A tax on meat can protect the environment and fight
world hunger.
It’s easy these days to find support and help in becoming vegan. The selection of meat and dairy analogs has grown remarkably in just a few years. There are plenty of places to find nutrition advice for vegans and an inspiring variety of great vegan cookbooks. For those who feel as though they might be the only vegan in the world—or at least in their home town—social support is a click away on the internet.
But, it still feels a lot easier to most people to keep eating animal products. These foods are familiar and, most importantly, they are cheap. Making animal foods more expensive is one way to encourage Americans to reduce their consumption.
There are plenty of ways to do that. We can eliminate government price supports for animal food production and also outlaw some of the inhumane farming practices that serve to keep production high and costs low. And in Sunday’s New York Daily News, ethicist Peter Singer recommended another option that has multiple benefits: A 50 percent tax on meat.
Because of the health risks associated with meat consumption as well as the environmental damage caused by meat eating, Singer says that meat eaters impose costs on others. “They push up our health insurance premiums, increase Medicare and Medicaid costs for taxpayers, pollute our rivers, threaten the survival of fishing communities in the Gulf of Mexico, push up food prices for the world’s poor, and accelerate climate change.”
Because people often shift to increased chicken consumption when they reduce their intake of red meat, Singer says we need a tax on all meat—not just beef.
It’s hard to think of any reasonable argument against this. But that hasn’t stopped a few people from trying. Over at the curiously named The Moderate Voice, blogger Jazz Shaw had this to say:
“Food staples have historically been something that the government is supposed to keep its paws off of when it comes to taxes. […] If this effort […] gains enough traction to the point where one of the four basic food groups is looked upon as a poisonous plague, we will have crossed over the rainbow bridge indeed.”
Shaw is about 20 years behind the times regarding nutrition education. We haven’t had “the basic four food groups” since 1992. It doesn’t matter though; whether you are using the old four food groups or the USDA’s newer food guide pyramid, there has never been a food group devoted entirely to meat. Food guides have historically contained a group that includes protein-rich foods: Meat, legumes, nuts, seeds and soy products like tofu.
And even for those who insist on eating it, meat should never be looked upon as a “staple.” No one—even the most mainstream omnivore nutritionist—advocates a diet that depends on large amounts of meat. And no knowledgeable nutrition professional believes that meat is essential. Given its effects on health, the environment and world hunger, meat should rightly be considered a “luxury” item and a perfect choice for taxation.
| Check out my blog The Vegan Dietitian to learn more about vegan diet and lifestyle! |
Comments
Meat is not good for our health and the environment. I support a 100% meat tax. Or better yet, if we know something is outright bad for us and our children, why not BAN it? Think about and be smart, Americans!
Who is this lady? Some sort of crack head? What would this do to our local economies? Get a clue! Just because you don't eat animal products, doesn't mean that those who do should pay taxes. This is clearly a slanted, vegetarian attack on meat-eaters, and has nothing to do with "world hunger"... Get off the soap box lady, and stop pretending to care about the hungry more than you despise the terrible meat-eaters. Unbelievable!
A tax on meat does make logical sense. This may help motivate people to eat more healthfully, relieving some of the pressure from our health care system. Meat eaters should have higher insurance premiums because of the health issues they end up dealing with and the resulting impact on the risk pool. When it comes to the environment, I think a ban is better. There, the harm is more widespread than just one person's health. So, there really is a dilemma about personal choice when the rest of us have to deal with the consequences. For anyone genuinely interested in understanding the science, read a book such as The China Study (for health implications) or the UN report, "Livestock's Long Shadow" (for environmental implications).
In Texas we will just raise our own cows. United States is about freedom.
God forbid there is a tax on meat. I am into bodybuilding, and meat is a crucial part of my diet. Those of you who believe that meat-based diets are unhealthy are mistaken.
Some idiot believes that a 100% tax on meat will make me eat less meat? In that case, let's impose a 200% tax on soy products that make women fat and make men soft, pudgy and wimpy. Women don't need to be any fatter, men don't need larger breasts and the world doesn't need any more wusses. Stop eating soy products. Tofu sucks anyway. If you don't think so then explain why they try so hard to make it taste like beef or seafood? Imitation products of any kind should be taxed at 500% including fake cheese products and "faux crab." Finally, tax imitation beef-flavored tofu at 1,000% just to punish those who wish tofu tasted better but aren't smart enough to slide over to the meat isle. We don't need more stupid people either, whether they are vegan OR imitation vegetarian. Eat some real protein and smarten up, people! If it was good enough for your grandparents' grandparents' grandparents then I think you'll survive, too.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder." -Michael Savage
Wow, Ginny, look at all this hostility! More power to you, "lady." :)
Great article Ginny! I've suggested lower taxes for people who DON'T eat meat for years. Why should we be forced to subsidize something we're morally against? And meat has never been a staple. It was a luxury of the rich.
mEat Me Vegan wrote: "If [eating meat] was good enough for your grandparents' grandparents' grandparents then I think you'll survive, too."
