Despite the climate and health benefits of taxing red and processed meat, such a tax lacks widespread support among the public and policymakers. However, a new study shows that acceptance increases when the tax is offset by lowering VAT on other food items.

Red and processed meat contain essential nutrients but can also have negative impacts on both climate and health when consumed in excess. Livestock production accounts for approximately 12–16% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, and consuming red and processed meat can increase the risk of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. The average Swede consumes more red and processed meat per week than is recommended from both a health and climate perspective. A meat tax could serve as a cost-effective policy tool to reduce emissions and improve public health. However, implementing such a tax requires broad support among both the public and policymakers, which is the focus of the new study.

Greatest Acceptance for Lower VAT on Fruits and Vegetables
The study surveyed a group of citizens and policymakers regarding their attitudes toward various designs of a meat tax. The results revealed that specifying the intended use of tax revenues improved attitudes toward a meat tax among both groups. Respondents were particularly positive when financial compensation for the tax was provided through reduced VAT on other food items.
– We found that support for a tax on red and processed meat increases significantly if VAT on other foods, particularly fruits and vegetables, is simultaneously lowered to create a cost-neutral tax proposal. We also observed potential broad support for a more comprehensive tax reform, where taxes are increased on products like soft drinks, snacks, and sweets, and lowered on items such as fruits, vegetables, keyhole-labeled, and organic products, says Emma Ejelöv, one of the researchers behind the study.

Financial Compensation More Important than Climate Investments
The study also showed that using tax revenues for new climate or public health initiatives garnered less support compared to financial compensation through lower VAT on other food items, which came as a surprise.
– The results differ somewhat from broader research on environmental policy instruments, which often shows that people prefer tax revenues to be used for new environmental initiatives. However, research in the food domain suggests that people prefer cost-neutral uses of tax revenues, such as reducing VAT on other foods, says Emma Ejelöv.

Klara Vedin

ARTICLE
Read the whole article “Public and political acceptability of a food tax shift – An experiment with policy framing and revenue use” in “Food Policy” here.

CONTACT
Emma Ejelöv
PostDoc, Department of Space, Earth and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
ejelov@chalmers.se

Share

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function() { setTimeout(function() { var accordions = document.querySelectorAll('.et_pb_accordion .et_pb_toggle'); accordions.forEach(function(accordion) { accordion.classList.remove('et_pb_toggle_open'); }); }, 500); // Vänta 500ms för att säkerställa att Divis JS är klart });