Got a loicense for that Red Meat?

This. It's just another step towards a world of kalergi mutts who eat bugs and s*ylent.

lmgtfy.com/?q=is pork considered red meat

Sounds like a good idea. Sick of seeing obese nigs buying 50 pounds of pork and cheese at the grocery store with EBT, then getting diabetes and heart disease that my taxes pay for. You should be eating beans and vegetables anyway you degenerate fucks.

>he thinks red meat causes heart disease

Attached: 1534032924481.jpg (666x666, 148K)

Another excuse for the nanny state to steal more of our money.

Wonder why the fuck no one wants to tax carb heavy food, since there are plenty serious studies on how carb heavy diets are harmful to health.

Red meat, sugar, smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol. It doesn't matter if you like it, them's the breaks.

>The plan was proposed by the man behind the controversial sugar tax Professor Reverend Mike Rayner
People have wanted to tax sugar and sugary things like sodas for a long time too. A general "carb tax" would make no sense since most carbs are good for you.

> meat and cheese cause diabetes

Got to provide healthcare to those Pakistani immigrants, goy! Pay up!

marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/

chriskresser.com/red-meat-it-does-a-body-good/

Ha pay the halal and kosher tax on regular meat. pay another tax on meat those fuckers dont eat.

A quick tip, any article on the bbc that goes;
>Should there be xxxx?

Can be answered with 'NO' and then forgotten about. They are trying to get clicks like every other e-rag.

Good though, red meat is objectively unhealthy.

I may not have my foreskin but at least I am free to own a weapon, own cutlery, eat meat, not have a raped family, and not worship Allah.

Shit is being unironically pushed for by leftist "nutrition experts".

express.co.uk/news/uk/1042492/red-meat-tax-bacon-liz-truss-pork-processed-meat-sausages-bad

>red meat
>shows picture of pork

*pic related

>but should politicians be telling people what they can and can’t eat?
Why not? You’ve already let them tell you what weapons you can own, what you can say, what you can think, and wether or not you’re allowed to criticize Muslim rape gangs as they violate your daughter (obviously a no-no)

>lmgtfy.com/?q=is pork considered red meat

this
they want us to be communist supporting brown skinned trans gendered politically correct serfs that only eat vegetables and ants and live in communes and dorm rooms while all private property rights are abolished and the 2A is disintegrated

Paleo blogs are not a valid source of information

The link between red meat and mortality is flawed and has been grossly overexaggerated.

If you want a more detailed explanation with citations and studies, I provided links.

No it isn't, you just don't want to accept what the vast majority of relevant experts have agreed upon because the idea scares you, because you hold a special personal attachment to red meat for whatever reason. Googling "red meat is good for me, fuck what everyone thinks" and then reading the blog posts that pop up isn't how you find unbiased, uncherrypicked information. Both of the websites you posted are run by known quacks whose beliefs on nutrition are far on the fringe.

People said this was the logical conclusion to the government getting involved in healthcare. They were called conspiracy theorists and muh slippery slope. When they did it for cigarrettes, same answer. Then when they started policing food sizes they said the same. Then they want to tax sugary drinks and theymstill say the same. Now they want to tax red meat. I swear slippery slope is not a logical fallacy when it comes to describing the behavior of statists.

Hey, vegan. WHat produces more greenhouse gases each year? Meat production? Travel by aircraft? I will give up my meat when you give up traveling around the world instagramming yourself against backdrops of the dying planet.

>Not eating red meat means you are a vegan

Stop Grug.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It needs to be renamed the Slippery Slope Law.

Reviews of studies on red meat and cancer have reported inconclusive results. (1) Most studies show that the data on red meat and colorectal cancer, which has gotten more publicity than most other conditions red meat is supposed to cause, is insufficient to support a clear positive association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer. (2)

And despite claims by the popular media and mainstream medical establishment to the contrary, there’s no consistent evidence demonstrating that the saturated fat found in red meat significantly raises blood cholesterol levels. What’s more, large prospective studies involving almost 350,000 participants have found no association between saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease (CHD) or cardiovascular disease (CVD) (3). In fact, one large study almost 60,000 Japanese women found an inverse association between saturated fat consumption and stroke: the more saturated fat participants ate, the lower their rate of stroke. (4)

(1)
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540747

(2)
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065

(3)
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus

(4)
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus

>Hey, vegan. WHat produces more greenhouse gases each year? Meat production? Travel by aircraft? I will give up my meat when you give up traveling around the world instagramming yourself against backdrops of the dying planet.

Irrelevant.

Red meat is healthy only in small quantities per week. That means 2 or less servings per week, and a serving is 4 ounces.

His claim has nothing to do with being vegan. You can eat fish or chicken every other day.

It may not mean you are a vegan but it certainly means that you're a faggot

see

Eat fish

>You can eat fish or chicken every other day.
Why would you want to though? Pork, beef, and so on are far tastier.

Consumption of red meat has literally 0 (zero) correlation with heart disease. You CANNOT find me a single study that does. They simply don't exist. (((Researchers))) take vegetarian/vegan dieters and compare them to those who consume the standard American diet (high in refined grain/sugar and processed vegetable/seed oils, moderate amounts of omega-6 rich meat, and very few fruits and vegetables) and call them 'meat eaters' and declare that vegetarian diets are healtier based on that. There is not a single honest study.

Vegans need to be stomped out on sight.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540747
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065
"Funding support: This work was partially funded by the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), and by the Danish Agriculture & Food Council;"
"This study was partially funded by the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Board;"
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus
"Supported by the National Dairy Council (PWS-T and RMK) "

Like I said, when you search out fringe opinions written by quacks, you get biased, cherrypicked information.
Here's a video breaking down that dairy industry funded paper so you can see how bad research can be compiled and then interpreted in a misleading way, and why it's important, especially if you read something that most experts disagree with, to actually take the time to get a full understanding of the research before you accept one cherrypicked study as the be-all-end-all.
youtube.com/watch?v=a-Tx9dCbv-g

Attached: hello_goy.png (1337x694, 882K)

Those conclusions are nonsense. Your first two articles clearly state there is a weakly positive relationship of colorectal cancer with increased red meat. Of course red meat doesn't give everyone cancer, because everyone's body is built to resist and destroy cancer. But on occasion the body fails and misses it.

For cardiovascular disease, you have to understand the health differences in men and women, and you must account for life style as well. A healthy person who jogs daily and eats red meat more often than recommended is not going to have a heart attack because of it. A sedentary person who eats more red meat than they should probably will. It is a risk factor, nothing more.

Women typically do not have heart disease until after menopause because estrogen is protective. They are usually well into their 50's or 60's before they see the effects of heart disease.

>tfw poultryfag

This is unironically a good idea. Promoting healthy eating and being environmentally friendly. Only the meat industry and meatheads who have been brainwashed into thinking "GROG NEED MUH ANIMAL PROTEINZ FOR BIG MUSCLES" would be buttmad about this.

shut the fuck up, vegan.
red meat is my favourite kind of meal.

>I wonder how something high in saturated fats could clog my arteries!

Notice how they call anyone who doesn't outright deny the health consequences of a diet high in meat a vegan, like an SJW calling everyone a nazi

jbc org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf

Read it and weep.

1. Two men lived on an exclusive meat diet for 1 year and a
third man for 10 days. The relative amounts of lean and fat,
meat ingested were left to the instinctive choice of the individuals.
2. The protein content varied from 100 to 140 gm., the fat from
by guest on November 8, 2018 jbc.org/ Downloaded from
W. S. McClellan and E. F. Du Bois 667
200 to 300 gm., the carbohydrate, derived entirely from the meat,
from 7 to 12 gm., and the fuel value from 2000 to 3100 calories.
3. At the end of the year, the subjects were mentally alert,
physically active, and showed no specific physical changes in any
system of the body.
4. During the 1st week, all three men lost weight, due to a
shift in the water content of the body while adjusting itself to the
low carbohydrate diet. Thereafter, their weights remained
practically constant.
5. In the prolonged test, the blood pressure of one man remained
constant; the systolic pressure of the other decreased 20
mm. and the diastolic pressure remained uniform.
6. The control of the bowels was not disturbed while the subjects
were on prescribed meat diet. In one instance, when the
proportion of protein calories in the diet exceeded 40 per cent,
a diarrhea developed.
7. Vitamin deficiencies did not appear.
8. The total acidity of the urine during the meat diet was increased
to 2 or 3 times that of the acidity on mixed diets and acetonuria
was present throughout the periods of exclusive meat.
9. Urine examinations, determinations of the nitrogenous
constituents of the blood, and kidney function tests revealed no
evidence of kidney damage.
10. While on the meat diet, the men metabolized foodstuffs with
FA: G ratios between 1.9 and 3.0 and excreted from 0.4 to 7.2 gm.
of acetone bodies per day.
11. In these trained subjects, the clinical observations and
laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had
occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.

Part of the Vegan agenda which is part of Agenda 21.
youtube.com/watch?v=3odC9gEXX2c

Veganism is incredibly destructive to human health. Search for ex-Vegan videos on YT if you don't believe me.

youtube.com/watch?v=PJnPZgLHHWQ
youtube.com/watch?v=1HwBtRlyxPs
youtube.com/watch?v=EFF30jfTubU

Can you stupid motherfuckers actually just shut the fuck up and meatpill yourselves? Christ... This is depopulation 101.