Slavery, child labour and oppression of women was also popular back then. It's the 21st century. We (should) know better now.
MiscBrah wrote; "... meat is a crucial part of my diet."
Explain that to all the vegan bodybuilders and athletes.
Steve wrote: "United States is about freedom."
Does that freedom include causing the unnecessary suffering and death of others? If it does, I'd suggest that you have too much freedom.
Jon wrote: "Who is this lady? Some sort of crack head?"
Last time I checked there was this thing called freedom of expression. What did you expect on a site called Vegan Examiner?
:)
At the off chance that anyone who regularly reads this column actually cares about anything other than their own partisan ideas, I've got an even better idea: Why don't we encourage red-meat consumption, make it more readily available, thereby feeding the hungry and reducing one of the most powerful and plentiful greenhouse gases (methane) at the same time? Methane, while less prevalent in the air than carbon dioxide, is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas... Feed the hungry, save the planet... All we need to do is EAT MEAT! And if you'd like some food for thought, check out this article and exchange of comments... don't force your beliefs on me!
www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature
My wife is a vegetarian, so I understand the health benefits and moral reasons for a personal decision to not eat meat. I also probably eat a meat-free meal 2 or more times a week.
But I refuse to believe that eating meat is a sin in need of sky-high taxes like tobacco. These symplistic viewpoints by groups such as PETA are why few people are converted to their cause and vegetarians are viewed as strange by many people.
Ideas like this aren't helping.
Thanks, everyone, for these comments. I want to point out that the idea for the meat tax comes not from me, but from Dr. Peter Singer, a world renowned ethicist who teaches at Princeton University. I neglected to publish the link to his original article but I've added it and would urge you to read what he has to say. His recent work has focused on our obligation to combat global poverty and how we can do that. Making more responsible decisions about what we eat is hardly the whole solution but it is definitely part of it.
I am completely stunned by the suggestion of a meat tax. For thousands and thousands of years people have consumed meat. If there are health care risk as you claim. So what? The lady who suggested outlawing meat is so radically liberal that I find it hard to digest. Every vegan I have ever knowingly encountered appears to be extremely malnourished, constantly fighting off illness. People know the dangers of smoking but choose to smoke anyways. You can tell people not to eat meat, but let them make the decision. America is about free speech so I respect that, but don't think that you vegans can impose your will on others by taxing goods to the point where they become out of reach for the average American. I smoke at least a pack a day, wake up to eggs and bacon, and indulge in a large serving of meat for supper every night. I eat all food groups as well, but dairy and meat dominate. I feel amazing and haven't been ill in years. You can nibble on your carrot but I'm having a steak!!
mEat Me, Vegan desires a tax on soy... Well, 90% of soy grown goes to fatten livestock animals she may want to reconsider. Further, we could feed 6 times more people on a plant based diet. I'd like a "discount" on my wise eating habits - for sure!
People if we wish to have future we need to go vegan
Jon: "Why don't we encourage red-meat consumption, make it more readily available, thereby feeding the hungry and reducing one of the most powerful and plentiful greenhouse gases (methane) at the same time?"
Maybe I'm missing something but how is eating MORE red meat going to reduce methane emissions? Where do you think methane comes from? Cows! More red meat means MORE methane.
Jarred: "For thousands and thousands of years people have consumed meat. If there are health care risk as you claim. So what?"
Aside from your disregard for human health, just because we've been doing something for thousands of years doesn't make it right. We had slavery for thousands of years too.
But the tobacco tax analogy is a good one. Cigarettes are bad, so they are heavily taxed. The same should be done with anything hazardous to human health (and climate change, obesity and heart disease are hazardous to human health).
Finally, these are just opinions. No one is forcing anything on anyone
Okay, no tax on meat. How about true freedom? No more subsidies (ie: government handouts) on meat production? That's fair. That's true free market in action, which is what we all want, right?
Good for you Jared, you haven't been sick in years but maybe high blood pressure.. Heart attack coming up? I have been a vegan for a year now and i haven't been sick either, so don't go ahead saying that all vegans are looking sick or whatever!
oh yea and imposing a meat tax is the solution!!!
It's easy these days to find support and help in becoming vegan. The selection of meat and dairy analogs has grown remarkably in just a few years. There are plenty of places to find nutrition advice for vegans and an inspiring variety of great vegan cook.
Vegan Marketing
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!