INVESTMENTS for meat tax as a means of reducing consumption and mitigating the cost of health insurance appears as the last battleground of social media.
Like fake meat and alternative proteins, as well as large parts of the debate on carbon and animal welfare, this trend appears to be evident in misinformation and emotional headlines.
International media have raised allegations by scientists from universities in the United Kingdom that an impressive increase in prices for beef, lamb and pork lovers could save as much as 700 million pounds in the health system of the country.
Researchers at Oxford University said the meat tax could prevent up to 6,000 deaths in the UK annually, according to the BBC.
Researchers have said that reducing the share of weekly consumption of red meat in one week can help address global warming.
However, industry leaders and health professionals in Australia point out that there is no scientific support to support this argument and that references to the World Health Organization's cancer and meat links have been removed from the context.
The red meat industry has become a lightweight and unjustified target for groups fighting for animal welfare and environmental causes, nutritionist Anthony Power said.
From a health perspective, this was a danger, and it is particularly important to call on red meat tax payments, he said.
"Eating more meat and eggs, fish and chicken without any external carbohydrates will see a reduction in weight and obesity and a reduction in diabetes," he said.
"Animal protein is so nutritious 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.
The beef industry does not have to apologize for this fact, but to educate society to have healthy food in the sea of food that is scarce to almost all nutrients.
"The fact is that 70 percent of a hamburger meal cake, sugar, beer, but the meat is guilty.
"We have to stop accusing the steak for all the potatoes and biscuits that eat with it."
Don Mackay, the chief advisor to red meat, said organizations can look for any selective research results, and it seems that such a concept of meat tax is like that.
Claims without scientific support and research with a bit of restraint have ultimately kicked out, he said.
The opposition to the production of animal proteins has always been emotional and often very thin in facts, he said.
However, the red meat industry must have "shaken" and convinced that the right facts were placed on the table, he agreed.