“Agriculture, so everything is in subsidies”: it WOULD be advisable to introduce a tax on meat


This week, the word “meat” was sometimes used in news feeds. A little chronology:

On August 2, the head of the largest American company Beyond Meat, which produces vegetable meat, expressed the idea of ​​introducing a tax on meat of animal origin, as reported by the BBC. The founder of the company, Ethan Brown, believed that such a step could be an opportunity to solve many of the problems associated with the growth of consumption of this product, and to take care of the environment.

Today, according to him, there is a gradual process of reducing the consumption of animal meat by buyers. So far, the cost of vegetable analogues on the market is not the most attractive for many consumers, but over time, vegetable meat will become more affordable.

Brown said that taxing larger quantities and not taxing smaller ones is an interesting taxation scheme for him, but the details need to be worked out.

In his opinion, by introducing a tax on animal meat, it would be possible to make plant analogues more affordable, reducing the cost of such products. The initiative, of course, was criticized: some experts said that the proposed innovation would have a negative impact on the market, as well as on the quality of life of consumers due to the increased cost of animal meat.

On August 4, news appeared that it is permissible in our country to introduce a tax on meat in the next 15-20 years in order to reduce the carbon footprint of agricultural activities. This was reported to RIA Novosti, citing the words of Dmitry Peskov, the special presidential envoy for digital and technological development.

Then the Ministry of Finance said that the introduction of a tax on meat in Russia is excluded, and the corresponding amendments to the legislation are not planned or discussed, as reported by RBC with reference to the department.

In a nutshell, a wave of news feeds and news swept, but information about upcoming innovations (such as a tax on meat) was not confirmed, because they are not planned.

We decided to find out an expert’s opinion on this situation. If the proposal to introduce the tax were still carried out, how would it affect the market? Would this process have a positive effect on the planet and is it possible to take care of the ecology in this way?

Our questions were answered by Doctor of Technical Sciences, Deputy Director of the Federal Research Center of Food Systems named after V.I. V. M. Gorbatova Anastasia Semenova.

Meat is an irreplaceable product in the diet of the population, a biologically proven need for the body. The introduction of such a tax would be absolutely inappropriate. ” According to the expert, as such, the harm to the environment from meat production has not yet been proven.

There are a huge number of factors on the planet that have a negative impact on the environment. Anastasia noted that the environment primarily suffers from human interference in the carbon balance. “It is wrong to introduce a tax on meat, forgetting about the problem of reducing the forest area, for example. The old forest does not store carbon and does not improve the ecology – it does not grow. To have a good effect on the environment, the forest must be new, the trees must be in a stage of active growth. This problem is difficult to solve, and it is much easier to “attack” animals and meat. “

The expert added that the proposed introduction of the tax would lead to a reduction in meat consumption. The per capita meat consumption rate is 75 kg per year, and in Russia (in some regions) this figure is 39 kg per person. At the same time, in the USA, the amount of consumed product reaches 120 kg of product per year. And if abroad this can be a problem of excess consumption of meat, then in Russia it is definitely not necessary to reduce its amount. Anastasia noted that if the product became inaccessible to the population, then the first to suffer from this would be children. Meat would become much more expensive, and budget counterparts would have to be looked for.

(Statistics of meat consumption from different sources can be viewed on the Agroinvestor portal – approx.).

Who is the manufacturer? In fact, this is a farmer. Who to take tax from – from the farmer? Agriculture, so everything is subsidized. The manufacturer may simply not be able to financially cope with the new taxes, ”the expert says.

Anastasia noted that in general there are many nuances in this issue, and it would be necessary to consider it from all sides.

By the way, if you care about the environment, the different movements are an interesting solution. For example, during the First World War, the “Meatless Monday” movement emerged, where every first day of the week people did not eat meat for health and the planet. For some who consume meat excessively, it would be useful to give it up once a week, ”concluded the expert.

The material was prepared by Alexandra Goryunova.