Ahsan, Tasnim --- "What's The Sudden Beef With Red And Processed Meat? A Critical Analysis Of The Potential Implementation Of A Red And Processed Meat Tax In Australia" [2022] UNSWLawJlStuS 1; (2022) UNSWLJ Student Series No 22-1

---

WHAT’S THE SUDDEN BEEF WITH RED AND PROCESSED MEAT? A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF A RED AND PROCESSED MEAT TAX IN AUSTRALIA

TASNIM AHSAN

I INTRODUCTION

The consumption of red and processed meat (‘RPM’) exceeds recommended levels in most high and middle-income countries.^[1] In this essay, ‘red meat’ refers to beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse and goat meat. Whereas, ‘processed meat’ refers to meat that has been preserved using salting, curing, fermentation or smoking (eg, bacon, sausages and salami).^[2] Numerous studies have found evidence that the overconsumption of RPM is causing negative health and environmental impacts. This has led to growing discussions internationally, most recently at the 2021 UN Food System Pre-summit, about the introduction of RPM taxes.^[3] This proposal has been met with strong opposition in Australia.^[4] This essay argues that significant health and environmental benefits can be produced by reducing RPM consumption, therefore justifying the implementation of RPM taxes. Notwithstanding these benefits, the implementation of a RPM tax in Australia would fail at present because of the substantial political and social challenges it faces.

To make this argument, this essay proceeds in Part II by explaining the negative health and environmental impacts caused by the overconsumption of RPM. There is a specific focus on colorectal cancer and climate change. Part III argues that a RPM tax could successfully influence consumers’ purchasing habits, which in turn delivers health and environmental benefits that are particularly needed in Australia. It then rebuts two commonly raised arguments against implementation of a RPM tax, which are that it will cause significant job losses and it will unfairly impact low socio-economic individuals. Part IV contends that the implementation of a RPM tax is legally feasible in Australia, but the substantial political and social challenges make this outcome highly unlikely. Specifically, the lack of political will and powerful lobby groups, as well as the strong association between meat and Australia’s cultural identity, and meat and masculinity are all significant barriers for advocates of a RPM tax to overcome.

II HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF RED AND PROCESSED MEAT

A Health Impacts

Medical studies on the health impacts of RPM have been growing over the last ten years and they have found links to a number of different health conditions. Some of these health conditions include different types of cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus^[5] and the risk of obesity.^[6] The most research and convincing evidence to date has been related to colorectal cancer which is the focus of this section.

1 Colorectal Cancer

(a) Processed Meat

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer released a report in 2015 classifying processed meat as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 1). The classification was based on sufficient evidence that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.^[7] This resulted in backlash from the meat industry which tried to undermine WHO’s report, especially because processed meat had been placed in the same category as tobacco and asbestos.^[8] However, WHO’s categorisation system does not mean that agents in the same category are equally dangerous, rather each category represents the strength of scientific evidence that an agent causes cancer.^[9] Since WHO’s report research has focused on the potential molecular mechanisms underpinning the carcinogenicity of processed meat. A number of these studies have shown that the nitrite contained in processed meat can lead to the formation of N-nitroso compounds which are carcinogenic, and this is what leads to the increased risk of colorectal cancer.^[10]

(b) Red Meat

In contrast to processed meat, the WHO Report classified red meat as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2A) and this finding was based on limited evidence. This means that positive associations were observed between red meat and cancer, but other explanations for the observations could not be ruled out, such as chance, bias, or confounding variables.^[11] The strongest association observed was between red meat and colorectal cancer, but some links were also found with pancreatic and prostate cancer.^[12] Despite WHO’s conclusion being based on limited evidence, recent studies have found stronger evidence for red meat causing colorectal cancer. Farvid et al., (2021) reviewed 148 longitudinal studies and concluded that red meat was significantly associated with a greater risk of colorectal cancer.^[13] The study found that 100 grams of red meat intake per day was associated with a 14% higher risk of colorectal cancer.^[14] The increased risk of colorectal cancer risk is due to chemicals such as N-nitroso compounds, heterocyclic amines and polycyclic amines, which are either found naturally in red meat or produced when cooking, and overtime they damage the cells in a person’s bowel.^[15]

B Environmental Impacts

The proposal to introduce a RPM tax is unique compared to previous debates on tobacco or sugar-sweetened beverages (‘SSB’) taxes because the overconsumption of RPM has both health and environmental impacts. There are a range of different environmental impacts that have been studied, such as driving climate change, using excessive water, diminishing biodiversity, land degradation and harming aquatic ecosystems.^[16] The focus of this section is the existential threat of climate change caused by the production of excessive greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions.

The red meat sector is a significant contributor to Australia’s national GHG emissions. In 2005, emissions from the Australian red meat sector made up 21% of the national GHG emissions, but this has decreased overtime and is now around 10%.^[17] Despite signs of gradual reduction, 10% of the national GHG emissions in 2021 still equates to around 49 million tonnes,^[18] which when considered per capita is a significant contribution to global GHG emission levels. A CSIRO research paper in 2019 found that the red meat sector could continue reducing GHG emissions and aim to become carbon neutral by 2030.^[19]

The main sources of GHG emissions produced by the red meat sector is carbon dioxide from forest land converted to grassland, and methane from grazing beef cattle.^[20] Methane is the most harmful type of GHG emission because its global warming potential is about 28 times more than carbon dioxide, and this makes it the primary driver of climate change.^[21] Considering Australia is one the world’s top beef exporters,^[22] the methane produced makes Australia’s contribution to global GHG emission levels especially harmful. Also, as processed meat can come from poultry and not just red meat, it is also important to consider the GHG emission produced by the livestock industry in general. The Australian livestock industry produces about 15% of the national GHG emissions, and the global livestock industry produces about 18% of the total GHG emissions.^[23]

In summary, there is clear evidence that the Australian red meat and livestock industry produces significant amounts of GHG emissions, particularly methane, which directly drive climate change. The health impacts attributable to RPM are not as clear, but there is growing evidence of a strong association between RPM and the increased risk of colorectal cancer. Therefore, the environmental and health impacts of RPM provide a strong rationale for the implementation of a RPM in Australia.

III IMPLEMENTATION OF A RPM TAX IN AUSTRALIA

A Benefits of a RPM Tax

A RPM tax is intended to influence consumers’ purchasing habits and reduce their overall consumption of RPM. If it produces significant reductions in the amount of RPM consumed by Australians, this can in turn deliver a wide range of health and environmental benefits.

