While I agree, I'm also very well off financially. How should we account for people living near or in poverty who often do not have good, cheap access to proteins that are not good cuts of meat...
While I agree, I'm also very well off financially. How should we account for people living near or in poverty who often do not have good, cheap access to proteins that are not good cuts of meat such as pork shoulder?
It seems like you're conflating protein with meat, and discounting plant protein as a viable alternative. In particular: oats, beans, lentils and chickpeas are some of the cheapest sources of...
It seems like you're conflating protein with meat, and discounting plant protein as a viable alternative. In particular: oats, beans, lentils and chickpeas are some of the cheapest sources of protein available.
They are not particularly protein rich, but upon second thought considering how little protein most people get, this should be acceptable. However, it will require a pretty significant shift in...
They are not particularly protein rich, but upon second thought considering how little protein most people get, this should be acceptable.
However, it will require a pretty significant shift in pre-prepared and cheap dining options.
This is the most common argument I hear against lifestyle taxes; that they disproportionally affect poor people, making their lives even harder. Often this is true, but it doesn't have to be true....
This is the most common argument I hear against lifestyle taxes; that they disproportionally affect poor people, making their lives even harder. Often this is true, but it doesn't have to be true.
Countries need a certain amount of revenue to operate, and most of this revenue is created through taxes. If a new tax is added (for example a tax on red meat), it makes sense to reduce other taxes (for example sales tax) by the same amount. The tax cuts affect everyone, the tax increase only those who keep buying the now-luxury item.
I like this idea. Are there any countries that currently do this sort of balancing? The main problem I see is that taxes almost never go towards a single purpose (with some rare cases of certain...
If a new tax is added (for example a tax on red meat), it makes sense to reduce other taxes (for example sales tax) by the same amount. The tax cuts affect everyone, the tax increase only those who keep buying the now-luxury item.
I like this idea. Are there any countries that currently do this sort of balancing?
The main problem I see is that taxes almost never go towards a single purpose (with some rare cases of certain specific sale taxes like gas taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.) so trying to balance out something like this would be a logistical and political nightmare.
Cancerogenity of red meat is a recent discovery. Severity and mechanisms of it are still to be studied more completely. Taxing red meat at this point can become more a political thing, and...
Cancerogenity of red meat is a recent discovery. Severity and mechanisms of it are still to be studied more completely. Taxing red meat at this point can become more a political thing, and catering the public nutritional fads. WHO recommends governments to inform people about cancerogenity of red and processed meat.
Environmental aspect is a different story. This might be a morning convincing reason for tax ...or synthetic meat production start.
I would hardly call it a discovery. We've found a correlation between people who eat red meat and cancer from survey data. There's also a correlation between internet explorer market adoption and...
discovery
I would hardly call it a discovery. We've found a correlation between people who eat red meat and cancer from survey data. There's also a correlation between internet explorer market adoption and murder rate. It means nothing.
Processed red meats, in particular those with nitrates, absolutely do have a direct cause and effect relationship with the same cancers we see a correlation with red meats in general. Since the majority of red meat you can purchase is processed, I have serious doubts in the claim that red meats cause cancer, especially since it's a food source that has existed among carnivores for millions of years.
If I remember correctly I saw a paper that explained cancerogenity of pure red meat as a result of chemical reaction of the compound that gives meat red color, in intestines. Sodium nitrate, while...
If I remember correctly I saw a paper that explained cancerogenity of pure red meat as a result of chemical reaction of the compound that gives meat red color, in intestines.
Sodium nitrate, while being harmless itself, also reacts with meat compounds in intestines and produces unhealthy byproducts.
How common salt makes meat "processed" in a harmful way, puzzles me. That would mean that canned meat (which is only salted, + spices) is for some reason as bad as sausages.
it's a food source that has existed among carnivores for millions of years
It is possible that a natural diet isn't the healthiest possible. "Natural" humans and animals usually even wouldn't live long enough to get many cancers, so there isn't much evolutional pressure to eat perfect food.
Theoretically, at least. There's a big difference between an idea, in vitro, and in vivo experiments. I can't speak to this paper, because I didn't see it, but we have no direct studies on humans,...
