Call for meat tax to save lives

[Stayingup]

Researchers at Oxford University have calculated that increasing the cost of red meat by 14% and processed meat by 79% (sausuages for example) would prevent the deaths of 6000 people per year. Wow. They havent said 6000 in how many people. Butchers will love it. They'll all be out of business in three months. Maybe a better idea to save lives would be to ban alcohol. Drugs too if the supply could stopped but cant. But really should we be paying for this type of research when the result will surely never be applied in practice? Is it just a useless waste of money?

[Murger]

They should leave red meat and alcohol alone. Let people eat and drink what they want.

[Holmeclaret]

It's the cost of keeping people alive when they're sick that's the real issue for government. The question is whether it's right to spend hundreds of thousands on an individual if they've contributed heavily to their own poor health. I think it is but with a hefty contribution from those concerned. It's not right to punish butchers for trying to make a living.

[houseboy]

We don't need any more Tory stealth taxes dressed up as health measures, no matter how many people die. If people have no self-control that is their problem, no-one else's.

Absolutely sick of nanny state taxes.

[Lord Rothbury]

Tax fast food takeaways which contribute to the ever growing number of obese people in this country Whilst on the subject of obesity stop giving expensive medical treatment to anyone who shows no interest in maintaining their own health.

[FactualFrank]

What's their beef now?

[ClaretAndJew]

We don't need any more Tory stealth taxes dressed up as health measures, no matter how many people die. If people have no self-control that is their problem, no-one else's.

Absolutely sick of nanny state taxes.

Some people genuinely have no self control and it manifests as a mental illness.

[deanothedino]

Researchers at Oxford University have calculated that increasing the cost of red meat by 14% and processed meat by 79% (sausuages for example) would prevent the deaths of 6000 people per year. Wow. They havent said 6000 in how many people. Butchers will love it. They'll all be out of business in three months. Maybe a better idea to save lives would be to ban alcohol. Drugs too if the supply could stopped but cant. But really should we be paying for this type of research when the result will surely never be applied in practice? Is it just a useless waste of money?

Next they'd have to introduce a tax on refined carbs, then eggs because the anti-cholesterol lobby will get involved, before you know it they'll have just taxed everything we consume and it'll be like increasing VAT.

[Clarets4me]

I'm sure this idea will soon be given the " Chop ", and be put out to pasture !

[Bosscat]

Stupid idea thats not worth a Sausage....

Boom Toosh ... I'm here all week

[Lowbankclaret]

I think they put a 100% tax on the weeks shopping on anyone who is clinically obese.

Give that to the NHS.

Then you don’t punish the thin people.

[Stayingup]

We don't need any more Tory stealth taxes dressed up as health measures, no matter how many people die. If people have no self-control that is their problem, no-one else's.

Absolutely sick of nanny state taxes.

Tory stealth tax? Oxford University researchers are calling for this. Not Tories. Perhaps you should get out a bit more.

[summitclaret]

It's a veggie, snowflake, green party, left wing and anti men plot.

Why do people get takeaway and pay a fortune for crap?

If you must have pizza get it from farmfoods or iceland and cook it in 15 minutes - quicker than delivery and about 1/4 the cost.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Theres an interesting episode recently on joe roegans podcast which disputes the validity of such research. The reason being that people who eat more red meat and processed meat also statistically are more likely to drink more, smoke and excercise less.

Essentially what theyre saying is that theres a much wider area that should form part of that research.

People who choose healthier meats and more veg are also likely to be living a healthier lifestyle in general. So the research is skewed. And to me it sounds fairly well reasoned.

Nothing wrong with cutting back on stuff, especially things that have little to no nutritional value and have had a poor life (battery chickens are probably far worse than any mincemeat), like anything its all balance.

Weve been eating meat for millenia. Its not unhealthy nor is it unethical. What is unhealthy and unethical is if youre eating crap meat thats been pumped full of crap.

Sausages from a butchers will be reasonably healthy.

[Damo]

Has anyone credible called for a tax on meat or is it just the vegan restraunt owner?

[Pstotto]

Those 'lives' are numbers to the statisticians and have nothing to do with real people.

Just the notion that causing pain by inflicting financial penalties on the poor is good for the health, shows how out of touch such persons are with normal folk, regarding genuine empathy.

They are probably more likely to die of the stress of not being able to afford sausages, than eating them.

How do they calculate the economic pain threshold as 14% and 79% respectively?

