Taxing red meat
Replies
-
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
-
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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Where do you shop?1 -
• Beef is already relatively pretty expensive in the US at least. I rarely buy it even though I could easily afford it.
• Both pork and beef have a pretty wide range of fattiness and 'processing-levels' available. My lunch/dinner this week has been a pork sirloin roast (very lean, and it was on special for $2/lb at Aldi). (ETA: beef) Sirloin steaks are pretty lean too (and delicious when marinated beforehand in teriyaki).
• I wonder if the vast majority of people in whatever study who were very regularly eating red meat were getting their red meat via fast food burgers (probably 80/20 or fattier beef, accompanied by a side of deep-fried starch and a trough of corn syrup water).
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/3 -
I don’t eat meat because of the impact of intensively farmed meat on the environment in the US. Most of our corn goes to fatten beef, so we use petroleum to plant and harvest corn (and make fertilizer), more petroleum to move the corn to feedlots, yet more to transport cows to feedlots and more still transport beef to slaughterhouses.
Not to mention the fact that cows are meant to eat grass, not corn. So the lives of industrial beef cattle are uncomfortable because they eat food that makes them sick, they are force fed antibiotics, they are crammed into small spaces and then they are killed. And in addition to all the greenhouse gasses from the mountains of petroleum burned to grow corn to fatten beef, there is the methane produced by cows directly.6 -
happytree923 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
The linked q and a reminded me why I disregarded the WHO classification when it was announced. There is limited correlative evidence that processed meat eaten daily probably causes cancer, and even more limited correlative data that red meat possibly does. And if I remember correctly, the average risk of colon cancer is 7% or so, so a 20% increase in risk makes your risk 8-9%. Assuming the correlation is pointing in the right direction.
IMHO the issue is when an international organization like WHO draws a dramatic sounding conclusion based on correlative evidence and dumps bacon in the same category as tobacco knowing the general public is largely scientifically illiterate and won't be able to parse the data once the media further dramatizes the situation. It leads to hack journalists and politicians thinking they can cure cancer with a red meat tax, or at least use that as an excuse to raise more $.
To the OP, it sounds like this is just the beginning of an idea, not a price increase you'll be seeing in the stores next week. Maybe it will stop there.2 -
happytree923 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
The linked q and a reminded me why I disregarded the WHO classification when it was announced. There is limited correlative evidence that processed meat eaten daily probably causes cancer, and even more limited correlative data that red meat possibly does. And if I remember correctly, the average risk of colon cancer is 7% or so, so a 20% increase in risk makes your risk 8-9%. Assuming the correlation is pointing in the right direction.
IMHO the issue is when an international organization like WHO draws a dramatic sounding conclusion based on correlative evidence and dumps bacon in the same category as tobacco knowing the general public is largely scientifically illiterate and won't be able to parse the data once the media further dramatizes the situation. It leads to hack journalists and politicians thinking they can cure cancer with a red meat tax, or at least use that as an excuse to raise more $.
To the OP, it sounds like this is just the beginning of an idea, not a price increase you'll be seeing in the stores next week. Maybe it will stop there.
Well to be fair the WHO doesn't group red meat or processed meats in the same category as nicotine...nicotine is a known carcinogen and meat is not.1 -
happytree923 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
My point is studies that show correlation are worth publishing and putting out there and the WHO classifying things as probably or possible carcinogens on the basis of the number, quality and depth of the correlative studies is useful information...however it is not the type of thing you should base your life decisions on. Correlations are necessary for causality but they are not sufficient to come to a conclusion of causality. Putting laws into place on the basis of correlation studies is not a good idea. I am saying that as a scientist myself who works in global health. I don't bring up that I am a scientist to argue from authority but just to say that I am in no way anti-science nor do I think the WHO is somehow illegitimate. I just think that politicians and the public basing laws off correlative studies and classifications based on those is not really a good thing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
The linked q and a reminded me why I disregarded the WHO classification when it was announced. There is limited correlative evidence that processed meat eaten daily probably causes cancer, and even more limited correlative data that red meat possibly does. And if I remember correctly, the average risk of colon cancer is 7% or so, so a 20% increase in risk makes your risk 8-9%. Assuming the correlation is pointing in the right direction.
