Dave's Dispatch
Recent Posts
- "Structural Change" is Coming
- In the Realm of Kings
- Quiz: Baristas in Bad Moods
- NYT Profile: Ruby Tuesday
- Chains Teens Like
- Starbucks in Recovery
- What Servers Should Never Do
- My Beef with Professor Singer
- Cheers! Drink Prices Rising
- Taking Price Is a Thing of the Past
Recent Comments
- Steve J on "Structural Change" is Coming
- broadstreetlicensing on "Structural Change" is Coming
- Steve J on "Structural Change" is Coming
- Steve J on Quiz: Baristas in Bad Moods
- Mary Chapman on Quiz: Baristas in Bad Moods
Most Commented On
- Damn the Torpedoes in Quiznos New Ad (60)
- McDonald's "gay support" issue (34)
- Micatrotto: 'LIke a very large restaurant.' (30)
- Making Servers Pay: Cold-Hearted or cost-effective? (27)
- Red Lobster: Apparently Still off the Glenn Beck Show (17)
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- January 2006
Blog
Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (6)
October 26, 2009
Shall we start with a 50 percent tax on the retail value of beef? That's the suggestion of Princeton University professor and author Peter Singer in today's New York Daily News.
Why tax red meat?
It's bad for the animals, too.
What's more, Singer argues, raising livestock ruins the environment in a number of ways, including through greenhouse gas emissions. A tax, in short, will decrease demand for red meat and humans therefore will be healthier, animals happier, and earth a safer place to live and breathe.
Indeed, medical science does suggest a link between red meat consumption and cancer. According to a 2006 study published in the National Journal of Cancer Research:
Environmental scientists can credibly demonstrate how livestock production, particularly the industrial kind, harms Mother Earth. So if one wants to avoid cancer (or fears E. coli O157:H7 ) or doesn't like playing a role in earth's demise or cringes at animal cruelty, one simply should not buy or consume red meat.
It's that simple.
The problem, however, is the tax. Why should anyone--consumers or businesses--have to pay or charge an additional tariff to buy or sell one of life's great pleasures?
Beef, by the way, is not like tobacco, which contains the addictive component nicotine. What's more, tobacco smoke harms anyone who breathes it. Nor is red meat like sugary sodas, which offer little nutritional value.
Beef for better or worse is a fundamental part of our food culture. Professor Singer: Taxing its purchase is wrong.
My Beef with Professor Singer
October 26, 2009
Shall we start with a 50 percent tax on the retail value of beef? That's the suggestion of Princeton University professor and author Peter Singer in today's New York Daily News.
Why tax red meat?
| "First, eating red meat is likely to kill you. Large studies have shown that the daily consumption of red meat increases the risk that you will die prematurely of heart disease or bowel cancer. This is now beyond serious scientific dispute. When the beef industry tries to deny the evidence, it is just repeating what the tobacco industry did 30 years ago." |
| "Second, we have laws that ban cruelty to animals. Unfortunately in the states in which most animals are raised for meat, the agribusiness lobby is so powerful that it has carved out exemptions to the usual laws against cruelty." |
Indeed, medical science does suggest a link between red meat consumption and cancer. According to a 2006 study published in the National Journal of Cancer Research:
|
"There is increasing epidemiological evidence implicating red meat as a risk factor for colorectal cancer, whereas white meat has not been associated with this cancer. Once of the main differences between red and white meat is the higher iron content in red meat." |
It's that simple.
The problem, however, is the tax. Why should anyone--consumers or businesses--have to pay or charge an additional tariff to buy or sell one of life's great pleasures?
Beef, by the way, is not like tobacco, which contains the addictive component nicotine. What's more, tobacco smoke harms anyone who breathes it. Nor is red meat like sugary sodas, which offer little nutritional value.
Beef for better or worse is a fundamental part of our food culture. Professor Singer: Taxing its purchase is wrong.
Posted by David Farkas on October 26, 2009 | Comments (6)
Industries: Operations
Reader Comments
at 10/27/2009 4:40:44 AM, Actias commented:
Meat contains toxins which can have an addictive effect. By raising cattle your are wonding the planet the same way (worst) than a smoker to the non smoker.
"Beef for better or worse is a fundamental part of our food culture."
This not an argument (argumentum ad antiquam), and by logical argument, this is for worse.
at 10/27/2009 8:22:31 AM, mnotter commented:
Professor Singer sounds like a buddy of Cass R.Sunstein (Regulatory Czar) and the new "Progressive Left" in America. They have often preached... instead of declaring war on the habits they don't endorse, they'll "nudge" people towards their ideals. Case in point... tax the heck out of the beef industry until people can't afford to purchase it. Not only will that get everyone eating what they endorse, it'll also put those pesky beef producers out of business. These folks have all drunk from the same well of "we know what's best for you." I think they are arrogant, out of touch, and dangerous for the Agri-business men and women of America. Watch out in 10-20 years when we no longer can supply enough milk, crops, produce, or meat to feed ourselves. Take a look at how the import/export taxes are destroying the US Dairy Industry. Please stop these anti-agriculture (an anti-restaurant by extension)harpies. Say "NO" to the Nudge-theory.
at 10/27/2009 1:27:28 PM, Harold Paxton commented:
I think they make such arguments when it comes to taxing just solely for the idea of justifying their desire for more money.
Remember the Mary Poppins song, "A spoon full of sugar"?
Same thing here. It sounds palatable to citizens that since it's bad for me making others pay extra who eat it is okay. In fact sometimes I think there is a lean to create health risks or at least explode them so that taxes could be levied.
-Harold
www.sellmoremeals.com
at 10/27/2009 3:27:57 PM, Observer commented:
About a 100 years or so ago when I took civics in high school we were taught that the purpose behind taxes in a free society was to support the necessary activities of the government. In other words taxes should not be used to provide social engineering for every damn fool with an ax to grind.
at 10/27/2009 3:40:41 PM, Kathy commented:
Good idea, Singer.
BTW mnotter, progressive is not an insult - making progress is actually a good thing.
at 10/28/2009 8:29:44 AM, mnotter commented:
Kathy, I didn't intend to insult all progress. I'm just stating my opinion. It's largely a matter of semantics -- "progress" to one person, is an unwelcome transformation to others. Progress purely in the name of "progress" doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather know the end-game of where I'm being asked to go and make my own decisions whether or not to go along on that ride. Freedom of Choice is still alive in America.
Advertisement
Advertisements
