If You Eat Meat, You Should Pay Higher Insurance Premiums: PETA
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 11.14.08
Eat this, pay more on insurance... Photo: thebittenword.com
Even if you disagree with the point they’re trying to make, you’ve got to admire the chutzpah of PETA. The well known animal rights group is calling on Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont to raise insurance premiums for people who eat meat and lower them for those people who don’t. This is based on the oft-claimed benefits of vegetarian diet such as lower chances of getting cancer, diabetes, heart disease; plus issues related to recent meat contamination in the state.
Despite the suggestion by PETA Executive Director Tracy Reiman that ultimately such a move would save the insurance company money, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont effectively passed the buck and dodged the health question:
Vermont Law Wouldn’t Prevent Such Rate Shifts
”Under Vermont law, we would not be allowed to vary rates based on the dietary and nutritional habits of various members," said Kevin Goddard, Blue Cross's vice president of external affairs. He did, however, say that Blue Cross is always looking to have the healthiest members possible, but "we have no information one way or the other if vegetarians are more healthy." (WPTZ)
PETA’s Claims About Vegetarianism Are Accurate...
Full disclosure: I am a vegetarian and (despite a recent period of meat-eating undertaken because I felt at the time that supporting local agriculture trumped other concerns at the time) have been so for a long while. Pragmatically and ethically I believe it be the right thing to do for yourself and for the environment as a whole.
I think that, unless they have consciously not looked for it, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont is being disingenuous in saying that have no information on the health benefits of decreasing meat consumption in the diet. The environmental and health benefits of eating lower on the food chain are numerous and well documented.
...But The Presentation is All Wrong
That said, this move by PETA is probably the exact type of publicity that vegetarianism doesn’t need. Leaving aside the genuine issue of how such a rate plan would be implemented with any degree of transparency—”yeah, yeah I don’t eat meat; gimme the lower rate”—all this does is push people away from the idea. It may not push anyone considering cutting out meat off the fence towards greater carnivorous behavior, but it certainly doesn’t help them over it.
It’s an environmental (and I’d say cultural) imperative that the level of “normal” meat consumption be lowered in the United States, but this sort of move isn’t the way to help along such a paradigm shift.
More at: WPTZ, via Eat.Drink.Better
Vegetarianism
On Moving Towards Vegetarianism
Proven: Vegetarians Live Longer
Smart Kids More Likely to be Vegetarian
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Actually, they should give discounts for low cholesterol. As someone in a family with high cholesterol problems, as a vegetarian, it's on the extreme low end of the scale(and I thought I ate too much dairy, apparently I don't), not unhealthy low amounts(which is possible) but on the low end of the range of healthy.
Cholesterol tests would do the same, and could be used to prove vegetarianism, not fool proof, mind you, but close. But still, just a discount on people with low cholesterol would be great.
And yes, high cholesterol is a choice, probably more of my family has died from heart attack and cholesterol related things than your family, and my siblings are having the same issue too(and their kids!!). It's a choice, although I will say I am sure there are extreme cases/rare circumstances. But chances are very few people are in that 1/2 of a percent(or less) that have that.
I love what PETA stands for, but I agree...they can take things to the extreme sometimes and scare everyone for no reason. If they stopped being so confrontational they'd probably get a whole lot more done... And has anyone noticed that they always pick on Vermont (see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/breast-milk-in-ice-cream.php)?
I live in Ma (and am a vegetarian and would have much to gain from something like this) and am always in awe of what Vermont does as a state in terms of sustainability and health issues. Maybe PETA figures they would get the best results from Vermont considering they are already leaps and bounds ahead of most states? Maybe PETA should start a nonprofit vegetarian only insurance company of their own and show everyone how beneficial it could be instead of throwing the pasta off the wall and see what sticks…
I agree... if PETA wants to get this message across, they should produce public service messages, possibly in conjunction with insurers, informing the public that vegetarianism is not only healthy, but it will save them money through better health.
Insurers have been known to raise rates due to previous conditions. Obviously, if you are in better health and have no previous conditions, they won't have a reason to raise your rates.
Someone should give the management of PETA a copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
The problem here is that healthier eating habits and vegetarianism are not mutually exclusive, yet PETA's call (demand?) suggests they are. For instance, one could consume nothing but Cheetos and Mountain Dew, claim vegetarianism for reduced rates, and have one's heart explode 2 weeks later. Meanwhile, Joe Omnivore down the block has a healthy diet of fresh veggies, grains and meats, lives to be 105, yet has higher rates because his meals include a few ounces of meat a few days a week? I can understand adjusting rates based on measureable things, such as BMI, cardiovascular fitness, etc., but I'm afraid that this is just another way for PETA to grab headlines without producing any real change.
I think PETA have really missed a trick with this; PETA is big enough to negotiate a vegan and veggie health insurance scheme with lower premiums.
Why not work it the other way around trying to get companies to punish meat eaters when you could get the same message across by rewarding veggies.
Given the prevalence of colon cancer in the US and there being a reasonable link between colon cancer and eating red meat there must be an instant win for insurance companies.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/
Maybe blue cross blue shields could assign sombody to sit in your kitchen to police you 24/7.
It would be great, and would save us all the trouble of thinking for ourselves. and save us from having to make our own decisions concerning what we eat.
Not only is the presentation wrong, but so is the message. I'm not a vegetarian, but I live a healthier lifestyle than 95% of the population (and I think I'm being generous here).
I used to laugh at PETA's stunts and say, "Wow, but I guess people will listen." Now I'm just ashamed. Their actions only serve to further marginalize those who promote tougher ethical and environmental standards.
I was wondering: do vegans consider themselves animals, and thus can not use their own byproducts? Such that a baby drinking breast milk would not be vegan? Or do they see themselves separate from animals? Anyone?
Oh please...
And beside that, why would they target Vermont? Why Vermont? It doesn't take much research to know that Vermont has regulations saying that you aren't allowed to ask about pre-existing conditions or lifestyle choices in determining health insurance rates.
I mean, come on. Not just misguided, but uninformed as well?
There goes the last scrap of respect I had for PETA.
Now if I get a flu shot will PETA demand my insurance premium (if I had health insurance) be raised since it comes from chicken eggs? What if I eat a gummy bear? Or if I wash my hands with soap will that place me at higher risk? Oh goodness PETA is advertising it's stupidity once again, as if the breast milk ice cream wasn't bad enough.
Most vegans I know are sickly and malnourished. Most (but certainly not all) of the meat eaters I know take care of themselves, eat balanced diets and I'd put money on them outliving the scrawny vegans.
Aside from the total unenforceability of a plan like PETA's, they're not even forcing advice on people that's globally healthy:
I was raised and have always been vegetarian, I'm a second year medical student, and I've learned a few things thus far, that should be a little more common sense but apparently aren't to the folks at PETA:
1. Every body is different, thus, bodies cannot all follow exactly the same diet. There are some generalities that are mostly true, but saying that all animal products are all entirely bad is an overgeneralization. Not everybody will do well as a vegetarian/especially vegan. There will be some people who try it and get sick on it, and thus, vegetarianism shouldn't be forced upon everyone. Some people actually need animal products to be healthy.
For example: Fish Oil, with Omega3 Fatty acids: This is sometimes prescribed to bring down triglycerides. Omega 3 fatty acids are also said to be anti-inflammatory, and are currently being prescribed for certain inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis.
- the easiest Iron absorption is through animal products.
2. Veganism is not a healthy diet to practice if one does not actually know how to account for the nutrients not being gotten from the meat and dairy one used to consume. It can be done in a healthy fashion (if one is not a baby that is), but it takes some education first, as no doubt many readers here already know. PETA should stop telling people to go vegan without first recommending they read up on the subject or go to a nutritionist about it first. Long term, veganism means one doesn't get B12 from dairy and eggs and meat. It takes a few years to develop a deficiency, but a B12 deficiency can make one anemic and lead to permanent nerve damage! (Although soy has B12 in it, people should make sure they are aware of that and other things before attempting veganism.)
PETA makes me so mad. They will shout about things they haven't actually done any research on, and don't ever tell you the other side of things.
PETA can kiss my bike riding, low blood pressure, low cholesterol, red meet, wild game lovin' A$$.
I think health insurance companies should incorporate a higher premium for jackasses. You never know what kind of idiotic things they'll pull and have a higher risk of causing an accident.
PETA would fall in that category.
Very interesting and informative article. It's good to get as much information as you possibly can.
This is an interesting debate. While I am not a vegan or PETA supporter, I do support good health, healthy choices, eating right and paying your own way. While it is probably feasible to discriminate between meat eaters and those who don't, there are legimate ways to promote good health and have it reflected on your insurance premium. It's called a Health Risk Assessment. The one I am most familiar with is HealthCheck360 (healthchcheck360.com) By taking biometric measurements and a full blood panel, a persons health can be benchmarked and monitored. Those who stay healthy or improve are rewarded. I find the results and explanation I get from the annual healthcheck360 test administered by my employer is beter than that which I get from my doctor. It also puts you on stronger more educated footing to have a real discussion with your doctor about health (using your healthcheck360 report)