Justmeat.co

BRITISH PEOPLE PREPPING FOR BREXIT FOOD SHORTAGES WITH TAX RATIONING.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27557655

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974007/

One of many studies that indicate red meat is unfavorable for humans.

Red-meat has been linked to heart disease in some studies, and other show the inverse. However, in every study, the results are always skewed because people have different lifestyles. They either exercise more frequently/non-frequently, eat more vegetables, smoke, etc. All these factors add up.

As long as you're not smoking, drinking, and eating processed red meat everyday, everyone will be fine. The issue is that people aren't balancing their lifestyle/diet - they refuse to eat fruits/veg, and never exercise.

In general, anything in excess is bad, and red meat is no exception. Without a doubt, processed meat does cause colon cancer and CVD, this is well known. Also, beans are the one best food source for humans, and in general offer tons of benefits (healthy gut flora, vitamins/minerals) etc. It's all about balance; I still eat meat, just twice per week (poultry/fish).

No. But people who worship red meat should be killed - literally every single study has shown eating red meats above moderate levels increases your probability or both heart disease and cancer.

inb4 Jews did those studies.

>Provides a video made by a guy from PlantPositive.com
I can play this game too.

The studies don't lie. Find me ONE study that proves red meat is bad for your health that isn't confounded by other factors like mentioned. You can't.

> A healthy person who jogs daily and eats red meat more often than recommended is not going to have a heart attack because of it.
Exactly. The studies compare vegetarians, who tend to be more health conscious, vs. people who eat everything under the sun (sugar and refined graisn, for example). See this guys post. One of the biggest specific problems with observational studies on red meat is what’s referred to as the “healthy user bias”. Since red meat has been vilified for years in the mainstream press, people who eat less of it are also more likely to less of other foods that are actually unhealthy (i.e. refined sugar, trans-fats, processed foods, etc.) and engage in healthier lifestyle choices (i.e. they are physically active, don’t smoke, etc.). Moreover, Food Frequency Questionnaires are still a problematic way to gather data about dietary intake. (Do you remember what you ate for lunch last Tuesday? Neither do I.)

>what is portion control
Fat Brit with man tits detected

>These studies were supported in part by a research grant from the Institute of American Meat Packers
Every time. It's like checking for jews on twitter.

>muh saturated fats
>doesn't consider the difference between animal fats and highly processed vegetable and seed oils (which are literally industrial waste byproducts)

much cheaper for you if they live to 95 claiming benefits instead

>completely sidesteps everything in my post
Bravo, shill.

>t. Fat brit

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Taxing sugar is ok with me.

AMERICA NEEDS TO LIBERATE THE ISLES OF BRITAIN
THE MASSES OF BRITS YEARNING TO BE FREE, YEARNING FOR JUST A TASTE OF THE BURGER, THEY CAN NOT BE DENIED

Attached: 1473994627520.jpg (853x543, 141K)

>Sidesteps everything in my post
Exactly like you did with mine, quoting who funded it, and then calling them quacks without addressing the actual studies which clearly show no link between red meat and mortality.

Meat tax is a good thing. We don't pay nearly enough given its catastrophic effects on the world around us. It should be significantly more expensive than it is.

PS eating beef snacks right now because i can afford it even with the tax

dumb fuck, they will still get EBT which will be more than enough to buy this crap.
as usual, the people who get screwed are the working class whites

The most disappointing thing about taxes is how the revenue is misspent

Clearly you have no experience with nignogs... try soda, ding dongs, and other processed bullshit. Only southern nigs actually cook and even that might be a meme at this point.

>UK wants to tax bacon

Attached: 1534162127628.gif (320x240, 2.12M)

>a meat tax could prevent almost 6,000 deaths per year
what about a nigger tax?

Obviously, former smokers and people consume more calories will have a higher incidence of CVD.

Attached: Untitled.png (600x836, 28K)

>six gorillio-thousand deaths

Wut

>red meat tax
>picture of bacon

>Exactly. The studies compare vegetarians, who tend to be more health conscious, vs. people who eat everything under the sun (sugar and refined graisn, for example)

Yes but as you can see from the general population, a good 40-50% of the them aren't all that healthy, which is why guidelines were suggested anyway. What we do know is that high saturated fats do lead to high LDL levels, and increased LDL levels do lead to CVD. Whether or not this is directly due to the consumption of saturated fats or because this means the person is getting less unsaturated fats is irrelevant. In an unhealthy person who doesn't exercise, their only means of managing their LDL is by limiting cheese and red meat, as well as increasing their HDL.

A healthy person need not worry about those guidelines because they weren't necessarily designed for them. But they should be kept in mind because everyone's body is different, and our ability to process LDL varies from person to person.

Does not control for other factors. People who watch their diet are reduce red meat based on recommendations are much less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, and more likely to eat a diet high in sugar and refined grains: the real cause of heart disease and diabetes (sugar and a high carbohydrate diet).

