A tax on meat consumption could reduce its climate impact while generating money for sustainable farming practices and supporting low-income families, new research has concluded.
A paper to be published later this year in the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy explored the potential to impose an environmental tax on meat in countries like the UK, US, and Australia by increasing its retail price by 20-60%.
It found that such a tax would reduce consumption of the most environmentally damaging foods and help meet climate goals.
Researchers suggested that the average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35-56% for beef, 25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental impacts of their production. They said this doesn’t take into account additional damage caused by biodiversity loss, the negative health impacts of meat consumption for humans, and animal welfare.
The researchers suggested that part of the revenue from the tax could be allocated to livestock farmers to help them develop alternative income streams or implement higher animal welfare standards as well as creating policies which support those on low incomes by, for example, subsidising fruit and vegetables.
“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.
People would not have to entirely cut out all meat, however future diets would have to incorporate more plant-based proteins as well as novel meat replacements, Mattauch said.
Taxing meat is a contentious subject that divides opinion. Some campaigners favour a tax on all ultra-processed foods while Henry Dimbleby in his national food strategy concluded that a meat tax would be “politically impossible” and was “the least popular of any measure” discussed with citizens in a series of deliberative dialogues.
Dimbleby did, however, set a goal for a 30% reduction in meat consumption in ten years.
