A tax on red meat?...
Discussion
Oakey said:
DDg said:
"The product – which will cost £5.50 for a pack of two"Only a minimum of £11 to feed a family of four then
That should solve the obesity problem at a stroke and probably give you one too!
toppstuff said:
Thanks for your service to the human race, citizen. I'm sure your kids are proud and their kids too. At least they know they don't have to build a memorial or bother turning up at your funeral, as you don't care if they survive or not.
it was a short post and to the point. yet you still couldn't read it properly. go back and read it again, realise how stupid your reply was, then come back and alter it to make some sense. alternatively don't bother and leave me with the impression you are suffering brain problems due to malnutrition 
Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 14th November 10:53
ATG said:
If bowel cancer and heart disease make you happy, then fill your boots.
Your fear quotient comment has some merit. Some people shout "the environment" for exactly the same reasons that others shout "immigration". And food faddism is of course rife. But that doesn't mean that there isn't also good quality science in the public domain.
It's worth going back to where this thread started. Some researchers estimated the health impact of eating processed meat. That's an entirely reasonable endeavour. And it's equally reasonable to say that the UK population would on average live longer, healthier lives if they reduced their consumption of processed meat. Those are scientific assertions and can be challenged by pointing out flaws in their analysis or by presenting new and contradictory data. Saying "faddism" or "conspiracy" doesn't really cut it.
The leap from the science to the conclusion "therefore tax it" is huge and takes out of the scientific domain and squarely into politics. I think it is rather unhelpful when the latter becomes the main headline. It encourages people who might reasonably object to the political recommendation to also irrationally reject the underlying science as if they are a single package that must either be entirely accepted or entirely rejected.
we all have to die of something. i have no doubt should i dig hard enough , or pay enough money to a group of scientists i can come up with a paper saying some aspects of any diet can contribute to bowel cancer and heart disease. without a doubt many aspects of modern life are not good for us,but the simple fact is the vast majority of the worlds population have a healthy lifestyle fairly low on their list of priorities. it is a product of developed society where people lead easy lives and actually have the time and resources to not only worry about it, but do something about it.Your fear quotient comment has some merit. Some people shout "the environment" for exactly the same reasons that others shout "immigration". And food faddism is of course rife. But that doesn't mean that there isn't also good quality science in the public domain.
It's worth going back to where this thread started. Some researchers estimated the health impact of eating processed meat. That's an entirely reasonable endeavour. And it's equally reasonable to say that the UK population would on average live longer, healthier lives if they reduced their consumption of processed meat. Those are scientific assertions and can be challenged by pointing out flaws in their analysis or by presenting new and contradictory data. Saying "faddism" or "conspiracy" doesn't really cut it.
The leap from the science to the conclusion "therefore tax it" is huge and takes out of the scientific domain and squarely into politics. I think it is rather unhelpful when the latter becomes the main headline. It encourages people who might reasonably object to the political recommendation to also irrationally reject the underlying science as if they are a single package that must either be entirely accepted or entirely rejected.
good on those that can, but the reality is most aren't in the position to do so.
LDN said:
Who’s paying for what results? The meat industry has used their money and power for years to pay for studies.
Your level of debate is poor. You can’t debate the points and you avoid actual facts, preferring to resort to snipes. It puts you on very shaky ground.
This applies to all studies not just those funded by meat producers. The Health and Fitness industry is huge and based on some pretty flaky science in places. The environmental industry is even bigger and the quality of studies there is frankly appalling (there is a huge issue in many sciences with result reproduction and the financial push to publish) .Your level of debate is poor. You can’t debate the points and you avoid actual facts, preferring to resort to snipes. It puts you on very shaky ground.
Cui bono applies and in many strange ways (money isn't always the motivation) .
Jinx said:
LDN said:
Who’s paying for what results? The meat industry has used their money and power for years to pay for studies.
Your level of debate is poor. You can’t debate the points and you avoid actual facts, preferring to resort to snipes. It puts you on very shaky ground.
This applies to all studies not just those funded by meat producers. The Health and Fitness industry is huge and based on some pretty flaky science in places. The environmental industry is even bigger and the quality of studies there is frankly appalling (there is a huge issue in many sciences with result reproduction and the financial push to publish) .Your level of debate is poor. You can’t debate the points and you avoid actual facts, preferring to resort to snipes. It puts you on very shaky ground.
Cui bono applies and in many strange ways (money isn't always the motivation) .
He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
LDN said:
Yes. So look toward independent review and study. That’s the point.
