Social Question

Pandora's avatar

Now that red meat had been found to cause cancer, do you think meat eaters will be punished with a high tax?

Asked by Pandora (32398points) November 3rd, 2015

I can’t help but wonder if the study on red meat is a means in which to punish people with high cholesterol, body fat and future cancer patients by possibly taxing them more for their food choices.
The same way they already tried to tax sweetened drinks per ounce to (so call) reduce obesity in other cities.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

Seek's avatar

It’s already over $5 a lb for hamburger meat. When meatloaf is a luxury, we’re paying enough. Go away.

janbb's avatar

The sugar tax hasn’t really flown so I don’t think the processed meat tax would fly either.

ucme's avatar

High tax on meat? I have a beef with that, medium rare please.

elbanditoroso's avatar

As numerous other posters over the last two weeks have noted, the WHO red meat ‘scare’ is much ado about nothing. It has been overblown (or perhaps I should say, burnt to a crisp).

And a tax on meat? Ridiculous. The farm lobby in the US will never, ever let that occur. Even if it were warranted (which it isn’t) the farm, meatpacking, and grocery industries would never let this type of thing happen.

majorrich's avatar

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if just such a tax is in committee somewhere in Imlocointhebrain land.

dappled_leaves's avatar

Red meat has not been found to cause cancer. This story has been very poorly handled by the media. Here’s a quote from this article that tries to clear up the misunderstanding:

“To put the findings in perspective, it’s important to understand that about seven per cent of Canadian men and six per cent of Canadian women will develop colorectal cancer in their lifetimes, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.

So, starting from there, an average Canadian man who eats a 50-gram serving of ham each day boosts his risk of getting colorectal cancer to about 8.26 per cent — an increase of 18 per cent from a person’s baseline risk. And, theoretically, it would be a little lower since the baseline figure of seven per cent would already include people who eat processed meat.”

In other words, if your risk of cancer was already 7%, eating red meat would increase your risk to about 8.26%. This is hardly the same thing as “Red meat causes cancer”.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Remember there is an enzyme in hops that counteracts the nitrates/nitrites in processed meats. So just drink a beer when you eat ham or bacon.

Seek's avatar

Sound advice.

Inspired_2write's avatar

Just cut back the amount of red meat per day, week etc.
In smaller amounts the body can handle it.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Red meat “causes” cancer just as much as the air we breathe.

Pandora's avatar

Oh, I’m not a big red meat eater. It took years for me to learn to appreciate the taste of read meat, but I’m with @WillWorkForChocolate. Seems everything today causes cancer. Our water is polluted, our air is polluted, our fish are polluted, our poultry live in filthy conditions, and so do our cows and pigs and eat filth, and are pumped with steroids and antibiotics, our vegetables are dosed in pesticides.
So honestly, I had to wonder what would be the motive in pointing out the pit falls of red meat. Is there anything that hasn’t been infected that is safe to consume?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther