Enlarge image
Sides of beef in a slaughterhouse
Photo: Mehmet Cetin / iStockphoto / Getty Images
Cheap meat has its price. What is meant is not the price that consumers pay at the checkout in the supermarket. But the one that is at the expense of the animals. Unfortunately, the husbandry conditions in factory farming, which enable very cheap meat prices, also mean that cows, chickens and pigs are not doing well. In addition, animal husbandry also has negative consequences for the environment and climate: Animal husbandry is responsible for 13 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, as cattle release the climate-damaging gas methane (CH4) during digestion. In addition, large grazing areas ensure a decline in biodiversity, liquid manure from animal husbandry is considered the main cause of high nitrate levels in the groundwater.
If you add up all these factors, meat is too cheap – a kilogram of beef, pork, lamb or poultry should actually cost many times more than it currently does. Scientists around Franziska Funke from the TU Berlin and Linus Mattauch from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and colleagues from the University of Oxford have now calculated how expensive meat would have to be in order for it to have a balanced climate and environmental balance. At the same time, they advocate a meat tax in their study, which will appear in the journal Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.
Across production chains, beef retail prices increase by 35 to 56 percent
in high-income countries .
Lamb and pork would be 19 percent more expensive, and poultry 25 percent. However, these prices do not even include the damage caused by the loss of biodiversity or the negative impact of meat consumption on people's health.
“Livestock farming is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, soil and water pollution.
In addition, valuable forests are cleared for pasture and food cultivation, "Mattauch is quoted as saying in a statement.
There is evidence that the environmental impact is so great that the world cannot meet climate targets and sustain vital ecosystems without reducing meat consumption — at least in western high-income countries.
Meat tax to support farmers
According to the researchers, a meat tax has the advantage that it generates income that can be spent for a specific purpose.
So it makes sense to support farmers.
That would help ranchers focus less on meat production and more on alternative sources of income.
In addition, higher animal protection standards could be implemented, because billions have to be invested in Germany alone.
Poorer families could also benefit from such a tax when purchasing food: "We propose redistributing the revenue from the meat tax to support low-income households or subsidizing fruit and vegetables," says Franziska Funke.
High-income households would already buy more and more expensive meat, so they would contribute more to tax revenue in the first place. "Our data show that with a simple measure like redistributing meat tax revenues evenly across the population, most low-income people would have more money than they did before the tax reform."
The work also emphasizes greater equality of opportunity in livestock farming.
A frequently voiced concern about a meat tax is that it could bankrupt farmers.
Instead, both imported meat and domestic products are equally affected by such a fee.
This prevents domestic producers from being undercut by products from countries with lower environmental regulations and protects domestic farmers from competitive disadvantages.
joe