IMHO the issue is when an international organization like WHO draws a dramatic sounding conclusion based on correlative evidence and dumps bacon in the same category as tobacco knowing the general public is largely scientifically illiterate and won't be able to parse the data once the media further dramatizes the situation. It leads to hack journalists and politicians thinking they can cure cancer with a red meat tax, or at least use that as an excuse to raise more $.
To the OP, it sounds like this is just the beginning of an idea, not a price increase you'll be seeing in the stores next week. Maybe it will stop there.
Well to be fair the WHO doesn't group red meat or processed meats in the same category as nicotine...nicotine is a known carcinogen and meat is not.
I think you are confusing/not clarifying (pure) nicotine with tobacco
Also, dose form (inhalation/"vape"-atomizer vs. per oral, transdermals, even nasal spray)0 -
happytree923 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
The linked q and a reminded me why I disregarded the WHO classification when it was announced. There is limited correlative evidence that processed meat eaten daily probably causes cancer, and even more limited correlative data that red meat possibly does. And if I remember correctly, the average risk of colon cancer is 7% or so, so a 20% increase in risk makes your risk 8-9%. Assuming the correlation is pointing in the right direction.
IMHO the issue is when an international organization like WHO draws a dramatic sounding conclusion based on correlative evidence and dumps bacon in the same category as tobacco knowing the general public is largely scientifically illiterate and won't be able to parse the data once the media further dramatizes the situation. It leads to hack journalists and politicians thinking they can cure cancer with a red meat tax, or at least use that as an excuse to raise more $.
To the OP, it sounds like this is just the beginning of an idea, not a price increase you'll be seeing in the stores next week. Maybe it will stop there.
The problem here isn't the WHO, rather it's the fact that in at least some, if not much, of the world the public is health and science illiterate. That is something that needs to be addressed at a primary and secondary education level. That's not a call for the WHO to change how it conducts its research or publishes its findings (especially if they're being published for their peers, people working in governmental positions, journalists, etc).0 -
happytree923 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »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 agree that the WHO does appropriately back their conclusions on the basis of scientific study. I also agree that "possible carcinogen" is an accurate language descriptor for something that has one study making a claim that there might be a connection between the item and cancer. That isnt the problem....thebproblenbisbthe public and politicians acting like this is equivalent to saying it is a carcinogen or sufficient reason to avoid it.
If there is some study out there showing a correlation between brocolli and cancer then broccoli would be classified as a possible carcinogen. That doesn't mean it is time to take action or pass legislation, if anything it just means more evidence is required.
Personally I feel that passing legislation on the basis of WHO classified possible carcinogens is rather idiotic....but not because I consider the WHO illegitimate.
WHO has a tier system to rank carcinogens and possible carcinogens based on the quality and quantity of evidence, things don't get put on the list just because of one study showing a correlation. I believe processed meats have the highest ranking (very good evidence of being a carcinogen) and red meat is a step below (very possibly a carcinogen). I'm not saying anything about any actions or taxes raised based on this ranking, but there's a lot of comments on here along the lines of 'what, you think processed meat is bad for you just because WHO said so???' Well... yeah, I do.
ETA here is an FAQ about WHO's rankings of red meat and processed meat, for those that are interested-
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
The linked q and a reminded me why I disregarded the WHO classification when it was announced. There is limited correlative evidence that processed meat eaten daily probably causes cancer, and even more limited correlative data that red meat possibly does. And if I remember correctly, the average risk of colon cancer is 7% or so, so a 20% increase in risk makes your risk 8-9%. Assuming the correlation is pointing in the right direction.
IMHO the issue is when an international organization like WHO draws a dramatic sounding conclusion based on correlative evidence and dumps bacon in the same category as tobacco knowing the general public is largely scientifically illiterate and won't be able to parse the data once the media further dramatizes the situation. It leads to hack journalists and politicians thinking they can cure cancer with a red meat tax, or at least use that as an excuse to raise more $.
To the OP, it sounds like this is just the beginning of an idea, not a price increase you'll be seeing in the stores next week. Maybe it will stop there.
