A tax on red meat?...
Discussion
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
CzechItOut said:
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
I think it best to educate the public on the real risks and effects of meat consumption and production; this alone will slowly turn the tide. Indeed, that is what appears to be happening.
LDN said:
CzechItOut said:
I guess the question is whether the price of an item should be based on just the cost of production or more accurate reflect the true cost of the environmental and health impacts.
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
Personally, rather than tax I would like to see animal welfare legislation increase to the point that meat costs twice as much to produce and therefore the price in the shops rises accordingly.
I think it best to educate the public on the real risks and effects of meat consumption and production; this alone will slowly turn the tide. Indeed, that is what appears to be happening.
CzechItOut said:
LDN said:
Agree with all of that; except that, a price increase will be seen to affect the poorest of society. There will be those that say; only the rich can now afford meat.
Why is that a problem? Almost everything is too cheap if you accurate reflect the environmental costs.But you’re right. If the actual cost were reflected, meat would / should be a lot more expensive.
During the summer, I surprised everyone at a family gathering (to be fair, it was a barbecue) that I thought that in 100 or 150 years time people would be looking back at us and thinking how barbaric we were to be killing animals for food.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
Roofless Toothless said:
During the summer, I surprised everyone at a family gathering (to be fair, it was a barbecue) that I thought that in 100 or 150 years time people would be looking back at us and thinking how barbaric we were to be killing animals for food.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
Bingo. Morality evolves. My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
It's the fringe of society; those that sees the world differently that spark movements. The movements that hold little weight tend to evaporate, but some stick. Womens rights; the abolition of slavery; etc etc. We accept that those things were wrong and welcome the changes; it's obvious now. It wasn't always so obvious. In fact; I'd hazard a a guess that a lot of PH would have supported the norm' back then; as mad or as scary as that sounds.
I personally know people who have been on a range of drugs for umpteen years; and the doctors never even mentioned diet. They tried cutting down; in some cases; stopping meat consumption altogether; and their ailments disappeared. What's worrying is that their doctors were astonished.
CzechItOut said:
I
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
This is a ridiculous set of attributions. Cattle should be eating grass - grains are as bad for them as they are for us, acidifying their rumen and giving them fatty livers.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
And you make no mention if the environmental costs of monoculture arable crop farming. We are turning our top soil into dust, growing low nutrition glucose-based "foods" in a cocktail of chemicals and pesticides.
Scientists and dieticians are paid to give a "health halo" to addictive junk that causes obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and many more. And all to maximize profit.
Future generations will look back on sugar and wheat as we now do tobacco, for the same reasons.
LDN said:
grumbledoak said:
LDN said:
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.
For cancer I would be looking at sugar and seed oils. Heart disease also those plus smoking, though in fact heart attacks peaked long ago.The world's highest life expectancy is Hong Kong, where they eat the most meat per capita. The fatty stuff, too.
I can't tell if you are being serious or simply marketing for the junk food industry.
The World Health Organisation officially considers meat carcinogenic. Are they also marketing!? - or maybe; like most people, you’d rather forage for tidbits that support an existing belief. It’s quite normal.
If you are, then that's f
king hilarious! 
You perhaps should read the actual W.H.O. reports which are littered with 'probables' and 'possibles', and not stupid Grauniad headlines like 'Processed Meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes - W.H.O.'
To give a sensible understandable comparison, smoking tobacco and eating processed meat are, indeed, both listed by the W.H.O. as Group 1 carcinogens, but they do not give you the same risk of getting cancer.
Not even f. close!
It is about 'risk'. You are more likely to be hit by alien spacecraft than to get cancer from eating red meat.
dandarez said:
Tell me, as a (real, not processed crap) long time red meat eater, are you saying eating red meat is as potent at causing cancer as for example, asbestos?
If you are, then that's fking hilarious!
You perhaps should read the actual W.H.O. reports which are littered with 'probables' and 'possibles', and not stupid Grauniad headlines like 'Processed Meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes - W.H.O.'
To give a sensible understandable comparison, smoking tobacco and eating processed meat are, indeed, both listed by the W.H.O. as Group 1 carcinogens, but they do not give you the same risk of getting cancer.
Not even f. close!
It is about 'risk'. You are more likely to be hit by alien spacecraft than to get cancer from eating red meat.
Not sure where asbestos comes into it... I think that meat has gone to your head! If you are, then that's f
king hilarious! You perhaps should read the actual W.H.O. reports which are littered with 'probables' and 'possibles', and not stupid Grauniad headlines like 'Processed Meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes - W.H.O.'
To give a sensible understandable comparison, smoking tobacco and eating processed meat are, indeed, both listed by the W.H.O. as Group 1 carcinogens, but they do not give you the same risk of getting cancer.
Not even f. close!
It is about 'risk'. You are more likely to be hit by alien spacecraft than to get cancer from eating red meat.
You’re right about risk. But wrong that you’ve more chance of being hit by alien aircraft. Unless your name is Han Solo
grumbledoak said:
CzechItOut said:
I
As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
This is a ridiculous set of attributions. Cattle should be eating grass - grains are as bad for them as they are for us, acidifying their rumen and giving them fatty livers.As previously stated, the environmental impact of meat, particularly beef is catastrophic, from deforestation to grow soy and over-fishing (both to make cattle feed), through to water pollution, and greehouse gas emission (methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide).
And you make no mention if the environmental costs of monoculture arable crop farming. We are turning our top soil into dust, growing low nutrition glucose-based "foods" in a cocktail of chemicals and pesticides.
Scientists and dieticians are paid to give a "health halo" to addictive junk that causes obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and many more. And all to maximize profit.
Future generations will look back on sugar and wheat as we now do tobacco, for the same reasons.
