Scientists advocate for a meat tax
Vast areas of forest must be cleared and pastureland created for livestock farming. Approximately one billion trees are felled every year. The animals also emit methane, a greenhouse gas harmful to the climate. On top of that, many countries must import gigantic quantities of animal feed. All of this consumes an enormous amount of resources and ultimately contributes to climate change. To produce
Vast areas of forest must be cleared and pastureland created for livestock farming.
Approximately one billion trees are felled every year. The animals also emit methane, a greenhouse gas harmful to the climate. On top of that, many countries must import gigantic quantities of animal feed.
Two million deaths per year due to meat consumption
The average German consumes 60 kilograms of meat per year. In Switzerland, the figure is 50 kilograms. As the researchers write in the study published in the journal «Plos One», more than two million people die each year from the consequences of their meat consumption.
An adjusted tax rate on animal products encourages consumers to opt for plant-based staple foods instead. This also spares animal lives, relieves pressure on the environment and climate, and has a positive impact on personal health.
Taxing meat more heavily
A research team from the University of Oxford advocates in a new study for significantly higher taxes on meat. The study calculates that global meat consumption causes an additional 285 billion dollars in healthcare costs every year.
«Bacon is one of the most unhealthy food products there is,» says Marco Springmann of the University of Oxford, who led the study. «The personal choice to consume red meat places a burden on everyone’s public funds. It’s not about taking something away from people — it’s about fairness.»
The number of deaths could be reduced by 220’000 per year with a meat tax. Healthcare costs could be minimized by up to 36 billion euros. On a global average, taxes on processed meat products would need to increase by 25 percent. For “high income countries” such as the USA or Europe, the increase would be even more extreme: 166 percent for processed meat. More on animal rights.
More on the subject of recreational hunting: What the research says about this is shown by Hunting fact-checked: the state of research.
The position of IG Wild beim Wild: IG Wild beim Wild rejects recreational hunting. Our model is the canton of Geneva, which has managed without recreational hunting since 1974: without hunting seasons, without hunting dogs, without driven hunts, without high seats, without the animal cruelty and crime that go hand in hand with hunting season elsewhere. What has worked there for over fifty years disproves every position paper by JagdSchweiz. An association that bases its policy on claims it refutes in its own documents is not a professional organisation, but a factory for misinformation.