The problem here isn't the WHO, rather it's the fact that in at least some, if not much, of the world the public is health and science illiterate. That is something that needs to be addressed at a primary and secondary education level. That's not a call for the WHO to change how it conducts its research or publishes its findings (especially if they're being published for their peers, people working in governmental positions, journalists, etc).
I generally agree with you and probably could've worded that differently. But I think classifying processed meat a Group 1 carcinogen along with tobacco and asbestos was asking for misinterpretation. I find it hard to believe there's as much evidence against processed meat as there is for tobacco and asbestos, though that's just my gut feeling, I could definitely be wrong.0 -
We already are paying tax on food It is called VAT in the UK1
-
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.
Mine is needing red meat to keep my anemia at bay. Iron supplements just don’t do it and iron infusions SUCK!1 -
Lolinloggen wrote: »We already are paying tax on food It is called VAT in the UK
The VAT isn't accessed differently based on the potential harmfulness of a food/product, is it? This is a different type of taxation being debated here.2 -
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.
Where do you live that there's an absence of these things?
Where I am, there's more (or cheaper prices) on some produce when it's in season -- as would be expected, and frozen is available and cheaper -- but even so the amount of produce available for reasonably low prices at all times of year is amazing when you compare it to years past. I'm actually not totally comfortable with this and prefer to eat seasonally when possible (although I will sacrifice that in the middle of winter or even early spring), given environmental concerns re carting food so many miles. I also find that meat and eggs are priced pretty low when I look at them (I usually buy them from other sources). At least in the US, food as a percentage of overall costs or income is way down over past years.
I'm wondering if you are thinking of "healthy foods" as some expensive brand name or special products, and not just the basic produce and protein and staples.1 -
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.
Where do you live that there's an absence of these things?
Where I am, there's more (or cheaper prices) on some produce when it's in season -- as would be expected, and frozen is available and cheaper -- but even so the amount of produce available for reasonably low prices at all times of year is amazing when you compare it to years past. I'm actually not totally comfortable with this and prefer to eat seasonally when possible (although I will sacrifice that in the middle of winter or even early spring), given environmental concerns re carting food so many miles. I also find that meat and eggs are priced pretty low when I look at them (I usually buy them from other sources). At least in the US, food as a percentage of overall costs or income is way down over past years.
I'm wondering if you are thinking of "healthy foods" as some expensive brand name or special products, and not just the basic produce and protein and staples.
Reminds me of a meme I saw recently with a picture of french fries and $1 and a plastic tub of pre-cut, non-local, out-of-season fruit with $6. no duh. I almost responded with " you know what else is ~$1 - an entire pound of locally-grown apples or carrots or celery or several pounds of potatoes that haven't been deep-fried." People are picky and lazy AF.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Lolinloggen wrote: »We already are paying tax on food It is called VAT in the UK
The VAT isn't accessed differently based on the potential harmfulness of a food/product, is it? This is a different type of taxation being debated here.
VAT rates are different for alcohol, cigarettes, fresh food, cold prepared food, cooked food, food sold in shops, canteens, schools, vending machines, even biscuits and cakes have different tax rates. "Essentials" are already taxed at a lower rate than "luxuries". So while "harm" might not be a VAT thing how we apply taxes to products is certainly fairly subjective already. Assessing a tax on how harmful a product is makes more sense than how a cake is a necessity but a chocolate biscuit isn't.
My sister works in VAT. Pity me for the amount I now know about it.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Lolinloggen wrote: »We already are paying tax on food It is called VAT in the UK
The VAT isn't accessed differently based on the potential harmfulness of a food/product, is it? This is a different type of taxation being debated here.
VAT rates are different for alcohol, cigarettes, fresh food, cold prepared food, cooked food, food sold in shops, canteens, schools, vending machines, even biscuits and cakes have different tax rates. "Essentials" are already taxed at a lower rate than "luxuries". So while "harm" might not be a VAT thing how we apply taxes to products is certainly fairly subjective already. Assessing a tax on how harmful a product is makes more sense than how a cake is a necessity but a chocolate biscuit isn't.
My sister works in VAT. Pity me for the amount I now know about it.
Where I am sales tax is high on most things, but only 1% (I think) on food, except that candy isn't food (nor is prepared food, soda). Candy, however, does not contain flour by definition, so a Twix gets the low rate.0
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
- 427 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