CoolHands said:
Anyone who thinks red meat is a similar risk to smoking etc for causing cancer is clearly dumb and need protecting from themselves
Nobody here has said that. So that debate is a road to nowhere and a diversion from the actual facts; which is probably the reason for it continuing.Meat, across the board, is linked to cancer and heart disease. Is it worse or equal to smoking? It doesn’t have to be.
LDN said:
Roofless Toothless said:
During the summer, I surprised everyone at a family gathering (to be fair, it was a barbecue) that I thought that in 100 or 150 years time people would be looking back at us and thinking how barbaric we were to be killing animals for food.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
Bingo. Morality evolves. My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
It's the fringe of society; those that sees the world differently that spark movements. The movements that hold little weight tend to evaporate, but some stick. Womens rights; the abolition of slavery; etc etc. We accept that those things were wrong and welcome the changes; it's obvious now. It wasn't always so obvious. In fact; I'd hazard a a guess that a lot of PH would have supported the norm' back then; as mad or as scary as that sounds.
I personally know people who have been on a range of drugs for umpteen years; and the doctors never even mentioned diet. They tried cutting down; in some cases; stopping meat consumption altogether; and their ailments disappeared. What's worrying is that their doctors were astonished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YZAwRYpCbA
Saleen836 said:
LDN said:
Roofless Toothless said:
During the summer, I surprised everyone at a family gathering (to be fair, it was a barbecue) that I thought that in 100 or 150 years time people would be looking back at us and thinking how barbaric we were to be killing animals for food.
My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
Bingo. Morality evolves. My wife is a vegetarian, I am not, although as I get older I have trouble digesting red meat or rich sauces and much prefer chicken or fish. I could envisage becoming vegetarian, but never vegan, as I love dairy and eggs too much.
Times change. I have been reading an excellent history of the town of Chelmsford, where I live, and in the late Middle Ages there was a recorded case of a local butcher being fined for taking a bullock straight to his shop for slaughter rather than via the town's bull ring. It was required by law for animals to be baited by dogs for entertainment prior to being killed. They all thought this was entirely reasonable, and was even upheld by the power of the court. You couldn't imagine that today, could you?
Probably what we do now will be thought of in future as equally horrific.
It's the fringe of society; those that sees the world differently that spark movements. The movements that hold little weight tend to evaporate, but some stick. Womens rights; the abolition of slavery; etc etc. We accept that those things were wrong and welcome the changes; it's obvious now. It wasn't always so obvious. In fact; I'd hazard a a guess that a lot of PH would have supported the norm' back then; as mad or as scary as that sounds.
I personally know people who have been on a range of drugs for umpteen years; and the doctors never even mentioned diet. They tried cutting down; in some cases; stopping meat consumption altogether; and their ailments disappeared. What's worrying is that their doctors were astonished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YZAwRYpCbA
I can't see that happening TBH. But human meat is supposed to taste like chicken; so, for most it won't be too much of a jump!
grumbledoak said:
This is a ridiculous set of attributions. Cattle should be eating grass - grains are as bad for them as they are for us, acidifying their rumen and giving them fatty livers.
And you make no mention if the environmental costs of monoculture arable crop farming. We are turning our top soil into dust, growing low nutrition glucose-based "foods" in a cocktail of chemicals and pesticides.
Scientists and dieticians are paid to give a "health halo" to addictive junk that causes obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and many more. And all to maximize profit.
Future generations will look back on sugar and wheat as we now do tobacco, for the same reasons.
Cattle should be eating grass, but they're not. The two reasons cattle are not eating grass is firstly the insatiable demand for beef and secondly the need to keep costs down.And you make no mention if the environmental costs of monoculture arable crop farming. We are turning our top soil into dust, growing low nutrition glucose-based "foods" in a cocktail of chemicals and pesticides.
Scientists and dieticians are paid to give a "health halo" to addictive junk that causes obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and many more. And all to maximize profit.
Future generations will look back on sugar and wheat as we now do tobacco, for the same reasons.
You are right that monoculture arable crop farming is a problem, but more than 80% of farmland is used for livestock but it produces just 18% of food calories and 37% of protein. If less farmland was used for livestock it would free up vast amounts of land for a more sustainable approach to arable crop farming.
And no one is giving a "health halo" to junk food. People are being advised to eat a more plant-based diet instead of meat, not eat more sugar and wheat.
CzechItOut said:
grumbledoak said:
This is a ridiculous set of attributions. Cattle should be eating grass - grains are as bad for them as they are for us, acidifying their rumen and giving them fatty livers.
And you make no mention if the environmental costs of monoculture arable crop farming. We are turning our top soil into dust, growing low nutrition glucose-based "foods" in a cocktail of chemicals and pesticides.
Scientists and dieticians are paid to give a "health halo" to addictive junk that causes obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and many more. And all to maximize profit.
Future generations will look back on sugar and wheat as we now do tobacco, for the same reasons.
Cattle should be eating grass, but they're not. The two reasons cattle are not eating grass is firstly the insatiable demand for beef and secondly the need to keep costs down.And you make no mention if the environmental costs of monoculture arable crop farming. We are turning our top soil into dust, growing low nutrition glucose-based "foods" in a cocktail of chemicals and pesticides.
Scientists and dieticians are paid to give a "health halo" to addictive junk that causes obesity, diabetes, alzheimers, and many more. And all to maximize profit.
Future generations will look back on sugar and wheat as we now do tobacco, for the same reasons.
You are right that monoculture arable crop farming is a problem, but more than 80% of farmland is used for livestock but it produces just 18% of food calories and 37% of protein. If less farmland was used for livestock it would free up vast amounts of land for a more sustainable approach to arable crop farming.
And no one is giving a "health halo" to junk food. People are being advised to eat a more plant-based diet instead of meat, not eat more sugar and wheat.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff