Why a meat charge to tackle climate targets is a bad idea

Meat taxes might be inevitable in some parts of the world in the next five to 10 years, but there are some very good reasons why British politicians should steer well clear.

A report published today by investor network the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) initiative claimed it is “increasingly probable” that governments will soon start taxing meat in the same way as they have done with sugar and tobacco.

Pointing to a “global consensus” that meat is bad for health and the environment, the authors say policymakers would be mad not to move away from subsidising it and start taxing it as they look to meet their commitments under the Paris agreement.

And, on the face of it, it’s easy to see why they would suggest such a thing. Intensive livestock production is unquestionably contributing to some of the problems our planet faces.

The problem is, imposing a meat tax in this country could arguably end up making things worse than they already are.

Drop in demand

Over 70% of UK farmland is under grass and most of it is totally unsuitable for growing crops. Which means any sizeable drop in demand for red meat would see huge swathes of farmland being abandoned – and that would be disastrous for our food security.

What’s more, our grasslands store huge amounts of carbon, and ploughing them up to convert them to arable land would release it into the atmosphere – which somewhat negates the benefits of getting rid of the cows and sheep.

Even more crucially – as Richard Young of the Sustainable Food Trust points out – it would be almost impossible to impose a tax that discriminates between meat produced in different ways.

Which would inevitably lead to livestock production becoming more intensive, because only farmers who bring their animals inside and feed them on additives and high protein feed – like soya from South America – would be able produce meat cheaply enough to make it affordable despite the tax.

A meat tax wouldn’t necessarily be a quick win for health, either. Unlike sugar and tobacco, meat is a very good and relatively affordable source of nutrients and vitamins. Making it more expensive at a time when food prices are already surging in the face of Brexit would be taking a massive risk with consumer health. The least affluent shoppers would be hit the hardest, and many would either lack the funds or the knowledge to sufficiently replace the nutrients lost with alternative sources.

It would be wonderful to think that we could solve our climate problems with something as simple as a meat tax. But things aren’t that simple, and meeting the UK’s climate targets will require a far more nuanced and holistic approach that takes into account the reality of food production in this country.