1 Influencing Consumers’ Purchasing Habits

A RPM tax is known as a Pigouvian tax because its purpose is to account for negative externalities (health and environmental impacts of consuming RPM) by incorporating its costs into the price of the harmful good. In doing so, the cost negative externalities impose on society is redistributed back to the user of the good.^[24] This redistribution of this cost is intended to make users reconsider purchasing the good and ultimately reduce consumption of the harmful good.^[25] Therefore, the effectiveness of a RPM will primarily depend on its ability to alter Australian consumers’ purchasing habits.

Studies have found that in general the consumption of meat is more responsive to changes in their price (elastic), whereas the consumption of cereals, fats and oils is less sensitive to price changes (inelastic).^[26] More specifically, beef, pork and lamb have high price elasticity, whereas poultry is relatively inelastic.^[27] The high price elasticity of different red meats indicate that a RPM tax has the potential to modify purchasing behaviour. The level of success in reducing RPM consumption may be affected by intrinsic characteristics of meat products, such as the taste and freshness, or a consumer’s biological or cultural need to eat meat outweighing cost considerations.^[28]

2 Health and Environmental Benefits

There is promising data from an Oxford University report in 2018 that a global approach to implementing RPM taxes could prevent more than 220,000 deaths attributable to RPM consumption, and save USD$41 billion in health costs.^[29] A RPM tax would be particularly beneficial in Australia because colorectal cancer is the country’s third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death.^[30] In 2021, it is estimated that 15,540 new cases of colorectal cancer will be diagnosed in Australia and that there will be 5,295 deaths.^[31] Hence, a RPM tax has the potential to improve the health of Australians by reducing the number of colorectal cancer cases caused by RPM consumption, as well as reducing the overall healthcare costs on society.

With regard to environmental benefits, the Oxford University report found that implementing RPM taxes globally could reduce GHG emissions from livestock by 1.2%.^[32] A RPM tax is especially needed in Australia due to the nation’s high production of beef, which has a more significant impact on driving climate change compared to pork or poultry.^[33] Given that recently Australia has been internationally criticised for its low reduction target of 26%–28% below GHG emissions levels in 2005 by 2030,^[34] implementing a RPM tax would assist Australia in exceeding those targets. Similarly, a RPM tax can help the Australian red meat and livestock industry reach its target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.^[35] Having an external measure like a RPM tax which reduces GHG emissions is likely to be more effective at achieving the reduction targets compared with relying on voluntary self-regulation by the red meat and livestock industry.^[36]

B Rebutting Arguments Against Implementation of a RPM Tax

Despite the health and environmental benefits of implementing a RPM tax in Australia, this proposal has been met with fierce backlash from the red meat and livestock industry as well as Australian politicians. Two of the prominent arguments raised against the implementation of a RPM tax is that it will cause significant job losses and unfairly impact low socio-economic individuals.

1 Job Loses in the Red Meat and Livestock Industry

In July 2021, the introduction of meat taxes were discussed at the UN Food Systems pre-summit (‘UN Pre-Summit’) where the True Animal Price Protein Coalition argued in favour of it.^[37] This proposal was immediately met with strong opposition in Australia.^[38] The Red Meat Advisory Council chair, John McKillop, attacked the introduction of a meat tax claiming it is an ‘extremist proposal’ that poses a severe risk to the livelihoods of 434,000 workers in Australia.^[39] Bob Katter, a Federal Member of Parliament, has gone even further stating that a meat tax would ‘close down [the] cattle industry’.^[40] McKillop and Katter’s comments can be characterised as fear mongering tactics rather than claims supported by real evidence. They fail to acknowledge that the impact on jobs can be offset through government support raised from the RPM tax revenue.

In 2018–19, the red meat and livestock industry directly employed 189,000 people and a further 245,000 people in businesses servicing the industry indirectly.^[41] However, most of these people are unlikely to lose their jobs because a RPM tax will not be implemented in such a harsh way as to close down the whole industry. This can be contrasted with the tobacco farming industry in Australia which has essentially been shut down. Since 2006 no excise licence has been granted for the growing of tobacco,^[42] and this has had severe impacts on tobacco farmer jobs. As Australia phased out tobacco production the government adopted certain policies that supported tobacco farmers who lost their jobs. These policies can provide an insight into how the government can support the much fewer people in the red meat and livestock industry who may lose their jobs due to a RPM tax.

In 2006, the Australian government announced the Tobacco Grower Adjustment Assistance Package which was capped at $150,000 per grower and it was intended to help growers leave the industry and transition into alternative businesses.^[43] The government could similarly introduce restructuring grants for meat farmers which are funded by the RPM tax revenue. A restructuring grant could help farmers transition into the plant-based food industry by growing alternative proteins, such as soy beans and peas.^[44] This is a particularly lucrative market because Australia is the third-fastest growing vegan market worldwide.^[45] The increased consumer demand for plant-based products is a result of changing attitudes in Australia concerning animal welfare, climate change and personal health.^[46] Moreover, a mass-scale transition to alternative proteins would likely create many jobs in warehousing, processing and logistics which will support workers who lose their jobs in the red meat and processing meat factories.^[47] Due to the rapidly increasing threat the red meat and livestock industry faces from the plant-based food industry, some meat farmers would need to transition out of the industry sooner or later, regardless of a RPM tax. Therefore, introducing a RPM tax that can subsidise restructuring grants is a forward-thinking strategy which benefits farmers, because it provides the economic support to successfully transition into a profitable industry.

2 Unfair Impact on Low Socio-Economic Status Individuals

In response to the UN Pre-Summit discussions, John McKillop also attacked meat taxes for being a ‘regressive anti-livestock regulation’.^[48] This argument of RPM taxes being regressive is commonly raised around the world to oppose implementation.^[49] Regressive taxes impact low socio-economic status (‘low SES’) individuals because the lower one’s income, the greater proportion of income goes towards the tax.^[50] They are particularly problematic when demand for a food is inelastic because then low SES individuals continue buying the food and spend a greater proportion of their income on taxes than high-income individuals. However, studies have found that low SES households in high-income countries are more sensitive to prices increases in meat compared to high SES households.^[51] This reflects how meat is often viewed as more of a luxury food item rather than a necessity in low SES households.^[52] The higher price elasticity of meat in low SES households means a RPM tax is more likely to reduce their consumption, and it will not operate as a regressive tax.

The experience of SSB tax has demonstrated how Pigouvian food taxes in fact disproportionately benefit low SES individuals which makes the tax progressive in health terms. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the health impacts (internalities) of sugar significantly affect low SES individuals who have systematically less nutrition knowledge, and this burdens them with high healthcare costs.^[53] A tax reduces sugar consumption in these low SES households and this results in second-order health benefits such as reduced medical expenditures and additional years of productive life.^[54] Studies have modelled the potential benefits of a SSB tax in Australia and they indicate that low SES households would benefit the most as a result of the tax.^[55] Hence the SSB tax is a persuasive example of how a RPM tax in Australia can similarly produce health (and environmental) benefits that make it a progressive tax.