I saw a paper that explained cancerogenity of pure red meat as a result of chemical reaction of the compound that gives meat red color, in intestines.
Theoretically, at least. There's a big difference between an idea, in vitro, and in vivo experiments. I can't speak to this paper, because I didn't see it, but we have no direct studies on humans, or other animals that proves red meats lead to cancer and we've been studying this for a long time.
"Natural" humans and animals usually even wouldn't live long enough to get many cancers, so there isn't much evolutional pressure to eat perfect food.
While there isn't, small efficiency changes tend to be selected for in evolution. To my knowledge, there is no natural source of food (in moderation) that has been linked to any negative health outcomes in any species.
EDIT: I want to be clear in case people not versed in science are reading this and getting a different message. I'm not saying definitively that there is no link between red meat and cancer. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the jump in thought that the media has made with regards to red meat and cancer risks. There's a reason the IARC classifies it as group 2A (a group which includes, "Very hot beverages", or beverages in excess of 65ºC such as coffee and tea) - it's probable that there is some carcinogencity to this substance, but it hasn't been proven and in many cases it's likely the effect size is very small and perhaps similar or even less than other "acceptable" carcinogenic substances we regularly come in contact with such as electronics, airplanes, etc. This XKCD comic does a good job at putting things into perspective, particularly when comparing to certain entries such as the radiation dose limits by certain professions, the EPA, and other entities.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i recall from that study that mass media was screaming every day about, there was an increase of a person's chances of developing colorectal cancer by 1%?...
Correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i recall from that study that mass media was screaming every day about, there was an increase of a person's chances of developing colorectal cancer by 1%? Wasn't that it?
So, if i have a 5% chance of developing colorectal cancer and i consume red meat, my chances will up to 5.05%.
I think before proposing a tax, we should address the tens of billions spent yearly on subsidizing the meat and dairy industries. In addition to incentivizing shoppers to buy meat in the same way...
I think before proposing a tax, we should address the tens of billions spent yearly on subsidizing the meat and dairy industries. In addition to incentivizing shoppers to buy meat in the same way taxes would do in reverse, those funds mostly go to big corporate farms -- which push small farmers out of business and tend to have exceedingly cruel methods of raising and killing their animals.
There was a US House Act proposed in 2017 to limit these subsidies, but it hasn't gone anywhere since. (WaPo says it received bipartisan opposition and was defeated by a House Appropriations subcommittee.)
There should be a tax on every environmentally damaging thing equal to the cost of reversing that damage. And then all that money spent on fixing the issues
There should be a tax on every environmentally damaging thing equal to the cost of reversing that damage. And then all that money spent on fixing the issues
I do also believe there should be a true cost to all products that should include environmental impact and disposal, instead of the current system where it's just sort of absorbed by taxpayers or...
I do also believe there should be a true cost to all products that should include environmental impact and disposal, instead of the current system where it's just sort of absorbed by taxpayers or poorer countries just have to live with the excess garbage.
A decently steep carbon tax would do the trick, since red meat production is very carbon intensive. A $200/ton tax would increase the cost of beef by at least $2.60/kg, not counting hikes in...
A decently steep carbon tax would do the trick, since red meat production is very carbon intensive. A $200/ton tax would increase the cost of beef by at least $2.60/kg, not counting hikes in transportation cost.
I wonder how big a carbon/methane tax would have to be to make red meat prohibitively expensive for most people, i.e. enough for them to significantly change their diet.
I wonder how big a carbon/methane tax would have to be to make red meat prohibitively expensive for most people, i.e. enough for them to significantly change their diet.
Yeah it probably should, after-all other consumables with negative externalities are taxed, tobacco, alcohol etc. Makes sense to tax red meat as well, although I think the link to negative effects...
Yeah it probably should, after-all other consumables with negative externalities are taxed, tobacco, alcohol etc. Makes sense to tax red meat as well, although I think the link to negative effects is no where near as strong, if not now then in a few years when the effects to climate are given more weight it'll probably be enough to push it over into acceptable.
