Fat is a consumerist issue: how a 'grease tax' may encourage healthier habits

Government will be urged to introduce a tax on high-fat foods as a means of promoting a more balanced diet for Britons

The shopping is finally packed into the trolley and the check-out assistant hands over a long receipt after an hour of battling through the supermarket aisles in search of a week's victuals.

The shopping is finally packed into the trolley and the check-out assistant hands over a long receipt after an hour of battling through the supermarket aisles in search of a week's victuals.

Alongside the usual small print on the receipt – VAT, loyalty points, two for the price-of-one bargains – the eye is drawn to a item printed in bold type: "Fat Tax @10%: £6.70 – Eating Poorly Costs You More".

Welcome to the future of food shopping where, if a suggestion by one of Labour's favourite think-tanks on how to improve the nation's diet is accepted, grease intake will become the latest bonus for the taxman.

With half of all adults predicted to be obese and suffering associated illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes by 2040, medical experts are warning fat will soon become Britain's biggest killer.

In a search for a solution, Demos, the influential left-leaning policy forum, will tomorrow urge the Government to consider the introduction of a new tax on unhealthy foods as a means of turning the tide on Britons' poor eating habits.

Foods with a high fat and sugar content, in particular processed and fast-foods, should be targeted with an additional levy which would significantly increase their cost to the consumer, it says. The money raised, which could reach billions, would then be ploughed into subsidising healthier foods such as fruit and vegetables or public health campaigns.

The tariff, dubbed a "fat tax", is contained in a study into the diet of low-income families which found that many are effectively trapped into eating mass-produced processed meals.

Demos has yet to work out details of how such a fat levy might work or the likely cost to consumers but it says the tax system could be a useful way of tackling the scourge of "food poverty". A spokesman said: "Just as it has been used for discouraging smoking and drinking, so we could use tax to encourage people to eat more healthily by providing a disincentive for unhealthy foods.

"Also there is no incentive to eat fruit and vegetables, particularly for those on low incomes."

Driven by hectic lifestyles, the clamour of advertising and an inherent human weakness for something fried and crispy, Britons are far more likely to reach for a burger or chocolate bar than a salad or dried fruit.

The UK fast-food industry is now worth £9.1bn annually while the ready-to-eat market has grown by 66 per cent in the past decade, compared to 33 per cent for the food market as a whole.

Around 20 per cent of the adult population is already clinically obese and the cost to the NHS in treating associated health problems, from heart disease to strokes, is estimated to be £500m a year.

The Institute of Child Health warned last month that two-thirds of pre-school children eat a diet largely reliant on white bread, chips, crisps and sweets. The average 10-year-old eats his or her weight in chips every nine months.

Supporters of the use of fiscal food incentives point to glaring inconsistencies in the current system which could easily be tweaked to encourage healthier eating. At present, most food, apart from confectionery, attracts no VAT or other taxes.

Dr Mike Rayner, head of Oxford University's health promotion research group, said that rather than a blanket "fat tax", a targeted extension of VAT and EU subsidies should be considered. He said: "At the moment, for example, you pay tax on a KitKat but your Jaffa Cakes come tax free – there is no tax on cakes and biscuits."

As with many such debates, it would follow hot on the heels of similar moves in the US, where 61 per cent are overweight and at least three states are proposing taxes on unhealthy soft drinks.

Fast-food chains, soft drink producers and other mass volume producers in the US are so worried about the prospect of court cases for damages that they are campaigning for healthy eating. Burger packets could soon carry cigarette carton-style health warnings.

In Britain, much of the finger of blame for poor eating habits is also being pointed at the food industry itself.

A century ago, obesity was a problem restricted to the rich. Now in Britain, it is the poor who are likely to be overweight and the ability to eat healthily, and stay slim, depends, at least partly, on the girth of the consumer's wallet.

A study by the Food Commission, an independent research charity, has found that rather than narrowing, the gap in cost between healthy and ordinary foods is increasing. Sally Cavanagh, of Sustain, a charity campaigning on food poverty, said: "It looks very much like food producers are exploiting the desire of most of us to want to eat more healthily. The balance needs to be redressed."

Other experts say Britons themselves are the root of the problem, having become too used to cheap food produced at a cost to the environment and their health.

Critics of the food industry say the case for financial disincentives is further strengthened by "pester-power" marketing and the doubtful nutritional value of some brands.

The Food Commission, an independent charity, yesterday criticised McDonald's and conglomerate Procter&Gamble for their Happy Meals and Sunny Delight products. The fast-food chain was singled out by a "parents' jury" for having a large proportion of its marketing budget aimed at children while Sunny Delight, a soft drink, was described as "thickened, artificially sweetened, expensive water" with 15 per cent fruit juice.

McDonald's insisted its advertising was "decent and truthful" while Procter&Gamble said the claims were part of a long-running campaign against the product.

Food producers as a whole declared themselves flatly opposed to any additional levy.

Martin Paterson, Deputy Director General of the Food and Drink Federation, said: "A so-called 'fat tax' would hit lower income families, be patronising to consumers, and be a tax on choice."

It is a dilemma recognised by Demos. "It is a very difficult balancing act – encouraging healthy eating without punishing the less well off," said the spokesman.

Some nutritionists argue that slapping a punitive premium on cream cakes while making a virtue of Brussels sprouts would be regressive and unlikely to discourage people from their eating habits. Dr Wendy Doyle, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "We don't want to turn ourselves into a police state where the Government tells us what to eat.The best way of changing habits is through educating people to cook properly and eat well."