He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
And you can tell if it is an independent review and study (there is rarely such a thing these days)?He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
Jinx said:
LDN said:
Yes. So look toward independent review and study. That’s the point.
He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
And you can tell if it is an independent review and study (there is rarely such a thing these days)?He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
That film is getting a bit of a kicking itself from fact checkers.
https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review...
https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review...
otolith said:
That film is getting a bit of a kicking itself from fact checkers.
https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review...
Oh, the film has kicked off massive massive debate from all corners; including vegan org's feeling undermined, ironically, in as much as; there's enough evidence on the pro's of a vegan diet / enough ethical problems to discuss - that the film leaves certain aspects open to criticism by being particularly bias, in their approach. One debate on the film and content was on prime time national TV in America. However, the film's purpose worked in as much as; it sparked debate; and much of the film is true - as well; much of their research into sponsors / donors and the like, is good. One of the films shortfalls, is that it paints a picture that being vegan is the magic bullet to everlasting health, but one can be an unhealthy vegan; that's for sure. There is a segment on people living near feed lots and the effect on the local land / environmental impact; it's a good segment. What the film presents is true; but presented in a way that paints a very specific picture.https://www.vegan.com/posts/vegan-dietitian-review...
I look forward to an investigative documentary on how the oil companies, the agrochemical companies, Monsanto, the sugar, cereal, and seed oil lobbies, and the pharmaceuticals are all funding only objective research into human health, animal welfare, and the environment.
No doubt presented by diCaprio.
No doubt presented by diCaprio.
otolith said:
I haven't watched the film, but from the sound of it it's more propaganda than objective analysis.
Which is where many in the vegan world feel that the film missed a trick. It can be accused of that, and it’s shame as there’s some very good and insightful stuff in there. A lot that is undisputed; for instance, the feed lots and related environmental impacts. LDN said:
Yes. So look toward independent review and study. That’s the point.
He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
someone else that apparently can't read yet you claim my debate is poor. both sides of this "debate" are at it. sorting the wheat from the chaff is the issue.He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
wc98 said:
LDN said:
Yes. So look toward independent review and study. That’s the point.
He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
...sorting the wheat from the chaff is the issue.He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
LDN said:
wc98 said:
LDN said:
Yes. So look toward independent review and study. That’s the point.
He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
...sorting the wheat from the chaff is the issue.He’s asserting that only one side of the movement is swaying results, which is laughable given the fact that the meat and dairy industry is a trillion dollar industry and known for doing just that.
Can’t have your cake and eat it. Pun intended.
Here they go again - wonder what kind of reaction Lucas will get from the farmers?
"Parliament must “seriously consider” levying a tax on meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help to render the farming industry carbon neutral, the Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, is urging.
She will say on Friday that a meat tax in the UK could be offset for more sustainable meat producers, such as organic livestock farmers, through more money for sustainable agriculture schemes.
Lucas will tell the Oxford Farming Conference, an annual gathering of farmers from across the UK, that the country must prioritise “more humane and human-scale methods of livestock farming, together with support for farmers to transition to less livestock”."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/0...
"Parliament must “seriously consider” levying a tax on meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help to render the farming industry carbon neutral, the Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, is urging.
She will say on Friday that a meat tax in the UK could be offset for more sustainable meat producers, such as organic livestock farmers, through more money for sustainable agriculture schemes.
Lucas will tell the Oxford Farming Conference, an annual gathering of farmers from across the UK, that the country must prioritise “more humane and human-scale methods of livestock farming, together with support for farmers to transition to less livestock”."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/0...
Of course all the sustainable organic stuff is very good- assuming it’s affordable for normal people. If you are already strapped for finances then you get cabbage.
It used to be that fatness was a song of wealth rather than the opposite.
The world go fast food and convenient food was not some kind of conspiracy. Market forces, two earner families and so on causes this.
Seems Orwellian to me to have the state define the future. I can understand tobacco for example because of second hand smoke. Fair enough.
Let’s ban alcohol too. Of course cars are doomed. Rebrand PH as HealthStateHeads.
It used to be that fatness was a song of wealth rather than the opposite.
The world go fast food and convenient food was not some kind of conspiracy. Market forces, two earner families and so on causes this.
Seems Orwellian to me to have the state define the future. I can understand tobacco for example because of second hand smoke. Fair enough.
Let’s ban alcohol too. Of course cars are doomed. Rebrand PH as HealthStateHeads.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff