EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Swedish experts call for tax to tame appetite for meat

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 23 January 2013, updated 24 January 2013

Swedish agricultural authorities are recommending a tax to reduce meat consumption and say such a levy should be adopted across the European Union.

With the European Parliament’s agricultural committee beginning two days of deliberations today (23 January) on future support for farmers, Sweden’s Board of Agriculture proposed the tax aimed at reducing the environmental impact of meat production.

Experts on the government board said there are environmental and health benefits to eating more vegetables.

"Voluntary actions have to be complemented by public policies,” they said in the report Sustainable meat consumption: What is it? How do we get there?, published on Tuesday (22 January).

Consumers can contribute to sustainable food production by avoiding the meat that is worst from a sustainability perspective. Labelling is one way to make it easier for consumers to choose meat that is more sustainable. 

Meat tax at EU level

But voluntary actions by consumers and firms are probably not enough to reach existing environmental and climate goals, the Swedish Board of Agriculture said.

Therefore, a meat tax not only in Sweden, but at EU level could be the solution. 

“Environmental regulations and economics incentives like environmental taxes or subsidies are possible alternatives. Preferably they should be implemented at the EU level rather than the national level," the report stated.

Marit Paulsen, a Swedish MEP who is vice president of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, called the report “quite smart and reasonable” but did not go so far as supporting the tax idea.

“I still believe in information,” she told EurActiv. “In this case I actually believe in people deciding to make the right choices by themselves. Let’s begin there and then have tougher regulation on animal welfare than we have now. That will increase the prices."

“I believe meat will become more expensive. I don’t know how, but if we have to add an emission tax, then let it be, but let us for God’s sake now start a proper discussion with the knowledge we have which includes the fact that we can’t afford to use so much money producing meat,” added Paulsen, who is affiliated with the Alliance for Liberals and Democrats in Europe.

Environmental benefits

Last year, the average Swede consumed 87 kilos of meat with beef and veal being the most popular which is around the EU average.

Paulsen said she would prefer the Swedish meat consumption to shrink to 45-50 kilos per person per year which was the level 20 years ago.

Environmentalists say the world’s growing appetite for meat – especially in emerging countries – contributes to water and land clearing and higher levels of greenhouse gases.

"It requires a lot of resources to produce meat compared to vegetable food products, so many resources that the production can lead to deforestation of rainforests in the world," Sone Ekman of the Swedish Board of Agriculture told Swedish Radio.

"What should be done would be to let the tax be differentiated so that the meat which creates the biggest emission of greenhouse gases also gets the highest tax," Ekman said.

According to a forecast by the EU Commission, the meat consumption per person in the EU will not increase much until 2020.

The EU executive expects that the consumption of poultry and pork will continue to increase, while consumption of beef, sheep and lambs will decrease slightly.

Positions: 

"Our mission is to work for a sustainable development and food production for the benefit of the consumers. In the report we have tried to make a holistic perspective on meat consumption," said Gabriella Cahlin, head of the market department of the Swedish Board of Agriculture.

"Regulation, environment taxes and subsidies can lead in the right direction. But it's crucial that this is at an international level. Or else we risk moving the production somewhere else where the tax burden is lower, not where the production is sustainable."

Next steps: 
  • 23-24 Jan.: Members of the Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development vote on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform for the 2014-2020.
Henriette Jacobsen

COMMENTS

  • Strange. I thought this social engineering approach of behavior modification through taxation and such things was supposed to be preserved for "the uniquely deadly product" of cigarettes?

    See what happens when you give the fanatics/nuts/controllers/puritans a little bit of power? It's like opening the gates of the crazy farm and telling the inmates that it's fine to go out and dance in the daisy field as long as they don't go farther then 25 feet from the gate.