The press release is actually political, it's spreading an assumption that Oxford researchers rule the country unopposed, as a form of striking fear in lesser mortals of an impregnable authority based on 'science.'

[Hipper]

Researchers at Oxford University have calculated that increasing the cost of red meat by 14% and processed meat by 79% (sausuages for example) would prevent the deaths of 6000 people per year. Wow. They havent said 6000 in how many people. Butchers will love it. They'll all be out of business in three months. Maybe a better idea to save lives would be to ban alcohol. Drugs too if the supply could stopped but cant. But really should we be paying for this type of research when the result will surely never be applied in practice? Is it just a useless waste of money?

Yes, we should be paying for this type of research.

It doesn't mean the powers that be will implement these ideas but gives an idea of what would be the consequences of these or similar actions.

For example, it would make sense to have an outright ban on smoking. However it is probably not yet possible to do that.

A cynic would say because it generates lots of revenue - it does but its going down:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/284 ... -receipts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

as are the number of smokers, which is now around 6 million:

https://files.digital.nhs.uk/0C/95F481/ ... 18-rep.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is clear that you cannot ban something that 6 million people do.

[Rick_Muller]

Cattle contribute massively to greenhouse gases apparently, so reducing our (globally) consumption of meat products is also good for the environment...

[posted this whilst sat in Burger King waiting for a double Whopper to be served]

[Pstotto]

What the press release doesn't tell you, is that all the researchers are associate members of the Bullingdon Club.

[Wile E Coyote]

It's the cost of keeping people alive when they're sick that's the real issue for government. The question is whether it's right to spend hundreds of thousands on an individual if they've contributed heavily to their own poor health. I think it is but with a hefty contribution from those concerned. It's not right to punish butchers for trying to make a living.

could argue that tobacco manufacturers are like butchers then ?

[Bin Ont Turf]

Some people genuinely have no self control and it manifests as a mental illness.

I thought that it would do.

[ClaretAndJew]

I thought that it would do.

I mean it does, there's a lot of evidence based literature you can read.

[Clarets4me]

The trouble with all taxes designed to control levels of consumption, such as this, is that it barely affects the wealthier sectors of society, and has a disproportionately crushing effect on those struggling with limited incomes, who are unable to work, the disabled etc..
The " Green taxes " on Gas and Electric use are barely noticed by the wealthy, the same goes for taxes such as " Insurance Premium " and " Departure Taxes " from airports etc .. it's a minor irritation for them. To the " barely managing " and those worse off, it's a significant part of their budget.

In the early seventies, when the first Mediterranean Charter holidays were becoming increasingly popular, the Environmental lobby proposed severly limiting International flights due to pollution, and the point was put to then Labour Environment Secretary, Tony Crosland,( ex-WW2 Para Regiment Capt. ) & MP for Grimsby. He replied " The rich would proceed in leisurely fashion across Europe to the Mediterranean beauty spots in their Mercedes & Bentleys, then take to a boat or horse drawn vehicle. As for my Constituents in Grimsby, let them eat cake and return to the boarding houses of Blackpool and Skegness ! "

Labour Governments & the left wing middle-classes have introduced these taxes, by and large, and seem to have forgotten from whence the party came, and whose interests it was formed to serve. An owner of the most expensive house in the Borough of Kensington & Chelsea pays the same amount of Council Tax ( c.£2,240 ), as the owner of a £250k House in Burnley paying Band E. The Labour Govt. of 1997-2010 did nothing to address anomolies like this.

The imposition of a meat tax, would result in very little effect for a rich couple dining in one of London's 73 Michelin starred Restaurants, but would raise significantly the price of a Sausage or Bacon Butty, for a ground worker calling in at his local shop...

The proposal is B*****ks, and should be called out as such .....

Rant over ......

[Hipper]

The trouble with all taxes designed to control levels of consumption, such as this, is that it barely affects the wealthier sectors of society, and has a disproportionately crushing effect on those struggling with limited incomes, who are unable to work, the disabled etc..

The imposition of a meat tax, would result in very little effect for a rich couple dining in one of London's 73 Michelin starred Restaurants, but would raise significantly the price of a Sausage or Bacon Butty, for a ground worker calling in at his local shop...

The proposal is B*****ks, and should be called out as such .....

Rant over ......

If poor people are those that suffer most ill health then we have just justified this tax, assuming that red meat etc. is detrimental to health as is claimed. Let the rich suffer!

On the other hand, if it can be shown that actually being poor is the cause of ill health, then you could argue for taxing the rich and giving it to the poor!

