A tax on red meat?...

[TaylotS2K]

Another potential tax for those of us who varied and balanced diet and can control our intake of sugar, alcohol and red meat etc etc.

[mcdjl]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

One point about things 'causing cancer' is that the biggest single cause of cancer is living longer.

Indeed. it won't save 6000 lives, it will prolong 6000 lives. That will mean that the costs to pensions are more, to the NHS for other drugs are more, bus passes etc. By dying early (or as soon after retirement as possible) people save the country money.

[Hosenbugler]

TaylotS2K said:

Another potential tax for those of us who varied and balanced diet and can control our intake of sugar, alcohol and red meat etc etc.

Spot on, The simple fact is, a balanced diet has as much chance of giving you cancer as the current chance of being buggared by Jimmy Saville. At the end of the day people can eat what they want, why the heck some people want to bully people for eating meat is beyond me. Having said that , the only vegans I have met were self obsessed, bordering on the neurotic, so, perhaps it goes with the territory.

[LDN]

mcdjl said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

One point about things 'causing cancer' is that the biggest single cause of cancer is living longer.

Indeed. it won't save 6000 lives, it will prolong 6000 lives. That will mean that the costs to pensions are more, to the NHS for other drugs are more, bus passes etc. By dying early (or as soon after retirement as possible) people save the country money.

So, we should all eat meat, smoke and never exercise... "your country needs you"

[mcdjl]

LDN said:

So, we should all eat meat, smoke and never exercise... "your country needs you"

If you're breaking it down as cost to the government yes. Pay tax as long as you can, recieve as little as possible back from them. exercise enough to not visit the doctor ever.
The problem is (to go back to the nazis): first they came for the jews...etc then they came for me and there was no one left....

We've cracked down on smoking, we're cracking down on drinking, driving, got to start the next taxable crack down now, for our own good. Eventually, breathing its full of dust that air, its bad for you, we need to tax you for it....

[garagewidow]

LDN said:

So, we should all eat meat, smoke and never exercise... "your country needs you"

I would think this contributes to people developing cancer many fold more than eating red meat.
The thing with 'increased risks' is there are other factors which may also increase that risk.

I just don't know what to eat now after reading this thread,......but I don't think I've ever seen a fat cheetah.

[LDN]

mcdjl said:

LDN said:

So, we should all eat meat, smoke and never exercise... "your country needs you"

If you're breaking it down as cost to the government yes. Pay tax as long as you can, recieve as little as possible back from them. exercise enough to not visit the doctor ever.
The problem is (to go back to the nazis): first they came for the jews...etc then they came for me and there was no one left....

We've cracked down on smoking, we're cracking down on drinking, driving, got to start the next taxable crack down now, for our own good. Eventually, breathing its full of dust that air, its bad for you, we need to tax you for it....

Hey; you can do your bit for your country, and live unhealthily; die young. Go for it. I think that's a strange way of thinking and I won't be following that particular line; personally.

Tax specifically; yes... I'm not sure that a tax is right in this instance.

[LDN]

garagewidow said:

LDN said:

So, we should all eat meat, smoke and never exercise... "your country needs you"

I would think this contributes to people developing cancer many fold more than eating red meat.
The thing with 'increased risks' is there are other factors which may also increase that risk.

I just don't know what to eat now after reading this thread,......but I don't think I've ever seen a fat cheetah.

But you've seen a muscle bound rhino, surely?

[grumbledoak]

CzechItOut said:

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.

It's not as simple as calories and protein. Glucose calories are directly causing our obesity and diabetes epidemics. The proteins from vegetables are not very human compatible. The fats are vastly inferior to saturated animal fats in the roles our bodies use them for.

And there is nothing sustainable about arable crops grown on chemical fertilisers. And that's before we consider water use, soil destruction, and the devastation of nearly all animal life in the vicinity.

[LDN]

grumbledoak said:

CzechItOut said:

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.

