For almost a decade, experts have hotly debated the implementation of a meat tax. In concept, the tax would be levied on meat and potentially other animal products. The goal is to cover the environmental and public health costs that result from animal products. Research shows that livestock contributes to the climate crisis, and red meat consumption increases the risk of stroke, diabetes, and heart disease. However, people criticise the idea, saying it’s regressive, authoritarian, and harmful for low-income populations who depend on meat as a primary source of protein.
The Environmental Impact of the Meat Industry
Animal-based food production takes a toll on the environment through its greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, the loss of biodiversity, eutrophication, and more, according to a report from Advances in Agronomy. As a result, environmental activists encourage vegan and plant-based diets, and protest the meat industry for its unsustainable practices.
“Livestock farming is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, soil and water pollution, and precious forests are being cleared for pastures and food crops. Evidence suggests the environmental impacts are so large that the world can’t meet climate goals and keep vital ecosystems intact without reducing the consumption of meat – at least in Western high-income countries,” said Professor Linus Mattauch from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School and the Technical University of Berlin, to the University of Oxford. He added “…Consumption taxes on meat could be an important lever to incentivize that transition,” along with other measures such as replacing meat with plant-based proteins.
Read More: Foods and Beverages With Strict Restrictions or Bans in the U.S.
Public Health Impact of Meat Consumption
In 2015, the World Health Organization stated that meat has been linked with increased mortality from chronic diseases. Therefore, the organization has classified processed red meat as a carcinogen (a substance capable of causing cancer) and red meat as possibly a carcinogen. So a now well-cited 2018 study from the Oxford University and the Nuffield Department of Population Health examined the impact of market-based regulation. The team estimated optical tax levels based on the marginal health costs associated with the consumption of processed and red meat. In their study, health-motivated taxation would be lower in low-income countries who have less health and economic burden from this consumption, and higher in other countries with more income and greater burden.
“The consumption of red and processed meat exceeds recommended levels in most high- and middle-income countries,” said Dr. Marco Springmann, of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food and the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford. “This is having significant impacts not only on personal health, but also on healthcare systems, which are taxpayer-funded in many countries, and on the economy, which is losing its labour force due to ill health and care for family members who fall ill.”
Read More: 7 Vegan Foods High In Protein That Make Meat Obsolete
What About Lower-Income Families?
However, this study became a launching point for more research into specifics, such as how to best optimize a meat tax without harming low-income households, as well as further investigation into the potential effectiveness of this kind of policy. For example, a 2022 paper suggested average retail prices of meat in high-income countries depending on the environmental impact involved. (They did not consider the negative health impacts or biodiversity loss). The researchers suggested retail prices would increase 35–56% for beef, 25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork (with the caveat that this is a “first” calculation that needed further expansion.)
One of the most emphasized points of this study was meat taxes’ capacity to generate revenue since it will go back to the people paying for it. “Building societal support for environmental tax reforms has seen success in the past when revenues are used specifically on compensating those most affected by it,” says Professor Mattauch. “In the case of meat taxes, that is farmers and low-income households.” In their proposal, the team suggested part of the revenue goes to local livestock farmers and to policies that support people with low incomes, such as subsidization for fruit and vegetables.
Denmark Will Impose a Meat Tax by 2023
Aside from potentially harming low-income families, another commonly raised concern is “the push for more government control.” People question if it’s the government’s place to tell people what to eat, no matter the outcomes, especially if it raises the cost of living. Despite all of the research supporting the meat tax, the question remains: Would it actually work to discourage people from buying animal products?
Amongst all of the heated debates, Denmark announced the plan to introduce a tax on livestock carbon dioxide emissions in 2030. From then on, farmers will have to pay 300 kroner (about $43/£34) per tonne of methane on emissions from livestock. The levy will increase to 750 krone in 2035. The country is a major pork and dairy exporter, and Taxation Minister Jeppe Bruus hopes others will follow Denmark’s lead. “[It is a] huge, huge task that is now underway: to transform large parts of our land from agricultural production to forestry, to natural spaces, to ensure that we can bring life back to our fjords,” Jeppe Bruus said, according to BBC.
Read More: RFK Jr. Wants To Potentially Ban These 20 Foods from The $113 Billion Low-Income Program