You would need a global dictator to make these things work. Instead encourage a reduction in consumption. People don't like to be told by the government how to eat or drink and they certainly don't like higher taxes. You also need the medical industry to embrace nutritional consultation which isn't going to happen because it would hurt pharmaceutical sales.
Some people may need red meat to restore their health probably after too many years of being on an ill advised vegetarian diet. :-D On 11/11/18 4:15 AM, skymt...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote: > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/06/taxing-red-meat-would-save-many-lives-research-shows > > > Taxing red meat would save many lives and raise billions to pay for > healthcare, according to new research. It found the cost of processed > meat such as bacon and sausages would double if the harm they cause to > people’s health was taken into account. > > Governments already tax harmful products to reduce their consumption, > such as sugar, alcohol and tobacco. With growing evidence of the > health and environmental damage resulting from red meat, some experts > now believe a “sin tax” on beef, lamb and pork is inevitable in the > longer term. > > The World Health Organization declared processed red meat to be a > carcinogen in 2015, and unprocessed red meat such as steaks and chops > to be a probable carcinogen. However, people in rich nations eat more > than the recommended amount of red meat, which is also linked to heart > disease, strokes and diabetes. > > > The new research looked at the level of tax needed to reflect the > healthcare costs incurred when people eat red meat. [for UK] It found > that a 20% tax on unprocessed red meat and a 110% tax on the more > harmful processed products across rich nations, with lower taxes in > less wealthy nations, would cut annual deaths by 220,000 and raise > $170bn (£130bn). > > The resulting higher prices would also cut meat consumption by two > portions a week – currently people in rich nations each eat one > portion a day. This would lead to a $41bn saving in annual healthcare > costs, the research shows. > > “Nobody wants governments to tell people what they can and can’t eat,” > Springmann said. But the healthcare costs incurred by eating red meat > are often paid by all taxpayers, he said: “It is totally fine if you > want to have [red meat], but this personal consumption decision really > puts a strain on public funds. It is not about taking something away > from people, it is about being fair.” > > To cover the total healthcare costs, the tax rates would need to be > hiked up again to about double the optimal taxation rates. > > The researchers calculated red meat taxes for 149 different nations, > with the rate depending on how much red meat those citizens eat and > the costliness of their healthcare system. The US would have among the > highest tax rates, with a 163% levy on ham and sausages and a 34% levy > on steaks. > > >