It's not as simple as calories and protein. Glucose calories are directly causing our obesity and diabetes epidemics. The proteins from vegetables are not very human compatible. The fats are vastly inferior to saturated animal fats in the roles our bodies use them for.

And there is nothing sustainable about arable crops grown on chemical fertilisers. And that's before we consider water use, soil destruction, and the devastation of nearly all animal life in the vicinity.

Water use? Please be clear... are you pro animal agriculture or against it, in its current form?

[Oakey]

LDN said:

But you've seen a muscle bound rhino, surely?

Rhinos spend all their day eating food though. Meanwhile, the lion's just chilling on the Savannah

[mcdjl]

LDN said:

Hey; you can do your bit for your country, and live unhealthily; die young. Go for it. I think that's a strange way of thinking and I won't be following that particular line; personally.

Tax specifically; yes... I'm not sure that a tax is right in this instance.

Yup, I'll continue to eat red meat, drink, drive and ride pedal bikes occasionally causing me to go to hospital. Thats much more fun than looking at the economics of the actions and balancing up tiny risk increases from each of them.

[LDN]

Oakey said:

LDN said:

But you've seen a muscle bound rhino, surely?

Rhinos spend all their day eating food though. Meanwhile, the lion's just chilling on the Savannah

In an MTV celebrity death match though; a rhino would beat a lion.

[LDN]

mcdjl said:

I'll continue to eat red meat, drink, drive...

Not in that order I hope!

[Rovinghawk]

garagewidow said:

I don't think I've ever seen a fat cheetah.

I've seen a few fat cougars.

[Dindoit]

LDN said:

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.

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.

You are informed and on the money.

Indeed. The amount of heads being buried in the sand here is funny.

Our appetite for meat, beef particularly, has a hugely devastating effort on the environment and our individual health. The carbon footprint is vast and there are undeniable links to cancer and heart disease.

I’m far from a treehugger. I love meat and will never give it up but that’s my choice and I do so in moderation. At least I’m doing so from an informed position rather than telling people who’ve bothered to educate themselves that they’re wrong.

[LDN]

Dindoit said:

LDN said:

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.

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.

You are informed and on the money.

Indeed. The amount of heads being buried in the sand here is funny.

Our appetite for meat, beef particularly, has a hugely devastating effort on the environment and our individual health. The carbon footprint is vast and there are undeniable links to cancer and heart disease.

I’m far from a treehugger. I love meat and will never give it up but that’s my choice and I do so in moderation. At least I’m doing so from an informed position rather than telling people who’ve bothered to educate themselves that they’re wrong.

I like the cut of your jib.

[Dindoit]

It’s a tender cut. Best medium rare.

[grumbledoak]

Dindoit said:

Our appetite for meat, beef particularly, has a hugely devastating effort on the environment and our individual health. The carbon footprint is vast and there are undeniable links to cancer and heart disease.

The "carbon" footprint of pastureland is negative.

Red meat's links to cancer are dubious and likely pushed by activism and industry pressure (i.e. money). Even the WHO only say "probable". I am sure they would love to recieve your proof.

I have no idea why you would think red meat is linked to heart disease. Do you mean via saturated fat? Debunked repeatedly.

[LDN]

grumbledoak said:

Dindoit said:

Our appetite for meat, beef particularly, has a hugely devastating effort on the environment and our individual health. The carbon footprint is vast and there are undeniable links to cancer and heart disease.

The "carbon" footprint of pastureland is negative.

Red meat's links to cancer are dubious and likely pushed by activism and industry pressure (i.e. money). Even the WHO only say "probable". I am sure they would love to recieve your proof.

I have no idea why you would think red meat is linked to heart disease. Do you mean via saturated fat? Debunked repeatedly.

Please provide evidence for each of your points. Off the cuff; you’re using words such as ‘dubious’ and ‘likely’. Not very convincing. Not nearly as much as the mountain of evidence that disagrees with you.