@milton friedman:

If it’s such a strong economic resource why does it rely on subsidies? The EU is phasing out beef subsidies for a reason. Why should we be subsidising the production of something with taxpayer money?

As for the “carnivore diet” being “healthy”, that’s fringe stuff that goes against the consensus. Saturated fat is linked to heart disease, the science on that is pretty solid. Most of our micronutrients come from fruit & veg rather than meat.

Not saying for a second we should ban beef or anything, I’m just challenging this ridiculous idea that subsidising beef is the duty of our governments. If we’re going to subsidise the production of food (which is a good thing to prevent reliance on other countries), we should be subsidising healthy, economic foods. Beef is expensive to produce, produces far more CO2 and methane than the alternatives, and is largely unhealthy at the levels people eat it. You’ll find far more people eating too much beef than too little.

@: I don’t disagree with anything you have said; in fact I basically wholly agree.

I was just outlining why beef receives subsidies, mainly for the second reason. I’m not sure the power it has now, surely diminished, but Ireland was making agreements with countries based on supplying beef (Libya and China for example) in the past, so it is seen as a benefit to subsidize beef production opposed to other produce.

@John Black: The carnivore diet reduces all gut bacteria immensely, both good and bad. So while it lowers inflammation from the bad gut bacteria that live off things like carbs,it also reduces your much needed good gut bacteria and likely causes bad long term affects.

@John Murphy:

It also lacks vitamin C, a deficiency of which, causes scurvy. It’s a dangerous diet peddled by crackpots.

I wouldn’t call it a crack pot diet because it does show beneficial effects on a short term. But I agree it’s very dangerous for the average person to try.
I’d stick with a low carb high fibre diet instead.