Could a tax curb meat’s health and environmental problems? | FT Food Revolution

Livestock farming takes a heavy toll on the environment and excessive meat consumption can carry health risks. One idea to curb these problems is the introduction of a meat tax. But opponents claim that could put meat out of reach for poorer consumers, make farmers cut corners on animal welfare, and encourage suppliers to simply import cheaper meat.

#tax #farming #meat

► Check out our Community tab for more stories on the economy.

[jamaloogy]

Wrong target. Tax refined sugar and empty calory food.

[Zrinq]

Food tax should be on any food that has hidden sugars and is ultra processed, not unprocessed meat which is the most bio available and healthiest food for the human body.

[klingonwarrior]

A 'meat tax' will only mean that poorer people will be eating less or no meat, one of the criteria for poverty in the 19th century. It will hardly affect those with money.

[AliHussain-nshr]

When will we learn that taxing things that people are buying out of necessity is never the right option and is simply another burden on the working class? If you want people to buy meat less, work on making suitable alternatives more appealing, cost-wise and other important factors.

[lc]

Meat in reasonable quantities has no negative health effects.

[ethansommer]

If we knew for certain some foods were good and some were bad, taxing the bad ones would be easy. The problem is that historically we don't know. Eggs used to be bad, then the experts decided they were good. New research coming out basically destroyed the link between meat and colon cancer, or the link btw saturated fats and cardiac events. The FDA food pyramid has frosted flakes as being healthier than eggs. So if we are to tax the bad ones, it's just as likely we will end up doing the opposite of what we want.

[Jay-qurf]

Yes, tax the meat and remove all the meat subsidies. Give all that tax income and subsidies to farmers to plant crops instead. In my country we've got bird flu outbreaks, foot and mouth disease, listeriosis and a number of other meat diseases running rampant. Tax the meat!

[andosoup]

farms producing cheap fruit can also be problematic for the same reasons, lol

[ruem]

Again, here is a wolf in a sheep's clothing. 😂

[AndissKevlar]

Why is the answer always touted as a 'tax' rather than a subsidy? So frustrating...

[louisvolschenk]

Why have a tax while the industry is subsidised? Surely the first step is to get rid of subsidies.

[joshbisig]

We dont need a meat tax. We need to overhaul meat subsidies so that meats reflect their externalized costs, and shore up subsidies for plant foods

[mdas]

No, Problem is "factory formed Meat". Factory Formed meat is filled with Anti biotics and not good for long term use. We should move to old ways when Meat was organically and naturally grown in local communities. Such a step will reduce carbon emission and help local farmers. Second, we should move to good quality food rather quantity of food. Amount of Meat should eaten as per requirement not for luxury or not for enjoyment.

[andosoup]

number 1 use of fresh water, thats a lie

[Matthew-cwgn]

So if we're starting with the assumptions that:
1) Meat's climate impact is bad enough to warrant making it economically scarce
2) Imported meat (particularly from Brazil) is inherently even worse for the environment
3) Factory farms are bad because of animal welfare concerns and reckless use of antibiotics
4) We don't want higher cost/lower demand to incentive further degradation of food and farm quality

Then the solution is to pass laws banning practices relied upon by factory farms, so that super cheap, shitty, cruelly produced, maximum externality, etc. meat isn't on the shelves. Locally grown, locally transported, regeneratively farmed meat already represents the true cost of sustainable, scarce meat. Let those products set the bar instead of further helping Big Ag by taxing small business out of existence.

[glennnielsen]

Introducing taxes is, in my opinion, the less intelligent solution. In my opinion, there is too much doomsday in the climate debate. Instead, we should focus on what is happening in research and development and compete on intelligent solutions instead of who can introduce the most restrictions.

[spikslow]

The science isn’t strong enough for policy measures. If we could measure land use emissions reliably, we could look at steering its use, but for now we have partial information and a debate full of misplaced confidence

[Re_RAM]

Farmers are not the problem, it’s the food processors, retailers and marketers.

[idraote]

A meat tax is an utterly st*pid and incredibly simplistic non-solution to a problem that needs far more scope and intelligence.
If the problem is that current meat production cause too many carbon emissions, let's start by curbing those emissions and raising the standards of animal welfare. Let's also prevent the use of new soil for animal farming.
This will also cause the prices to go up but it will set a virtuos circle in motion instead of just punishing poorer people. It will also avoid the feeling of having to deal with an obnoxious nanny state.

[frostmelody]

Aren’t we going through a cost of living and inflation crisis? Yet we pushing up more pricrs