The UN’s latest IPCC report supports eating less meat as one of the most effective ways to fight the climate crisis. Is a tax on meat the next big thing to lower the carbon footprint, health and environmental costs of what we eat? Several studies predict meat taxes are coming, including the concept of a “climate tax”, and Germany, Denmark and Sweden are already considering them to lower the carbon footprint of the food system. Legislators have long taxed products that harm people and the environment e.g., tobacco, which has helped reduce smoking, lower cancer rates and decrease health care costs.
Also, meat consumption has hidden climate and health costs that are not reflected in its price. The industrialized animal agriculture system is a major source of GHGs, contributes to antibiotic resistance and is a significant source of air, water and soil pollution. The World Health Organization has classified processed meat as a carcinogen and red meats are associated with certain cancers. Meat consumption has also been linked to heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.
A recent study by Oxford University looked at the impact of red meat consumption on mortality and health care costs and how these factors would change if red meat was taxed. The study predicts that in 2020, red meat consumption will be associated with 860,000 deaths globally and processed meat consumption will be associated with 1.5 million deaths. The associated health care costs would be US$285 billion. If these costs were reflected in the price of meat via a tax, it is predicted to reduce the death rate by 222,000 people and save US$41 billion. The findings were based on global average tax rates of 4% for red meat (up to 21% in high income countries) and 25% for processed meat.
Meat taxes are politically difficult for governments as vested interests fight back. And any meat tax should not impede low-income consumers’ access to protein. People may balk at paying a meat tax but we, as taxpayers, already support the meat industry through massive subsidies. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), agricultural subsidies in 2014 were more than US$600 billion in the 49 top producing countries, the majority going to the meat and dairy industries. But as consumers and voters become more aware of the negative climate consequences of meat production and as the demand for alternative proteins continues to grow, politicians may face less opposition to the concept. People can choose to consume meat despite the health warnings, but the growing awareness that meat consumption is damaging the planet changes the conversation and makes meat taxes more likely.