Meat tax would be step too far

Calls for a ‘meat tax’ to help save lives may seem like a positive health drive, but the question must be asked: where do we draw the line?

Scientists at the University of Oxford say the government should intervene and hike up the price of red meat, claiming as many as 6,000 lives could be saved.

Research has shown that eating red meat increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

Taxing meat, in theory, will cut consumption of the product and so reduce deaths and ease pressure on the NHS. The healthcare costs of eating red meat, say the scientists, tops more than £700,000.

Taxing tobacco has played a part in reducing the number of smokers, while the sugar tax was also introduced in a bid to improve the health of the nation.

Instant reaction to the move has been met, for the large part, by resistance from Echo readers.

One wag online urged readers to start bottling air “before they tax that too.”

Another was more cutting saying: “There should be an oxygen tax on the utter imbeciles that come up with these tax ideas.”

Meat is a staple of most people’s diet and we accept the research findings that it can cause health issues.

But, unlike smoking, eating red meat is not in the same league of vices.

While there are, like most things, risks in overconsumption, putting big taxes on meat products is a step too far.

As part of a balanced diet, red meat is relatively harmless, but it is up to the public, not the government, to police their consumption.

Cynics would see this as a stealth tax aimed at the poorest in our community.

We don’t need a nanny state at the dinner table.