Yesterday CNN reported on a PLOS One paper imagining what the world may look like when we entrusted meat how we tax alcohol and cigarettes (and, maybe, sugar).
The research suggests that adding costs to processed meat and red meat may store 222,000 lives and $41 billion worldwide, including 53,000 lives and $20 billion from the USA alone. The"economically optimal" tax prices that the researchers calculated to attain this were, for the USA, 163 percent on processed meat (such as bacon, deli meat, and hot dogs), and 34 percent on black reddish meat (such as poultry, beef, and pork). "The tax is greater in the U.S. due to an ineffective health system which wastes a lot of money," the lead researcher told CNN.)
The backbone of the researchers' argument is that meat consumption is inherently unhealthy, that is territory I tread into with great distress. The World Health Organization categorized processed meat as parasitic as well as red meat as"likely" carcinogenic in 2015, though detractors suggest that high-quality meat from well-cared-for creatures shouldn't always be lumped in with the remainder. (Perhaps the next tax-speculation model could include exemptions for farmers who raise their livestock ethically?) In their paper, the researchers emphasize that the highest benefits to some meat tax can be seen in"high and middle-income countries" where basic nourishment is less of a concern.
The numerous swirls of my personal-health interests and beliefs begin to converge here. I was intrigued to find that a few individuals from the low carb high-fat (LCHF) world I follow along on Twitter took issue with how the PLOS One study's most important author, Marco Springmann, eats a vegetarian diet.
The clear story on the meat tax post making headlines. Seems to be driven by ideological prejudice. Important info for @guardian, @cnn @yahoo to incorporate this info.- Nina Teicholz (@bigfatsurprise) November 8, 2018
I'm still trying to sort this out. Is a vegan individual attempting to measure the effects of taxing meat a conflict of interest? That is interesting. Why is it a conflict of interest? Can a personal opinion cloud somebody's capacity to interpret numbers? If this is so, would not that go either way, alerting everybody who has a personal eating habit they think in from exploring and running numbers on nutrition and public health? Perhaps I'm missing something. For what it's worth, I'm currently looking for the middle earth - attempting to find a way to eat relatively LCHF while also eating meat less frequently, more attentively. Also I followed a"he is vegan" connection I saw shared on Twitter and was totally charmed by Springmann along with his rationale. ("I'm a researcher. If you give me a few decent studies, I attempt to change my behavior based on it.")
Luckily there is a solution to all this, and that's to substitute all your meat together with nuts.