumption that they're somehow better off healthwise. Manufacturers make more ££ as it's now cheaper to produce, the Gov't has done their bit and yet nothing really changes

A "fart tax" will only serve to achieve the same end results imo. It will put a few producers out of business, and no doubt drive the gap to be filled by those operating at more commercial scale, or at a "premium" small scale. Meanwhile your average Joe will continue to shovel more stuff into their face than they really need to (even if it's plant-based) whilst those that can afford it will continue to eat whatever they like.

</grumble>

There's very little political will to do anything at all. The government's own white paper response to Henry Dimbleby's national food strategy was leaked today and it's a load of hot air. In the first instance, taxes do work when it comes to changing behaviour, and are a policy option that governments are mildly inclined to use because they create an income for them. That's why the only other policies the Gov are pursuing are around tech & innovation that brings investment. Yes, taxes hit the poorest themost, as do most changes, unfortunately, which is why it's hard to make any change. That's why these policies (in a dream world) would be very complex and have feedback loops which support the vulnerable and have direct social and health benefits.

Re the sugar tax, as a public health intervention it's a success. It's created a significant reduction in sugar consumption in the UK, which is A Good Thing.

To some extent you're right, taxes make no difference to some people and none of these interventions will ever create massive change. It's about chipping away where we can. Half of my job is being quite willing to accept that 99% of the things we would like to see are unlikely to happen. We have to call for transformation, then settle for a marginal gain somewhere. The Tories are particularly bad at doing anything about food at the consumer end, in society and our daily lives, what we call the 'food environment'. They will never do anything that could even be considered nannying. Ironically, they're actually doing ok when it comes to agriculture and land use. The Agriculture bill is fairly progressive and switching over from the EU farming subsidies to payments for public goods such as clean air and water, and good soil, which is A Good Thing too.

[V8Granite]

Putting people off Beef is a stupid thing to do. It’s a hugely nutritious food and can be easily produced locally all over the country.

Some I messed with steak, or some cheap processed stuff with more ingredients than Pete Docherties medicine cabinet.

I’d be happier that taxes were put into processed rubbish and removed from locally produced food.

Dave!

[Swervin_Mervin]

Re the sugar tax, as a public health intervention it's a success. It's created a significant reduction in sugar consumption in the UK, which is A Good Thing.

That does surprise me to some degree given the shit that people stuff in their faces these days (americal style doughnuts, cupcakes, and fvcking syrup lattes - but that's a debate for another day). Is that from reduction in sugar in soft drinks?

But at what expense? If the metric is simply sugar reduction, then yeah great. But if that's at the significant uptake of artificial sweeteners, then I'm not so sure it is that great. A third of people respond to artificial sweeteners in the same way as sugar, with insulin spiking. I know all the evidence to date suggests that sweeteners are safe, but do we really know what the longer term effects are of them? History tends to suggest that the things we fvck about with the most tend not to be so good for us.

And besides that, we managed to effect a significant reduction in salt in products such as cereals over the last 20-30 years by simply encouraging manufacturers to wean us off it. It would have made signifacntly more sense in my mind to do the same with sugar and actively try to wean us off our addiction to sweetness itself - a slow and steady process of small reductions. As it is, the country's sweet tooth remains as strong as ever from what I can see.

[PaulJ]

I wonder how much less greenhouse gas would be produced if we didn’t have to produce food for domestic pets? Sorry to mention the Labrador in the room…

[Mito Man]

A Dutch dairy farm closes after 90 years due to high fart tax making their farm untenable.

The Netherlands is basically waging a war with farmers to cut emissions.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/environment/ ... -emissions

The UK may not be far off with the cut in subsidies, "net zero", increasing regulation and converting fields into woodlands.
You'd think a war on Europe's doorstep would make politicians take food security a bit more seriously but no, the usual line is "we are rich enough to import." But what happens when many other net zero countries countries adopt the same thinking whilst a substantial proportion of the population are in poverty.