Taxing red meat
Mandylou19912014
Posts: 208 Member
Here in the UK, I have just come across an article which is saying that we may have to start paying tax (or already are) on red meat!! What are people’s thoughts on this?
0
Replies
-
Ridiculous. Why target red meat versus any other food.
8 -
Hi protein, low fat (for most cuts), there's no sense in penalizing people trying to be healthy.5
-
Why?0
-
Here is some context: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/taxing-red-meat-would-save-many-lives-research-shows
It looks like an attempt to re-coup some of the health costs linked to red meat consumption, specifically processed meats like bacon and sausage.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Here is some context: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/taxing-red-meat-would-save-many-lives-research-shows
It looks like an attempt to re-coup some of the health costs linked to red meat consumption, specifically processed meats like bacon and sausage.
But isn't pork considered white meat?1 -
rhenry2424 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Here is some context: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/taxing-red-meat-would-save-many-lives-research-shows
It looks like an attempt to re-coup some of the health costs linked to red meat consumption, specifically processed meats like bacon and sausage.
But isn't pork considered white meat?
I don't know if it is considered white meat in the UK, I think that may be an advertising convention in the US developed by US pork farmers seeking to counteract concerns about beef consumption. Maybe someone from the UK can clue us in?1 -
Here is some additional context: "The Other White Meat" campaign is US-based, culinary tradition usually considers pork as white meat, but nutritional studies (and the USDA) typically consider it to be red. I'm guessing that the proposed tax is treating pork as a red meat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork._The_Other_White_Meat5 -
The other white meat was simply a marketing thing. It was supposed to suggest that pork is lean, like chicken. It's kind of ridiculous, because different cuts yield different fat contents. Pork belly (bacon) is obviously not as lean as pork loin (back strap). It's just how fat is distributed.
To the user who said that beef is mostly lean, and I could absolutely be mistaken (and probably am), but in my experience it is not mostly lean. Most cuts are fairly marbled and/or lined with fat. Sirloin certainly can be very lean, and I think London Broil as well, but a lot of cuts (like the bulk of the animal) are pretty calorie dense. I hate to admit I almost never eat beef, because it usually takes some decent fat content to actually taste good (ribeye... mmmm...) or is so lean that it isn't worth my eating it.
ETA: meant to make the distinction between dark and white meat with chicken, turkey.
Again, I could totally be wrong about that.
For those who are so against a red meat tax, how do you feel about other sin taxes like on cigarettes (this is happening in some places) or, say, fast food? Just curious. Not trying to be a smart *kitten*.2 -
From Wikipedia:
"In culinary terms, only flesh from mammals or fowl (not fish) is classified as red or white.[3][4] In nutritional science, on the other hand, red meat is defined as any meat that has more of the protein myoglobin than "white meat", defined as non-dark meat from chicken (excluding the leg or thigh) or fish. Some meat, such as pork, is classified as red meat under the nutritional definition, and white meat under the common or gastronomic definition."6 -
From Wikipedia:
"In culinary terms, only flesh from mammals or fowl (not fish) is classified as red or white.[3][4] In nutritional science, on the other hand, red meat is defined as any meat that has more of the protein myoglobin than "white meat", defined as non-dark meat from chicken (excluding the leg or thigh) or fish. Some meat, such as pork, is classified as red meat under the nutritional definition, and white meat under the common or gastronomic definition."
I love debate threads where I can learn something (like this one).7 -
Maybe they are looking at this the wrong way. The fact that we are all living a lot longer is also costing the UK billions in health care so perhaps they should be encouraging us to eat stuff that will shorten our lives not lengthen it. That way they won't have to pay for all the age related illnesses and care homes etc.
In all seriousness though. Things like sausage, ham and burgers are a cheap/er source of food/protein for people on lower incomes. So it will be those people who already can't afford the leaner cuts of fresh meat/fish that will be penalised by higher prices and reduced to ever cheaper options which will probably be even less healthy.
If they put a big tax on knives do they think that would reduce knife crime?
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »From Wikipedia:
"In culinary terms, only flesh from mammals or fowl (not fish) is classified as red or white.[3][4] In nutritional science, on the other hand, red meat is defined as any meat that has more of the protein myoglobin than "white meat", defined as non-dark meat from chicken (excluding the leg or thigh) or fish. Some meat, such as pork, is classified as red meat under the nutritional definition, and white meat under the common or gastronomic definition."
