The Big 'Fat' Tax

When Kerala introduced a “fat” tax of 14.5%, it was applauded by many. It was seen as a responsible move by the government to curb rising rates of obesity and related ailments such as diabetes, cholesterol and cardiac diseases among others. The policy makers had hoped that taxing people heavily on processed junk food would prompt people to move away from calorie-laden, unhealthy food choices.

But here’s the catch.

The tax was imposed only on burgers, pizzas, tacos, doughnuts and pasta sold by “branded” restaurants such as McDonald’s and KFC. The critics are of the opinion that this new tax doesn’t have much influence on the people as they have an easy access to the Indian-version of the aforementioned junk food. Indian street-food is easy to eat, and boasts of being cheaper than its foreign counterpart. If street food was not enough, sweets would definitely suffice the craving. Also, for the elite, other Indian food-outlets which offer processed junk food and aren’t burdened with the 'fat' tax are available.

If the idea of the tax is to address the health risks of processed food, its focus on “fat western foods” to the exclusion of equally, or more, unhealthy “fat-laden Indian foods” appears incomprehensible. Moreover, the emphasis on food sold by branded restaurants, mainly local franchises of western food brands, again defies legitimate explanation. There have been numerous instances of government policies and actions where logic is not an object. Not just the Indian government but also foreign governments. Let’s take the case of banning of flavored cigarettes by the United States government. No one disagrees that tobacco is harmful to one’s health. Keeping in view the increasing number of youth consuming cigarette, US government decided to ban clove-flavored cigarettes. These particular cigarettes were imported from Indonesia and when enforcement of the law took place, the Indonesian cigarette companies got furious and took the matter to World Trade Organization (WTO). Indonesia argued that while the US banned Indonesian flavored cigarettes, it didn’t similarly ban locally produced menthol cigarettes, which have the same effect on the young as the former. The WTO agreed. Though the US law was laudable and well-meaning, it discriminated against Indonesian clove cigarettes and such discrimination is not justifiable.

Also, some laws which are truly for the welfare of the masses are reverted back – the reason best known to the state. For example, banning of alcohol in Bihar after elections, which was pulled back later, aptly justifies the above discussion.

Therefore, in such cases, there is a need for scientifically tailored laws, and which are not repealed. The welfare of the society is something which should be dealt with care.

-Yashdeep Singh Dahiya