Support NeoGAF

[Linkstrikesback]

So it is ok to just go "fuck the poor" because the ends justify the means?

As I already said. I am fine with the goals of the legislation (more veg... less meat). I just think regressive taxation is the wrong route to take to achieve those goals.

If they insist on taking the route of taxing these foods it should be coupled with a corresponding tax cut on other food items to 0 out the negative impacts on the poor.

People won't change behaviour unless it costs them money. It's not "fuck the poor" to have them change their behaviour. Nobody is suggesting leaving them to starve, just that they have to change to other less destructive to the planet equivalents. Hell. Use the additional money for things to offer services that improve life in the regions, provide cooking lessons or whatever for the public, on how to make vegetables taste great. The idea you suggested of using the money to reduce the cost of other foodstuffs works too.

It's an extremely unfortunate fact that certain foods have an imbalance on how they affect the planet in terms of carbon emissions. The entire point of adding extra taxation to certain foods would be to reduce the number of people buying them, and unfortunately, it seems clear at this point people won't change habits if they aren't practically forced. Lord knows I was dragging my feet on it until the value of the pound cratered and I finally started trying to do a better job myself.

 

[MsKrisp]

How???

We've been vegan for about 8 months and have cut costs drastically!

Also remember that the only reason meat/dairy is so cheap is that the grain that feeds the animals subsidised hugely. If we subsidised the production of vegetables and grains as much as we do meat, veg would be even cheaper than it is (largely already cheap)

Nope wrong. Leafy Greens and Legumes, Starches/Grains more than make up the nutrition content plus benefit of being vastly cheaper, less caloric, and better for the body.

While you are right, you're not thinking of those at the very bottom. When you're dirt poor, you need as many calories as you can get with as little money as you can. You say it's like a simple thing for the substantially poor to get calorie dense food by switching to a vegetarian diet, let alone have the knowledge to know how to eat the right foods. I said this needs to be offset, it is vital to reduce consumption for the sake of the environment. The industry needs to change, we need to educate people on nutrition, and if they cannot afford food, we need to help them. The truth is, calories from vegetables cost more than from cheap meat, cheese, and eggs. That is a fact, and many families rely on it as a result. Taxing the producers makes the price of meat go up, and leaves some with few options.

Edit: that's also not mentioning how difficult it is to prepare vegetables when you don't have a stove or microwave, or you do have a stove, but can't afford a frying pan. Source: I've been there

 

[Xe4]

People won't change behaviour unless it costs them money. It's not "fuck the poor" to have them change their behaviour. Nobody is suggesting leaving them to starve, just that they have to change to other less destructive to the planet equivalents. Hell. Use the additional money for things to offer services that improve life in the regions, provide cooking lessons or whatever for the public, on how to make vegetables taste great. The idea you suggested of using the money to reduce the cost of other foodstuffs works too.

It's an extremely unfortunate fact that certain foods have an imbalance on how they affect the planet in terms of carbon emissions. The entire point of adding extra taxation to certain foods would be to reduce the number of people buying them, and unfortunately, it seems clear at this point people won't change habits if they aren't practically forced. Lord knows I was dragging my feet on it until the value of the pound cratered and I finally started trying to do a better job myself.

You're literally starving them by cutting off their easiest, cheapest source of food. There are better ways to go about reducing meat consumption than that.

I think you're vastly overestimating the ammount of time and money a single mom of two (for example) has in order to do all that you listed in the first paragraph.

 

[midramble]

I know you are making a joke here, but that would still be a regressive tax.

No, because the tax itself isn't a straight tax on the product. It would be applied progressively based on your bracket come tax season and depending on how much meat/dairy you consume. On your 1040 you'd enter how many pounds of each product your family consumed, reference a table to look for your bracket, and add however much depending on your income/bracket/pounds consumed.

But yes, its a joke. Logistically absurd.

 

[Diprosalic]

i've been dairy and beef free for a while. great and easy way to help the planet.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

While you are right, you're not thinking of those at the very bottom. When you're dirt poor, you need as many calories as you can get with as little money as you can. You say it's like a simple thing for the substantially poor to get calorie dense food by switching to a vegetarian diet, let alone have the knowledge to know how to eat the right foods. I said this needs to be offset, it is vital to reduce consumption for the sake of the environment. The industry needs to change, we need to educate people on nutrition, and if they cannot afford food, we need to help them. The truth is, calories from vegetables cost more than from cheap meat, cheese, and eggs. That is a fact, and many families rely on it as a result. Taxing the producers makes the price of meat go up, and leaves some with few options.

I do agree that proper nutritional education and what to buy at the grocery store for your money is most important. I only see it as something poor people don't know that they can have it. Produce is indeed pricey if you don't easy ways to purchase for cheap. But please note that there are ways to get fresh and cheap produce. And if not that then you can opt for the frozen route as well. Someone has to be willing to show them it's possible and much easier for them. I will say though that starchy foods are very dense in calories. You can get bananas, potatoes, dried beans, oats, barley, rice, carrots for cheap. You can also get bread flour for cheap and partake in making your own bread as well once again provided that someone shows you how to.

 

[MsKrisp]

I do agree that proper nutritional education and what to buy at the grocery store for your money is most important. I only see it as something poor people don't know that they can have it. Produce is indeed pricey if you don't easy ways to purchase for cheap. But please note that there are ways to get fresh and cheap produce. And if not that then you can opt for the frozen route as well. Someone has to be willing to show them it's possible and much easier for them. I will say though that starchy foods are very dense in calories. You can get bananas, potatoes, dried beans, oats, barley, rice, carrots for cheap. You can also get bread flour for cheap and partake in making your own bread as well once again provided that someone shows you how to.

There are ways to get fresh produce cheaply for some, but not for everyone: http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts

In most places it's cheaper to buy a cheeseburger than a tomato.

And I was really, really poor when I was younger. I did not have time to bake bread because I was working 2 jobs, and even with that I could not afford equipment to make food with. There's a lot of obstacles up when you're poor that are hard to realize that can make vegetarianism difficult under our current system.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

We should work on educating people to not waste food and perhaps we wont need to have so much mass production farming.

I cringe every time I see $0.99 sales on meat in stores.

 

[Boney]

It is also false that consumer culture is ineffective. Naturally, the individual reductions in carbon print one can make is neglible and one isn't saving the planet through it. But consumer culture, through the fortification of supplementary/alternative food supply/market and a consolidation of life style choices can sway public opinion and help create the necessary conditions for institutional changes like the proposed taxes.

Things like tobacco taxes, or most other consumer tax predominantly impact low income people directly. But most progressive taxes like sugar taxes also directly benefit low income people, by significantly reducing health risks and being able to reinvest into health services.

 

[Pancake Mix]

And completely optional one with countless alternatives - unless you have a health condition (e.g. anemia) that demands meat or dairy in very specifically large quantities.

Nah, there's nothing as good as milk as a nutrient source for kids.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

There are ways to get fresh produce cheaply for some, but not for everyone: http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts

In most places it's cheaper to buy a cheeseburger than a tomato.

And I was really, really poor when I was younger. I did not have time to bake bread because I was working 2 jobs, and even with that I could not afford equipment to make food with. There's a lot of obstacles up when you're poor that are hard to realize that can make vegetarianism difficult under our current system.

In that case how can you even eat meat in its whole form? Fast food isn't nutritious food to even live on if you're arguing that

 

[Xe4]

In that case how can you even eat meat in its whole form? Fast food isn't nutritious food to even live on if you're arguing that

Poor people don't give two flying fucks about nutrition. They care about making it to their next paycheck. If they have to choose between a cheeseburger and tomato, and assuming they're the same cost, they'll choose the cheeseburger every time, because it's more calorie dense and easier to eat, require next to no prep.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

You're literally starving them by cutting off their easiest, cheapest source of food. There are better ways to go about reducing meat consumption than that.

I think you're vastly overestimating the ammount of time and money a single mom of two (for example) has in order to do all that you listed in the first paragraph.

Meat isn't the cheapest source of food. Lord knows it wasn't for dinner that often when I was a child (In almost the same situation you gave, because of cancer, ended up a single parent family with multiple kids). Sorry if requiring people to learn to cook good food sounds like some insurmountable hill to you, but ultimately that should be the persons problem, not the worlds. At some point it does have to switch to something they'll take some responsibility on to themselves. Because, unfortunately, it has become blatantly obvious that people won't fix this aspect of the problem until it affects them directly, and we can't wait until global warming is bad enough for people to stop denying or being ignorant of it, because it'll be far too late by then.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Even then still if this is taxed and meat is consumed less by the poor which they will lay off. Of they live paycheck to paycheck they will find the next cheapest option. In my mind the demand for plant based food will rise and price comcerns will minimize as the demand will lower prices.

Fast food will raise their prices too so the $5 combo poor people result to won't be anymore. There will be a balancing don't assume otherwise

 

[Xe4]

Meat isn't the cheapest source of food. Lord knows it wasn't for dinner that often when I was a child (In almost the same situation you gave, because of cancer, ended up a single parent family with multiple kids). Sorry if requiring people to learn to cook good food sounds like some insurmountable hill to you, but ultimately that should be the persons problem, not the worlds. At some point it does have to switch to something they'll take some responsibility on to themselves. Because, unfortunately, it has become blatantly obvious that people won't fix this aspect of the problem until it affects them directly, and we can't wait until global warming is bad enough for people to stop denying or being ignorant of it, because it'll be far too late by then.

That's easy for you to say because you aren't the ones who will be negatively affected by a food price hike, or who have to raise children on a shoestring budget with two jobs. You're essentially parroting the "bootstraps" argument conservatives love so much, and I really hope I don't have to explain why that's a wrong argument to make.

Even then still if this is taxed and meat is consumed less by the poor which they will lay off. Of they live paycheck to paycheck they will find the next cheapest option. In my mind the demand for plant based food will rise and price comcerns will minimize as the demand will lower prices.

Fast food will raise their prices too so the $5 combo poor people result to won't be anymore. There will be a balancing don't assume otherwise

Again, you're not the one negatively affected here, so it's pretty easy to say they'll make do, when it's just going to be another burden on them by s society thst doesn't care about the poor enough already.

 

[Cocaloch]

The price after tax would better reflect the total price hidden currently due to the back-loaded externalities and the problem of the commons. This needs to be done, however it should also be coupled with a switch to a more progressive tax structure generally.

I'm all for a fairer tax system, but I also think consumption taxes are extremely helpful in a number of situations. The two approaches can be combined.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Is there no technological advancements or things we can do to reduce the amount of pollution from dairy and meat farming? Like at all?

 

[the1npc]

this is a good idea. A vegan diet is great I still need to fully switch though.

food deserts are interesting, here in ontario there is grocery stores everywhere even shit rural town have them

 

[Cocaloch]

Is there no technological advancements or things we can do to reduce the amount of pollution from dairy and meat farming? Like at all?

I mean there obviously could be, but why does this mean we shouldn't try to limit consumption through other more direct means? This can at least be a stopgap.

 

[Adaren]

I'm not an activisit, but if they try and pass this tax, I'll become one. This is absolutely insane. Their should be no taxes on meat and milk. They taste too good.

A tax will never happen, and this is why. Meat culture is a big deal on both sides of the aisle. For every person who supports a meat tax, there will be two more who vow to double their meat consumption to fight back the hippie vegans or whatever. Modern America is too sensitive and emotional for the kind of reasoned arguments and big-picture thinking that would be necesaary for this to actually gain support. "Steak is delicious!" will sway far more people than the planet-altering threat of global warming.

 

[Xe4]

Is there no technological advancements or things we can do to reduce the amount of pollution from dairy and meat farming? Like at all?

Synthetic meat. That's still years away from being comercially visble, though

 

[R10Neymarfan]

That's easy for you to say because you aren't the ones who will be negatively affected by a food price hike, or who have to raise children on a shoestring budget with two jobs. You're essentially parroting the "bootstraps" argument conservatives love so much, and I really hope I don't have to explain why that's a wrong argument to make.



Again, you're not the one negatively affected here, so it's pretty easy to say they'll make do, when it's just going to be another burden on them by s society thst doesn't care about the poor enough already.

The impact will be felt on those that love in food deserts for sure. But there are ways for them and the community is doing her in fresh and affordable produce/meals. The issue with veganism is that it's treated as an upper class trend when the opportunity for it to be mainstream and cheap is huge and available.

 

[Skyball Paint]

You're literally starving them by cutting off their easiest, cheapest source of food. There are better ways to go about reducing meat consumption than that.

If beef is taxed, I'm not seeing why people can't eat other kinds of meat instead. As is, chicken and pork are cheaper and have less of an environmental impact.

A dairy tax, on the other hand, would be screwing the poor. There's very few alternatives to milk and they're more expensive.

 

[Maintenance]

I cannot drink soy milk without getting sick, so that option is already closed.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

There is a diversity of plant based Milks on the market that will fall in price as demand rises and subsidies for milk ends.

Even then synthetic Milks are coming as well so there is no denied nutrients for the poor. Even that cow milk isn't even nutritious anyway. The important vitamins in it like VitD are mostly supplemented

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Red meat was the first thing I quit before going vegetarian, and one of the reasons was this... The environmental impact.

I don't plan on eliminating meat from my diet completely at any point, but I have dramatically cut back on red meat. Where I would eat it 2-3 times a week in the past, I eat it maybe 2-3 times a month now. The amount of water and other resources in addition to the environmental impacts made me feel like I needed to make those changes in my lifestyle.

I feel better eating less red meat as well. I still enjoy a hamburger one or two times a month, but I don't crave it, and I feel better about what I'm doing.

 

[Kthulhu]

And so thought the majority of humans on the planet

And so, decades later, countless numbers of their descendants died due to this stubborn short-term pleasure seeking after our present day choices - climate change due to terrible industries like the meat industry; superbugs which developed thanks to animal farming; the collapse of huge food-chain ecologies thanks to human influence, etc - led to countless famines, loss of land, greater pollution, etc.

Your act matters.



I don't quite understand the logic here. In theory if everyone went vegan the meat and dairy industries would die out immediately (of course a totally unrealistic scenario) and thus simply not buying meat and dairy would have been crucial to making the change?

Of course in realistic terms it's a slow burn series of events rather than an immediate "everyone went vegan" narrative

Edit: oh right, I think i get it – you mean the biggest slices of climate change like energy and stuff? Right, fair enough. This would still make a big hit, though.

No I mean in general.

For example: if everyone in the world switched to electric cars tomorrow, the overall impact on climate change would be almost non-existent.

Consumers being responsible for environmental problems is a myth created by corporations to shift the blame off of them.

 

[Xe4]

The impact will be felt on those that love in food deserts for sure. But there are ways for them and the community is doing her in fresh and affordable produce/meals. The issue with veganism is that it's treated as an upper class trend when the opportunity for it to be mainstream and cheap is huge and available.

Again, the impact will be felt by the poor, I don't see how you can continue to ignore that.

All sales taxes disproportionatly affect Lowe income classes, thr difference is poor people don't need the stuff thst is usually taxed to fucking survive.

If beef is taxed, I'm not seeing why people can't eat other kinds of meat instead. As is, chicken and pork are cheaper and have less of an environmental impact.

A dairy tax, on the other hand, would be screwing the poor. There's very few alternatives to milk and they're more expensive.

Both would be screwing the poor, basically telling them they are restricted from eating beef until they make more money, which is six ways of fucked up. I agree, though a dairy tax would be worse.

People seem to be ignoring the fact that people are proposing a 20/40% tax hike on something that maybe contributes to 10% of climate change in America, and I think that's a pretty liberal estimate on my part.

No matter how you do the math, I can't see anyone coming to the conclusion that the cost to benifit ratio (literally, and on society) is worth it.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I'm still not sold on the notion that meat and dairy farms are killing the environment. Studies on this that I've seen are all across the board from minimal impact to strong impact. This particular study seems to believe meat and dairy farms contribute to more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation which I don't buy at all.

 

[Xe4]

I'm still not sold on the notion that meat and dairy farms are killing the environment. Studies on this that I've seen are all across the board from minimal impact to strong impact. This particular study seems to believe meat and dairy farms contribute to more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation which I don't buy at all.

It's because it's flat out wrong. At most, animal agriculture contributes to AGW half as much as what transportation does.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

 

[Linkstrikesback]

That's easy for you to say because you aren't the ones who will be negatively affected by a food price hike, or who have to raise children on a shoestring budget with two jobs. You're essentially parroting the "bootstraps" argument conservatives love so much, and I really hope I don't have to explain why that's a wrong argument to make.

"change" doesn't mean "no option other than the one that costs more". It's not the same argument at all. So you have to buy frozen chicken instead of frozen beef. World instead doesn't have quite as catastrophic effects from global warming.

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter whether you agree with me or not. The change in peoples diets has to happen, and it'll either happen by government intervention, which yes, means likely a tax on foods with large carbon costs (because the other realistic option of forced rationing would go down a hoot), or it'll happen when global warming absolutely fucks the food supply chains, which will be worse for everyone, again, hitting "the poor" the hardest (the quotes are because I don't know what form being poor will take in that sort of world, not any specific insult meant to people who don't earn much now).