I love debate threads where I can learn something (like this one).
Yup, I always thought red meat was from mammals and white meat was from birds, regardless of actual color.0 -
Is the government actively considering taxing red meat, or is this at the stage of scientist recommendations?
Found the full original article
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204139
The corresponding author is a vegan
http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/interviews/what-if-we-all-turned-vegan-20502 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Here is some additional context: "The Other White Meat" campaign is US-based, culinary tradition usually considers pork as white meat, but nutritional studies (and the USDA) typically consider it to be red. I'm guessing that the proposed tax is treating pork as a red meat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork._The_Other_White_MeatFrom Wikipedia:
"In culinary terms, only flesh from mammals or fowl (not fish) is classified as red or white.[3][4] In nutritional science, on the other hand, red meat is defined as any meat that has more of the protein myoglobin than "white meat", defined as non-dark meat from chicken (excluding the leg or thigh) or fish. Some meat, such as pork, is classified as red meat under the nutritional definition, and white meat under the common or gastronomic definition."
Love learning new stuff. Thanks!1 -
This is ridiculous...I'm totally killing myself by consuming 96% lean red meat 3-4X per week. Thank God I have government backing to provide me incentive to give a damn about my health through taxation (sarcasm, eyeroll, etc.)
This is not a black and white matter as say smoking a pack of cigarettes as a regular habit3 -
manderson27 wrote: »In all seriousness though. Things like sausage, ham and burgers are a cheap/er source of food/protein for people on lower incomes. So it will be those people who already can't afford the leaner cuts of fresh meat/fish that will be penalised by higher prices and reduced to ever cheaper options which will probably be even less healthy.
I think this is the biggest concern and issue with something like this.1 -
I think it should be taxed for its detriments to the environment and atmosphere (Methane) rather than health consequences. That is what is gonna screw us ALL over in the long run.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/460522918 -
Huh.:D Before they tax it, they might want to prove that red meat negatively affects health... Seems goofy to me.
I know that processed meat (bacon, etc) has been shown to raise the risk of colon cancer from 5% to 6%, but unprocessed meat has not been shown to cause any negative health problems in the typical person - this would exclude people with uncommon problems with meat like a meat allergy, or those with familial hypercholesterolemia who avoid eating cholesterol.
5 -
manderson27 wrote: »In all seriousness though. Things like sausage, ham and burgers are a cheap/er source of food/protein for people on lower incomes. So it will be those people who already can't afford the leaner cuts of fresh meat/fish that will be penalised by higher prices and reduced to ever cheaper options which will probably be even less healthy.
I think this is the biggest concern and issue with something like this.
Agree. These kinds of taxes always disproportionately impact the people who have less money to spend on food. People with a higher income will *kitten* about the prices but it generally won't cause them to stop eating what they're used to eating.7 -
They're assuming that "low income countries" have a low consumption of meat, but what about accounting for the different income strata within the same country? I take it you're talking about the impact on the poorer people within a so-called higher income country that presumably has a higher meat consumption? would those poorer people be the ones more likely to be eating processed meat?0
-
They're assuming that "low income countries" have a low consumption of meat, but what about accounting for the different income strata within the same country? I take it you're talking about the impact on the poorer people within a so-called higher income country that presumably has a higher meat consumption? would those poorer people be the ones more likely to be eating processed meat?
We're talking about the population of the UK, where this potential law is being discussed.0 -
Right, I just can't tell how the lawmakers can use that paper to understand effects on different income levels within one country (the UK).0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Well...I didn't see the actual study referenced, nor any peer review backing up the claim...but then again when has that stopped people and politicians from believing what they wanted to further their own agenda. Also. "The World Health Organization declared processed red meat to be a carcinogen in 2015, and unprocessed red meat such as steaks and chops to be a probable carcinogen." and "The resulting higher prices would also cut meat consumption by two portions a week". Ok, on the first...could it be the process and not the meat? Second quote - any proof? I mean yes...if you assume people will continue to spend the same amount on the exact same foods but cut back on the higher meat b/c of price, sure...but maybe, just maybe, people would cut back on other items (sweets, alcohol, set the heat down to save electricity) to enable them to spend more money for the same amount of food items they always have. IMO it looks like sh1tty research to promote an agenda, at least from what is presented in the article.2 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Here in the UK, I have just come across an article which is saying that we may have to start paying tax (or already are) on red meat!! What are people’s thoughts on this?
