The benefits are two-fold. Taxing livestock emissions according to their environmental impact will encourage consumers to make more sustainable choices.
A Golden Egg for Climate or a Rotten Deal for Farmers & Families?
The concept of a tax on meat products, which places a levy on high-emission animal products, is gaining traction in the offices of agricultural ministries around the world. Spain and Switzerland have carbon pricing plans in place, and Denmark, a major producer of pork and dairy, will begin taxing livestock carbon emissions in 2030. New Zealand, Germany, and the Netherlands are in discussions.
The benefits are two-fold. Taxing livestock emissions according to their environmental impact will encourage consumers to make more sustainable choices. This reduction in demand will cut greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the climate crisis, and benefit public health as diets shift to more plant-based and less processed meals.
Taxing meat is heavily advocated by animal welfare and environmental groups alike, who argue that a sin tax, like those placed on sugar and tobacco products, has proven successful in changing consumer behaviour and mitigating their harmful effects.
Applying this sin tax to meat and dairy products is, however, a double-edged sword - a sword which could make or break farmers and their livestock alike. Christopher Snowdon of the IEA warned that taxing food is "the next battleground for the nanny state". Better World Info has carried out thorough research on the topic.
How Bad is the Meat Industry?
* Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production.
* The meat and dairy industries are responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
* Beef production is responsible for 41% of global deforestation, primarily in the extremely fragile Amazon rainforest
* Globally, two out of three farm animals are now factory-farmed. Animals are crammed in their thousands into filthy, windowless cages, crates, or pens under highly restrictive conditions. They will not see the light of day and endure painful, miserable conditions every day until they are transported to the slaughterhouse.
* Confining animals in large numbers in one place produces an oversaturation of waste, which the surrounding area cannot support. Factory farms are environmental hazards which pollute water sources, soils, and the air. Exposure to which causes respiratory problems, skin infections, nausea, and even depression.
* An estimated 80 billion animals are slaughtered each year for food (not including fish).
* Overuse of antibiotics in farmed animals contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans. Around 70% of global antibiotic use is in healthy farmed animals, which do not need this routine treatment. They are used to prevent infections and have a marginal effect on increasing growth rates.
* High meat consumption, particularly processed and red meat, is associated with increased risks of heart disease, strokes, cancer, and diabetes.
* If everyone in the UK ate a meat-free lunch on weekdays, the NHS would save as much as £2.2 billion every year in reduced healthcare costs.
Could a Meat Tax do More Harm than Good?
As with any new policy, the far-reaching implications must be fully understood, weighed up, and mitigated, especially in this situation where animal welfare is at stake. Without careful planning, farmers will bear the financial burden, supply chain job losses will be substantial, and low-income families will be disproportionately affected.
Consumer behaviour is also hard to predict. The concept of a nanny state orchestrating our food choices is fiercely unpopular. When the price of red meat soars, rather than substituting it with plant-based options, consumers may simply switch to other, lower-cost options, such as chicken.
Chickens tend to be farmed in conditions much more harmful to their welfare than sheep and cows. If people start eating even more chicken, these animals may bear the brunt of a meat tax in a phenomenon known as the small animal replacement problem (SARP).
Depending on the implementation, a meat tax could further reduce conditions and treatment of livestock in general, as farmers are squeezed to the brink and forced to make further cutbacks.
A decrease in demand for meat would force many farmers out of business, lead to job losses throughout the supply chain, and affect rural economies. One report from the UK states that a meat tax would result in £100 million in annual savings from reduced emissions, but would cost the economy £242 million per year.
Fair Carbon Pricing on Food
Paying for the environmental and health costs of meat production and consumption makes sense. Meat consumption has almost doubled since the 1960's and many countries are now eating way beyond the meat required in our daily nutritional needs. In some North American, European, and Latin American countries, red meat is being consumed at rates 300-600% higher than recommended.
Experts already agree that we simply cannot meet our climate goals and protect our precious ecosystems without reducing our consumption of meat and making the industry more sustainable. A blanket meat tax may not be the answer, but rather a more tailored approach. For example, taxing products according to their environmental impact to reflect the damage that they cause.
Public attitudes towards a meat tax are largely negative. Support, however, increases when the tax covers all environmentally damaging foods, not just meat, and is coupled with subsidies on healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables. If meat and dairy products are to become more expensive, healthy and sustainable options must become more affordable. There is also much more support if the revenue raised is used directly to improve the welfare of animals.
A study from the Netherlands estimated that a 30% tax on meat and a 10% subsidy for vegetables would generate a net benefit to society of more than £12 million over thirty years. The success of a sin tax on meat will depend on how the revenue is used. One option is to give the money directly to farmers to cover the costs of their land stewardship, restoration projects, and the transition to producing high-quality, organic meat from much lower-density herds.
The money could also be used to support sustainable agriculture in general, fund educational campaigns on plant-based diets, and help prop up healthcare systems, which are struggling with unprecedented numbers of patients with cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity.
The debate continues, but one certainty is that we must make the production and consumption of meat and dairy more sustainable and realign our agricultural systems with planetary boundaries and dietary guidelines.
"The idea of a meat tax is not to punish consumers but to provide the right incentives for healthier and more sustainable eating habits." - Dr Richard Carmona, Former U.S. Surgeon General.
--
Previously Published on Resilience and reprinted with permission
Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.