Meat tax ‘inevitable’ to beat climate and health crises, says report

I think the cancer link is pretty solid but the base rates and relative risks don't paint that dire a picture.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/

You are right, this is junk science. In the US calories from meat are down, calories from plants are up. Red meat consumption is also down.

For some graphs showing that people ate more meat in the 1800s: https://twitter.com/simonsarris/status/927306530600431616

Tax or ban corn, not meat.

The recommended daily meat intake is much lower than the typical (American) diet. The pasta and bread aren't helping, but more meat calories in place of carbs won't suddenly make you lose weight.

The bit which your quote is furthermoring is about the ecological impact of livestock farming, which is the headline justification for a meat tax. The health benefits are another, lesser, reason.

The fact excessive carbs consumption is bad doesn't invalidate the fact that excessive meat consumption is bad.

Campbell's report is not perfect, but it is serious work, and hints that meat consumption and cancer are linked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study). What's more, processed meat is classified as Category 1 carcinogenic to humans by WHO (http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/).

Additionally, animals concentrate any pesticides we put on plant we then feed them. We also give them a lot of additional products with side effects, such as antibiotics. The effect of the mix of all those on the human health is still unknown but raises interesting questions.

Since we also know that meat production has a huge toll on the environment, including soil pollution, green house gaz and water consumption, it's only fair to talk seriously about the issue. Especially now that we are closing on 8 billion souls, and India and China want our lifestyle too.

It's not a moral or religious debate.

It's just an important thing to consider, discuss about, monitor closely and review regularly with honesty, again and again. Like oil usage, walk street speculation or our voting system.

As a specie, we need to ask ourself those questions to evolve.

North Americans eat too much of everything. Nearly every diet "works" because by cutting out some branch of food you generally end up eating less. The science behind meat v. carbs is a total edge case. We are talking and +/- 10% chances of premature cancer, or heart disease, or whatever other old-person malady we are trying to prevent today. What matters more than any specific food is not being fat. Eat less. Exercise. Be thinner. That will do far more to prevent premature disease than any specific diet.

Rather than a meat tax, I'd rather see better government support for healthy lifestyles. Employers give sick leave. They should also give exercise leave to prevent disease in the first place. (Mine actually does this, 4 hours per week paid exercise time.) And tax deductions for gym/fitness center memberships is the lease that could be done.

Indeed. If you read the nutritional arguments for the paleo and ketogenic diets, it becomes clear that there is much to debate about the heath impacts of meat, farmed grains, sugars, and the general current diet advice.

It is clear that growing meat is more resource intensive than simply eating the grain directly. Saying that it is healthier to eat the grain instead of meat is a highly debatable point.

I think using higher taxes as a solution to anything is stupid and annoying as well.

I think education should be the key, not taxation.

Educate people that it's more healthy to eat less meat or eat meat less often. Educate people on the amount of resources needed to raise cattle and the impact on the earth. But let people make their own educated choices.

I eat meat maybe 2 times a week. I don't want to pay more for my meat. Buying organic meat is expensive enough already.

Should we really prioritize politics over the environment, though?

I completely agree with you.

But it's sad that issues like these can completely grip groups of constituents to vote with tradition against health care, gun control, fair taxation, climate legislation, etc.

People are literally dying by the busload in all those issues, but half the people vote against sane reform for supposedly needing automatic weapons, 4x4 city pickups, $100 less in "taxes" by paying $1000 more elsewhere, and having to eat a 2 pound steak because it's what we've always done...

I really wonder if people said to lincoln something like:

"Please don't end slavery. The whole economy depends on it. Hell my brother would be out of a job. We would loose half the states in the next vote if you do. Be reasonable mate. There is probably a middle way that can make everyone happy."

Everytime there is an important question raised, it will be hard on the system, on the habits and traditions, and on the ones implementing the new thing.

This can not be a reason not to do it.

Now there could be very good reasons no to do it. Like discovering the whole specie would degenerate if we did.

But "we always have been doing this" should never be a answer in a civilized debate.

Let's talk about this. What are the fact ? What is the price we are paying now from eating that much meat. What would be the benefit and price of stopping ? Is it worth it ?

