Is there any actual science behind the claims that meat is bad from a health perspective? From what I've seen it looks similar to the "science" that told us that eggs were bad, and that we should avoid fat at all costs--in other words, a bunch of loose correlations from studies with poor reproducibility and poor controls.<p>In the US, red meat consumption per capita has dropped over the last 50 years, suggesting that it is not the major contributor to our current health problems that some claim.
> Furthermore, many people already eat far too much meat, seriously damaging their health and incurring huge costs.<p>What? I'm getting fat on pasta and breads. I need to actively eat more meat. And given the cost of meat compared to carbs, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of people in the middle and lower class face the same problem. Meat is not the health problem here.
Please don't.<p>A tax will lead to democrat losses in 2018.
The sugar tax in philadelphia galvanized republicans across the rest of PA during 2016.<p>Eating meat is incredibly important to the middle classes.
BBQ's are important social quasi-religious family bonding events in the United States.
Taxing meat will lead to backlash far bigger than a "tea party".
I don't really mind people wanting to be vegetarian, vegans, or not eating whatever they want. I do mind when they are trying to impose their habits on others. I don't believe a single second that health or global warming is the real motivation for this tax.
How can they introduce a meat tax to beat a climate crisis we don't have?<p>Either there is no crisis and this is a money grab... or there is a crisis.<p>There seems to be something fishy here... </s><p>Edit: Oh wait, The Guardian is a British Newspaper... we agree there <i>is</i> a climate crisis and we don't have anywhere close to the same ridiculous meat consumption rate as Americans.
Note that the article is about forecasts of what is likely going to happen, while the comments are mostly about how much people personally like it, together with their rationalizations why their opinion is important.
It's a good goal for a long term, but it didn't dig into the subsidies as much as I would have thought. Ending those is the first step, but it didn't go into how much the industry is currently subsidized (Google suggests meat and dairy are at ~38 million). Discussing an end to those subsidies seems a more realistic step that both parties should be able to get behind. What I don't know is the impact on the already struggling farming community would be (a group which leans more Republican).
Cutting down on meat consumption is something I support. But I don't believe in increased taxation – that extra money will just end up being spent on pork barrel legislation and the like by the politicians. When consumption does finally go down, taxes will again need to be raised for other things to make up for the downfall because they will not want to decrease spending.<p>Why don't we encourage more research into lab grown meat instead?
While I don’t necessarily follow on the health concerns compared to the alternative of eating more grains and carbs, I think taxation is our only (realistic in the short/mid term) way to have the impact on the environment taken into consideration into the price