    The doorway is now open for all sorts of behavior control, and the only hope of putting the genie back in the bottle is to return to the source: repeal the smoking bans and reduce tobacco taxation to reasonable levels. Maybe THEN you'll be able to cool off the wackos who are trying to control every other aspect of our lives.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

    By :
    Michael J. McFadden
    - Posted on :
    23/01/2013
  • @ Michael what is wrong with levy on meat consumption? i could not care less if someone smokes, drinks and do drugs. its a personal choice you make and deal with the consequences while with green house effects associated with the meat production everyone suffers, forget about the billions of innocent animals slaughtered against their wills.

    i think it is about time to leave behind stone age food and evolve. if any government comes forward and takes an initiative i think they have a great foresight into the future.

    By :
    shivam
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Shivam, my sympathies definitely lie in the same directions as yours. I think it would be wonderful if we could all happily switch to soyburgers etc. I honestly *do* feel guilt about the animals who have been killed that I eat. However I also recognize that, as an animal, I am part of a reality in which other animals kill and are killed, eat and are eaten. I don't feel I have the right to push those beliefs upon other people, whether it's through force of law or simply by treating them like rats and "shocking" them with little nudges (like taxes) in various ways to get them to conform to my wishes.

    - MJM

    By :
    Michael J. McFadden
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Dear MJM, ".....my sympathies definitely lie in the same directions as yours. I think it would be wonderful if we could all happily switch to soyburgers etc." Does this mean you are vegan, regardless of what others choose?
    SR

    By :
    S.Richards
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Not only does MJM eat meat, his book about antismoker's brains is a COOKBOOK!

    By :
    Wally
    - Posted on :
    24/01/2013
  • Wally, heh, you're not supposed to TELL people that!!!! :>

    S.Richards, unfortunately, no. I'm 5'8", 120 pounds soaking wet, and can't afford to play with my diet.

    I did eat mainly vegetarian for several years at one point in the past though.

    Heh, straight vegan would be tough for me: Chocolate 'n Milk make up a substantial leg of my diet. Given that the lung cancer risk factor from a lifetime of drinking a glass of milk a day is supposedly triple the risk of a lifetime of workplace exposure from secondary smoke (i.e. about 3 in a thousand as opposed to 1 in a thousand per EPA Report figures), I should probably be worried, but since I also indulge in primary smoking (risk factor of 50+ in a thousand), I don't think I should spend TOO much time worrying about my milk drinking!

    :>
    MJM
    (Milk Ref: "Milk Drinking, Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer Risk," Curtis
    Mettlin, published in the International Journal of Cancer, 43,608-612, 1989)

    By :
    Michael J. McFadden
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • @Michael what about Government pulling back all subsidies for meat production. Although i still think meat production should be taxed not subsidies for everyone's benefit, it will take pressure off on tax $, billions of $ spent in medical expenses which is directly associated with meat eating habits.

    in regards to your comment about animal eating other animal, i honestly don't think we humans have that instincts to kill. for instance if you put a human baby in a tunnel with an apple and a rabbit, baby will never play with an apple and eat a rabbit, but with real carnivore baby it would be other way around.

    I think time to time government has to step forward and do things that we as a society might not like at a time. for instance slavery would still be in our society if it wasn't for government and activists groups.

    By :
    shivam
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • I believe you're correct about meat consumption and health to a great extent (although on the other hand I'd guess that most poorer folks would be unlikely to balance their diet in healthy enough ways to compensate if they didn't have some meat in it.)

    I actually have an Appendix in Brains titled "Deaths Due to Eating." I'm sure you're familiar with the "400,000 deaths due to smoking" claim, true? Well, SG Satcher in 2001 claimed 300,000 deaths due to obesity, the 1996 Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention estimated 225,000 deaths due to diet-related cancers, and roughly 500,000 deaths a year are blamed on heart disease due to fat and cholesterol. Of course some of those numbers are cross-counted, but take them together, even with that cross-counting, and smoking starts to look along innocent. Heh, and that's not even counting the people who choke to death on hot dogs, die from food poisoning, or get beaten to death by a frozen salami!