The other benefit of a RPM tax for low SES individuals is that the tax revenue can subsidise the cost of fruits and vegetables and other plant-based meat substitutes. Given that meat is already an elastic food product in low SES households,^[56] there is a high probability that individuals will switch to cheaper food products. Reducing the cost of fruits, vegetables and plant-based meat substitutes provide low SES individuals with alternative food options, which increase their quality of life and improve their productivity levels.^[57] Studies show that a 10% price reduction of fruit and vegetables increases their purchase on average by 7.0% and 5.8% respectively,^[58] and the availability of cheaper plant-based meat substitutes may also decrease the demand for meat.^[59] Therefore, evidence from price elasticity research and SSB taxes indicate that a RPM in Australia would in fact disproportionality benefit low SES individuals.

IV CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING A RMP TAX IN AUSTRALIA

Despite a RPM tax being a legally feasible way to deliver important health and environmental benefits to Australia, there are powerful political and social challenges that prevent its implementation.

A Legal Challenges

1 Designing a RPM Tax

The legal feasibility of introducing a RPM tax in Australia depends on whether it falls within the ambit of the taxation powers prescribed to the federal government.^[60] The Australian Constitution permits the federal government to raise excise taxes^[61] (a tax on certain goods produced or manufactured in Australia) if it is for a public purpose.^[62]. A RPM tax is in the form of an excise tax as it applies to certain meats. Its public purpose is to improve the health standards of Australians and protect the environment. Therefore, the implementation of a RPM tax in Australia is not unconstitutional.

The main challenge for the federal government is designing an effective RPM tax. First, the government must decide what meats fall under the classification of ‘red meat’ and ‘processed meat’. Australia could adopt the WHO definition of red meat which is ‘beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, or goat’.^[63] The ‘processed meat’ definition is more difficult to devise as it needs to be forward-thinking to capture any new processed meat products and meat preservation techniques that emerge in the future. The broad WHO definition is a good option for Australia as it states that processed meat is ‘any meat that has been transformed through one or several of the following processes: salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation’.^[64]

Secondly, the government must consider the type of tax and tax rate structure it will implement. Commonly suggested meat taxes are a tax based on the weight of the meat or an ad valorem tax (fixed percentage of the meat’s retail price). The most effective option is a weight-based tax as the harm caused to an individual’s health and the environment is proportionate to the amount of RPM consumed. As this is a Pigouvian tax which internalises the negative externalities, the tax rate needs to reflect the costs on society attributed to RPM consumption. This is difficult to calculate due to the large range of potential healthcare and environmental costs, however a starting point is to consider the optimal tax rate proposed in the Oxford University report. For high-come countries the report recommends increasing the price of red meat by around 20%, and 100% for processed meat.^[65] The tax type and rate Australia chooses must also influence consumers’ purchasing habits. International experience from SSB taxes indicate that manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers affected by an excise tax pass on the price increase to consumers, and this ultimately reduces their consumption.^[66]

2 International Legal Obligations

Moreover, the federal government needs to consider whether a RPM tax violates Australia’s international obligations. Opponents to a RPM tax argue that red meat is an essential part of people’s diets providing a rich source of protein and essential nutrients. Hence taxes that aim to reduce RPM consumption are a breach of people’s right to adequate food.^[67] Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (‘ICCPR’) and Article 11 explicitly mentions a right to adequate food.^[68] However, the right to ‘adequate’ food is not to be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which mandates countries to provide a minimum amount of calories, proteins and other specific nutrients.^[69] Rather it is a core obligation to take the necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger,^[70] hence a right to eat tax-free RPM is a far-fetched interpretation of these obligations. Also, Australia has not implemented the ICCPR into domestic legislation so Article 11 cannot restrain the implementation of a RPM tax.

In summation, the implementation of a RPM tax faces few legal challenges in Australia, especially if the practical issues with designing the tax are worked out.

B Political Challenges

1 Lack of Political Will

Compared to the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe, there has been limited discussion within Australia about the introduction of a RPM tax. The most vocal opposition from Australians politicians came after the 2021 UN Pre-Summit. David Littleproud, who serves as the deputy leader of the National Party and is the Minister for Agriculture, shut down any possibility of Australia implementing a RPM tax. Littleproud’s statements are concerning because he goes beyond simply rejecting a RPM tax but ‘completely rejects claims from the UN that the meat industry [in Australia] is driving climate change’.^[71] This highlights the significant barrier advocates of a RPM tax face as they first need to convince Australian politicians that overconsumption of RPM does in fact have environmental effects.

Other political tactics used to demonise a RPM tax include framing it as a ‘sin tax’, ‘tax on your steak’ and ‘literal barbeque stopper’.^[72] These descriptors draw on the emotions of voters to feel as though their right to eat meat and enjoy themselves is being attacked, thereby decreasing the chance of a RPM tax gaining strong public support. A RPM tax is also repeatedly referred to as a ‘carbon tax’ even though the tax is not levied on carbon emissions. This is a purposeful attempt by Australian politicians to draw an association with the failed and unpopular carbon tax in Australia. Members of the Australian Labor Party and Greens Party have no official position on the implementation of a RPM tax and have chosen to remain mostly silent on the issue. This demonstrates that the lack of political will to implement a RPM tax exists on all sides of politics.

Another reason for the lack of political will is due to the Australian economy being so heavily reliant on the red meat and livestock industry. In 2018–19, the red meat and livestock industry contributed $17.6 billion to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (‘GDP’), which was 1.4% of Australia’s total GDP. This significant contribution to GDP is a result of the exporting power of the Australian red meat industry, as Australia is currently considered one of the top three largest exporters of beef, goat meet and mutton in the world.^[73] Hence, it is highly unlikely that any Australian government would want to risk damaging the economy by introducing a RPM tax. Advocates will face a considerable challenge to shift the Australian government’s attention to consider the health and environmental benefits of a RPM tax, as currently the government is primarily focused on advancing its political and economic interests.

