Animal welfare is a stronger determinant of public support for meat taxation than climate change mitigation in Germany

Abstract

A tax on meat could help address the climate impact and animal welfare issues associated with the production of meat. Through a referendum choice experiment with more than 2,800 German citizens, we elicited support for a tax on meat by varying the following tax attributes: level and differentiation thereof, justification and salience of behavioural effects. Only at the lowest tax level tested do all tax variants receive support from most voters. Support is generally stronger if the tax is justified by animal welfare rather than climate change mitigation. Differentiated taxes that link the tax rate to the harmfulness of the product do not receive higher support than a uniform tax; this indifference is not driven by a failure to anticipate the differential impacts on consumption. While the introduction of meat taxation remains politically challenging, our results underscore the need for policymakers to clearly communicate underlying reasons for the tax and its intended behavioural effect.

Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial

“…However, some evidence suggests that this barrier could be overcome through different types of messaging about the policy. For example, one study in Germany found that consumers were more likely to support a meat tax if it was justified by animal welfare than by climate change mitigation [ 52 ]. Research will be necessary to understand what type of framing or justification is likely to elicit higher support for meat reduction policies in the US.…”

Data on Swiss citizens' preferences and perceptions of agricultural policy

“…Thus, policy making requires setting priorities and should be aligned with societal preferences to ensure public acceptance. It is therefore crucial to know how citizens weigh the importance of different policy goals [2] . A better understanding of how preferences towards different goals are driven by sociodemographic characteristics and personal attitudes helps to better understand differences across the population and changes in preferences over time due to population development [3] .…”

High ‘steaks’: Building support for reducing agricultural emissions

“…In fact, public health benefits alone motivate high taxes on red and processed meats to reduce such health costs [9], independent of the incentive to reduce emissions. Furthermore, animal welfare concerns preoccupy society [10] and a price on agricultural emissions could help making cheap animal products with low rearing standards less attractive to consumers. Finally, further environmental problems beyond climate change such as eutrophication and water scarcity as well as biodiversity loss and deforestation could be mitigated by the improved land use that pricing agricultural emissions would yield, as less land resources and less fertilizer are needed for animal production [7].…”

“…In Germany, the majority of subjects approve of a policy package containing a moderate tax if simultaneously subsidies for their producers are reduced; or when revenue is earmarked for supporting low-income households [15]. Perino and Schwickert [10] find that a majority of Germans support a tax on meat products corresponding to a 50€/tCO2eq. price on agricultural emissions if it is motivated through animal welfare rather than climate change.…”

“…price on agricultural emissions if it is motivated through animal welfare rather than climate change. There is also a need to communicate clearly the behavioral impacts resulting from such a tax [10].…”