Sections

ideals
Business Essentials for Professionals



Reduction In Risks To Environment And Human Health Could See Imposition Of Meat Tax


12/12/2017


Reduction In Risks To Environment And Human Health Could See Imposition Of Meat Tax
Could a taxation policy on meat be viable enough to reduce consumption levels which consequently would enable reduction in the negative impacts developed from its high consumptions including external impacts like climate change, water pollution and deforestation and personal impacts such as obesity, cancer or diabetes, is being mulled by some.
 
According to many, some health risks – in addition to climate change, are being posed by an increased level of meat consumption.
 
This has promoted the discussions of imposition of a ‘sin tax’, seen in cases of sugar and tobacco, in some countries.  
 
It is becoming "increasingly probable" that a tax could be placed on meat, says a private report from investors engaged in the management of assets worth more than $4trn.
 
While growing at an astounding rate of about 500 per cent in the period between 1992 and 2016, the growth in the rate of meat consumption has been unabated, says a study conducted recently by the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr).
 
The study also concluded that this extraordinary rate of meat consumption had left its impact on climate in two ways. There has been an enhancement of soil degradation and deforestation and increased greenhouse gas emissions from the increase in the number of meat giving animals.
 
Risks to the human health has also been increased by the consumption. There have been multiple studies that have related obesity to excessive meat consumption while others have related the heightened consumption levels to type 2 diabetes and even many types of cancer. This also raises the chances of increasing antibiotic resistance.
 
The issue is being seriously debated in countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Germany.
 
Imposition of a tax on red meat was recommended in Denmark in 2016 by the National Council of Ethics in a report. the reasoning for this was to shift the onus of fighting climate change from the consumers onto the producers. Because of the fact that about 20 per cent of annual carbon footprint in Sweden has been accorded to beef and dairy consumption, the government in the country has also been reported of contemplating ta imposition on meat.
 
The actual harm that is caused by the global meat industry to the individual health of consumers as well as to the environment needs to be first acknowledged, believes founder of Fairr, Jeremy Coller, and argued the probability of imposition of behavioural or sin taxes on meat are becoming real.
 
"Far-sighted investors should plan ahead for this day," he said.
 
"If policymakers are to cover the true cost of human epidemics like obesity, diabetes and cancer, and livestock epidemics like avian flu, while also tackling the twin challenges of climate change and antibiotic resistance, then a shift from subsidisation to taxation of the meat industry looks inevitable."
 
"Current levels of meat consumption are not healthy or sustainable. The costs associated with each of those impacts could approach the trillions in the future", said senior researcher on Environmental Sustainability and Public Health at the University of Oxford, Marco Springmann.
 
(Source:www.digitallook.com)Could a taxation policy on meat be viable enough to reduce consumption levels which consequently would enable reduction in the negative impacts developed from its high consumptions including external impacts like climate change, water pollution and deforestation and personal impacts such as obesity, cancer or diabetes, is being mulled by some.
 
According to many, some health risks – in addition to climate change, are being posed by an increased level of meat consumption.
 
This has promoted the discussions of imposition of a ‘sin tax’, seen in cases of sugar and tobacco, in some countries.  
 
It is becoming "increasingly probable" that a tax could be placed on meat, says a private report from investors engaged in the management of assets worth more than $4trn.
 
While growing at an astounding rate of about 500 per cent in the period between 1992 and 2016, the growth in the rate of meat consumption has been unabated, says a study conducted recently by the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (Fairr).
 
The study also concluded that this extraordinary rate of meat consumption had left its impact on climate in two ways. There has been an enhancement of soil degradation and deforestation and increased greenhouse gas emissions from the increase in the number of meat giving animals.
 
Risks to the human health has also been increased by the consumption. There have been multiple studies that have related obesity to excessive meat consumption while others have related the heightened consumption levels to type 2 diabetes and even many types of cancer. This also raises the chances of increasing antibiotic resistance.
 
The issue is being seriously debated in countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Germany.
 
Imposition of a tax on red meat was recommended in Denmark in 2016 by the National Council of Ethics in a report. the reasoning for this was to shift the onus of fighting climate change from the consumers onto the producers. Because of the fact that about 20 per cent of annual carbon footprint in Sweden has been accorded to beef and dairy consumption, the government in the country has also been reported of contemplating ta imposition on meat.
 
The actual harm that is caused by the global meat industry to the individual health of consumers as well as to the environment needs to be first acknowledged, believes founder of Fairr, Jeremy Coller, and argued the probability of imposition of behavioural or sin taxes on meat are becoming real.
 
"Far-sighted investors should plan ahead for this day," he said.
 
"If policymakers are to cover the true cost of human epidemics like obesity, diabetes and cancer, and livestock epidemics like avian flu, while also tackling the twin challenges of climate change and antibiotic resistance, then a shift from subsidisation to taxation of the meat industry looks inevitable."
 
"Current levels of meat consumption are not healthy or sustainable. The costs associated with each of those impacts could approach the trillions in the future", said senior researcher on Environmental Sustainability and Public Health at the University of Oxford, Marco Springmann.
 
(Source:www.digitallook.com)


In the same section
< >

Saturday, February 17th 2018 - 13:38 European Doctors Are Losing Interest and Hope on the U.K.