Fight global warming, animal cruelty and world hunger with meat tax

October 27, 12:10 PMSeattle Vegan ExaminerVirginia Messina, MPH, RD

Previous Next

19 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Seattle Vegan Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.