Taxation with Calorific Representation?

Denmark has just passed what has quickly become known as the "fat tax" as of Saturday, October 1st, with almost overwhelming support.  The law imposes a tax per kilogram of saturated fats on foods with a content of more than 2.3 percent and is widely regarded as the first of its kind in terms of sheer scope, though Romania, Finland and even the United Kingdom are considering following suit. 

Despite its moniker, the Danish government didn't enact the law to specifically trim its citizens' waistlines.  The country actually boasts one of the lowest population percentages of obesity in the world, but by cutting down on saturated fat intake, known to be a contributing factor in cancer and cardiovascular diseases, the hope is that the nation's relatively low life expectancy will rise. 

However, many see the potential for another positive, though much more direct effect on life expectancy.  It stands to reason that raising the price of fatty foods will make them less desirable and decrease consumption, ultimately leading to a widespread decline in obesity - in theory.

Politically and socially, the United States has its roots in a center-right philosophy - making its people have an on again, off again relationship with large government initiatives.  So of course, the concept of a tax to exert control over what people should and shouldn't eat has already been labeled as having clear "big brother" connotations.  The odds are slim that something as wide ranging as a tax on all fat would garner enough support to be put into practice, let alone tested in any meaningful capacity.

That doesn't mean there aren't people here who think it would be worth a try, albeit more targeted.  The New England Journal of Medicine has long been a supporter of similar legislation against sugar sweetened beverages and New York Governor David Patterson has twice motioned for a soda tax, endorsed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg on his second attempt in 2010.  Governor Deval Patrick successfully applied a sales tax to candy and soda in  aimed at promoting public health and checking the rising costs of obesity that same year.

While resistance on financial grounds from industry lobbyists was expected, citing economic burden, cracks are beginning to appear in the bedrock of the pro-tax argument.  A study conducted at the University of Birmingham at Alabama, published in the International Journal of Obesity claims that earlier data linking weight gain and sugary drinks was distorted by what is known as "white hat bias" (when results are affected by preconceived notions of what is and isn't right).

Honestly, you didn't think it was going to be that simple, did you?