Meat Tax

➡️ SHOULD WE START TAXING MEAT?

A Golden Egg for Climate or a Rotten Deal for Farmers & Families?

The concept of a tax on meat products, which places a levy on high-emission animal products, is gaining traction in the offices of agricultural ministries around the world. Spain and Switzerland have carbon pricing plans in place, and Denmark, a major producer of pork and dairy, will begin taxing livestock carbon emissions in 2030. New Zealand, Germany, and the Netherlands are in discussions.

The benefits are two-fold. Taxing livestock emissions according to their environmental impact will encourage consumers to make more sustainable choices. This reduction in demand will cut greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to the climate crisis, and benefit public health as diets shift to more plant-based and less processed meals.

Taxing meat is heavily advocated by animal welfare and environmental groups alike, who argue that a sin tax, like those placed on sugar and tobacco products, has proven successful in changing consumer behaviour and mitigating their harmful effects.

Jump straight to our resources on ➡️ Meat Tax

Explore our comprehensive guides on -

• Carbon Tax

• Climate Damages Tax

• Big Meat & Factory Farming

• The Environmental Impact of Meat

• Methane Emissions & Reduction Strategies

• Climate Solutions

• Healthy Diets - Vegetarian & Veganism

• Ultra Processed Foods (UPF)

• Animal Welfare & Activism

How Bad is the Meat Industry?

• Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production.

• The meat and dairy industries are responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

• Beef production is responsible for 41% of global deforestation, primarily in the extremely fragile Amazon rainforest region.

• Globally, two out of three farm animals are now factory-farmed. Animals are crammed in their thousands into filthy, windowless cages, crates, or pens under highly restrictive conditions. They will not see the light of day and endure painful, miserable conditions every day until they are transported in equally unbearable units to the slaughterhouse.

• Confining animals in mass in one place produces an over-saturation of waste, which the surrounding area cannot support. Factory farms are environmental hazards which pollute water sources, soils, and the air. Exposure to which causes respiratory problems, skin infections, nausea, and even depression.

• An estimated 80 billion animals are slaughtered each year for food (not including fish).

• Overuse of antibiotics in farmed animals contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans. Around 70% of global antibiotic use is in healthy farmed animals, which do not need this routine treatment. They are used to prevent infections and have a marginal effect on increasing growth rates.

• High meat consumption, particularly processed and red meat, is associated with increased risks of heart disease, strokes, cancer, and diabetes. Vegetarians have a 14% lower cancer risk than meat-eaters.

• If everyone in the UK ate meat-free lunches on weekdays, the NHS would save as much as £2.2 billion every year in reduced healthcare costs.

Could a Meat Tax do More Harm than Good?

As with any new, unexplored policy, the far-reaching implications must be fully understood, especially in this situation where animal welfare is at stake, not to mention the potential economic losses to farmers, the resulting job losses, and the impact on low-income families.

Another consideration is that when the price of red meat increases, rather than cutting down on meat in general, consumers may simply switch to other, lower-cost options, such as chicken. Chickens tend to be farmed in conditions much more harmful to their welfare than sheep and cows. If people start eating even more chicken, these animals may bear the brunt of a meat tax in a phenomenon known as the small animal replacement problem (SARP).

Depending on the implementation, a meat tax could further reduce conditions and treatment of livestock in general, as farmers are squeezed to the brink and forced to make further cutbacks.

A decrease in demand for meat would force many farmers out of business, lead to job losses throughout the supply chain, and affect rural economies. One report from the UK states that a meat tax would result in £100 million in annual savings from reduced emissions, but would cost the economy £242 million a year.

Fair Carbon Pricing on Food

Paying for the environmental and health costs of meat production and consumption makes sense. Meat consumption has almost doubled since the 1960's and many countries are now eating way beyond the meat required in our daily nutritional needs. In some North American, European, and Latin American countries, red meat is being consumed at rates 300-600% higher than recommended.

It is already agreed upon by experts that we simply cannot meet our climate goals and protect our precious ecosystems without reducing our consumption of meat and making the industry more sustainable. A blanket meat tax may not be the answer, but rather a more tailored approach. For example, taxing products according to their environmental impact to reflect the damage that they cause.

Public attitudes towards a meat tax are largely negative. Support, however, increases when the tax covers all environmentally damaging foods, not just meat, and is coupled with subsidies on healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables. If meat and dairy products are to become more expensive, healthy and sustainable options must become more affordable. There is also much more support if the revenue raised is used directly to improve the welfare of animals.

It is estimated that a 30% tax on meat and a 10% subsidy for vegetables would benefit the economy by more than €10 billion over thirty years. The success of a sin tax on meat will depend on how the revenue is used. One option is to give the money directly to farmers to cover the costs of their land stewardship, restoration projects, and the transition to producing high-quality, organic meat from much lower-density herds.

The money could also be used to support sustainable agriculture in general, fund educational campaigns about the benefits of plant-based diets, and help prop up the healthcare systems, which are struggling under the weight of unprecedented levels of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and obesity. We must also ensure that such a tax does not disproportionately affect lower-income families.

The True Animal Protein Price Coalition (TAPP) is a non-profit foundation that campaigns for fair prices and taxes to make the production and consumption of meat and dairy more sustainable and reduce the consumption of meat in line with planetary boundaries and dietary guidelines.

"The idea of a meat tax is not to punish consumers but to provide the right incentives for healthier and more sustainable eating habits." - Dr Richard Carmona, Former U.S. Surgeon General.

Author: Rachael Mellor, 08.11.25 licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

For further reading on Meat Taxes see below ⬇️