I think it is already known that procesead meats cause cancer, for the ones that don't know here is a link to WHO cancer causing substances: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...arcinogens
It is on Wikipedia list because the official one is bigger.
Given that there is evidence that this products cause cancer you don't see a lot of fuss about this. Aside from vegan activists I don't see people bringing this subject up. Keep in mind that they are in the same group as cigarettes, although they are not as dangerous as vegan activist want you to believe.
Instead you see a lot of fuss about sugar, Singapore declared a war on diabetes, my country is taking into consideration a tax on sugar, but no one is speaking about a tax on salami.
From what we know processed meats are worthy to be taxed in the same way that cigarettes are taxed but nobody in the political sphere is proposing it. Why do you think that the problem is ignored? Do you think that the meat industry has a stronger lobby that the sugar industry?
I'm not saying that that the impact on suger is not negative on our health but I think that we should tackle processed meats first. Both of them can be taxed simultaneously and I think we should at least consider it.

Define " processed".

Making organic hamburger is a process.

If you're going to eat meat, your only choice is processed meat.  Unprocessed meat means something like a live cow (an animal known to put up strenuous and vigorous objections to being eaten).

Consumption of carcinogenic chemicals doesn't mean that you WILL get cancer, it means that your chances of getting cancer are increased.  Other things that have the potential to be deadly and  that should be taxed:

-Going outdoors.

-Not going outdoors.

-Walking instead of cycling.

-Cycling instead of walking.

-Eating food.

-Failing to eat food.

-Driving your car.

-Driving someone else's car.

-Not driving a car.

Also, can you explain how taxing things is going to reduce their inherent risk? If you prohibitively tax sugar and processed meats, you're cutting off sources of calories and nutrients to people who can't afford the tax.  In other words, you're replacing a minimal risk of diabetes or cancer with a much greater risk of malnutrition.

Boru

(October 11, 2019 at 9:00 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Define " processed".

Making organic hamburger is a process.

 I gave you an example in the first thread : salami.
In principle, every meat product that was altered to enhance it s taste or extend it's shelf life or both.
Here is an extend take on the difinition:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_meat
 Before you start arguing that wiki is not reliable, you can check the references for yourself.

---

(October 11, 2019 at 9:07 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If you're going to eat meat, your only choice is processed meat.  Unprocessed meat means something like a live cow (an animal known to put up strenuous and vigorous objections to being eaten).

Consumption of carcinogenic chemicals doesn't mean that you WILL get cancer, it means that your chances of getting cancer are increased.  Other things that have the potential to be deadly and  that should be taxed:

-Going outdoors.

-Not going outdoors.

-Walking instead of cycling.

-Cycling instead of walking.

-Eating food.

-Failing to eat food.

-Driving your car.

-Driving someone else's car.

-Not driving a car.

Also, can you explain how taxing things is going to reduce their inherent risk? If you prohibitively tax sugar and processed meats, you're cutting off sources of calories and nutrients to people who can't afford the tax.  In other words, you're replacing a minimal risk of diabetes or cancer with a much greater risk of malnutrition.

Boru

 If I extend your argument we should scrap the smoking tax (it can be argued that it is used as budget buffer but studyes show that it descourages people to take on the habit).
 I think it is my fault that I didn't post a definition of what proccesed meats.
 Yes they provide a source of nutrients but they are a bad one so we should try to descourage people from consuming them. By taxing them you are punishing the companies and making them shift their orientation. With the money from the tax authorities can invest in healthier foods that will benefit the health of the citizens.

(October 11, 2019 at 9:09 am)notimportant1234 Wrote:

(October 11, 2019 at 9:00 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Define " processed".

Making organic hamburger is a process.

 I gave you an example in the first thread : salami.
In principle, every meat product that was altered to enhance it s taste or extend it's shelf life or both.
Here is an extend take on the difinition:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_meat
 Before you start arguing that wiki is not reliable, you can check the references for yourself.

Then you need to do as Germany did with it's 1516 Reinheitsgebot law - and have an approved list of ingredients - not taxing "processing".

Laws need be specific.

We can debate on another thread if taxin is the right way to solve this problem but the actual topic of this thread is why should we care more about sugar if it is known that processed meats increase your risk of getting cancer.

I've been eating processed meat since ~1954. Died in 1972. It was the meat!!!!

(October 11, 2019 at 9:20 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: We can debate on another thread if taxin is the right way to solve this problem but the actual topic of this thread is why should we care more about sugar if it is known that processed meats increase your risk of getting cancer.

What kind of sugar?

High fructose corn syrup and maple syrup do not carry the same health risks. (Other than your ass getting wider from overconsumption - and maple syrup is expensive enough already)

(October 11, 2019 at 9:27 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(October 11, 2019 at 9:20 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: We can debate on another thread if taxin is the right way to solve this problem but the actual topic of this thread is why should we care more about sugar if it is known that processed meats increase your risk of getting cancer.

What kind of sugar?

High fructose corn syrup and maple syrup do not carry the same health risks. (Other than your ass getting wider from overconsumption - and maple syrup is expensive enough already)

  Mainly the target of taxation are added sugars. From what I read the type of added sugar you use isn't proved to change the effects on your health that much.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/are-...9052916699

Being overweight and lack of exercise contribute to an individuals cancer risk. Lets tax sloth and gluttony!