I'm not seeing in anything in The Guardian article (that you didn't post) that is suggesting that you might have to start paying taxes on red meat. It's talking about the implications of it taxing red meat, which is different than "we may have to start paying tax (or already are) on read meat!!"2 -
AH HELL NO!
1 -
Healthy side effects if red meat for me? Triglycerides dropped from over 300 to les than 50. That was from increasingred day meat and decreasing carbs.
The UK is pushing more carbs and less meat to decrease the health of people for the benefit of grain producers the sane way the US does when it produced the fraudulent food pyramid.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Well...I didn't see the actual study referenced, nor any peer review backing up the claim...but then again when has that stopped people and politicians from believing what they wanted to further their own agenda. Also. "The World Health Organization declared processed red meat to be a carcinogen in 2015, and unprocessed red meat such as steaks and chops to be a probable carcinogen." and "The resulting higher prices would also cut meat consumption by two portions a week". Ok, on the first...could it be the process and not the meat? Second quote - any proof? I mean yes...if you assume people will continue to spend the same amount on the exact same foods but cut back on the higher meat b/c of price, sure...but maybe, just maybe, people would cut back on other items (sweets, alcohol, set the heat down to save electricity) to enable them to spend more money for the same amount of food items they always have. IMO it looks like sh1tty research to promote an agenda, at least from what is presented in the article.
The World Health Organization is not some podunk little fringe group. WHO recommendations are evidence-based so even if the specific research is not named in an article, it does exist.8 -
happytree923 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well...I didn't see the actual study referenced, nor any peer review backing up the claim...but then again when has that stopped people and politicians from believing what they wanted to further their own agenda. Also. "The World Health Organization declared processed red meat to be a carcinogen in 2015, and unprocessed red meat such as steaks and chops to be a probable carcinogen." and "The resulting higher prices would also cut meat consumption by two portions a week". Ok, on the first...could it be the process and not the meat? Second quote - any proof? I mean yes...if you assume people will continue to spend the same amount on the exact same foods but cut back on the higher meat b/c of price, sure...but maybe, just maybe, people would cut back on other items (sweets, alcohol, set the heat down to save electricity) to enable them to spend more money for the same amount of food items they always have. IMO it looks like sh1tty research to promote an agenda, at least from what is presented in the article.
The World Health Organization is not some podunk little fringe group. WHO recommendations are evidence-based so even if the specific research is not named in an article, it does exist.
WHO does use popular science to base its recommendations upon. Whether it is good science with appropriate conclusions is another question.7 -
happytree923 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Well...I didn't see the actual study referenced, nor any peer review backing up the claim...but then again when has that stopped people and politicians from believing what they wanted to further their own agenda. Also. "The World Health Organization declared processed red meat to be a carcinogen in 2015, and unprocessed red meat such as steaks and chops to be a probable carcinogen." and "The resulting higher prices would also cut meat consumption by two portions a week". Ok, on the first...could it be the process and not the meat? Second quote - any proof? I mean yes...if you assume people will continue to spend the same amount on the exact same foods but cut back on the higher meat b/c of price, sure...but maybe, just maybe, people would cut back on other items (sweets, alcohol, set the heat down to save electricity) to enable them to spend more money for the same amount of food items they always have. IMO it looks like sh1tty research to promote an agenda, at least from what is presented in the article.
The World Health Organization is not some podunk little fringe group. WHO recommendations are evidence-based so even if the specific research is not named in an article, it does exist.
WHO does use popular science to base its recommendations upon. Whether it is good science with appropriate conclusions is another question.
"Popular science" is the term for secondary or tertiary sources created for a broad audience. I assure you WHO uses primary source studies to base their recommendations on, not the latest fear-mongering article being passed around on facebook. Of course scientific knowledge evolves over time but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to create general guidelines based on the best evidence we have available at this point in time, which is what WHO does.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions