It's true, meat is murder.

just grilled 2 huge sirloins yesterday, yummy, had half of the second one tonight for a snack.

that has any flavor these days, is beef and beef by-products. But, I have supreme confidence that big agra will someday manage to manufacture the flavor out of that, as well.

:rofl:

...just sayin'.

Add a "sin" tax.

chocolate, oranges etc etc, why a sin tax on meat, mmmmmm meat.

is to pay for the social burden their use levies on society. It's time for the meat eaters to take more responsibility for environmental degradation and health costs associated with their consumption.

if so next time i euthanise a deer ill leave it to rot.

n/t.

i euthanise a lot of deer after other motorists collide with them, done two this week already.

I think he's referring to the Agribusiness giants anyway.

and i said nothing, then they came for my squirrel...... :)

We cannot wait until the come for your possum. This ends now! LOL!

now im getting hungry,

that's just crazy talk based on position based science.

and we're not some big commercial agribusiness outfit. What kind of "sin tax" would you propose for those of us who are raising our own food? Do you suggest that we sell all our cattle and try to convert our pastures to carrot and soybean fields?

Here's a newsflash: not all land is suitable for raising crops. That's why we use it as pasture land for cattle.

And I think we will be for a long time.

... for research:

"Let's stamp out the greatest killer of them all - natural causes."

in a while.

:popcorn:

This is a bunk study.

66 g would be 2.3 oz of meat per 1000 calories; for people eating the average of 2500 calories per day, that's just under 6 oz. a day, which is about two servings of meat per day.

murder is a badly cooked prime rib. You don't want it too dry and you want it well rubbed with seasoning. Anything less than that is a crime.

So one hamburger per day would put you at 29 grams per 1,000 calories in a 2,000 calorie diet. About half of the high-end group but still 3 times as much as the low end group.

The study may be good (or not) but the article is nonsense.

"Women who consumed the most red meat were roughly 36% more likely to die than women who ate the least red meat."

Uh, no. All women from both groups have an equal likelihood of dying. 100% of both groups will die.

"11% of deaths in men and 16% of deaths in women could be prevented if people who eat a lot of red meat cut their consumption."

No deaths could be "prevented." Postponed, perhaps. All will die. That is a certainty.

Did not care for that album... "Strangeways, Here We come" is a much better one...

Ohh, this is about meat... nevermind.

However, I respect your perspectives. Just don't take away my Omaha "corn fed" steaks and I won't disparage you for being thoughtful and ultra-humane. :-)

Do they mean die early? Everyone has a 100% chance of dying. The author clarifies it later, but putting a statement like "36% more likely to die" in your second paragraph is just shit writing.

The methodology seems suspect as well. The researchers basically guessed what these people were eating, based on food diaries they kept, completely ignoring the Hawthorne effect (people tend to behave differently when they know they're being watched).

Anyone who needs more proof that eating a lot of red meat is unhealthy is pretty much beyond hope at this point, but iffy science still sucks. Plus it seems that "red meat" was just all lumped together - did this include lean cuts? Mostly bacon? Fried, braised, grilled, what? Organic? I'd be more interested in knowing how food preparation affects those numbers, rather than a broad category that's been studied to death.