Fat tax, not to be confused with VAT tax, is growing almost as fast as we are as a people.
The Danes (Danish?) placed a tax on saturated fat, including of all ironies, danish. And Denmark isn't the only country that is going after obesity through taxation.
Even in the United States, taxes on soft drinks and high-fructose corn syrup have been pushed as an option to deal with growing obesity levels.
Denmark is taxing anything at 2.3% saturated fat or higher, paying about $3 per kilogram (2.2 pounds) of saturated fat in a product.
Other countries outside of North America that are dealing with a "larger" population don't have high-fructose corn syrup. Canada and Mexico are suffering with HFCS thanks to NAFTA. The United States' food policy subsidizes high-fructose corn syrup.
So for the U.S., a tax isn't needed so much as making the cost of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup reflect their true cost. Tax problem solved.
As for Europe and elsewhere, they are dealing with a cultural impact, coming mostly from the United States. France's traditions of sit-down dinners has suffered as the younger generation is eating more on the go, and not eating as well as previous generations.
What is particularly surprising is that the Denmark tax is geared at saturated fat, regardless of the source. Equating a food with butter with a food with artificially saturated fat isn't fair nor helpful. This would be like taxing grape juice because it's high in sugar, not accounting for that fact that grape juice is natural sugar.
As good as it would seem to tax something to make things "healthier," intent can't be enough.
Even in a well-researched tax on food, you still punish the people who can afford the tax the least. We tax the heck out of cigarettes, and people still buy them because they want to do so. And unlike cigarettes, you need food to live. Well, maybe not some of this food.
Instead of another useless tax, why not subsidize broccoli? Or carrots? Why not rethink a food system where unhealthy food gets subsidies and healthy food doesn't.
Even if you think a subsidy is a hidden tax, "subsidies" have a better political perception than taxes, and aren't regressive toward the poor.