As a bit of a side not, in the TV show Travellers, they have this nice touch where everyone form the future has this repulsion to any animal products. It's interesting to think what steps that took place for something like that to happen.
If you're implying that red meat, by itself, is unhealthy for you, you are mislead. It's the processing of this meat (in particular the nitrates) that make it unhealthy. That being said, the...
although I think the link to negative effects is no where near as strong
tobacco, alcohol etc
If you're implying that red meat, by itself, is unhealthy for you, you are mislead. It's the processing of this meat (in particular the nitrates) that make it unhealthy.
That being said, the environmental cost of producing meat in general is pretty high and I'm okay with it being taxed to offset the carbon cost and improve energy efficiency in general.
In a similar vein cleaning or antiepic alcohol is not taxed the same as the stuff you drink. It's possible to differentiate between types of red meat. And well the reality is that the magority of...
In a similar vein cleaning or antiepic alcohol is not taxed the same as the stuff you drink. It's possible to differentiate between types of red meat. And well the reality is that the magority of the red meat sold is the processed kind.
In the UK, the study suggests a tax of 14% on red meat and 79% of processed meat.
This is from the article, not sure they they are saying it's 79% tax on processed meat or 79% of processed meat will get taxed. Either way that seems wierd.
If the goal is to tax things that have negative health effects, I don't believe we should be taxing red meat. If the goal is to tax something potentially negative to offset it's negative effect -...
In a similar vein cleaning or antiepic alcohol is not taxed the same as the stuff you drink. It's possible to differentiate between types of red meat.
If the goal is to tax things that have negative health effects, I don't believe we should be taxing red meat. If the goal is to tax something potentially negative to offset it's negative effect - whether that negative effect is on the person, environment, or other source... then it absolutely should be taxed.
This is from the article, not sure they they are saying it's 79% tax on processed meat or 79% of processed meat will get taxed. Either way that seems wierd.
The values are what % the tax should be. They give examples of cost pre/post example tax rates.
So $1 becomes $1.14 if just red meat and $1.79 if processed. Or lbs or euros or whatever the UK currently uses.
Well I kind of think these two a linked, something that has a negative effect on health also has a negative effect on everyone else using health services, the NHS in the UK. I would not have...
If the goal is to tax things that have negative health effects, I don't believe we should be taxing red meat. If the goal is to tax something potentially negative to offset it's negative effect. (...)
Well I kind of think these two a linked, something that has a negative effect on health also has a negative effect on everyone else using health services, the NHS in the UK.
I would not have expected the tax to bee so high, also the UK uses pound sterling, abbreviated GBP/£.
In real life that may be not very likely. Human diet is a controversial topic but still humans are usually omnivores, as well as the closest other species, chimpanzee. Good taste of animal...
everyone form the future has this repulsion to any animal products
In real life that may be not very likely. Human diet is a controversial topic but still humans are usually omnivores, as well as the closest other species, chimpanzee. Good taste of animal products is then innate.
I grew up vegetarian, tasted small bits after much pestering, but never had a meal. I can tell you their is nothing innate about it's appeal. I never felt the need to 'have a burger' or whatever,...
I grew up vegetarian, tasted small bits after much pestering, but never had a meal. I can tell you their is nothing innate about it's appeal. I never felt the need to 'have a burger' or whatever, not even sure I could without getting sick, (not used to digesting it).
Yeah I know anecdoetes are not representative but from my perspective I see it as being an entrenched cultural norm, not innate.
Well in my anecdotal experience I do have tasting and cravings for animal products, including burgers too. While my diet is mostly plants, dairy products and some eggs and meat of various kinds...
Well in my anecdotal experience I do have tasting and cravings for animal products, including burgers too. While my diet is mostly plants, dairy products and some eggs and meat of various kinds are very easy to eat and they taste good. And more so now than when I was a kid. I'm aware of the recent WHO warnings but even don't need to adjust because specifically red meat is such a low percentage of my diet.
It's unlikely that consuming animal products is cultural. It's innate and natural, not cultural in chimps to collect insects, eggs, and hunt small monkeys for a few percent of their diet. So did humans millions of years ago, it's just we invented better ways of obtaining and cooking both plants and animals, while keeping plants prevalent in diet.
