Stephen Kaufman, M.D., Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA)
Creating Economic Incentives to Reduce Animal Abuse
Last essay I suggested that perhaps taxes could account for
“externalities” associated with raising animals for food – costs such as
pollution, resource depletion, and diminished public health that the grocery
store prices of meat, dairy, and eggs don’t reflect. What policies might
animal advocates reasonably promote?
I don’t think a tax on meat and other animal products is an option at this
time. Most people eat animal flesh, dairy and eggs, and they would likely
resist such a tax. In addition, the burden of such a tax would likely fall
heaviest on lower income people, who spend a larger fraction of their income
on food than wealthier citizens.
A carbon tax would likely drive up the cost of products from farmed animals
greater than for other products, but this proposal also faces several
challenges. There is strong anti-tax sentiment among American voters. While
environmentalists might back a carbon tax, there is widespread skepticism
about global warming. A recent survey found that 97% of climate scientists
hold that humans are causing climate change. However, a 2013 Pew Research
Center poll found that only 69% of Americans believe in global warming and
only 42% think that humans are primarily responsible for global warming.
While it might be difficult in today’s political environment to have a new
tax, perhaps a more politically viable option would be the substantial
reduction or elimination of expensive farm subsidies. These subsidies,
amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, directly or indirectly
lower the cost of meat, dairy, and eggs. Though lobbies to protect these
subsidies are strong, consumers might be motivated to pressure their
representatives if consumers understood how these subsidies significantly
increase their taxes and their food bills.
Go on to: Martin Luther King Day Reflection
Return to:
Reflection on the Lectionary, Table of Contents