[Lowbankclaret]

I feel sorry for cabbages grown in cramped fields with limited space to grow.
Cut down in there prime.

I think a campaign is needed for there rights to more room to grow and be themselves.

The rights of vegetables are not being heard!!

[TheFamilyCat]

I think they put a 100% tax on the weeks shopping on anyone who is clinically obese.

Give that to the NHS.

Then you don’t punish the thin people.

My BMI is 30.4, which makes me obese. I'm 42 years old and only spent one night in hospital in my life. I don't have any medical problems and very, very rarely go to see the doctor. Why should o be taxed?

[mdd2]

Compared with the lives lost through obesity that is small beer.

[Pstotto]

... And they boil vegetables and cut them up whilst they're still alive!

[dsr]

Researchers at Oxford University have calculated that increasing the cost of red meat by 14% and processed meat by 79% (sausuages for example) would prevent the deaths of 6000 people per year. Wow. They havent said 6000 in how many people. Butchers will love it. They'll all be out of business in three months. Maybe a better idea to save lives would be to ban alcohol. Drugs too if the supply could stopped but cant. But really should we be paying for this type of research when the result will surely never be applied in practice? Is it just a useless waste of money?

For how long? I presume the doctors aren't saying these 6,000 people will live for ever, so how much time do they gain?

[dsr]

It's the cost of keeping people alive when they're sick that's the real issue for government. The question is whether it's right to spend hundreds of thousands on an individual if they've contributed heavily to their own poor health. I think it is but with a hefty contribution from those concerned. It's not right to punish butchers for trying to make a living.

Everybody dies, and most people die of something expensive. Take a look round the nursing homes - they are full of thin people who looked after their bodies, but even so they are now 90 years old and need a lot of nursing care. Should they be penalised for contributing to their own long life? Of course not. But nor should the people who help the economy by dying young.

Take the case of two men who retire in good health at 67, but one hasn't looked after himself and has a series of heart attacks before dying at 72. He has cost the NHS a fair whack in that 5 years. The other one did look after himself, and has cost the state nothing but pension costs for those five years. Then he continues in good health and costs the state not much but further pension costs for the next 10 years. A few visits to the doctor, maybe a couple of trips to the hospital, nothing too pricy. But now he's 82 and things start to go wrong - with statins, rheumatism, a broken hip, a replacement knee, the next five years are getting expensive. And then, poor chap, his memory starts to go and he has to go into an old folks' home. Costs are rising fast. And then, ultimately, he dies - but before he dies, whatever is going to kill him needs treating. Which means those costs to the NHS that Mr. Unhealthy caused, are still costs to the NHS to treat Mr. Healthy - just that his costs have been deferred.

It's a fact - we all die of something. And while it's a nice idea to think that the healthy eaters will live long and productive lives, paying taxes and supporting themselves, until they die peacefully and suddenly at no cost to the state - it doesn't work that way. I suspect, in fact, that sudden, NHS-cost-free death is more likely to come to the unhealthy than the healthy. There are plenty of reasons to support healthy living, but cost isn't one of them.

[Clarets4me]

I'm not finding it, but I'm sure there's a " Yes, Prime Minister " episode that covers this, with Sir Humphrey talking about those patriotic smokers and drinkers who gallently pay far more Tax than Tee-total Non Smokers and then have the decency to pop off early, before they can cost the State too much in Pension payments and Nursing Home fees !!

[mdd2]

DSR has it spot on. Although we are living longer a lot of those extra years is spent with ill health so there is a double financial whammy-the cost of looking after those extra years of ill health and the pension costs.
Best thing financially is to reverse a lot of the secondary preventive measures and try and get folk to peg it pretty quickly after developing chronic ill health around retirement age-choking on a meatball wouldn't come amiss.

[houseboy]

Some people genuinely have no self control and it manifests as a mental illness.

If you want to talk about mental illness I'll talk all day. What do you want to know? As far as eating badly is concerned (if there is actually such a thing) there is no need to punish others for the weakness of the few, whatever the reason behind it. The problem we have these days is that someone decides that something is bad because a handful of people can't control themselves for whatever reason and bang!!! Someone decides 'hey we can tax this and call it a health move'.

[houseboy]

Tory stealth tax? Oxford University researchers are calling for this. Not Tories. Perhaps you should get out a bit more.

I know who is calling for it but my point is that someone makes a statement like this and you can bet that someone in government will take it up and run with it, they wait for this kind of stuff to come out then decide if can be used to raise tax, inevitably.

Further, those calling for this presumably have nice, well paid jobs at Oxford and don't care too much about rising prices so make ridiculous suggestions like this without wondering about the consequences of their suggestions.

And you talk about getting out more, it's these people who don't live in the real world, the one where many (most?) people are striving to make ends meet, the world where people have to live everyday without the comfort and safety of a well paid job with, presumably, research money to play with.

I get out plenty mate and I see what happens in the real world, I'm not stuck in the artificial world of Oxford's gleaming spires.

[Rick_Muller]

Someone decides 'hey we can tax this and call it a health move'.

isn't this the latest thoughts and approach with Marijuana...

[houseboy]

isn't this the latest thoughts and approach with Marijuana...

Probably mate, probably.

[Sausage]

My BMI is 30.4, which makes me obese. I'm 42 years old and only spent one night in hospital in my life. I don't have any medical problems and very, very rarely go to see the doctor. Why should o be taxed?

On the other hand, some people smoke 40 a day and, at the age of 42, show no signs of developing chronic pulmonary disease and might never do. Does that mean we shouldn't tax tobacco?

[elwaclaret]

Diet is a symptom of poverty, loss of self respect and stress. All of which effect self worth, and so the circle of depression is complete. Pricing people out of the market does nothing to address the underlying problems. Giving people healthier options at low prices would be more beneficial but there is no will to actually help people when it may cost money. Much cheaper on the state to penalize the poor.

[dsr]

... Giving people healthier options at low prices would be more beneficial ..

you mean, if you could go to Farmfoods and come away with 8 pounds of vegetables, 7 pints of milk, 2 large loaves of bread, 15 or so apples and a big bunch of bananas, and still have change for a tenner?

Healthy options at low prices aren't a problem. It's the unhealthy stuff that costs more.

[Spike]

Researchers at Oxford University have calculated that increasing the cost of red meat by 14% and processed meat by 79% (sausuages for example) would prevent the deaths of 6000 people per year. Wow. They havent said 6000 in how many people. Butchers will love it. They'll all be out of business in three months. Maybe a better idea to save lives would be to ban alcohol. Drugs too if the supply could stopped but cant. But really should we be paying for this type of research when the result will surely never be applied in practice? Is it just a useless waste of money?

overaged students who have never done an honest days work.

[brexit]

Rip up the social contract

Privatise the NHS then everyone has choice steak and beer or medical insurance. Drop income tax to a flat rate of 10% for everyone regardless of earnings. Remove VAT on everything. Dismantle National Insurance and replace in the interim with a private pension scheme. Stop giving central grants to councils and allow them full autonomy to raise whatever local taxes will fund the facilities local people want.

Radical but fair

[Chip Harrison]

Everybody dies, and most people die of something expensive. Take a look round the nursing homes - they are full of thin people who looked after their bodies, but even so they are now 90 years old and need a lot of nursing care. Should they be penalised for contributing to their own long life? Of course not. But nor should the people who help the economy by dying young.

Take the case of two men who retire in good health at 67, but one hasn't looked after himself and has a series of heart attacks before dying at 72. He has cost the NHS a fair whack in that 5 years. The other one did look after himself, and has cost the state nothing but pension costs for those five years. Then he continues in good health and costs the state not much but further pension costs for the next 10 years. A few visits to the doctor, maybe a couple of trips to the hospital, nothing too pricy. But now he's 82 and things start to go wrong - with statins, rheumatism, a broken hip, a replacement knee, the next five years are getting expensive. And then, poor chap, his memory starts to go and he has to go into an old folks' home. Costs are rising fast. And then, ultimately, he dies - but before he dies, whatever is going to kill him needs treating. Which means those costs to the NHS that Mr. Unhealthy caused, are still costs to the NHS to treat Mr. Healthy - just that his costs have been deferred.

It's a fact - we all die of something. And while it's a nice idea to think that the healthy eaters will live long and productive lives, paying taxes and supporting themselves, until they die peacefully and suddenly at no cost to the state - it doesn't work that way. I suspect, in fact, that sudden, NHS-cost-free death is more likely to come to the unhealthy than the healthy. There are plenty of reasons to support healthy living, but cost isn't one of them.

Aren't you forgetting in your too general post, that Mr healthy has probably paid 50 years of national insurance payments and paid for all this treatment up front, and that Mr Unhealthy must have been unhealthy before retirement.

I have never smoked and have a reasonable diet. I am slim, fit and healthy, as are all my mates in the running club. I have never been in hospital and looking at some of the guys in the club who are ten years older than me, I hopefully won't.