2 Powerful Red Meat and Livestock Lobby Groups

Organisations such as Meat and Livestock Australia (‘MLA’), the Red Meat Advisory Council and the National Farmer’s Federation, in collaboration with over 75,000 businesses within the red meat and livestock industry,^[74] form one of the biggest lobby groups in Australia. Advocating for a RPM tax is especially difficult when the Coalition is in government, because the National Party which represents numerous meat farmers are strongly connected to and influenced by the lobby groups. One of the most prominent organisations is MLA, which is declared an industry marketing body and research body under Australian law.^[75] The Australian government funds MLA by contributing a dollar for each levy dollar MLA invests in research and development,^[76] and this places MLA in an economically and politically powerful position to lobby governments. Due to statutory limitations, MLA is prohibited from taking official positions on government policy, but it plays an active role in advising policy decisions to promote greater consumption of RPM.^[77] This type of lobbying was on clear display during the development of the National Dietary Guidelines, as various organisations with strong influence ensured the final recommendations omitted any mention of reducing meat consumption.^[78]

Another strategy of MLA is creating strong connections with scientific organisations to use their research to lobby governments to not take any political action against the overconsumption of RPM. MLA provides ongoing financial support to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (‘CSIRO’), and this money is often used for research into the consumption of red meat. The CSIRO’s research findings have often highlighted the benefits of having red meat in a person’s diet,^[79] which have led to allegations of biased outcomes.^[80] This complicated relationship is highlighted by a cookbook released in 2015 by CSIRO and funded by MLA called Total Wellbeing Diet, which emphasises the importance of having a high-protein and high in red meat diet.

Due to the red meat and livestock industry’s stronghold on the political and scientific community, Australia lacks a strong and cohesive group of advocates that oppose the lobby groups. The successful implementation of tobacco taxes in Australia is largely attributed to a cohesive group of public health advocates who were supported by strong scientific evidence, and who had a clear goal of reducing smoking in Australia.^[81] In contrast, a cohesive group with a clear message in support of implementing a RPM tax has not emerged in Australia. The formation of a strong opposition group against the lobby groups is difficult in regard to RPM consumption, because potential advocates from the public health, environmental and animal welfare sectors all have differing views and interests on this issue. Without a cohesive group of advocates to take on the powerful lobby groups, the chances of a RPM tax being implemented in Australia are slim.

C Social Challenges

1 Australia’s Culture of Eating Meat

Australia has consistently ranked first or second on the list of the world’s highest meat consumption per capita.^[82] There has been a decline in meat consumption in recent years, with government data indicating a drop from 105.2 kilograms in 2018–19 to 99.5 kilograms in 2019–20.^[83] Despite this marginal decline, the consumption of meat in Australia compared to the rest of the world remains extremely high. This can be explained by the strong relationship between RPM and Australia’s cultural identity.

Australian diets have been hugely influenced by the country’s pastoral history and European diets from colonial times. Cattle were first introduced to Australia in 1788 and the numbers accelerated in the latter half of the 19^th century.^[84] By 1900 there was around 8.6 million cattle and herds extended to most regions of Australia, including very large pastoral holdings in central and northern Australia.^[85] Due to this pastoral expansion there was an abundance of red meat like beef and mutton, which became staples in the local Australian diet inspired by European food traditions. These traditions included the classic ‘meat and three veg’ combination which remains a standard meal formula for many Australians today.^[86] Despite immigration introducing many non-meat food options to Australia, the enduring impact of the nation’s pastoral history and European food traditions can still be observed in modern day Australia. This includes quintessentially Australian foods traditions like ‘chucking a steak on the barbie’, ‘barbeque snags’ and the ‘Aussie meat pie’.

Advertising campaigns have entrenched into the Australian psyche that not eating meat is ‘un-Australian’. The most prominent and pervasive advertisements are the Australia Day lamb campaigns run by MLA. In the 2005 advertisement, celebrity sports star Sam Kekovich famously said ‘It’s tradition. Don’t be un-Australian. Serve lamb on Australia Day.’ Despite these campaigns appearing satirical on face value, their impact is likely significant as lamb sales did increase on Australia Day by an average of 35% and around 67% of Australians claim that lamb is the most patriotic meat.^[87]

The strong bond Australians feel between red meat and nationalism makes it much more challenging to garner public support for a RPM tax. This can be contrasted against Germany where according to the activist group, True Animal Price Protein Coalition, 81% of German consumers support a meat tax of $1.61 per kilogram.^[88] The social acceptance of a meat tax is likely more common in Germany than in Australia because Germans already pay a 7% value-added tax on meat,^[89] whereas Australians pay no goods and services tax on meat for human consumption (except prepared meals or savoury snacks).^[90] Therefore, the strong association ingrained in Australian society between meat consumption and nationalism and patriotism, makes it a uniquely difficult country to introduce a RPM tax.

2 Meat and Masculinity

The strong association between meat and masculinity in Australia provides another barrier for the implementation of a RPM tax. According to the National Cancer Control Indicators, Australian men consumed almost 50% more processed meat than women, that is, 15 grams compared to 10 grams daily. Australian men also consumed over 50% more red meat than women, that is, 97.3 grams compared to 62.5 grams daily.^[91] This means that Australian men are consuming around 50% more red meat than the recommended intake of 65 grams.^[92] There is well-established sociological and scientific research explaining how normative concepts of masculinity contribute to the different patterns of meat consumption between the genders, and specifically why men overcompensate and consume excessive amounts of meat. ^[93] Historically, meat consumption was seen as a way to display masculinity because meat was a symbol of a person’s wealth, power and dominance.^[94] While feminist movements have tried to deconstruct these notions of masculinity, the association between meat and masculinity has yet to be erased.^[95]

The marketing tactics of the Australian red and livestock meat industry have played a crucial role in the perpetuation of this gendered stereotype. MLA in 1985 released an advertising campaign called ‘Feed the Man Meat’,^[96] which draws a very clear association between masculinity and meat consumption. Although advertisements and social media nowadays are more subtle about their messaging, the underlying gendered stereotype remains and effects men’s perception of meat consumption. In a 2019 survey, the dominant view of Sydney men was that if they opted not to eat meat they feared that they would be seen as less masculine, and some men who were vegetarians preferred not disclosing this to people to avoid social prejudice.^[97] Hence, despite a rise in vegetarianism in Australia in recent years, men are still less likely to follow a vegetarian diet^[98] due to societal values and subtle marketing tactics that have created the impression that ‘real men eat meat’. Overcoming this deeply ingrained gendered stereotype and convincing men that a RPM tax does not threaten their masculinity will be particularly difficult for advocates.

