The reality is that obesity is the cause of all of these food related diseases. Playing politics with which foods get taxed and which do not doesn't strike me as a winning game and will likely evolve into a battleground of special interest groups attempting to get their competition taxed.
Yes.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environme...
We would probably be just as healthy, if not more so, with two or three meat-free days a week.
You have a rather naive definition of "fact" my friend.
If two of the top hospitals in the world for cardiac care say it I'm willing to bet it's fact.
[1]https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-hea...
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...
FACT does not mean that it is 100% true - you do not publish one piece of research and all of a sudden, it's FACT.
In science, nothing is ever 100%.
p.s not trying to advocate its bs aand we can eat all the meat we like, im a vegetarian.
Here's one example of terrible reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sa...
> Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO
> UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic
This headline is mixing up 2 things: the quality of the evidence (which is now as good as the evidence we have that smoking etc cause cancer) and the strength of the effect (smoking is very much more harmful than eating red meat).
It's frustrating that the news reporting was so bad, because it's caused people to reject the science: we know, with a high level of confidence, that processed red meat can cause cancer, although it probably doesn't cause very many cases of cancer.