Saturated fat is not implicated in heart disease.

wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html

I did address the studies, you just ignored the video breaking them down. Here's a text criticism, one of many that were published in response to that study.

academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393

>The meta-analysis involves data from 16 studies that evaluate the effect of saturated fat intake on CHD incidence or mortality and from 8 studies that evaluate the effect of saturated fat intake on stroke incidence or mortality. The results for CVD include any events for either CHD or stroke. The authors state that “wherever possible, risk estimates from the most fully adjusted models were used in the estimation of the pooled [relative risks].” It is well established that saturated fat intake is associated with increased concentration of serum cholesterol (4), and that serum cholesterol concentrations are associated with CHD and CVD (5). Therefore, serum cholesterol concentrations lie on the causal chain between saturated fat intake and CHD and CVD and to adjust for serum cholesterol concentrations in a meta-analysis will obscure the effect of saturated fat intake on these health outcomes. Yet 7 of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis of CHD events, and 4 of the 8 studies included in the meta-analysis of stroke events, were adjusted for serum cholesterol concentrations. These studies accounted for nearly half of all CHD and CVD events included in the meta-analyses (seeTable 1). Adjustment for serum cholesterol concentrations will inevitably bias the estimates of effect of saturated fat intake toward the null hypothesis.

In other words, no shit, the industry that sells products that are high in saturated fat paid researchers to design the study poorly so that saturated fat wouldn't look bad, so quacks on the internet could use it as a source in a blog post so that people like you would look it up and go "oh good, I'll keep buying butter and pork chops" and do no further research

>prevent almost 6000 deaths per year
No it wouldn't. It might slightly delay those deaths, but that's it.

In all of history, no life has ever been saved, whether by medicine or charity or regulation.

*less likely to eat a diet of sugar and high carb I meant

>No. But people who worship red meat should be killed - literally every single study has shown eating red meats above moderate levels increases your probability or both heart disease and cancer.

No they don't. Globalist shill "scientists" have produced a mountain of shady, spotty low-correlation epidemiological bunk. It adds up to dry shit. Just about every piece of advice doctors have given the public over the past 50 years has made them sicker, dumber, fatter, and weaker.
youtube.com/watch?v=Pue5qVW5k8A

the welfare sucking meat socialist cries in pain as he taxes you

Attached: 881414.png (450x411, 38K)

>bacon
>red meat
wat

Attached: dc4.jpg (200x211, 9K)

This. Refined grains, sugar, and vegetable oils are pushed on us so hard whilst animal products are demonized. I'd like to think there isn't some agenda behind it and the 'experts' are just incompetent but I just don't know anymore.

The only niggers and faggots who call it a slippery slope are statists themselves. Everyone else can see through it

>Saturated fat causes cholesterol and cholesterol = bad

I disagree with the premise of:
>Dietary saturated fat increases blood cholesterol
>Elevated blood cholesterol increases the risk of having a heart attack
>Therefore, dietary saturated fat increases the risk of having a heart attack

Would love to see you debunk this but you can't.

wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html

>actually believing this propaganda piece from a "documentary" by a failed stand-up comedian shilling for fast food

>Refined grains, sugar, and vegetable oils are pushed on us so hard whilst animal products are demonized.
Find me one prominent group of nutrition experts that "push refined grains and sugar" rather than the complete opposite.

???
The media blare "fat is back, sugar is the devil" 24/7. As if only one thing can be a problem. Animal products aren't healthy.

>vegetarians
>health conscious

These are the kind of people who “don’t eat meat” and wash every meal down with a bowl of Doritos

Incoming compromise to ban haram meat, keke.

Yes. It would help close the global wealth gap.

>Would love to see you debunk this but you can't.
Right off the bat, he seems to be using single old observational studies as his evidence that saturated fat doesn't raise blood cholesterol, rather than experimental research that directly tests in a controlled setting whether saturated fat raises blood cholesterol.

Here's nearly 400 metabolic ward experiments demonstrating that, in fact, saturated fats do raise blood cholesterol levels.

bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long

the uk is a bigger nanny state then canada and thats saying something

treat citizens like children, and you will have an immature and irresponsible citizenry

>Just about every piece of advice doctors have given the public over the past 50 years has made them sicker

BUT PEOPLE NEVER FOLLOWED THE ADVICE
They eat MORE sugar, more fat, more animal products than ever before - hmmm, that must mean the advice is wrong and vegetables are unhealthy, right?
They use this why are people sick "argument" all the time but it's breath-takingly dishonest.

I hate these kind of people
>"I don't eat meat so now I will stop everyone else from enjoying it to"

Come to think of it I always hated fish. Gonna call the PM and demand all fish eaters get a heavy tax

No one is disagreeing that it raises cholesterol, rather that there are different types of cholesterol, and it's not as simple as more cholesterol = bad.