No. If it's harmful to someone's health, then let the individual opt out of consuming that product. If it's harmful to the environment, then don't purchase it yourself if that is a priority to...
No. If it's harmful to someone's health, then let the individual opt out of consuming that product. If it's harmful to the environment, then don't purchase it yourself if that is a priority to you. Don't increase the cost of food for everyone else. The wealthy can deal with higher prices, and may be very happy to purchase some perceived environmental improvement for a few bucks more at the grocery store. Not everyone has this luxury and it should not be forced upon them.
the environment doesn't only affect you, although it certainly will if you are under 60. it's a global issue that requires government legislation, and red meat is a significant cause of emissions....
the environment doesn't only affect you, although it certainly will if you are under 60.
it's a global issue that requires government legislation, and red meat is a significant cause of emissions.
Great links. It certainly doesn't affect just me, and sharing information like this is a good way to spread awareness of the issue at which point people who find it concerning can modify their...
Great links. It certainly doesn't affect just me, and sharing information like this is a good way to spread awareness of the issue at which point people who find it concerning can modify their behaviors.
It seems like you value the freedom to do things far more than freedom from harm. This is a pretty widespread American opinion, I think; for example, where I live, there are lots of people who...
Exemplary
It seems like you value the freedom to do things far more than freedom from harm. This is a pretty widespread American opinion, I think; for example, where I live, there are lots of people who value the freedom to shoot their guns indiscriminately more than my freedom to walk in the woods without the fear of being shot. Admittedly, I've never been shot, and don't know of anyone in the area who has shot someone due to recklessness, so maybe this isn't the best example, but I think it exemplifies the difference between these kinds of freedoms.
Could you speak to why you value one more than the other? I've always seen the ideal of freedom as, "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other person’s nose begins," and to me, the freedom to damage the environment is the same as swinging one's arms wildly with little concern for whose noses they strike. I see the government (when it works well, anyway) as the body enforcing this and protecting people from others going too far with their freedoms. Taxes are used to fund the government and as a tool (increased taxes on red meat = less production of red meat).
I want a government that prevents people from polluting anything that is or could be used by the public. Groundwater, air, soil, etc. I feel that we all have the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, whether or not you feel that you have the right to pollute it. Is this where we disagree? Do you value the freedom to pollute more than the freedom from that pollution? Do you disagree that we have these rights to clean air and water? Do you think that private property ownership rules all, even if what you do on that private property spills out elsewhere?
I agree with you that people should be allowed to eat what they want, whether or not it is harmful to them, as that is a pretty essential freedom. It's true that it does affect others (increased health care burden, the suffering of loved ones, etc.), but it seems pretty fascist to put restrictions on someone's diet. As for the environmental impact, though, if the over-farming of cattle is ultimately damaging the planet and making it worse for others, how is this different than directly polluting groundwater, and why shouldn't governments work to protect us from it?
I'm genuinely curious, as I think this is a pretty common mindset in the U.S. I hope my questions to you seem fair; I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Sorry for being more wordy than I probably need to be; that's just how I am, I guess.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Government should stop aggression, in this case pollution. History has shown that Government has failed to protect against this, even for public resources I don't...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Government should stop aggression, in this case pollution. History has shown that Government has failed to protect against this, even for public resources I don't see why forcing citizens to give them more money would suddenly fix the problem.
It's not just a matter of ignorance, pollutants like factory smoke have been known to be harmful since the Industrial Revolution but the government did not stop that for many decades because the benefits of industry were seen to outweigh any negatives. American courts deliberately allowed pollution by industrial smoke for a very long time, and we have more recent foreign events like Lake Baikal. I think entrusting this to government is silly given a look at history and even some current events. This is a question of property rights, and if what you do on your private property spills out elsewhere, then you are violating someone else's property rights.
I think government ownership of a lot of these natural resources is what has allowed them to be polluted for so long. Since these resources are overseen by the government but are essentially unowned economically, there has been little incentive for the government to care whether they were polluted or not. Alternatively, if I owned a lake and extracted value from it by say, selling bottled water, and a nearby cattle farm was causing severe pollution to my lake, they would be promptly sued for violating my property rights. Government has no economic incentive to keep the lake clean.
So really, my issue is with forcefully extracting money from citizens to give it to the government, who has had a pretty bad track record with caring for the environment. There's still the benefit of reduction in consumption due to increased cost, but I think that can be accomplished in other ways that don't involve force.
Fair enough, and sorry for missing the mark by so much in trying to pinpoint our disagreements. I assume most people agree with you (I certainly do) that the government is dysfunctional and...
Fair enough, and sorry for missing the mark by so much in trying to pinpoint our disagreements. I assume most people agree with you (I certainly do) that the government is dysfunctional and imperfect. I guess where we disagree, though, is that I think government is our only hope; in my experience, corporations do whatever they can possibly get away with if it will make them even a penny more. Governments, on the other hand, can help limit corporations, and sometimes do. But, yeah, they're in bed with the biggest companies, and I have no idea how to fix that problem. Just have to do my part to vote better and help other people do the same.
We can fix the problem by raising awareness and making people care about these issues. Voting for candidates who support your views on the environment is certainly a good start. With regards to...
We can fix the problem by raising awareness and making people care about these issues. Voting for candidates who support your views on the environment is certainly a good start.
With regards to companies, if a company is harming the environment, we can avoid giving our money to those companies. Like you said, companies ultimately want to make any penny they can - this is pretty much the reason they exist. If they're losing business because of their actions towards the environment, they will stop. If the government is harming the environment, how can you possibly stop giving them money? They will just collect income tax and sales tax on anything else you purchase. There's little incentive for them to care unless it becomes such a large problem that it can swing a lot of votes.
The environment has an effect on children, and fucking over people who can't vote because you're too selfish to cut down on the cow-killing fits the definition of evil pretty well.
The environment has an effect on children, and fucking over people who can't vote because you're too selfish to cut down on the cow-killing fits the definition of evil pretty well.
If i could voluntarily pay some extra money for my red meat to help the environment, or donate to some form of charity, i might very well do that. I have given my time to beach cleanups, tree...
If i could voluntarily pay some extra money for my red meat to help the environment, or donate to some form of charity, i might very well do that. I have given my time to beach cleanups, tree planting, and other such events as a volunteer before. I don't think eating some meat is more evil or selfish than using force to make literally everyone else pay for your ideology.
What actions do you think governments should take based on your results?
IARC is a research organization that evaluates the evidence on the causes of cancer but does not make health recommendations as such. The IARC Monographs are, however, often used as a basis for making national and international policies, guidelines and recommendations to minimize cancer risks. Governments may decide to include this new information on the cancer hazards of processed meat in the context of other health risks and benefits in updating dietary recommendations
Yes. It's harmful to human health and has large environmental costs that are not properly accounted for in the price of the product.
While I agree, I'm also very well off financially. How should we account for people living near or in poverty who often do not have good, cheap access to proteins that are not good cuts of meat such as pork shoulder?
It seems like you're conflating protein with meat, and discounting plant protein as a viable alternative. In particular: oats, beans, lentils and chickpeas are some of the cheapest sources of protein available.
They are not particularly protein rich, but upon second thought considering how little protein most people get, this should be acceptable.
However, it will require a pretty significant shift in pre-prepared and cheap dining options.
They are also dirt cheap so you can buy a load of them
chicken?
-cheap
-high in protein
-lower environmental impact
Cheap pork cuts (and other undesirable red meat cuts) tend to be cheaper, but I agree. Chicken is way better. I eat a ton of it.
This is the most common argument I hear against lifestyle taxes; that they disproportionally affect poor people, making their lives even harder. Often this is true, but it doesn't have to be true.
Countries need a certain amount of revenue to operate, and most of this revenue is created through taxes. If a new tax is added (for example a tax on red meat), it makes sense to reduce other taxes (for example sales tax) by the same amount. The tax cuts affect everyone, the tax increase only those who keep buying the now-luxury item.
I like this idea. Are there any countries that currently do this sort of balancing?
The main problem I see is that taxes almost never go towards a single purpose (with some rare cases of certain specific sale taxes like gas taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.) so trying to balance out something like this would be a logistical and political nightmare.
Cancerogenity of red meat is a recent discovery. Severity and mechanisms of it are still to be studied more completely. Taxing red meat at this point can become more a political thing, and catering the public nutritional fads. WHO recommends governments to inform people about cancerogenity of red and processed meat.
Environmental aspect is a different story. This might be a morning convincing reason for tax ...or synthetic meat production start.
I would hardly call it a discovery. We've found a correlation between people who eat red meat and cancer from survey data. There's also a correlation between internet explorer market adoption and murder rate. It means nothing.
Processed red meats, in particular those with nitrates, absolutely do have a direct cause and effect relationship with the same cancers we see a correlation with red meats in general. Since the majority of red meat you can purchase is processed, I have serious doubts in the claim that red meats cause cancer, especially since it's a food source that has existed among carnivores for millions of years.
If I remember correctly I saw a paper that explained cancerogenity of pure red meat as a result of chemical reaction of the compound that gives meat red color, in intestines.
Sodium nitrate, while being harmless itself, also reacts with meat compounds in intestines and produces unhealthy byproducts.
How common salt makes meat "processed" in a harmful way, puzzles me. That would mean that canned meat (which is only salted, + spices) is for some reason as bad as sausages.
It is possible that a natural diet isn't the healthiest possible. "Natural" humans and animals usually even wouldn't live long enough to get many cancers, so there isn't much evolutional pressure to eat perfect food.
Theoretically, at least. There's a big difference between an idea, in vitro, and in vivo experiments. I can't speak to this paper, because I didn't see it, but we have no direct studies on humans, or other animals that proves red meats lead to cancer and we've been studying this for a long time.
While there isn't, small efficiency changes tend to be selected for in evolution. To my knowledge, there is no natural source of food (in moderation) that has been linked to any negative health outcomes in any species.
EDIT: I want to be clear in case people not versed in science are reading this and getting a different message. I'm not saying definitively that there is no link between red meat and cancer. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the jump in thought that the media has made with regards to red meat and cancer risks. There's a reason the IARC classifies it as group 2A (a group which includes, "Very hot beverages", or beverages in excess of 65ºC such as coffee and tea) - it's probable that there is some carcinogencity to this substance, but it hasn't been proven and in many cases it's likely the effect size is very small and perhaps similar or even less than other "acceptable" carcinogenic substances we regularly come in contact with such as electronics, airplanes, etc. This XKCD comic does a good job at putting things into perspective, particularly when comparing to certain entries such as the radiation dose limits by certain professions, the EPA, and other entities.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i recall from that study that mass media was screaming every day about, there was an increase of a person's chances of developing colorectal cancer by 1%? Wasn't that it?
So, if i have a 5% chance of developing colorectal cancer and i consume red meat, my chances will up to 5.05%.
No that's from 5% to 6%, absolute. This almost matches another number, 18% relative increase.
I think before proposing a tax, we should address the tens of billions spent yearly on subsidizing the meat and dairy industries. In addition to incentivizing shoppers to buy meat in the same way taxes would do in reverse, those funds mostly go to big corporate farms -- which push small farmers out of business and tend to have exceedingly cruel methods of raising and killing their animals.
There was a US House Act proposed in 2017 to limit these subsidies, but it hasn't gone anywhere since. (WaPo says it received bipartisan opposition and was defeated by a House Appropriations subcommittee.)
There should be a tax on every environmentally damaging thing equal to the cost of reversing that damage. And then all that money spent on fixing the issues
I do also believe there should be a true cost to all products that should include environmental impact and disposal, instead of the current system where it's just sort of absorbed by taxpayers or poorer countries just have to live with the excess garbage.
A decently steep carbon tax would do the trick, since red meat production is very carbon intensive. A $200/ton tax would increase the cost of beef by at least $2.60/kg, not counting hikes in transportation cost.
There's not currently a rule against using loaded language as submission tags, but I feel like we should still strive to keep them neutral.
"nanny state" was used directly in the article itself, and I thought it may be a point of discussion, which it has been.
I wonder how big a carbon/methane tax would have to be to make red meat prohibitively expensive for most people, i.e. enough for them to significantly change their diet.
Yeah it probably should, after-all other consumables with negative externalities are taxed, tobacco, alcohol etc. Makes sense to tax red meat as well, although I think the link to negative effects is no where near as strong, if not now then in a few years when the effects to climate are given more weight it'll probably be enough to push it over into acceptable.
As a bit of a side not, in the TV show Travellers, they have this nice touch where everyone form the future has this repulsion to any animal products. It's interesting to think what steps that took place for something like that to happen.
If you're implying that red meat, by itself, is unhealthy for you, you are mislead. It's the processing of this meat (in particular the nitrates) that make it unhealthy.
That being said, the environmental cost of producing meat in general is pretty high and I'm okay with it being taxed to offset the carbon cost and improve energy efficiency in general.
In a similar vein cleaning or antiepic alcohol is not taxed the same as the stuff you drink. It's possible to differentiate between types of red meat. And well the reality is that the magority of the red meat sold is the processed kind.
This is from the article, not sure they they are saying it's 79% tax on processed meat or 79% of processed meat will get taxed. Either way that seems wierd.
If the goal is to tax things that have negative health effects, I don't believe we should be taxing red meat. If the goal is to tax something potentially negative to offset it's negative effect - whether that negative effect is on the person, environment, or other source... then it absolutely should be taxed.
The values are what % the tax should be. They give examples of cost pre/post example tax rates.
So $1 becomes $1.14 if just red meat and $1.79 if processed. Or lbs or euros or whatever the UK currently uses.
Well I kind of think these two a linked, something that has a negative effect on health also has a negative effect on everyone else using health services, the NHS in the UK.
I would not have expected the tax to bee so high, also the UK uses pound sterling, abbreviated GBP/£.
We haven't proven that red meat has a negative health effect yet. We do know it has an environmental effect, however.
It seems excessive
In real life that may be not very likely. Human diet is a controversial topic but still humans are usually omnivores, as well as the closest other species, chimpanzee. Good taste of animal products is then innate.
I grew up vegetarian, tasted small bits after much pestering, but never had a meal. I can tell you their is nothing innate about it's appeal. I never felt the need to 'have a burger' or whatever, not even sure I could without getting sick, (not used to digesting it).
Yeah I know anecdoetes are not representative but from my perspective I see it as being an entrenched cultural norm, not innate.
Well in my anecdotal experience I do have tasting and cravings for animal products, including burgers too. While my diet is mostly plants, dairy products and some eggs and meat of various kinds are very easy to eat and they taste good. And more so now than when I was a kid. I'm aware of the recent WHO warnings but even don't need to adjust because specifically red meat is such a low percentage of my diet.
It's unlikely that consuming animal products is cultural. It's innate and natural, not cultural in chimps to collect insects, eggs, and hunt small monkeys for a few percent of their diet. So did humans millions of years ago, it's just we invented better ways of obtaining and cooking both plants and animals, while keeping plants prevalent in diet.
No. If it's harmful to someone's health, then let the individual opt out of consuming that product. If it's harmful to the environment, then don't purchase it yourself if that is a priority to you. Don't increase the cost of food for everyone else. The wealthy can deal with higher prices, and may be very happy to purchase some perceived environmental improvement for a few bucks more at the grocery store. Not everyone has this luxury and it should not be forced upon them.
the environment doesn't only affect you, although it certainly will if you are under 60.
it's a global issue that requires government legislation, and red meat is a significant cause of emissions.
take a look at this map of land usage.
on top of that, "Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution."
Great links. It certainly doesn't affect just me, and sharing information like this is a good way to spread awareness of the issue at which point people who find it concerning can modify their behaviors.
It seems like you value the freedom to do things far more than freedom from harm. This is a pretty widespread American opinion, I think; for example, where I live, there are lots of people who value the freedom to shoot their guns indiscriminately more than my freedom to walk in the woods without the fear of being shot. Admittedly, I've never been shot, and don't know of anyone in the area who has shot someone due to recklessness, so maybe this isn't the best example, but I think it exemplifies the difference between these kinds of freedoms.
Could you speak to why you value one more than the other? I've always seen the ideal of freedom as, "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other person’s nose begins," and to me, the freedom to damage the environment is the same as swinging one's arms wildly with little concern for whose noses they strike. I see the government (when it works well, anyway) as the body enforcing this and protecting people from others going too far with their freedoms. Taxes are used to fund the government and as a tool (increased taxes on red meat = less production of red meat).
I want a government that prevents people from polluting anything that is or could be used by the public. Groundwater, air, soil, etc. I feel that we all have the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, whether or not you feel that you have the right to pollute it. Is this where we disagree? Do you value the freedom to pollute more than the freedom from that pollution? Do you disagree that we have these rights to clean air and water? Do you think that private property ownership rules all, even if what you do on that private property spills out elsewhere?
I agree with you that people should be allowed to eat what they want, whether or not it is harmful to them, as that is a pretty essential freedom. It's true that it does affect others (increased health care burden, the suffering of loved ones, etc.), but it seems pretty fascist to put restrictions on someone's diet. As for the environmental impact, though, if the over-farming of cattle is ultimately damaging the planet and making it worse for others, how is this different than directly polluting groundwater, and why shouldn't governments work to protect us from it?
I'm genuinely curious, as I think this is a pretty common mindset in the U.S. I hope my questions to you seem fair; I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Sorry for being more wordy than I probably need to be; that's just how I am, I guess.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Government should stop aggression, in this case pollution. History has shown that Government has failed to protect against this, even for public resources I don't see why forcing citizens to give them more money would suddenly fix the problem.
It's not just a matter of ignorance, pollutants like factory smoke have been known to be harmful since the Industrial Revolution but the government did not stop that for many decades because the benefits of industry were seen to outweigh any negatives. American courts deliberately allowed pollution by industrial smoke for a very long time, and we have more recent foreign events like Lake Baikal. I think entrusting this to government is silly given a look at history and even some current events. This is a question of property rights, and if what you do on your private property spills out elsewhere, then you are violating someone else's property rights.
I think government ownership of a lot of these natural resources is what has allowed them to be polluted for so long. Since these resources are overseen by the government but are essentially unowned economically, there has been little incentive for the government to care whether they were polluted or not. Alternatively, if I owned a lake and extracted value from it by say, selling bottled water, and a nearby cattle farm was causing severe pollution to my lake, they would be promptly sued for violating my property rights. Government has no economic incentive to keep the lake clean.
So really, my issue is with forcefully extracting money from citizens to give it to the government, who has had a pretty bad track record with caring for the environment. There's still the benefit of reduction in consumption due to increased cost, but I think that can be accomplished in other ways that don't involve force.
Fair enough, and sorry for missing the mark by so much in trying to pinpoint our disagreements. I assume most people agree with you (I certainly do) that the government is dysfunctional and imperfect. I guess where we disagree, though, is that I think government is our only hope; in my experience, corporations do whatever they can possibly get away with if it will make them even a penny more. Governments, on the other hand, can help limit corporations, and sometimes do. But, yeah, they're in bed with the biggest companies, and I have no idea how to fix that problem. Just have to do my part to vote better and help other people do the same.
We can fix the problem by raising awareness and making people care about these issues. Voting for candidates who support your views on the environment is certainly a good start.
With regards to companies, if a company is harming the environment, we can avoid giving our money to those companies. Like you said, companies ultimately want to make any penny they can - this is pretty much the reason they exist. If they're losing business because of their actions towards the environment, they will stop. If the government is harming the environment, how can you possibly stop giving them money? They will just collect income tax and sales tax on anything else you purchase. There's little incentive for them to care unless it becomes such a large problem that it can swing a lot of votes.
The environment has an effect on children, and fucking over people who can't vote because you're too selfish to cut down on the cow-killing fits the definition of evil pretty well.
If i could voluntarily pay some extra money for my red meat to help the environment, or donate to some form of charity, i might very well do that. I have given my time to beach cleanups, tree planting, and other such events as a volunteer before. I don't think eating some meat is more evil or selfish than using force to make literally everyone else pay for your ideology.
World Health Organization Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat: