A tax on red meat?...

[WelshChris]

... Nanny state / climate change alert.

This seems ludicrous to me - Surely it can never happen? - Can’t see a vast number of people prepared to accept a tax on bacon sandwiches

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46122227

[crankedup]

Pasty tax Mk 2.

[marksx]

Bacon is a super food and should be exempt.

[ReaperCushions]

WelshChris said:

... - Surely it can never happen? -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46122227

Sugar tax went through didn't it? Exactly the same reasoning behind it (Health concerns).

I can easily see it going through, good excuse to add some more tax onto something else.

[chunder27]

The thing is sugar in the places it is massive, sweets, energy drinks, etc is not necessary.

Red meat is a perfectly good part of any diet, so why on earth should it be taxed?

It like taxing anything we eat that has potential to make us fat, milk, wheat, any kind of thing that is sweet.

Ludicrous fake news and clickbait.

[WelshChris]

It’s the typical BBC climate change angle that makes me grimace. So predictable.

[anonymous-user]

Ffs, first sugary drinks and now this!!

Why can't you just tax the fat people if obesity is such a problem...

Monthly weigh in's and people in the trouble zone pay more income tax than those of us who can stop eating and exercise.. Ffs

[red_slr]

IIRC they do exactly that in Japan.

[garagewidow]

CP12 said:

Ffs, first sugary drinks and now this!!

Why can't you just tax the fat people if obesity is such a problem...

Monthly weigh in's and people in the trouble zone pay more income tax than those of us who can stop eating and exercise.. Ffs

They'll probably need some sort of incentive,..

how about subsidising trainers and shell suits,....

[anonymous-user]

garagewidow said:

CP12 said:

Ffs, first sugary drinks and now this!!

Why can't you just tax the fat people if obesity is such a problem...

Monthly weigh in's and people in the trouble zone pay more income tax than those of us who can stop eating and exercise.. Ffs

They'll probably need some sort of incentive,..

how about subsidising trainers and shell suits,....

Not all fat people are chavs.

Just seems a shame that I should be taxed on a burger and a can of coke when I am in perfect shape...

[Gecko1978]

Far as I can tell the Sugar tax applies to just Sofdt drinks with many places just raising the price of both drinks to align the cost. Cake's, Chocolate, Biscuits, Coffees with syrup etc all exempt so I doubt it has much of an impact.

I think the red meat is because catle produce green house gas on mass (someone will need to fact check) and also breeding catel uses lots of energy.

Health wise lets have more carrot less stick so how about No VAT on gym membership, Sugar Tex on all sugar items but this is used to cut the cost of healthy items. So if your in the camp of I only eat in moderation then cost rise is offset by reduction in other costs and if your a fatty an happy then cost of your health issues is covered by fat tax etc

[psi310398]

We're being governed by people who want to turn us into a type of Switzerland where everything that isn't compulsory is banned.

There will come a point when any sane person will just need to ps off permanently to somewhere sensible like Australia or New Zealand and leave the tree huggers and health nazis to their own devices.

Better still, deport them to South Georgia or somewhere else nice and natural and let us live in peace.

[grumbledoak]

Gecko1978 said:

I think the red meat is because catle produce green house gas on mass (someone will need to fact check) and also breeding catel uses lots of energy.

This isn't true, but it is being repeated a lot recently. Cattle on pastureland have quite a small environmental footprint. Sure, some gas output, but nothing compared to industry and transport. And the manure literally grows the topsoil, a natural "carbon sink". It also uses far less water than growing crops. And no pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides, etc.

There are big profits in the arable crops though, especially for the chemicals companies. And it is these huge industries that are pushing the health and environmental misinformation.

Edit: woeful grammer

Edited by grumbledoak on Wednesday 7th November 21:09

[CoolHands]

Don’t bring logic into the equation. Like everything else these days, that has nothing to do with it.

[LDN]

grumbledoak said:

Gecko1978 said:

I think the red meat is because catle produce green house gas on mass (someone will need to fact check) and also breeding catel uses lots of energy.

