Germany and Sweden have considered meat taxes or levies to their value-added taxes, but the Netherlands might be the first nation to put a meat tax into law. Read on to learn more and why a meat tax is a bad idea.

While Germany and Sweden have also considered meat taxes or levies to their value-added taxes the Netherlands might be the first nation to actually put a meat tax into law.

The Dutch Party for the Animals put forward an initiative in November to establish the world’s first official meat tax. Since gaining a seat in the Dutch parliament in 2006, the party has made taxing meat a key priority in its overall agenda to “move away from the automatic assumption that animals can be used for just any purpose.” 

It’s no secret that the intent is to raise the prices of meat with the goal of reducing overall meat consumption. Spearheaded by parliament member Lammert Van Raan, the decision to place the proposed on meat as it leaves slaughter facilities is strategic. This prevents consumers from complaining about the tax while associating the rising costs with the meat itself. This strategy diverges from typical EU tax methods that are more visible to consumers like the value-added tax. In a press release, van Raan stated, "We want to use the tax system to tax the slaughter of animals, so that both manufacturers and consumers will be tempted to reduce their meat consumption and more easily opt for plant-based alternatives."

The potential Slaughter Tax will be drafted by van Raan before going to a parliamentary vote later this month. “He who slaughters should bleed a little himself,” van Raan said while introducing the initiative to the Dutch House of Representatives.

Will a meat tax pass?

The Party for the Animals, or Partij voor de Dieren, holds five of the Netherlands’ 150 member House of Representatives, three seats in the Senate and one among the 26 member delegation to the European Union. The Netherlands currently has 14 political parties represented in its government and none have had a ruling majority since 1894, meaning that the parties often work together to enact larger goals. 

While the Party for the Animals has had limited success in passing its own legislation, the party has still wielded influence. The Economist notes, “The biggest source of influence for small parties like the [Party for the Animals] is the ability to steer the agenda of more mainstream parties. As the party takes votes from across the political spectrum, others now include provisions on animal welfare in their manifestos.” The last several initiatives the party has put to a vote have not passed.

What is a ‘sin tax?’

When the government places a de-incentive like the slaughter tax to modify behavior, it is called a “sin tax.” Sin taxes are often justified as an attempt to collect those the hidden costs of the negative externalities associated with the consumption behavior. The idea of a sin tax is that when a consumer and producer exchange goods, they may both benefit without absorbing the unintended costs, or ‘negative externalities’ of the goods they exchanged. For example, a diner and a fast food restaurant might both benefit from the purchase of fries every day without factoring in the cost of blood pressure medication the diner will eventually charge to Medicaid when she suffers from hypertension. 

Various state and local governments in the United States have attempted sin taxes with controversial results. From Mayor Bloomberg’s intensely repudiated soda tax to the meager influence of cigarette taxes, sin taxes have been shown to produce small nudges in consumer behavior, but the extreme number of variables means economists can’t judge very accurately how successful these nudges are at achieving their intended result. Because sin taxes hit behaviors that people will do regardless of marginal increases to the cost, like Maryland’s toilet flush tax and Utah’s sex tax, these de-incentives can be credited with little more than collecting a modest revenue for the state. Even sin taxes in Europe have shown minimal alteration to behavior, such as Denmark’s 2011 “fat tax” which lead consumers to purchase goods from neighboring countries instead.

Researchers have projected the potential impacts of a meat tax, such as the PLOS study in 2018 which calculated the results of taxing both processed meat and red unprocessed meat in each nation based on the healthcare costs that are loosely correlated to each type of meat consumption. The study concluded that because the highest tax on processed meat would lead consumers to substitute it with red meat, the consumption of red meat would remain the same while the consumption of processed meat would drop by 16%. Even a study aimed at blaming meat consumption for health problems (which remains under debate) does not decisively conclude that taxing meat will reduce overall meat consumption.

Sin taxes are just taxes on the poor.

A meat tax won’t help low income families choose better food. Economic researchers from George Mason University point out that the limited choices low income families already face often means they can’t respond to a sin tax by substituting with a healthier behavior. As the rising cost of living already drives the poor towards cheaper low-nutrient, high-calorie food sources, a meat tax will only exacerbate this nutritional gap and multiply obesity and diabetes in these vulnerable populations. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, consumption taxes will cost poor households an average of eight times more than their wealthy counterparts.

Meat offers the highest amount of protein for the lowest calories of any food in its natural state and includes powerful nutrient density, including many nutrients that are more bioavailable in meat than in plants. Why take this critical nutritional resource away from the poor?

Well-managed grazing animals are the solution - not a meat tax

In his address regarding the potential meat tax, Lammert van Raan stated “Meat is by far the most harmful item on our menus. It causes major climate and nitrogen issues.” Like many policymakers, van Raan thinks about meat as it appears on the menu rather than considering the options for how it can be raised. Ruminants are co-adapted not only to thrive on grasslands, but also to help that land thrive as part of a complex ecosystem. Farmers are already implementing grazing practices that reverse land degradation and capture carbon.  

Rather than forcing consumers to pay for the land degradation caused by improper livestock management, the Dutch parliament should consider policies that would help farmers transition to grazing practices that would improve soil health and carbon sequestration. Already recommendations like this are being made to congress in the United States. Last week, in comments to the House Select Committee on Climate Change, National Farmer’s Union President Roger Johnson said:

“Agricultural soils hold immense potential to sequester the atmospheric carbon that’s rapidly accelerating climate change. Any successful solution to the climate crisis must strive to fully realize that potential. But the management practices necessary to such a solution are neither free nor simple. Farmers need financial and technical assistance to implement climate friendly practices on their operations, and they should be rewarded for the valuable public service they are providing.”

Meat itself isn’t a problem for the environment. The more important discussion centers around how humans choose to manage grazing animals and where we can improve. It’s not fair to make consumers, especially low-income individuals, pay to prop up a broken system when there is an alternative that can restore land and even offset other carbon emissions.

Support the case for better meat

The forthcoming documentary and book project Sacred Cow is working to spread this message for better farming practices that can offer us nutritious, carbon-positive, and ethical meat.

To learn more about Sacred Cow and to support the case for better meat click here.

Allie Hymas raises Icelandic sheep for meat and fiber in Southern Oregon's Rogue Valley. In addition to writing about sustainable agriculture, Allie supports and advocates for family farms as Northwest Farmer's Union secretary. Learn more @hymasfamilylamb or www.hymasfamilylamb.com.