    Re babies and kittens: good point, though it's hard to separate natural eating behavior from learned. Still, I doubt I would have taken to killing and/or eating dead rabbits in the natural state if I had apples around. On the other hand, I have a cat who will hunt, torture, and kill mice along with a lot of carrying them and their corpses around in its mouth ... but it never eats them in preference to its cat food.

    Gvt. intervention in the case of slavery, child abuse, murder, and such things is a very different issue than gvt. intervening on levels dealing with areas where widespread personal beliefs differ: e.g. drinking, smoking, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, drug use. Any blanket comparisons really don't work.

    - MJM

    By :
    Michael J. McFadden
    - Posted on :
    25/01/2013
  • MJM ... so far you have used almost every lame excuse in the book to continue the horrific abuse of animals on a scale that is beyond imagination. Smoking, doing drugs and such is a person choice that does not involve the inhumane torture of anyone but his or herself.

    Do not compare yourself to other carnivores like big cats or wild dogs as you are nothing like them at all. You don't stalk, chase and kill your prey and would starve if you had to in order to survive...and survive is a key word here... you do NOT need to eat the flesh of other animals in order to survive... end of story.

    Not only that but often times those animals go hungry because unlike the animals raised in deplorable captive conditions like the flesh you eat, a true carnivore's prey has a fighting chance of surviving his or her attack and often times the hunters such as tigers go for days without eating.

    As far as your cat bringing you a dead mouse or bird from time to time, s/he didn't eat it because s/he brought it to you as a gift for you to eat... so why don't you eat it and raw too as I am quite sure that your cat does on a regular basis. It is after all the flesh you so crave to satiate your appetite for blood and feel is you unquestionable right in life to have. What difference does it make what kind of animal the flesh and blood comes from right?

    By :
    Jennifer
    - Posted on :
    26/01/2013
  • Great insight Jennifer. you explained it very well.

    By :
    shivam
    - Posted on :
    28/01/2013
  • Well said Jennifer.

    S.Richards, http://www.vegandreaming.co.uk/

    By :
    S.Richards
    - Posted on :
    28/01/2013
  • Asking to tax more on meat, is against the countries poor people. The better off will still keep buying meat. Suggest, we go back in time of WW 2, when food was on ''ration'', this i hope will be equaly disturibted among the citizens. black market perhaps will be on the rise, but we are feed up, with the EU interfering with our life, we will be better off to live in Africa.

    By :
    Henry
    - Posted on :
    31/01/2013
  • Thank you Shivam and S. Richards! I will follow vegandreaming on fb and hope to meet you both there.

    Henry, your claims that a tax on meat is against countries with poor people is as ridiculous as you feeling that it is your due right to inflict cruelty and torture on animals so you can have meat, eggs and dairy products. You are aware that milk is the bodily fluids that comes from the teats of cows and eggs come from chickens' vaginas but you eat them without giving a single thought as to where the come from.

    You eat the flesh of animals that are intelligent, have emotions and feel pain just like you do but are so self sbsorbed that you don't give any thought as to what those poor creatures go through so you can satiate your appetite for flesh and blood. You are so selfish that your only actual thought about the whole thing is that you're mad that the government is interfering with your life.

    Well pardon me if I feel absolutely no pity for you or any other meat eater for that matter, but instead focus all my empathy and sympathies on the animals that are born, raised and killed in horrifying conditions to feed thoughtless people like you who think only of themselves.

    By :
    Jennifer
    - Posted on :
    04/02/2013
Background: 

EU inventions to support meat and livestock production topped €255 million in 2011 but could be cut under proposals to reducing budgetary support for the future Common Agricultural Policy.

Still, Europeans love their meat. Meat consumption has been rising steadily in Sweden and the EU for years. The per-capita Swedish consumption of 87 kilos per year is slightly higher than the EU average.

Luxembourg has the world's highest per-capita level of meat consumption, ahead of the United States, and one of the biggest tastes for beef, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

Spain, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Italy are also among the world's largest meat-consuming nations.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising