Murphy: An UnFortune-ate Assessment

Teach your children about the importance of saving money at an early age.

It’s easy to click on more than a dozen different web stories ripping the livestock and meat industry as the leading culprits in a host of eco- and health-related ills affecting the world in 2018.

Most of those posts appear on pro-vegetarian, consumer activist and/or “lifestyle” websites devoted to being hip, trendy and oh-so au courant.

That’s to be expected.

It’s worrisome, however, when a pro-business pub like Fortune magazine offers its brand and its audience to a columnist to launch a flat-out anti-industry rant that regurgitates the worst of the mantras activists love to flog: cattle are causing climate change and meat-eating is crippling the public sector with healthcare costs associated with heart diseases, obesity and diabetes.

If only we’d all just stop buying and consuming beef and pork, all would be right with the world, the writer asserted in an article titled, “Why It’s Time for America to Tax Meat.”

“According to data provided over email by research firm Technomic,” the article noted, “the average fast food cheeseburger costs $4.02, but that price tag doesn’t take into account a number of invisible external costs, also known as externalities.”

Can you guess what those might be? How about “poisonous methane emissions from cows” and “higher healthcare costs” associated with “unhealthy diets?”

The solution? Heavy-duty taxation on meat, similar to what has been imposed on cigarettes in the United States.

Other than ultimately providing another bonanza for any number of Indian reservations, which could use their sovereignty to market tax-free meat, the idea that a meat tax would drive us to vegetarianism is highly suspect. For one thing, meat is a product of choice, and going cold turkey (literally) with meat-eating doesn’t end anyone’s desire for a steak, a burger or a ham sandwich, the way that tobacco cessation curtails the urge to smoke.

Second, “meat” doesn’t come in a neat, pocket-size package sold almost exclusively at retail. To deal with that fact, it’s likely that a tax would be imposed on each head of livestock. However, that would hugely incentivize not a cessation in meat-eating, but rather a tremendous growth in imported meat, which would be damaging to American agriculture, as well as the entire food industry.

Hard to believe a business-first magazine such as Fortune is in favor of such a scenario.

Suspect Sources
Moreover, the so-called evidence in favor of a meat tax is itself suspect.

As sources, the Fortune writer cited the American Institute for Cancer Research, an organization that calls itself non-partisan but in fact is committed to a no-meat agenda, and which received a one-star rating from Charity Navigator because an audit showed that more than 50% of its revenues went to fund-raising, instead of research and education.

It’s an activist org, not a research institution.

In addition, the article relied heavily on a study conducted at the University of Oxford in England, which alleged that, “If Americans switched to vegetarianism en masse, we could reduce our healthcare costs by up to $223.6 billion each year by 2050, as vegetarians typically have lower rates of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain forms of cancer.”

With the exception of “Americans,” practically every word in that sentence is fictional.

We’re not going to make some wholesale changeover to a veggie diet; the $223 billion is a made-up figure based on an aspirational reduction in hospitalization and treatment costs of the aforementioned diseases; and it’s not at all conclusive that giving up meat-eating would reduce the incidence of chronic diseases such as cardiac events, cancer or diabetes.

All three of those conditions are caused by a cluster of “lifestyle” factors that include (but are not limited to) sedentary lifestyles, exposure to environmental pollutants and toxins, high-stress occupations, excess tobacco and alcohol use, and overconsumption of high-carb, high-sugar foods and beverages.

Eating minimally processed, high-protein meat and dairy foods would help, not hurt effective management of those diseases.

Finally, and this cannot be stressed enough — I know I’ve repeated it some ten thousand times in my career—every study that purports to calculate a cost-benefit of conventional animal foods versus vegetarian alternatives must account for the added crops, processing and packaging required to substitute the trillions of calories needed to replace meat and dairy with plants.

Folks, there isn’t enough arable land on Earth to grow enough crops to feed nine billion people if every acre of grassland is taken out of production and every food animal in existence were somehow removed from the planet.

No study, no paradigm, no master plan to turn the world vegetarian has a shred of credibility until its authors include a calculation of the actual impact of eliminating animal agriculture and replacing it with a massive increase in non-meat food production.

And that includes even business organizations, such as Fortune, that pride themselves on not pursuing an agenda.

Because the people pushing that alternative future definitely have one.

Editor’s Note: The opinions in this commentary are those of Dan Murphy, a veteran journalist and commentator.


Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
9 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Submitted by Graybull on Sat, 02/24/2018 - 13:11

And how is it you believe that these "business" organizations do not have an agenda?

Submitted by jessica tremblay on Thu, 03/08/2018 - 21:27

Hello, am here not only to testify but also to encourage people facing marital or relationship issue. About the marvelous works of Dr. Ogundu, email: i was lost in love with my husband until a lady snatched him away from me. then i cried out to my friend and she told me about how she faced a similar problem and gave this great man contact to me and i provided all the items he needed for the spell and now am happy again living in love with my family. I employ you to contact this man. Your story or pain’s will change within days and you will be smiling like me today. Once again am grateful. Contact him on his email via: if you are facing any form of problem
1. Getting your lover or husband back
2. Lottery spell/Good luck spell
3. If you want to stop your divorce
4. Marriage Spells
5. Get a job spell
6. Promotion spells
7. Getting your money back.
8. pregnancy spells
9. Love spell
10. If you want to satisfy your partner
11. Banishing spell

In reply to by Graybull (not verified)

Submitted by Doc on Mon, 02/26/2018 - 07:36

I hope you have submitted this article to Fortune, and if you did, they should print it.

Submitted by RG Vieira on Mon, 02/26/2018 - 10:06

Your article is spot-on. Thank you! Unfortunately the Beef industry is one that is content not responding to “activist” articles—instead choosing to only educate on the benefits of beef/meat. Now that non-engagement has trickled into the mainstream press. Dr. Frank Mitloehner at UC Davis has & continues to do extensive research in the area of livestock & climate change. His good science should be referenced in every article on this topic. He is also an excellent speaker—in front of a friendly or hostile audience. He’s the guy that puts Livestock in sealed tents, measuring everything going in and coming out—but his good science is routinely ignored by those who don’t like the results. Instead they continue to quote 1940’s bad, disproven science. To one of your points regarding volume of plant based protein required to feed the world: 60% of the land grazed today is good only for grazing. What a waste of resources it would be to not graze these areas...Think of all the grass that would not be converted to protein we so desperately need. Let’s get to work. Demand that some of your check off dollars be used to hire fact checkers that will officially respond to this now-mainstream fake news. Set up a database of good, peer reviewed scientific papers that all can & should consult before publishing an article. If they don’t consult (or if they misquote) the information in the database, publically shame them until they do. Everyone can assist by referring articles, blog posts, etc to the fact checkers for review. Let’s get to work!