Should Meat Eaters Have to Pay a Meat Tax?

Posted by Jill Harris Nov 2, 2009

Has meat become enough of a health hazard that it's joined the ranks of junk food, alcohol and cigarettes?

Some are saying it should, and not only for the heavy toll it takes on our health.

Bioethicist John Singer argues for taxing meat for several reasons:

1. Eating red meat is linked with health problems, like some cancers.
2. Raising animals for food results in cruelty to animals.
3. Industrial meat production is wasteful, and contributes to environmental concerns.
4. Livestock and the fertilizers used to grow the grain to feed them is "the biggest single source of pollution of the nation's rivers and streams."
5. Eating meat causes global warming.

Taxing meat seems like a good idea when you consider the cost of trying to treat disease instead of prevent it, and try to clean up the environment after polluting it. Could a meat tax be an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?

From my Canadian perspective, it seems that - typically - people would rather try to patch up the negative results of their actions rather than be proactive about solutions. Local, "ethical", organic eating is catching hold here.

While buying free-range, naturally fed organic chicken may help some feel better about what they put in their mouths, it remains that raising and eating animals is wasteful, creates pollution, causes suffering for animals, and can be hazardous to your health.

However, if a meat tax would make meat-eaters take on a bit more of the financial burden of their choices, it may be a step in the right direction.

Related Links:

• Make meat-eaters pay: Ethicist proposes radical tax, says they're killing themselves and the planet (NYDailyNews.com)
• Meat's Effect on the Environment (Suite101.com)