This isn't true, but it is being repeated a lot recently. Cattle on pastureland produce have quite a small environmental footprint. Sure, some gas output, but nothing compared to industry and transport. And the manure literally grows the topsoil, a natural "carbon sink". It also uses far less water than growing crops. And no pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides, etc.

There are big profits in the seed crops though, especially for the chemicals companies. And it is these huge industries that are pushing the health and environmental misinformation.

Wrong. The environmental impact from animal agriculture is massive; the world cannot sustain ‘organic’ / ‘grass fed’ / etc meat; that’s why intensive farming exists. Something does need to be done; but a tax on meat probably isn’t the answer... education on the health issues related to meat should be expanded upon; people tend to not care about much, other than themselves; and so the focus should be on their own health; the benefits of eating less / or no meat.. rather than environmental issues / or moral arguments. Focus on the health of the individuals; the consensus is now so strong across the board; meat is bad and the myths of it being needed for protein etc are all but dead in the water. And so, it is with confidence that the government should push a healthier agenda and people will naturally sway towards a healthier diet; which in turn benefits the environment.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

I think too much sugar is pretty much universally seen as bad news. I didn't and still don't support the tax on it but it makes some sense in the way taxing tobacco makes sense.

A friend of mine lost a load of weight by eating almost nothing but red meat, and a few years on he is fitter and healthier now than he was 20 odd years ago at university.

I haven't gone completely that way but I've never likes sweets and biscuits anyway, I've cut out rice, pasta, potatoes etc and just about done away with bread. Feel tons better for it. Lost weight, have more energy, don't have the post lunch lull anymore. Especially after a few days of nothing biut beef, or a day of fasting. My friend's theory, which seems to make sense, is that this as closely as possible mirrors the sort of diet our pre-agricultural ancestors would have had.

I have also noticed some people (it's often women, but not always) are truly addicted to carbs and can get very grumpy if they don't get their fix. They then go very docile and passive when they do.

To each their own and all that, but as far as I'm concerned red meat is human food and taxing (o try and encourage us to eat what exactly?) is not on.

[Gareth79]

Gecko1978 said:

Far as I can tell the Sugar tax applies to just Sofdt drinks with many places just raising the price of both drinks to align the cost.

From looking at shelf labels (Sainsburys marks when the tax is applied) many of the brands dropped their sugar levels to not be liable, and added sweeteners to replace the sugar. Coca Cola has pushed some new Zero flavours pretty heavily to fill the shelf gap where stores are stocking less full-sugar product.

I have seen any reports but I *think* it will actually have caused a major reduction in sugar consumption from carbonated drinks at least.

[grumbledoak]

LDN said:

Wrong. The environmental impact from animal agriculture is massive; the world cannot sustain ‘organic’ / ‘grass fed’ / etc meat; that’s why intensive farming exists. Something does need to be done; but a tax on meat probably isn’t the answer... education on the health issues related to meat should be expanded upon; people tend to not care about much, other than themselves; and so the focus should be on their own health; the benefits of eating less / or no meat.. rather than environmental issues / or moral arguments. Focus on the health of the individuals; the consensus is now so strong across the board; meat is bad and the myths of it being needed for protein etc are all but dead in the water. And so, it is with confidence that the government should push a healthier agenda and people will naturally sway towards a healthier diet; which in turn benefits the environment.

You are talking complete rubbish. On both counts. The "diseases of civilisation" have followed wheat and sugar around the world, and the last sixty years of government "health advice" has pushed people away from healthy animal products into an obesity, diabetes, and cancer epidemic. And all for profit. Pure evil.

And your suggestion is "more of the same".

[powerstroke]

These s want us to be a dull and dreary as them , live a few years longer in misery and cost the health service a fortune
looking after people with dementure who have lived beyond their natural life , pity we couldn't find something useful for all these "clever people " to do instead ...

[LDN]

grumbledoak said:

You are talking complete rubbish. On both counts. The "diseases of civilisation" have followed wheat and sugar around the world, and the last sixty years of government "health advice" has pushed people away from healthy animal products into an obesity, diabetes, and cancer epidemic. And all for profit. Pure evil.

And your suggestion is "more of the same".

So meat is not linked to cancer, heart disease and lower life expectancy? I can’t tell if you’re being serious or simply naive.

Either way