Taxing red meat
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I think they should focus in bringing more fresh foods and a greater variety of healthy foods in supermarkets not on raising taxes on sugar or red meag. I am pissed that my monster energy drink is more expensive but
I still buy it. Healthy foods are expensive as *kitten* and hard to find and the supermarkets are full with sugary foods and prea made fast fatty foods wich they want to tax as well. As the british say “ i am disgusted” of this society.3 -
happytree923 wrote: »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.
I guess I should not have used the term popular science.
They used primary sources... whether that was good science with appropriate conclusions is another question.
6 -
This article may provide a bit of insight into the logic behind it (yes, the article is about veganism but there's a lot of info/statistics about beef in particular compared to chicken, etc)
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/10/13/why-people-in-rich-countries-are-eating-more-vegan-food1 -
They SHOULD tax :Red Meat, Fish in a can, all Organic vegetables, cigarettes, clear colored alcohol, vape pens, dog collars, baby wipes, purple onions, heirloom tomatoes, , sports bras, school supplies, smooth peanut butter and ALL athletic shoes that arent white. Oh, and also fried chicken, Fresca and Cosmopolitan magazine.6
-
happytree923 wrote: »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.
I guess I should not have used the term popular science.
They used primary sources... whether that was good science with appropriate conclusions is another question.
Do you have examples of the typical poorly researched articles the WHO cites in their recommendations?3 -
I think if you agree with taxing cigarettes and alcohol and sugar on the basis that people who over-consume these things costs the NHS more money than the "average" person (I personally do agree with that, as someone who used to smoke and still drinks) then it's a logical step. The statistic in the guardian article that in rich countries people consume red meat every day is surprising. Nobody needs red meat every day. Just like nobody needs sugary drinks and nobody needs alcohol.
I don't know how valid the point is about it affecting low income people if they can't buy bacon. Chicken is cheaper already if you don't buy skinless breast. Thighs are 1.66/kg compared to 2.98/kg for beef mince. Bacon is 3.40/kg so not that cheap, sausages are 1.60/kg so there might be an argument there but they're only 52% pork. This is all Tesco own brand value-range for fairness.
I do think it's strange that they're focusing on this as mostly a public health issue and not making more of the environmental effects, of beef consumption in particular. That's the main reason I limit my red meat as much as possible tbh.
I hear this a lot and I don't think it's true. Vegetables are cheap, fresh or frozen. Basic grains like rice and pasta are cheap. Beans are a great protein source and they are cheap. If you go the "healthy" route that has you on salmon fillet and avocado, quinoa and coconut oil then yes, that's expensive but it's also not necessary.lorenagabriela338 wrote: »Healthy foods are expensive as *kitten* and hard to find
5 -
Even with WHO recommendations, the best studies on diet are pretty limited from being cohort based & are always prone to design flaws (inaccuracy being notorious with diet tracking). "Red meat" under such scrutiny in said studies is not stratified in terms of quality & conclusions are often just loose associations. Lots of assumptions need to be made to come up with a conclusion for pretty much any studies evaluating diet
Diet studies can not be randomized and more often than not, a person's diet is a reflection of his/her lifestyle (someone who is health conscious will have tendencies to eat more plant based & balanced overall, not eat out/use fastfood or convenient foods, track food intake more accurately, exercise, sleep well, & in general have many other healthy behaviors). Too many variables to make meaningful/definite correlations from one factor alone2 -
lorenagabriela338 wrote: »I think they should focus in bringing more fresh foods and a greater variety of healthy foods in supermarkets not on raising taxes on sugar or red meag. I am pissed that my monster energy drink is more expensive but
I still buy it. Healthy foods are expensive as *kitten* and hard to find and the supermarkets are full with sugary foods and prea made fast fatty foods wich they want to tax as well. As the british say “ i am disgusted” of this society.
I'm not sure where in the world you live, but the staple foods of my diet are generally affordable and easy to find where I live. I eat lots of beans, grains, vegetables (keep the cost reasonable by choosing frozen vegetable and/or less trendy vegetables), and tofu. While I don't believe there is any one best "healthy diet," my diet pattern is very consistent with those associated with good health outcomes. I would certainly be paying more for my food if I was buying mostly pre-made foods.2 -
Politicians just love to tax things to try to change behaviors that "they" decide are needing to be changed... for your own good (of course)
1 -
Absolute nonsense. Reward anyone pushing this with electoral extermination.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions