Note: I a not a vegan, I make no apology for that. However I believe that vegans have every right to eat what they choose and shouldn't be bullied or denigrated for that. I do not - at all- subscribe to the vapid misogynist 'soyboy' trope that has become quite popular of late.
Now then it seems another section of the great and the good advocates for a tax on red meat. This is based on two reasons: first and foremost the alleged environmental impact of the current method of producing it, and secondly the alleged health issues.
I do not agree with this tax. It is, as it always is with this approach a blunt instrument wielded by those with no thought for the poorest who, as ever, will be hit the hardest. Red meat, in many forms, is a healthy staple. It is also more affordable than many alternatives advocated by the liberal intelligentsia. Beef, for example, is among the most nutrient dense food sources available to us, and, like all meat, has what we need in forms the body can better and more easily process. This, I'm afraid, is not the case with many non-meat altnernatives.
Offal has been demonised, along with fat, for many years. Meanwhile we are witnessing a sweeping health crisis in the western world casued by the standard western/American diet. We have tried the low fat approach and clearly it hasn't worked. Good fat is not just healthy, it is essential. Fat soluble vitamins and essential fatty acids are required for life. On the back of this, a concerted attack on red meat is of great concern to me. I eat a low carb high fat diet and it has been very beneficial. Meat has been a major staple of this diet, including pork and beef as well as liver, which is also one of the most nutritious foods you can eat.
Attempts to demonise red meat culminated in a report from the WHO claiming that it is a 'probable carcinogen'. This is not accurate. Even if the claims were true the relative risk is so small as to be insignificant. However the study is observational, based on highly debunked questionnaires. Can you recall what you ate accurately enough over a period of months and years? Look here for more information on this study.
The environmental impact is of course important. It is clear, by all the evidence, that we are facing an unprecedented climate crisis that, in all honesty, we are not going to be able to avoid. At this point it is merely a matter of how overcooked do you want your planet. Our leaders are not capable of addressing this and the change required is too vast for any of them to comprehend (even assuming they accept the science, which America doesn't) and too close to avoid without losing power. However the context within which the claims about red meat are made are based on the current model of farming. I do not necessarily agree with industrial capitalist factory farming, it turns cows into commodities and the alienation of the workforce is a breeding ground for the kind of disgusting barbarism vegan activists rightly point out as cruelty within the industry.
It doesn't have to be this way, even on a planet as densely populated as mother earth (a problem, one that we have created for ourselves unfortunately). Meat should come from animals raised in their natural environment and doing so allows soil to grow fertile which also helps deal with carbon emissions. Without the need for an alien diet, grains imported to feed cows that should be eating grass, land is freed up. Not all land is suitable for growing vegetables and fruits (and not all of us want to eat them!).
A world devoid of a meat industry, for all its problems (and there are many) would be impossible. It would not be a world free of animals killed in the name of food either, nor would it be a world free of industrial agriculture (pesticides and the like). Vast industrial infrastructure would be required to ship foods that can only grow in particular places (tropical fruits for example) around the world. Britain for instance would still need to import the majority of its food as it cannot produce enough. Likely, given the relatively low nutrient density of plant food, it would need to import more. Then there would be the effects of communities devastated by the removal of meat as their livelihood, such as nomadic or rural cultures forced into cities as a result (a problem climate change can only exacerbate).
This ius a very simple look at the issues. I don't have all the answers. I could very well be wrong. I am not gospel on this issue. All I know is that persecuting the poor, while maintaining the capitalist system that underpins these problems, is a terrible idea. But, for the ruling elite, it is the only idea they will countenance. If we don't deal with that and instead fall for bad science then not only will the climate continue its inexorable decline, but so will our quality of
Eat what you like, plants or meat. But don't fall for the propaganda of biased sources as well as the ruling class who don't know what it's like to eat frugally. I have long been sickened by the toff foodie culture that abounds - especially when, after a period of pretentious eating thanks to the likes of Heston Blumenthal, it came back around to try and co opt working class meals by way of venerating 'locally sourced organic food'. To these people that's just another fad, but to the rest of us eating locally is what we do naturally. It's not a cultural artifact to be commodified by poverty tourists and television stars.