I do however take offense to the whole "won't be affected" thing. Daft thing to say when you have no idea what any random persons earnings are. There isn't a person alive that isn't affected by price hikes, at least, not people that significantly better off than I am at any rate.

edit:Oh, and the idea of taxing dairy products like milk is daft, and shouldn't be explored, unless options from other better animals are commercially viable at the same scale, I have no idea on that front though.

It's because it's flat out wrong. At most, animal agriculture contributes to AGW half as much as what transportation does.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

Absolutely. And personal transportation is going to have to be slashed too, hopefully for more public options. Given what I saw of America though... you're a long way from that being feasible either. They aren't an either/or option though, both things will end up happening one way or the other.

 

[Zackat]

Finding a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases the cows release is a better solution than this, imo.

And I drink Soylent daily.

 

[the1npc]

I'm still not sold on the notion that meat and dairy farms are killing the environment. Studies on this that I've seen are all across the board from minimal impact to strong impact. This particular study seems to believe meat and dairy farms contribute to more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation which I don't buy at all.

once you factor in water used to feed the animals, growing their food, transportation, methane, its a massive impact especially for food that is largely bad for people

 

[Xe4]

"change" doesn't mean "no option other than the one that costs more". It's not the same argument at all. So you have to buy frozen chicken instead of frozen beef. World instead doesn't have quite as catastrophic effects from global warming.

The thing is, it doesn't actually matter whether you agree with me or not. The change in peoples diets has to happen, and it'll either happen by government intervention, which yes, means likely a tax on foods with large carbon costs (because the other realistic option of forced rationing would go down a hoot), or it'll happen when global warming absolutely fucks the food supply chains, which will be worse for everyone, again, hitting "the poor" the hardest (the quotes are because I don't know what form being poor will take in that sort of world, not any specific insult meant to people who don't earn much now).

I do however take offense to the whole "won't be affected" thing. Daft thing to say when you have no idea what any random persons earnings are. There isn't a person alive that isn't affected by price hikes, at least, not people that significantly better off than I am at any rate.

You're arguing for a doubling of beef costs bad on what is maybe 10% of AGW forcing. That's ludicrous, even if there was no other way to reduce meat consumption in the US *which there is*.

Again the problem with advocating a better diet through health program and subsidising healthy food is what exactly? It doesn't force people to change while fucking over a large portion of the population?

Absolutely. And personal transportation is going to have to be slashed too, hopefully for more public options. Given what I saw of America though... you're a long way from that being feasible either. They aren't an either/or option though, both things will end up happening one way or the other.

So you're basing the entire feasablitiy of a plan in that you dont *think* it'll be that big a deal, in a country you know little about and don't live in? Great, that could never go wrong.

Look, I agree AGW is a threat, and we need to reduce meat consumption, increase renewable energy, public transoprtation, yadda yadda yadda. But I'm not a fan of crippling the least well off in our society whole doing it, especially when there are other ways to go about this, even if they won't produce immediate results.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Synthetic meat. That's still years away from being comercially viable, though

I think it is the most realistic option though in terms of actually changing social behavior on a large enough scale. The moral argument becomes so much stronger in this scenario because it no longer requires any change in personal behavior and it instead becomes an industrial supply problem. Do people care if their electricity comes from a coal fired plant or a hydroelectric dam? No, they just want their lights to turn on.

If we can get synthetic meat to be close enough to the real thing that the vast majority of people can't tell a difference, I don't think they will care that there is a difference so long as they can keep eating burgers. I also think it would provide more cover for taxes on real meat consumption.

 

[Sec0nd]

I'm always kind of baffled with the responses in these threads. Hopefully it's because it's a vocal minority that it always attracts. Hopefully.

Anytime there is some doomsday global warming news everyone screams at the top of the longs that something should be done. Pointing fingers and corporations and governments that haven't done enough to tackle the problem (rightfully so). But the second someone advocates an idea that could help the global warming problem that somehow affects the individual, people turn their backs and dismiss the idea right away. Some just go fuck it, I enjoy beef too much. Some try to dismiss the idea that the beef/diary industry is that much of a burden on the environment. Some try to reason that the impact of such an idea is too small so why bother anyway.

I hope I won't sound too hostile, since it's not ment that way. But refusing to stop eat beef, or place some higher tax on it, is just so incredibly selfish. Just stop and think what little of an impact that will have on your life. It's a meat you probably don't continually eat throughout the day and/or every day. You'll probably have to think of something else to eat for maybe two or three days a week. That's it. It's not difficult. It's not that inconvenient. The only reason why someone would continue to eat beef is because they like the taste of it. Yet by deciding to eat something else you can actually do something about climate change. However small that might on a personal scale. It all adds up to dramatic results on the larger scale.

As corny as it may sound, but be the change you want to see in the world. If you can't even bother to change one minuscule part of your life for selfish reasons, you honestly don't got the right to complain about companies or governments for not making huge changes.

Edit: Slightly off the point but also not. People need to realize that things need to change in order to combat global warming. And those changes will influence your personal lives. Be it paying more for certain things, higher taxes, removal of certain travel options or products, what ever. It will not all be fun. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. Not anymore.

 

[richardhawk]

I'm always kind of baffled with the responses in these threads. Hopefully it's because it's a vocal minority that it always attracts. Hopefully.

Anytime there is some doomsday global warming news everyone screams at the top of the longs that something should be done. Pointing fingers and corporations and governments that haven't done enough to tackle the problem (rightfully so). But the second someone advocates an idea that could help the global warming problem that somehow affects the individual, people turn their backs and dismiss the idea right away. Some just go fuck it, I enjoy beef too much. Some try to dismiss the idea that the beef/diary industry is that much of a burden on the environment. Some try to reason that the impact of such an idea is too small so why bother anyway.

I hope I won't sound too hostile, since it's not ment that way. But refusing to stop eat beef, or place some higher tax on it, is just so incredibly selfish. Just stop and think what little of an impact that will have on your life. It's a meat you probably don't continually eat throughout the day and/or every day. You'll probably have to think of something else to eat for maybe two or three days a week. That's it. It's not difficult. It's not that inconvenient. The only reason why someone would continue to eat beef is because they like the taste of it. Yet by deciding to eat something else you can actually do something about climate change. However small that might on a personal scale. It all adds up to dramatic results on the larger scale.

As corny as it may sound, but be the change you want to see in the world. If you can't even bother to change one minuscule part of your life for selfish reasons, you honestly don't got the right to complain about companies or governments for not making huge changes.

Edit: Slightly off the point but also not. People need to realize that things need to change in order to combat global warming. And those changes will influence your personal lives. Be it paying more for certain things, higher taxes, removal of certain travel options or products, what ever. It will not all be fun. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. Not anymore.

Great post. Unfortunately people are quick to jump and spout off about meat being the only source of protein they can get or even worse "nah bacon tastes good I don't care". I don't see most people changing until its far to late. More than likely it won't be until the environmental damage is too far gone of they suffer from the effects of what they consume.

 

[the1npc]

yep lot of other protein out there and most people eat too much of it as it is, look at how many overweight people there are now in north america

 

[Cocaloch]

I don't see most people changing until its far to late.

That's the point of the tax.

yep lot of other protein out there and most people eat too much of it as it is, look at how many overweight people there are now in north america

America's weight problem doesn't derive from eating too much protein in particular.

 

[the1npc]

That's the point of the tax.



America's weight problem doesn't derive from eating too much protein in particular.

this is true but I bet 90% of the trash people eat has animal products in it

 

[Marky Mark]

He even recommended a tax on chicken and eggs and uses a tax on pop as justification. Embarrassing and this won't gain traction. Farmers are already struggling to boot.

No way, no how, never.

Pop can be heavily taxed because it's sugary junk food, not vital nutrition.

Which gets taxed first?

 

[Sec0nd]

On a more positive note; beef is such a boring piece of food. What are you going to do with it? Eat it as a steak, put it on a burger? Tastes good, sure. But don't you just get tired eating it every week? Bet most people will pick the steak or burger when do go out to a restaurant because it's the safe option. Boring.

You can make so many interesting and amazing combinations with all the different kind vegetables. You can fry them, cook 'em, blend up, come up with new combinations. It's honestly insane what you can do with food if you decide not to stick with the boring safe foods (meats in general).

I always thought that going vegetarian (for the record, I'm no vegetarian, yet. I just avoid beef right now) would meant eating gross or boring food. But boy was I wrong. I've had so many incredible meals after trying to actively avoid meat. It opened up an whole other world of food I never fully knew existed. Takes just a bit of effort in the beginning to explore the new possibilities and getting used to prepping the food. But man, totally worth it.

 

[the1npc]

even vegan junk is amazing. Ive had some amazing "meats" at vegan places in Toronto

 

[Stanng243]

On a more positive note; beef is such a boring piece of food. What are you going to do with it? Eat it as a steak, put it on a burger? Tastes good, sure. But don't you just get tired eating it every week? Bet most people will pick the steak or burger when do go out to a restaurant because it's the safe option. Boring.

You can make so many interesting and amazing combinations with all the different kind vegetables. You can fry them, cook 'em, blend up, come up with new combinations. It's honestly insane what you can do with food if you decide not to stick with the boring safe foods (meats in general).

I always thought that going vegetarian (for the record, I'm no vegetarian, yet. I just avoid beef right now) would meant eating gross or boring food. But boy was I wrong. I've had so many incredible meals after trying to actively avoid meat. It opened up an whole other world of food I never fully knew existed. Takes just a bit of effort in the beginning to explore the new possibilities and getting used to prepping the food. But man, totally worth it.

I think you underestimate how much people eat beef. It's not a proper meal without meat, and generally I eat beef twice a day. Sometimes three. I have no interest in eating many vegetables. To be fair, I get most of my meat directly from local farmers I know, so I get it cheap or free.

 

[the1npc]

I think you underestimate how much people eat beef. It's not a proper meal without meat, and generally I eat beef twice a day. Sometimes three. I have no interest in eating many vegetables. To be fair, I get most of my meat directly from local farmers I know, so I get it cheap or free.

how are you alive lol. i was picky as a kid but now veggies are great. Im still weird and hate onions and pickles

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Fruits and vegetables take up even more land and water then say a dairy farm. Where are you going to get your milk and meat? You maybe able to live off fruits and vegetables but most of the world can't.

Everything in this post is the opposite of what is actually true for most of the world's population. First sentence is patently false.

Most of the world eats a vast majority vegan diet with tiny amounts of meat and/or dairy to compliment that diet.

 

[Hypron]

Nah, there's nothing as good as milk as a nutrient source for kids.

You don't need to drink milk to be healthy. Just because it's a good source doesn't mean it's essential.

 

[Skinpop]

raise taxes on sugar. people will get slimmer and eat less. problem solved

Everything in this post is the opposite of what is actually true for most of the world's population. First sentence is patently false.

Most of the world eats a vast majority vegan diet with tiny amounts of meat and/or dairy to compliment that diet.

not to mention that animal feedstuff needs to be grown and processed as well.

 

[Sec0nd]

I think you underestimate how much people eat beef. It's not a proper meal without meat, and generally I eat beef twice a day. Sometimes three. I have no interest in eating many vegetables. To be fair, I get most of my meat directly from local farmers I know, so I get it cheap or free.

Growing up with my parents we've always had a good mix of beef, fish, chicken and sometimes pork. That way has always been my reference for a 'normal' diet. I'm also from the Netherlands so I'm sure that diets vary widely from each country.

I'm curious what you eat if you generally eat beef twice a day. I can understand eating beef for dinner, but what are the other things?

Also, I get the vegetable sentiment. In my mind vegetables will always be synonym with the veggies I had with my meals centered around meats like carrots, cauliflower, etc. But there are so many incredible tasty veggies that aren't that traditional, like chickpeas. Adding lots of fruits to dinner meals is super tasty as well. And nuts! Don't forget nuts. Nuts are godly. Good source for protein as well.

You don't need to drink milk to be healthy. Just because it's a good source doesn't mean it's essential.

Can a vegan alternative with the same nutritional value be had for the same price?

Spoiler

The answer is no, not even remotely close.

This'll probably be my last comment in this thread since it feels like it feels like I'm becoming one of those super annoying forceful vegan activist which I hate with a passion. But...

Lots of reports coming out in the last couple of years that milk is actually just bad for you. Increases chances of cancer, diabetes and other illnesses. Source. And that drinking milk is actually not all that good for your bones after all Source. Though there doesn't seem to be a scientific consensus from what I can tell. Also, the reason milk is considered healthy and part of the 'normal healthy' diet is almost 100% thanks to the milk lobby source. It didn't come from some scientific background.

 

[Wafflecakes]

You don't need to drink milk to be healthy. Just because it's a good source doesn't mean it's essential.

Can a vegan alternative with the same nutritional value be had for the same price?

Spoiler

The answer is no, not even remotely close.