Exercise keeps osteoporosis and Alzheimers away, and when I get to 80 in a few years time, I know I will still be fit and healthy. I am glad I did not "help the economy by dying young" and it is ridiculous to equate longer life with financial cost.

[dsr]

Aren't you forgetting in your too general post, that Mr healthy has probably paid 50 years of national insurance payments and paid for all this treatment up front, and that Mr Unhealthy must have been unhealthy before retirement.

I have never smoked and have a reasonable diet. I am slim, fit and healthy, as are all my mates in the running club. I have never been in hospital and looking at some of the guys in the club who are ten years older than me, I hopefully won't.

Exercise keeps osteoporosis and Alzheimers away, and when I get to 80 in a few years time, I know I will still be fit and healthy. I am glad I did not "help the economy by dying young" and it is ridiculous to equate longer life with financial cost.

You really think that heart attacks can't happen out of the blue?

Fit people get dementia too.

[Stayingup]

[quote="cricketfieldclarets"]Theres an interesting episode recently on joe roegans podcast which disputes the validity of such research. The reason being that people who eat more red meat and processed meat also statistically are more likely to drink more, smoke and excercise less.

Essentially what theyre saying is that theres a much wider area that should form part of that research.

People who choose healthier meats and more veg are also likely to be living a healthier lifestyle in general. So the research is skewed. And to me it sounds fairly well reasoned.

Nothing wrong with cutting back on stuff, especially things that have little to no nutritional value and have had a poor life (battery chickens are probably far worse than any mincemeat), like anything its all balance.

Weve been eating meat for millenia. Its not unhealthy nor is it unethical. What is unhealthy and unethical is if youre eating crap meat thats been pumped full of crap.

Sausages from a butchers will be reasonably healthy.[/quote

Very informative

[Stayingup]

I know who is calling for it but my point is that someone makes a statement like this and you can bet that someone in government will take it up and run with it, they wait for this kind of stuff to come out then decide if can be used to raise tax, inevitably.

Further, those calling for this presumably have nice, well paid jobs at Oxford and don't care too much about rising prices so make ridiculous suggestions like this without wondering about the consequences of their suggestions.

And you talk about getting out more, it's these people who don't live in the real world, the one where many (most?) people are striving to make ends meet, the world where people have to live everyday without the comfort and safety of a well paid job with, presumably, research money to play with.

I get out plenty mate and I see what happens in the real world, I'm not stuck in the artificial world of Oxford's gleaming spires.

But Tory government? Goes on Brown, who as I recall was not Tory, would have pounced on something like this. I make no distinction between any of the mainstream politicians. All the same to me. Green taxes etc. Who brought in the Air passenger tax?

[cricketfieldclarets]

Its a really interesting concept / conclusion. And I think they had a real point. The actual episode got a bit boring, and one of the only ones ive not finished. BUT that particular point stuck with me.

[houseboy]

But Tory government? Goes on Brown, who as I recall was not Tory, would have pounced on something like this. I make no distinction between any of the mainstream politicians. All the same to me. Green taxes etc. Who brought in the Air passenger tax?

I'm sorry mate but the Tories are known for their stealth taxes because they like to be known as the party of low taxation. Their idea of low taxation means reducing income tax and corporation tax, which is no damn use if you are unemployed, a pensioner or low paid and below the threshold, but like all goverments they have to get the money from somewhere so we get increased vat (they actually doubled under Thatcher), fuel tax, tobacco tax, insurance tax and most recently the stupid bloody 'sugar' tax. Okay I accept that the fuel and tobacco and alcohol taxes are done by both parties but the Tories just love to introduce taxes that take no account of ability to pay in order to pay for tax cuts that do not benefit everyone.
If this stupid idea ever gets a serious listening by politicians it needs to be fought hard as it would put up the cost of living for all at a time when it is least needed.

[Lancasterclaret]

My mental image of DSR has now changed to a really fat, unhealthy bloke who drives everywhere and eats McDonalds for breakfast, while declaring "**** it, being fit and healthy is just a colossal waste of time".

[Pstotto]

'Healthy sausages...' Oh they do their exercises in the morning, do they?

Personally, I don't buy fat sausages because they're out of breath after climbing a set of stairs.

[dsr]

My mental image of DSR has now changed to a really fat, unhealthy bloke who drives everywhere and eats McDonalds for breakfast, while declaring "**** it, being fit and healthy is just a colossal waste of time".

You have a weird mind.