Otherwise it's just a Facebook talks.

First, I know a lot of vegetarians and non veggies, and I never seen one of them "trying to impose their habits on others". It's like saying gays are trying to convert straight people.

Worst case scenario they will tell you what they think is right. But we all do that, it has nothing to do with meat. Hell, try to have a discussion about driving habits and you'll see everybody will tell you what to do.

Second, yeah, taxes are probably just motivated by money, and trying to get veggies to support it.

But even the worst detractors of the theory agree that more than 14% of green house gaz is animal agriculture (https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...). Those numbers do not include transportation, wrapping, cow farts, water consumption, soil pollution, and exclude deforestation done for animal agriculture purpose.

So there is something here. There is no need to fight about this. However a sane debate seems in order.

Really? Lots of people believe global warming is a serious problem. A much smaller percentage of people are vegetarians. Do you really think it's more plausible that there's a vegetarian conspiracy?

I thiiiink the people denying the climate crisis and the people behind this meat tax idea are not the same people…

That's always what taxes like this have been called, same thing goes for smoking. They know people will do it no matter what so they know they can put an obscene tax on it without impacting consumption much. Not that people will like that though.

I actually think that communism & liberalism are the secular grand-children of Catholicism. If you remove the reference to god, they advocate the same asceticism, contempt for trading and ownership, egalitarianism, a culture of self-blaming for anything going wrong in the world, etc.

Maybe that tax can be used to fund that research or subsidise popular plant-based meats like Beyond Burger or Impossible Burger.

it predicts this inevitability, but it should also be noted that it will be inevitable that humans can develop meat substitutes or artificially grown meat that is indiscernible from traditionally produced meats. In this context, yes you should definitely tax the latter, if the former are legit options.

Spot on! So the only solution is to combine meat tax with basic income.

Then the route is legislation. You're not allowed to eat more than X grams a day. Our technology is not advanced enough to enforce this in a customer friendly way.

The other route is education. That will take a long time. The poorest are often also the ones that are difficult to reach using this route.

Then don't tax it. Rather than that, stop subsidizing it. Also pass legislation for propely labelling meat from livestock treated with antibiotics, listing the types of antibiotics used and the trace amounts present in the meat.

Is that possible outside a totalitarian / authoritarian state?

If so, would it work for jet travel, and all other sources of environmental stressers?

Something like a partial tax might be better. A tax that doesn't affect the meat, the lower classes buy. A much higher tax on the cuts of meat preferred by the upper classes.

Ex. no tax on ground beef, but a very high tax on filet mignon or ny strip steaks.

I personally think we can have a less divisive higher environmental impact by banning private jets.

That's a good and important point. Affluent folks like us can just shrug off such a tax, but that's harder for people who are already $fewdollars above having to skip meals entirely. If you want to make the wealthy feel a tax, you have to levy it on capital gains on companies engaged in that kind of commerce. Make it less profitable to invest in that area than in some other. Even better, as others have suggested, use the proceeds from the tax to fund development of alternatives. If I could have something that tastes like meat, but that can be produced with 10% of the greenhouse gases and chemical runoff and energy cost (including fertilizers), then I'd love it. We're getting close. Just a little push might get us over that line.

Good luck with that. The rich will just eat it in a country where it isn't taxed, like Argentina, buy it on the black market, or go hunting. The poor and the rest of us will end up paying the tax or eating even unhealthier industrially processed substitutes.

As if money actually spent on environmental purposes does anything useful for the environment. Recycling programs, as it "turns out" (as if there were people not already aware of this) put most recycled stuff in landfills in China.

So don't worry. Whether the money goes to "something useful" or not. It won't actually be useful.

From the article:

> Using meat tax revenues to subsidise healthy foods is one idea touted to reduce opposition.

All government revenue is fungible, so this doesn't matter in the slightest.

My insurance is about € 120 / month.

How much difference would it make do you think?

I feel like this is getting voted down because the idea is unpopular, but I didn't say I was in favor of it. It is just a statement of fact, not an advocacy of a policy.