7 minutes read
Countries are considering to place higher taxes on meat products in order to decrease the countries’ meat consumption. The tax meat is one of the strategies that political parties can use to decrease the overall greenhouse gases. Read on for why the time might be right for a meat tax.
People love meat
Meat is popular among many people. Passionate meat-lovers are not hard to find and although there are a lot of people in Europe and Northern America trying to cut down on meat, the overall meat consumption is still rising.
According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization the meat production today is nearly five times higher than in the early 1960s. Which is 18 per cent of the total greenhouse gases produced by human beings. And since the world’s population is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050 and incomes are still rising, so will the meat consumption. Typically, the more people we have and the richer we get, the more meat we eat.
People love meat for many reasons, and for some of us giving up meat is a big sacrifice. Men in particular seem to have difficulty changing their diets, as mainly women are currently transitioning towards a plant-based diet. Different studies show people strongly associate meat with social status, power and masculinity, which influence the willingness to replace foods with plant-based alternatives.
However, cutting the meat consumption is vital in tackling the climate crisis. Different scientists share this could be the best single environmental action we can take. In order to make profound progress in cutting down on consuming meat, we need technology, consumers, businesses and governmental parties to work together on an international scale.
Cigarettes, alcohol and meat?
A recent report from the global consultancy AT Kearney predicted that most meat in 2040 would not come from dead animals.
The great thing about the development of cultured meat is that it allows even the most passionate meat-lovers to continue eating meat without compromising the environment or animal welfare. It’s great to see that there are more and more investments that further the technical development of these types of products.
Although technology plays a big role in the future of meat, real change needs to come from government action. Right now, government already taxes cigarettes and alcohol in order to discourage people from indulging in a damaging habit. In some cities, soda and cafeine is too. Because of the urgency of climate change, different countries are now wondering whether it’s time for a meat tax as well.
In Germany for example, lawmakers from across the political spectrum proposed on August 7, 2019 to raise the tax from 7 percent to 19 percent. They proclaim that the tax meat will decrease the country’s meat consumption, which is a win both for animal welfare and for the environment. Meat has long been subject to a reduced tax — the idea now is to use that extra money gathered from the meat tax into one of the environmental causes.
But Germany isn’t the only country exploring the idea of a meat tax. Denmark and Sweden have also been considering it. If it gains traction, it could help rid the world of a lot of unnecessary suffering. Every year billions of animals are raised on factory farms. Often under such cruel conditions that there are laws to keep the mistreatment hidden from public view.
Tax the hell out of it…
Research shows that a tax meat would be justifiable. Let me share a couple of their arguments with you.
1. The Nations health
According to a study by Nordgren from 2012, the tax on meat could have the pleasant side-effect of improving the health of the country’s citizens. As research has found, a plant-based diet would be the healthiest diet. World Health Organization claims that eating meat increases risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes. In that case the meat consumption could increase healthcare costs. Opponents of the meat tax argue sin taxes are just the next step up from to the widely applied nudge theory, where residential areas and workplaces are designed to encourage healthier behavior, such as exercise.
… or not?
First of all, opponents of the measure often discuss that a tax on meat is a blunt measure to complex problems. Obesity for example has multiple, interlinked causes. Therefore the tax meat wouldn’t be effective. They doubt some of the health and economic claims, or do not feel it is properly inclusive of total costs over the long term.
Another complication that is often mentioned in this discussion is that the meat tax is regressive and authoritarian and that it could disproportionately affect those in low-income communities where there is limited access to fresh fruit and vegetables, and for whom meat is cheaper and more accessible. 
Other opponents claim that researchers seemingly ignore the health consequences of alternative foodstuffs. A tax on meat will discourage people to eat meat and encourage them to eat other things. Although the federal government’s own 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is clear on giving the evidence that carbohydrates are dangerous, opponents ask for the evidence on health consequences of other foods. Yet this analysis does not consider the costs of this new consumption.
Research suggests any backlash would be short-lived, while the benefits will help us long-term. A 2016 analysis of meat taxes worldwide found that levies of 40 percent on beef, 20 percent on dairy products and 8.5 percent on chicken would save half a million lives a year and dramatically reduce climate warming emissions. I mean if that’s true, then that’s a pretty big deal.
A meat tax may also pave the way for a tax on poultry and seafood, too.
The livestock is a very difficult problem. Even compounds which reduce methane emissions will not be enough, which makes us in ultimately need of government policy. Government leaders have to enact new policies in order to cut down on meat – especially in wealthy countries, because the damage of agriculture is too important to ignore.
Ideally, people make choices that are best for themselves and the planet. However, for numerous reasons reality shows us different. People in wealthy countries still primarily choose based on price, taste, convenience, and social norms. According to different studies, cutting down on meat has more impact than the switch to an electric car. Different governmental actions may apply, while the meat tax could be one of them.
But other measures are needed too. Examples would be looking at menus in workplaces and schools, as well as raising public awareness. If we look at the significant cultural shift on smoking over the last decade or so, communication of the science was central to those changes. However, I don’t think the poorest countries should be taxed extra for meat or transition to lab-grown meat. That’s just not realistic. But wealthy countries need to take powerful steps in order to control their meat consumption.
It might be far from desirable that we’ve reached a point where lawmakers might force people to change their behavior by implementing a tax meat. However, the damage of the meat consumption is too urgent to ignore. Let me know your thoughts and ideas on what we can do to help keep the planet livable for generations to come.
Other writings about the future of meat: