Taxing red meat

Mandylou19912014 · November 2018

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?

bpotts44 · November 2018

Ridiculous. Why target red meat versus any other food.

Aegelis · November 2018

Hi protein, low fat (for most cuts), there's no sense in penalizing people trying to be healthy.

Sabine_Stroehm · November 2018

Why?

janejellyroll · November 2018

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.

Lift_Run_Eat · November 2018

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?

janejellyroll · November 2018

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?

janejellyroll · November 2018

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_Meat

JustinAnimal · November 2018

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*.

mph323 · November 2018

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."

janejellyroll · November 2018

mph323 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).

manderson27 · November 2018

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?

mph323 · November 2018

janejellyroll wrote: »

mph323 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.

lkpducky · November 2018

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-2050

Lift_Run_Eat · November 2018

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_Meat

mph323 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."

Love learning new stuff. Thanks!

Keto_Vampire · November 2018

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 habit

kiela64 · November 2018

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.

amorfati601070 · November 2018

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/67/12/1026/4605229

nvmomketo · November 2018

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.

mph323 · November 2018

kiela64 wrote: »

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.

lkpducky · November 2018

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?

Taxing red meat

Replies

Categories