V CONCLUSION

Strong evidence of the health and environmental benefits that can be obtained from a RPM tax offer a persuasive rationale for implementation in Australia. The tax is legally feasible and would help Australia deal with its increasing rates of colorectal cancer, and also reduce GHG emissions to improve its action on climate change. However, the lack of political will and powerful lobby groups, as well as the strong association between meat and Australia’s cultural identity, and meat and masculinity, pose significant political and social barriers to implementation. Before the implementation of a RPM tax is conceivable in Australia, there needs to be a drastic shift in the Australian psyche about the importance of improving national health standards and protecting the environment, even if that comes at the expense of some economic and political interests.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Articles/Books/Reports

Allcott, Hunt, Benjamin Lockwood and Dmitry Taubinsky, ‘Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence’ (Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2019)

Andreyeva, Tatiana, Michael W Long and Kelly D Brownell, ‘The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food’ (2010) 100(2) American Journal of Public Health 216

Bähr, Cordelia Christiane, ‘Greenhouse Gas Taxes on Meat Products: A Legal Perspective’ (2015) 4(1) Transactional Environmental Law 153

Bell, Alan W, ‘The Australasian Beef Industries – Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century’ (2011) 1(2) Animal Frontiers 10

Bernstein, Justin and Jan Dutkiewicz, ‘A Public Health Ethics Case for Mitigating Zoonotic Disease Risk in Food Production’ (2021) 6(9) Food Ethics 1

Bless, Anja, ‘Addressing the Impacts of Red Meat Consumption: Lessons from Australia’s Tobacco Control Regime’ (Thesis, University of Sydney, 2018)

Bogueva, Diana, Dora Marinova and Ross Gordon, ‘Who Needs to Solve the Vegetarian Men Dilemma?’ (2020) 30(1) Social Environment 28

Bonnet, Céline et al, ‘Viewpoint: Regulating Meat Consumption to Improve Health, the Environment and Animal Welfare’ (2020) 97 Food Policy 1

Bouvard, Véronique et al, ‘Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat’ (2015) 16(16) The Lancet Oncology 1599

Broeks, Marlin et al, ‘A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Meat Taxation and a Fruit and Vegetables Subsidy for a Healthy and Sustainable Food Consumption in the Netherlands’ (2020) 20(1) BMC Public Health 1

Carroll, Julie-Anne, Eleanor M Capel and Danielle Gallegos ‘Meat, Masculinity, and Health for the “Typical Aussie Bloke”: A Social Constructivist Analysis of Class, Gender, and Consumption’ (2019) 13(6) American Journal of Men’s Health 1

Clonan, Angie, Katharine E Roberts and Michelle Holdsworth, ‘Socioeconomic and Demographic Drivers of Red and Processed Meat Consumption: Implications for Health and Environmental Sustainability’ (2016) 75 Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 367

Crowe, William, Christopher T Elliott and Brian D Green, ‘A Review of the In Vivo Evidence Investigating the Role of Nitrite Exposure from Processed Meat Consumption in the Development of Colorectal Cancer’ (2019) 11(1) Nutrients 2673

Curtain, Felicity and Sara Grafenauer, ‘Plant-Based Meat Substitutes in the Flexitarian Age: An Audit of Products on Supermarket Shelves’ (2019) 11(11) Nutrients 2603

Davison, Thomas M, John L Black and Jonathan F Moss, ‘Red Meat – An Essential Partner to Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (2020) 10(4) Animal Frontiers 14

Dixon, Jane, Colin Sindall and Cathy Banwell, ‘Exploring the Intersectoral Partnerships Guiding Australia's Dietary Advice’ (2004) 19(1) Health Promotion International 5

Farvid, Maryam S et al, ‘Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat and Cancer Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis Of Prospective Studies’ (2021) 36(9) European Journal of Epidemiology 937

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Report, 2006)

Gallet, Craig A, ‘Meat Meets Meta: A Quantitative Review of the Price Elasticity of Meat’ (2010) 92(1) American Journal of Agricultural Economics 258

Godfray, Charles et al, ‘Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment’ (2018) 361(6399) Science 361

Green, Rosemary et al, ‘The Effect of Rising Food Prices on Food Consumption: Systematic Review with Meta-Regression’ (2013) 346 British Medical Journal 1

Hopwood, Christopher J, ‘Health, Environmental, and Animal Rights Motives for Vegetarian Eating’ (2020) 15(4) PLOS One 1

Lacy-Nichols, Jennifer, Gyorgy Scrinis and Rachel Carey ‘The Politics of Voluntary Self-Regulation: Insights from the Development and Promotion of the Australian Beverages Council’s Commitment’ (2019) 23(3) Public Health Nutrition 564

Lal, Anita, ‘Modelled Health Benefits of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Across Different Socioeconomic Groups in Australia: A Cost-Effectiveness and Equity Analysis’ (2017) 17(1) PLOS Medicine 1

Lupton, Deborah, ‘The Heart of the Meal: Food Preferences and Habits Among Rural Australian Couples’ (2000) 22(1) Sociology of Health and Illness 94

Marinova, Dora, and Diana Bogueva, ‘Planetary Health and Reduction in Meat Consumption’ (2019) 2(1) Sustainable Earth 1

Mayberry, Dianne et al, ‘Pathways to Carbon-Neutrality for the Australian Red Meat Sector’ (2019) 175 Agricultural Systems 13

Nakagawa, Sandra and Chloe Hart, ‘Where’s the Beef? How Masculinity Exacerbates Gender Disparities in Health Behaviors’ (2019) 5(2) Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 1

Red Meat and Processed Meat: IRAC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (World Health Organisation Report vol 114, 2015)

Renata, Micha, Sarah K Wallace and Dariush Mozaffarian, ‘Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ (2010) 121(21) Circulation 2271

Rouhani, M H et al, ‘Is There a Relationship Between Red or Processed Meat Intake and Obesity? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies’ (2015) 15(9) Obesity Review 740

Rubio, Natalie R, Ning Xiang and David L Kaplan, ‘Plant-Based and Cell-Based Approaches to Meat’ (2020) 6276 Nature 1

Santo, Raychel E et al, ‘Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective’ (2020) 4 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 1

Sievert, Katherine et al, ‘Understanding the Political Challenge of Red and Processed Meat Reduction for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: A Narrative Review of the Literature’ (2020) 10(11) International Journal of Health Policy and Management 1

Simmonds, Philippa and Signild Vallgårda, ‘“It's Not as Simple as Something Like Sugar”: Values and Conflict in the UK Meat Tax Debate’ (2021) 26(3) International Journal of Health Governance 307

Springmann, Marco et al, ‘Health-Motivated Taxes on Red and Processed Meat: A Modelling Study on Optimal Tax Levels and Associated Health Impacts’ (2018) 13(11) PLOS One 1

Teng, Andrea M et al, ‘Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Purchases and Dietary Intake: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ (2019) 20(9) Obesity Reviews 1187

Turesky, Robert, ‘Mechanistic Evidence for Red Meat and Processed Meat Intake And Cancer Risk – A Follow-Up On The International Agency For Research On Cancer Evaluation Of 2015’ (2018) 72(10) Chimia (Aarau) 718

B Cases

Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) [1938] HCA 38; (1938) 60 CLR 263

C Legislation

Australian Constitution

Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 (Cth)

D Other

‘A Meat Tax Need Not Hit the Poor’, The Guardian (online, 11 January 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/10/a-meat-tax-need-not-hit-the-poor>

Asen, Elke, ‘Standard VAT Rate on German Meat?’, Tax Foundation (online, 30 August 2019).

