RESEARCH studies and their associated messages regarding diet are famously contradictory, making it difficult to persuade people when there’s evidence of a health risk. Red meat, like red wine, has had its fair share of attention in this regard, with the trend suggesting the foodstuff is something with which we should ca’ canny.
New research led by Oxford University concludes that a “meat tax” or “health levy” could prevent 220,000 deaths worldwide and save more than £30 billion in healthcare costs annually. It’s an eye-catching claim.
Taxation is always a serious step with implications but, where health is concerned, it’s the last resort that often ends up implemented, be it on tobacco or sugar in fizzy drinks. It saves the people from themselves. And it does this by pushing up prices. According to the new research, optimal tax levels in the US, Sweden and Germany translate to a price increase of around 30 per cent on unprocessed meat and up to 185 per cent on processed, while in the UK the calculation would put up unprocessed meat by 14 per cent and processed by 79.
The study suggests a health levy would reduce consumption of processed meat by two portions per week. Even replacing these with unprocessed meat would be an improvement, red meat being a grey area in which the processed variety is said to contain greater health risks. According to the World Health Organisation, processed red meat is carcinogenic and unprocessed “probably” so.
Countervailing research can be found suggesting that meat-eating is healthy and that contrary inferences stem from wider dietary considerations: those eating prime steak and veg suffer less than those eating pie and chips.
Scotland has a hearty meat industry, proud of its quality standards. This latest study puts the ball in its court as to explaining why a tax would be a bad idea. Otherwise, it could be another last resort that ends up implemented.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel