Although I believe he is entitled to his own opinion, I feel Jeremy Oehlert’s July 12 commentary, “It’s time to tax meat” was somewhat misguided and biased.

To begin with, I find it interesting that the citations for facts stated in the article all come from partisan sources.

Come on now, www.TaxMeat.com, a PETA-based site, and the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain are the two sites cited in the column.

Both sites have obvious agendas, and their “facts” are, at best, skewed.

The amount of land used for raising livestock and their associated crops was also attacked in the column.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only 19 percent of total cropland is used for feed grain production. In fact, the majority of cropland is used to raise crops for human food use.

In addition, Oehlert fails to examine the impact to our economy of cutting subsidies and raising taxes on the meat industry.

I agree that meat, like anything, should be consumed in moderation.

I do, however, not think you can tab meat as the sole contributor to heart disease and atherosclerosis.

A study examining trends in U.S. diets by Barry M. Popkin, a professor from the Department of Nutrition at the University of North Carolina, found that although reductions in fat from dairy and red meat products have been seen, the slack has been picked up by grain-based mixed dishes, higher-fat snack foods and higher-fat potatoes.

I would appreciate it, before Oehlert writes his articles, if he looks at some information from both sides of the argument — not just that from the side he is on.