‘Australia Becomes the Most Valuable Beef Exporter’, Meat & Livestock Australia (Web Page, 20 February 2020)

‘Australia Continues to be the World’s Largest Sheepmeat Exporter’, Meat & Livestock Australia (Web Page, 27 February 2020)

‘Australian Dietary Guidelines’ (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2013)

‘Australia Still World’s Top Goatmeat Exporter’, Meat & Livestock Australia (Web Page, 18 March 2021)

Australian Taxation Office, ‘Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land: Report of Registrations’ (30 June 2016)

Bourne, Ryan, ‘Against A Highly Regressive “Meat Tax”’, Cato Institute (online, 12 November 2018)> <https://www.cato.org/blog/against-highly-regressive-meat-tax>

‘Bowel Cancer’, Australian Government: Cancer Australia (Web Page) <https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/cancer-types/bowel-cancer/statistics>.

‘CN30 Overview’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page) <https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/Environment-sustainability/carbon-neutral-2030-rd/cn30/>

David Littleproud, ‘Littleproud Defends Australian Meat Industry Against UN Attacks’ (Media Release, 30 July 2020) <https://minister.awe.gov.au/littleproud/media-releases/littleproud-defends-australian-meat-industry-against-un-attacks>

Goodwin, Shan, ‘Beef Rallies Against 'Absurdity' of UN Food Summit’, Farm Online (online, 29 July 2021) <https://www.farmweekly.com.au/story/7361261/beef-rallies-against-absurdity-of-un-food-summit/>

Gray, Nathan, ‘Processed Meat and Cancer: Let’s Cut the Nonsense’, Food Navigator (online, 24 July 2019) <https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2015/10/27/Processed-meat-and-cancer-Let-s-cut-the-nonsense>

‘GST-free Food’, Australian Taxation Office (Web Page) <https://www.ato.gov.au/print-publications/gst-and-food/?page=4>

‘How We Are Funded’, Meat & Livestock Australia (Web Page) <https://www.mla.com.au/about-mla/how-we-are-funded/#>

‘Illicit Tobacco’, Australian Taxation Office (Web Page) <https://www.ato.gov.au/general/the-fight-against-tax-crime/our-focus/illicit-tobacco/>

Jooste, James, ‘“Richie's BBQ” Ad Boosts Red Meat Sales and Wins Critical Acclaim’, ABC News (online, 26 May 2015)

Keogh, Mike, ‘There's a Major Beef over Dietary Guidelines’ Sydney Morning Herald (online, 23 February 2011)

Lloyd, Graham, ‘Extremists Push UN For Carbon Tax on Meat’, The Australian (online, 30 July 2021)

Luk, Johnny, ‘Is This the End of the Road for Meat Consumption?’, AlJazerra (online, 12 August 2021) <https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/12/is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-meat>

McGauran, Peter, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ‘$40 Million to Help Tobacco Growers Look to the Future’ (Media Release DAFF06/160PM, 26 October 2006)

‘Meat Consumption’, Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Web Page) <https://www.awe.gov.au/abares/research-topics/agricultural-outlook/meat-consumption>

Nason, James, ‘Meat Consumption Down, but Debate Over What’s Driving’, Beef Central (online, 24 May 2021) <https://www.beefcentral.com/news/meat-consumption-down-but-debate-over-whats-driving-it/>

‘National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Quarterly Update: March 2021’ (Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 31 August 2021) <https://www.industry.gov.au/news/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-march-2021-quarterly-update>

Neales, Sue, ‘The Sexual Revolution Sends Advertising Reeling’, Australian Financial Reviews (online, 1 May 1990) <https://www.afr.com/politics/the-sexual-revolution-sends-advertising-reeling-19900501-k3w9v>

‘Net-Zero Emissions ‘Madness’ Sees Group Push UN For Meat Tax’, The Weekly Times (online, 2 August 2021) <https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/netzero-emissions-madness-sees-group-push-un-for-meat-tax/video/aa7f9d8b4e0beb395385d312b5aad4fd>

‘Processed Meat and Red Meat Consumption’, National Cancer Control Indicators (Web Page, 22 November 2017) <https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/prevention/diet/processed-meat-and-red-meat-consumption>

Readfearn, Graham, ‘Australia's New Climate Pledge to UN Criticised for Not Improving on 2030 Target’, The Guardian (online, 5 January 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/05/australias-new-climate-pledge-to-un-criticised-for-not-improving-on-2030-target>

Stuchbery, Madeline, ‘Meat Plan Leaves Aussie Farmers Fuming’, The Weekly Times (online, 2 August 2021)

‘The Economic Significance of Australia’s Red Meat and Livestock Industry’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page, 10 September 2020) < https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2020/the-economic-significance-of-australias-red-meat-and-livestock-industry/>

‘“UN Meat Tax Will “Close Down Cattle Industry and Starve 80 Million”: Katter’, Beef Central (Web Page, 3 August 2021) <https://www.beefcentral.com/news/un-meat-tax-will-close-down-cattle-industry-and-starve-80-million-katter/>

E International Materials

International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976)

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art 11), 20^th sess, UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5 (12 May 1999)

---

^[1] Angie Clonan, Katharine E Roberts and Michelle Holdsworth, ‘Socioeconomic and Demographic Drivers of Red and Processed Meat Consumption: Implications for Health and Environmental Sustainability’ (2016) 75(3) Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 367, 369.

^[2] Red Meat and Processed Meat: IRAC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans (World Health Organisation Report vol 114, 2015) 47 (‘WHO Report’).

^[3] Johnny Luk, ‘Is This the End of the Road for Meat Consumption?’, Al Jazeera (online, 12 August 2021) <https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/12/is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-meat>.

^[4] Graham Lloyd, ‘Extremists Push UN for Carbon Tax on Meat’, The Australian (online, 30 July 2021); Madeline Stuchbery, ‘Meat Plan Leaves Aussie Farmers Fuming’, The Weekly Times (online, 2 August 2021).

^[5] Micha Renata, Sarah K Wallace and Dariush Mozaffarian, ‘Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ (2010) 121(21) Circulation 2271.

^[6] M H Rouhani et al, ‘Is There a Relationship Between Red or Processed Meat Intake and Obesity? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies’ (2015) 15(9) Obesity Review 740.

^[7] Véronique Bouvard et al, ‘Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat’ (2015) 16(16) The Lancet Oncology 1599, 1599–60.

^[8] Nathan Gray, ‘Processed Meat and Cancer: Let’s Cut the Nonsense’, Food Navigator (online, 24 July 2019) <https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2015/10/27/Processed-meat-and-cancer-Let-s-cut-the-nonsense>.

^[9] Bouvard et al, (n 7) 1599–60.

^[10] William Crowe, Christopher T Elliott and Brian D Green, ‘A Review of the In Vivo Evidence Investigating the Role of Nitrite Exposure from Processed Meat Consumption in the Development of Colorectal Cancer’ (2019) 11(1) Nutrients 2673, 2683–4.

^[11] WHO Report (n 2) 1599.

^[12] Ibid 1599–60.

^[13] Maryam S Farvid et al, ‘Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat and Cancer Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis Of Prospective Studies’ (2021) 36(9) European Journal of Epidemiology 937, 941.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Robert Turesky, ‘Mechanistic Evidence for Red Meat and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Risk – A Follow-Up on the International Agency for Research on Cancer Evaluation of 2015’ (2018) 72(10) Chimia (Aarau) 718, 719.

^[16] Charles Godfray et al, ‘Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment’ (2018) 361(6399) Science 361, 6–8.

^[17] Dianne Mayberry et al, ‘Pathways to Carbon-Neutrality for the Australian Red Meat Sector’ (2019) 175 Agricultural Systems 13, 15; Meat and Livestock Australia, ‘The Australian Red Meat Industry’s Carbon Neutral by 2030 Roadmap’ (November 2020) 10 <https://updates.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/research-and-development/program-areas/environment-and-sustainability/2689-mla-cn30-roadmap_d3.pdf>.

^[18] ‘National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Quarterly Update: March 2021’ (Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 31 August 2021) <https://www.industry.gov.au/news/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-march-2021-quarterly-update>.

^[19] See Mayberry et al, (n 17).

^[20] Ibid 14–15.

^[21] Thomas M Davison, John L Black and Jonathan F Moss, ‘Red Meat – An Essential Partner to Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ (2020) 10(4) Animal Frontiers 14, 14.

^[22] ‘Australia Becomes the Most Valuable Beef Exporter’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page, 20 February 2020).

^[23] Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Report, 2006).

^[24] Marco Springmann et al, ‘Health-Motivated Taxes on Red and Processed Meat: A Modelling Study on Optimal Tax Levels and Associated Health Impacts’ (2018) 13(11) PLOS One 1, 2.

^[25] Ibid.

^[26] Rosemary Green et al, ‘The Effect of Rising Food Prices on Food Consumption: Systematic Review with Meta-Regression’ (2013) 346 British Medical Journal 1, 3.

^[27] Craig A Gallet, ‘Meat Meets Meta: A Quantitative Review of the Price Elasticity of Meat’ (2010) 92(1) American Journal of Agricultural Economics 258, 268.

^[28] Céline Bonnet et al, ‘Viewpoint: Regulating Meat Consumption to Improve Health, the Environment and Animal Welfare’ (2020) 97 Food Policy 1, 2.

^[29] Springmann et al, (n 24) 6, 9.

^[30] ‘Bowel Cancer’, Australian Government: Cancer Australia (Web Page) <https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/cancer-types/bowel-cancer/statistics>.

^[31] Ibid.

^[32] Springmann et al, (n 24) 10.

^[33] Bonnet et al, (n 28) 3.

^[34] Graham Readfearn, ‘Australia's New Climate Pledge to UN Criticised for Not Improving on 2030 Target’, The Guardian (online, 5 January 2021) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/05/australias-new-climate-pledge-to-un-criticised-for-not-improving-on-2030-target>.

^[35] ‘CN30 Overview’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page) <https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/Environment-sustainability/carbon-neutral-2030-rd/cn30/>.

^[36] See generally Jennifer Lacy-Nichols, Gyorgy Scrinis and Rachel Carey ‘The Politics of Voluntary Self-Regulation: Insights From the Development and Promotion of the Australian Beverages Council’s Commitment’ (2019) 23(3) Public Health Nutrition 564.

^[37] Graham Lloyd, ‘Extremists Push UN for Carbon Tax on Meat’, The Australian (online, 30 July 2021).

^[38] Ibid; Madeline Stuchbery, ‘Meat Plan Leaves Aussie Farmers Fuming’, The Weekly Times (online, 2 August 2021); Shan Goodwin, ‘Beef Rallies Against 'Absurdity' of UN Food Summit’, Farm Online (online, 29 July 2021) <https://www.farmweekly.com.au/story/7361261/beef-rallies-against-absurdity-of-un-food-summit/>.

^[39] Graham Lloyd, ‘Extremists Push UN for Carbon Tax on Meat’, The Australian (online, 30 July 2021).

^[40] ‘“UN Meat Tax Will “Close Down Cattle Industry and Starve 80 Million”: Katter’, Beef Central (Web Page, 3 August 2021) <https://www.beefcentral.com/news/un-meat-tax-will-close-down-cattle-industry-and-starve-80-million-katter/>.

^[41] ‘The Economic Significance of Australia’s Red Meat and Livestock Industry’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page, 10 September 2020) <https://www.mla.com.au/prices-markets/market-news/2020/the-economic-significance-of-australias-red-meat-and-livestock-industry/>.

^[42] ‘Illicit Tobacco’, Australian Taxation Office (Web Page) <https://www.ato.gov.au/general/the-fight-against-tax-crime/our-focus/illicit-tobacco/>.

^[43] Peter McGauran MP, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ‘$40 Million to Help Tobacco Growers Look to the Future’ (Media Release DAFF06/160PM, 26 October 2006).

^[44] Natalie R Rubio, Ning Xiang and David L Kaplan, ‘Plant-Based and Cell-Based Approaches to Meat Production’ (2020) 6276 Nature 1, 3.

^[45] Felicity Curtain and Sara Grafenauer, ‘Plant-Based Meat Substitutes in the Flexitarian Age: An Audit of Products on Supermarket Shelves’ (2019) 11(11) Nutrients 2603, 2605.

^[46] Christopher J Hopwood, ‘Health, Environmental, and Animal Rights Motives for Vegetarian Eating’ (2020) 15(4) PLOS One 1.

^[47] Justin Bernstein and Jan Dutkiewicz, ‘A Public Health Ethics Case for Mitigating Zoonotic Disease Risk in Food Production’ (2021) 6(9) Food Ethics 1, 15–16.

^[48] Graham Lloyd, ‘Extremists Push UN for Carbon Tax on Meat’, The Australian (online, 30 July 2021).

^[49] Ryan Bourne, ‘Against a Highly Regressive “Meat Tax”’, Cato Institute (online, 12 November 2018)> <https://www.cato.org/blog/against-highly-regressive-meat-tax>; ‘A Meat Tax Need Not Hit the Poor’, The Guardian (online, 11 January 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/10/a-meat-tax-need-not-hit-the-poor>.

^[50] Philippa Simmonds and Signild Vallgårda, ‘“It's Not as Simple as Something Like Sugar”: Values and Conflict in the UK Meat Tax Debate’ (2021) 26(3) International Journal of Health Governance 307, 308.

^[51] Green et al, (n 26) 3.

^[52] Ibid.

^[53] Hunt Allcott, Benjamin Lockwood and Dmitry Taubinsky, ‘Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence’ (Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2019) 15.

^[54] Ibid 9–10.

^[55] Anita Lal, ‘Modelled Health Benefits of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Across Different Socioeconomic Groups in Australia: A Cost-Effectiveness and Equity Analysis’ (2017) 17(1) PLOS Medicine 1, 12.

^[56] Rosemary Green et al, (n 26) 3.

^[57] Marlin J Broeks et al, ‘A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Meat Taxation and a Fruit and Vegetables Subsidy for a Healthy and Sustainable Food Consumption in the Netherlands’ (2020) 20(1) BMC Public Health 1, 10.

^[58] Tatiana Andreyeva, Michael W Long and Kelly D Brownell, ‘The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food’ (2010) 100(2) American Journal of Public Health 216, 221.

^[59] Raychel E Santo et al, ‘Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective’ (2020) 4 Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 1.

^[60] Australian Constitution s 51 (ii).

^[61] Ibid s 90.

^[62] Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) [1938] HCA 38; (1938) 60 CLR 263.

^[63] WHO Report (n 2) 47.

^[64] Ibid (emphasis added).

^[65] Springmann et al, (n 24) 1.

^[66] See generally Andrea M Teng et al, ‘Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Purchases and Dietary Intake: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ (2019) 20(9) Obesity Reviews 1187.

^[67] Cordelia Christiane Bähr, ‘Greenhouse Gas Taxes on Meat Products: A Legal Perspective’ (2015) 4(1) Transactional Environmental Law 153, 177–8.

^[68] International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art 11.

^[69] UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 12: The Right to Adequate Food (Art 11), 20th sess, UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5 (12 May 1999) 2 [6].

^[70] Ibid.

^[71] David Littleproud, ‘Littleproud Defends Australian Meat Industry Against UN Attacks’ (Media Release, 30 July 2020) <https://minister.awe.gov.au/littleproud/media-releases/littleproud-defends-australian-meat-industry-against-un-attacks>.

^[72] ‘Net-Zero Emissions “Madness” Sees Group Push UN for Meat Tax’, The Weekly Times (online, 2 August 2021) <https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/netzero-emissions-madness-sees-group-push-un-for-meat-tax/video/aa7f9d8b4e0beb395385d312b5aad4fd>.

^[73] ‘Australia Becomes the Most Valuable Beef Exporter’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page, 20 February 2020); ‘Australia Still World’s Top Goatmeat Exporter’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page, 18 March 2021); ‘Australia Continues to be the World’s Largest Sheepmeat Exporter’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page, 27 February 2020).

^[74] ‘Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land: Report of Registrations’ (Australian Taxation Office, 30 June 2016) 4.

^[75] Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 (Cth) s 60.

^[76] ‘How We Are Funded’, Meat and Livestock Australia (Web Page) <https://www.mla.com.au/about-mla/how-we-are-funded/#>.

^[77] Anja Bless, ‘Addressing the Impacts of Red Meat Consumption: Lessons from Australia’s Tobacco Control Regime’ (Thesis, University of Sydney, 2018) 46.

^[78] Mike Keogh, ‘There's a Major Beef over Dietary Guidelines’ Sydney Morning Herald (online, 23 February 2011); Katherine Sievert et al, ‘Understanding the Political Challenge of Red and Processed Meat Reduction for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: A Narrative Review of the Literature’ (2020) 10(11) International Journal of Health Policy and Management 1, 8.

^[79] Jane Dixon, Colin Sindall and Cathy Banwell, ‘Exploring the Intersectoral Partnerships Guiding Australia's Dietary Advice’ (2004) 19(1) Health Promotion International 5, 10.

^[80] Sievert et al, (n 78) 9.

^[81] Bless (n 77) 51.

^[82] ‘Meat Consumption’, Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Web Page) <https://www.awe.gov.au/abares/research-topics/agricultural-outlook/meat-consumption>.

^[83] James Nason, ‘Meat Consumption Down, but Debate over What’s Driving It’, Beef Central (online, 24 May 2021) <https://www.beefcentral.com/news/meat-consumption-down-but-debate-over-whats-driving-it/>.

^[84] Alan W Bell, ‘The Australasian Beef Industries – Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century’ (2011) 1(2) Animal Frontiers 10, 10.

^[85] Ibid.

^[86] Deborah Lupton, ‘The Heart of the Meal: Food Preferences and Habits Among Rural Australian Couples’ (2000) 22(1) Sociology of Health and Illness 94, 94.

^[87] James Jooste, ‘“Richie's BBQ” Ad Boosts Red Meat Sales and Wins Critical Acclaim’, ABC News (online, 26 May 2015).

^[88] Graham Lloyd, ‘Extremists Push UN for Carbon Tax on Meat’, The Australian (online, 30 July 2021).

^[89] Elke Asen, ‘Standard VAT Rate on German Meat?’, Tax Foundation (online, 30 August 2019).

^[90] ‘GST-Free Food’, Australian Taxation Office (Web Page) <https://www.ato.gov.au/print-publications/gst-and-food/?page=4>.

^[91] ‘Processed Meat and Red Meat Consumption’, National Cancer Control Indicators (Web Page, 22 November 2017) <https://ncci.canceraustralia.gov.au/prevention/diet/processed-meat-and-red-meat-consumption>.

^[92] ‘Australian Dietary Guidelines’ (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2013) 52.

^[93] Julie-Anne Carroll, Eleanor M Capel and Danielle Gallegos ‘Meat, Masculinity, and Health for the “Typical Aussie Bloke”: A Social Constructivist Analysis of Class, Gender, and Consumption’ (2019) 13(6) American Journal of Men’s Health 1, 1; Dora Marinova and Diana Bogueva, ‘Planetary Health and Reduction in Meat Consumption’ (2019) 2(1) Sustainable Earth 1, 5.

^[94] Sandra Nakagawa and Chloe Hart, ‘Where’s the Beef? How Masculinity Exacerbates Gender Disparities in Health Behaviors’ (2019) 5(2) Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 1, 3.

^[95] Ibid.

^[96] Sue Neales, ‘The Sexual Revolution Sends Advertising Reeling’, Australian Financial Reviews (online, 1 May 1990) <https://www.afr.com/politics/the-sexual-revolution-sends-advertising-reeling-19900501-k3w9v>.

^[97] Diana Boguea, Dora Marinova and Ross Gordon, ‘Who Needs to Solve the Vegetarian Men Dilemma?’ (2020) 30(1) Social Environment 28.

^[98] Nakagawa and Hart (n 94) 3.