“It's not as simple as something like sugar”: values and conflict in the UK meat tax debate

Abstract

PurposeThis paper qualitatively explores arguments in the UK meat tax debate, including how they align with values from specific political ideologies and perspectives on sustainable food security.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a scoping media analysis of articles published over 1 year in six leading UK newspapers, followed by semi-structured interviews with ten key stakeholders in late 2019. The authors identified categories of arguments, distilled the core conflicts and analysed how arguments reflected different ideas about human nature, the role of the state and solutions to food system challenges.FindingsArguments were categorised into five major topics: climate change and environment; human health; effects on animals; fairness; and acceptability of government intervention. Pro-meat tax arguments often aligned with modern liberal ideology, and sometimes echoed demand restraint or food system transformation perspectives on sustainable food security. Arguments against meat taxes were more likely to align with the efficiency perspective or classical liberal ideology.Originality/valueTo the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first interpretive analyses of this controversial suggested policy. Despite having similarities with other debates around taxation – particularly taxes on sugar sweetened beverages – the meat tax debate contains unique complexities due to the prominence of environmental arguments, and differing values pertaining to animal welfare and rights. This study highlights the need for policy research exploring values, in addition to quantitative evidence.

Original sin or natural order: Dialogical construction of social knowledge of animal production

“…The confrontation has also been exploited and promoted by populist politicians who appeal to the ‘practical reasonableness’ of rural people and mock the perceived alienation of city dwellers from nature (Pettersson et al., 2022). Several social representations constructed through provincials–urban dwellers pair align with previous research findings that demonstrate how populist narratives appeal to individual freedom of choice and the naturalised position of meat in the menu in order to oppose policies aimed at reducing meat consumption (Michielsen & van der Horst, 2022; Simmonds & Vallgårda, 2021).…”

“…(Williams, 2008.) Furthermore, Singer (2009) Public understanding of animal production is also connected to political ideologies. In the United Kingdom, support for taxing meat has been shown to be related to modern liberal ideology, while resisting meat taxes aligns with classical liberal ideology (Simmonds & Vallgårda, 2021). Michielsen and van der Horst (2022) have recently emphasised the socio-political context of meat-related public discussion in the Netherlands.…”

“…Compared to the institutional agents employed in the Norwegian discussion, the recent Finnish debate focused more on grassroots agents (producers, believers, urban and rural people) and humans’ fundamental right to produce animals. The difference may reflect cultural differences, but the shape of the debate may also be changing, as the understanding of the legitimacy of animal production is increasingly being questioned and not perceived only as a question of institutional level (e.g., Michielsen & van der Horst, 2022; Sapontzis, 2012; Simmonds & Vallgårda, 2021). The shift could be studied by comparing the previous public discourse on animal production to a contemporary one.…”

“…As Claude Fischler (1988, p. 276) has noted, ‘ for humans, food not only nourishes but also signifies’. For example, Simmonds and Vallgårda (2021) found that the discussion about taxing meat in the United Kingdom revolved around themes such as climate change and the environment, human health, effects on animals, fairness and the acceptability of government intervention, demonstrating the variety of perspectives on the topic in public discussion.…”

Applying circular economy principles to intensification of livestock production in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…In both cases, market-based approaches can lead to potential compensation for farmers who adopt measures where the financial benefits are marginal or less apparent relative to the social or external benefits enjoyed by all. This is the basis for environmental subsidies in the EU, for example, or the various proposals for a “meat tax” (Simmonds and Vallgårda 2021). Arguably, these developments are still in their infancy in Sub-Saharan Africa and the development of niche markets globally does not yet guarantee a sufficient incentive for smallholders in lower- and middle-income countries.…”