Could a "tax on red and processed meat" save thousands of lives?

"Health experts should introduce a" meat tax "that would almost double the price of sausages to save lives," reports the Daily Telegraph.

The researchers determined the likely health and economic costs of consuming red meat and processed meat.

Both types of meat have been linked to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, as well as cancers of the digestive system, such as bowel cancer.

The researchers studied the impact of a tax on the increase in the price of meat on consumption, deaths and economic costs.

They estimated that taxes should be higher in high-income countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, while they could be much lower in less wealthy countries.

In the UK, this would mean a price increase of about 13% on red meat and about 79% on processed meat.

The researchers say that this would translate into a decrease of about 22% in deaths and nearly 19% in health care costs related to the consumption of processed meat.

This is an interesting article that is sure to launch a debate. It is based on many assumptions, including the death of red meat and processed.

Many people eat a lot more red meat and processed than recommended. Higher prices could mean that some people choose to switch to a diet less loaded with meat.

Learn more about the links between eating meat and certain types of cancer.

Where does the story come from?

The research team that conducted the study came from Oxford University in the United Kingdom and the International Food Policy Research Institute in the United States.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust.

It has been published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One. It's free to read online.

The study was widely reported in the British media. The Sun and the Daily Telegraph have focused on the cost of the "meat tax" for consumers.

The Sun evoked "the levy on family favorites" as evidence of "nanny status", which he opposed through his "Hands Off Our Grub" campaign against the tax. on sugary drinks.

The Guardian and The Independent focused more on potential savings. The Guardian said the proposal "would save many lives and raise billions of dollars to pay for health care," while offering environmental benefits.

What kind of research was this?

This modeling study adjusted the data to mathematical models to estimate the effects of changes in food prices.

Modeling studies can estimate the potential outcomes of a given policy, but they rely on many assumptions that may not be true in real life.

What does the research involve?

The researchers proceeded at several stages, treating red meat and processed meat as independent risk factors for disease.

They estimated the health impact of current levels of red and processed meat consumption and projected consumption in 2020 for 149 regions of the world.

They then calculated the potential costs of these impacts on health and impact if each person consumed an additional portion of red meat each day in these areas.

Using the difference between these 2 figures, they estimated the "marginal cost of health" of 1 extra portion per day in each region.

They then added this marginal cost to the price of red and processed meat in each region to estimate the potential impact of the amount of red and processed meat consumed by the people, and calculated the impact on the levels. consumption, health and costs for each region.

Each of these calculations was based on information from various datasets.

For example, the health impact of red and processed meat was calculated using Global Burden of Disease project data and the number of deaths resulting from the calculation of population attributable fractions (PAFS). ).

PPPs are a statistical tool used to estimate the proportion of disease cases attributable to a specific cause, which in this case was processed meat or red meat.

The information on the costs of the disease comes from an assessment of the economic burden of cardiovascular disease in the European Union, including direct costs related to health care (cost of treatment, use of health services, drugs ) and indirect costs (reduction or loss of productivity of the patient and their caregiver).

What were the basic results?

The researchers found that, based on current projections of meat consumption, by 2020:

• Red meat consumption is thought to be related to approximately 863,060 deaths (95% confidence interval) [CI] 220,000 to 1,410,000) and to eat processed meat at 1,533,210 deaths (430,000 to 2,470,000 ICs) worldwide
• in high-income countries in particular, consumption of red meat is thought to be associated with 167,220 deaths and meat converted to 604,530 deaths
• the majority of these deaths would be due to stroke and coronary artery disease, followed by type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer (gut)
• the majority of these deaths (64%) would be in middle-income countries, with 32% in high-income countries and 4% in low-income countries
• the overall cost would be $ 285 billion, of which 69% in high-income countries

They estimated that the price increase required by the tax to cover the additional costs of meat consumption in high-income countries would be as follows:

• 13.6% increase in the price of red meat in the United Kingdom, 28.1% in Germany and 33.8% in the United States
• 78.9% increase in the price of red meat in the United Kingdom, 165.8% in Germany and 163.3% in the United States

The effect of this increase in prices in high-income countries, they believe, would be:

• very little change (down 0.8%) in red meat consumption, as some people would choose red rather than processed meat if the price of processed meat increased
• a 25.1% drop in processed meat consumption
• 134,320 fewer deaths attributable to processed meat (22.2% less)
• very little change in deaths attributable to red meat consumption (only about 1,410 fewer deaths, a decrease of 0.84%)
• a 21.7% reduction in health costs related to processed meat consumption

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers said: "The inclusion of the social costs of consuming red and processed meat in the price of red and processed meat could result in significant health and environmental benefits, particularly in the high and middle income countries. "

Conclusion

Anyone who fears that the price of their sausages is about to double can probably relax.

This research examined the potential effect of a proposal based on a modeling exercise and is not a government policy.

But this highlights the potential health risks of eating processed meat and red meat, especially in high-income countries like the UK.

Consumption of these two meat products in the United Kingdom is higher than that recommended by the World Health Organization.

The study has a number of limitations that make it impossible for us to take the results as estimates:

• it is based on mathematical projections and not on real events
• the mathematical models are based on many assumptions, including the actual number of deaths that can be directly attributed to the consumption of red and processed meat, which is very difficult to know with certainty
• the models do not examine what people could eat instead of red or processed meat, which could be healthy (legumes and vegetables) or unhealthy (refined sugars)
• models are unable to fully account for potential confounders related to diet, such as smoking, exercise, alcohol and socio-economic status

Even if the numbers were reliable, there is still much debate about whether governments should tax food to encourage people to eat healthier.

On the one hand, taxing unhealthy foods will likely have a greater impact on the poorest households, who are struggling to make ends meet.

But this study is a useful reminder that eating a lot of processed meat in particular has an impact on health.

Learn more about healthy eating