Imagine a world of higher food prices, an explosion of food-related lawsuits, an army of bureaucrats auditing the “healthiness” of what we eat, and hundreds of lobbyists and health experts pushing for “special treatment” for their food products.

If these scenarios seem far-fetched, think again. They are exactly what would transpire if the authors of a recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Journal got their way. They call upon the federal government to impose a tax on so-called “fatty foods.” The authors argue the government needs to shrink Canadians’ expanding waistlines – but the only thing that will get thinner is your wallet.

And who would pay the most? Ironically, the poor. The greatest consumers of so-called ‘junk food’ are lower income families. Fast food is often less expensive than fresh and organic choices, and in poorer neighborhoods, it’s also often more available. The cost of a fat tax would be thus be disproportionately borne by those on the bottom of the income scale, who already have difficulty buckling their food budgets.

A fat tax is also unlikely to slim us down. A report from Cornell University says even a high tax on fatty foods would have little impact on overall body weight: a 10% levy on percentage of body fat would only reduce it by 0.48 per cent. This means the average male would drop 0.92 pounds, while the average woman would shed 0.8 pounds.

These numbers have not deterred the anti-fat brigade. They point to sin taxes, such as those on tobacco and alcohol, which they claim reduced consumption rates and improved health. But these habits present a poor analogy: smoking and drinking are not necessities, while food is not a luxury item. Further, whereas a crackdown on smoking might be justified due to its impact on non-smokers, you cannot get “secondhand fat” from sitting next to someone eating a chocolate bar.

Even if everyone agreed a tax on “fatty foods” was a good idea, how would the government define such food? A hamburger, for example, is high in fat but also high in protein — so should it attract the tax or not? What if the burger is served on a whole wheat bun, or made with lean ground beef, or accompanied by a garden salad? Would that mitigate the fat factor – and make for a healthy meal? What if that salad is drenched with fatty dressing – or covered in croutons?

This never-ending debate over what is “healthy” would launch a massive lobbying effort by individual food producers wishing to avoid the tax and its stigma. Do we really want lobbyists, health “experts” and governments deciding what is healthy for us? Do we even think they can?

Over the past century, we can name countless examples of food we once considered healthy, suddenly deemed to be unhealthy – or vice versa. Eggs and red meat have been demonized, while greens and beans are now applauded. How many lawsuits will the Canadian government face from food producers who unfairly had their product slapped with a “fat tax”? Or conversely, how many overweight people will sue the government for compensation for not taxing some product that turned out to be unhealthy?

Proponents of a fat tax use “healthy living” as a cover for the real dish: this is just another tax grab, based on the belief that government makes better decisions than its citizens. Pierre Trudeau famously said that the “government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” We would add that the government has no place in our kitchens, either.

This piece was orginally printed in the National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/kevin-lacey-fat-tax-nothing-but-a-cash-grab/#comments