CALLING for meat taxes as a means of reducing consumption and relieving health care costs is emerging as the last battle in the field of social media.
Like fake meat and an alternative protein barrier, and much of the debate about the carbon footprint and animal welfare, this particular trend seems to be surrounded by disinformation and emotional subtitles.
The International Media has taken note of the allegations made by university scientists in the United Kingdom that stalling prices for beef, lamb and pork will save up to £ 700 million on health care in the country.
Scientists from Oxford University say the meat tax could prevent up to 6,000 deaths in the UK per year, according to the BBC.
Scientists have said that reducing weekly consumption of red meat for one week could also help with global warming.
Beef industry leaders and health care workers in Australia point out that no scientific evidence has been submitted to support this argument, and references to references to cancer and meat from the World Health Organization have been excluded from the context.
The red meat industry has become an easy and unjustified target for groups fighting for animal welfare and the environment, said Anthony Power nutrition expert.
From a health point of view, it was a danger, and it was especially a call to the red meat tax, he said.
"Eating more meat – and eggs, fish and chickens – without all the secondary carbohydrates will actually see weight loss and obesity and reduced diabetes," he said.
"Animal proteins are nutrients that are dense in terms of minerals, vitamins, amino acids and fatty acids, and for many patients it is the only thing in their diet that is positive and keeps them healthy.
Beef does not have to apologize for this, but rather educates society to have healthy food in the sea with a lack of food in almost all nutrients.
"The fact is that 70 percent of the burger is food, sugar, beer, but the meat is blamed.
"We need to stop blaming the steak on all the potatoes and the bread buns they ate with."
Head of the Red Meat Advisory Board, Don Mackay, said that organizations could look for any selective research result, and it seems like this is the concept of meat taxation.
Requests without scientific support and research with little rigor were finally revealed, he said.
Opposition to animal protein production has always been emotional and often very weak on facts, he said.
The Red Mass Industry, of course, had to "push back" and make sure that the right facts were put on the table, he agreed.