The science has been clear for a long time on the detrimental impacts ruminant meat production has on the planet, and red and processed meat on population health. It is time that we use the science that has been evident for so long and tax red and processed meat to encourage a reduction in consumption and shifts to more sustainable and healthier alternatives. By leveraging the tax revenues generated to invest in the re-training farmers and employees, as well as green economic initiatives, we can ensure a smooth transition to a healthier and more sustainable future for all Canadians.

This petition puts forwards the science on the impact ruminant meat production has on the planet, as well red and processed meat on population health, and presents a facts-based solution rooted in economic research to help curb the problem while positioning Canada as a leader today, and securing a sustainable future generations to come.

Section 1: Ruminant meat’s impact on the planet.

Agricultural and food systems generate not only CO2, but the far more the potent greenhouse gases (GHGs) methane and nitrous oxide, meaning that this system contributes 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions each year1. Within agricultural emissions, the leading source of GHG emissions is the production of ruminant meat, accounting for 70 percent of the 20 percent that the agricultural sector produces as a whole (1).

Animal protein from beef and lamb is the most GHG-intensive (and therefore inefficient) food to produce, with production-related emissions more than ten times those of poultry or fish and 30 times those of legumes (1). Meat and dairy from cows have a particularly negative impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year; about the same amount as the emissions from the entire transportation sector including all the cars, trucks, airplanes and ships combined in the world today (6). In general, beef and lamb have the biggest climate footprint per gram of protein, while plant-based foods tend to have the smallest impact (6). According to a study by McKinsey & Company, if the world’s cows were classified as a country in global emissions data, the impact of their GHG emissions (in the form of methane) would put them (cows) ahead of every country in terms of emissions production, with the exception of China (1).The reason for this is biologically driven; enteric fermentation inherent in the digestion of animals such as cows and sheep (1) is inefficient in turning calories into protein, and results in a huge amount of methane gas production.

The problem with ruminant meat production isn’t just in the amount of GHG is produces directly, it also is extremely resource intensive in terms of the amount of land required to support the animals directly, but also to produce food to feed and grow them. When comparing the land requirements to produce beef, a study by the World Resource Institute found that beef requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more GHG emissions per gram of edible protein than common plant proteins, such as beans (4). Other research found that comparing beef directly to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land (2) than plant-based foods. Further, the study by the World Resource Institute noted that available grasslands around the world are already heavily used for livestock production, therefore additional beef demand will likely increase pressure on forests (4), more than it already has. This makes beef production a triple threat to the climate. Not only does it produce a huge amount of highly potent and dangerous GHG in the form of methane and nitrous oxide, but it also requires a huge amount of land and is directly correlated to deforestation. For each tree that is cut down to produce ruminant meat, we add GHG to the atmosphere by clearing that tree (clearing trees releases the carbon into the atmosphere that the tree has already sequestered) and we lose the future carbon sink potential of that tree, while replacing it with methane-producing cows (1). When doing this on a scale of tens of thousands of hectares annually, it doesn’t require a rocket scientist to realize this is incredibly dangerous, and entirely not sustainable.

Breaking down the carbon impact by dietary choices, a study of diets in Britain by the University of Oxford found that; meat-rich diets - defined as more than 100g per day - resulted in 7.2kg of carbon dioxide emissions. In contrast, both vegetarian and fish-eating diets caused about 3.8kg of CO2 per day, while vegan diets produced only 2.9kg. The research analysed the food eaten by 30,000 meat eaters, 16,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish eaters and 2,000 vegans (2).

With beef production requiring at least 20 times more land and emitting 20 times more GHG emissions per gram of edible protein than common plant proteins, it is clear why the research conducted by McKinsey & Company concluded that the emissions reduction needed to reach a +1.5-degree increase in global average temperatures (referencing the research published by the International Panel for Climate Change in the United Nations) would imply a large global dietary shift, requiring reducing the share of ruminant animal protein globally by half, from about 9 percent in current projections for 2050 to about 4 percent by 2050 (1).

This sentiment was echoed by the EAT-Lancet Comission Summary Report, “Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems”, and National Geographic. The research presented by EAT-Lancet Comission found that a transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial shifts (5) from current patterns. The study concluded that this shift needed to  include a more than doubling in the consumption of healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts, and a greater than 50% reduction in global consumption of less healthy foods such as added sugars and red meat (5,3).

In order to facilitate this shift in demand and local consumption, the Federal Canadian Government must impose a substantial ruminant meat tax (the amount to be discussed in section 3 of this petition).

Section 2: Red and Processed meat’s impact on public health:

Much like the impact ruminant meat has on the planet, the science behind the impact of red meat on public health has also been evident for quite some time. With that, the cost on taxpayers and public-health systems.

Let’s begin with a statement from Harvard Health that says we should “consider red meat a luxury and not a staple food” (8), and that there is “an accumulated body of evidence shows a clear link between high intake of red and processed meats and a higher risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and premature death (8). Let’s take a closer look at some of the evidence currently available.

A massive five-year study in the United Kingdom of half a million men and women found that those individuals who were more or less keeping to the guidelines, eating on average 76g of red or processed meat per day, had a 20% increased risk of bowel cancer compared with those who averaged 21g a day (10) (representing a 72.3% decrease in average daily consumption). Further, the risk of bowel cancer increased by 20% with each extra slice of ham or rasher of bacon (roughly 25g) the study participants ate, and by 19% with each thick slice of roast beef or the edible part of a lamb cutlet (about 50g) (10).

Breaking down what we should be eating a caloric level, the EAT-Lancet Comission Summary Report states that beef, lamb and pork protein (combined) should make up about 30 Kcal/day, while legumes and nuts should make up 284 and 291 Kcal/day respectively (5).

Looking an North American habits specifically, a paper published by Carleton University referencing research from both the American Heart Association and Canadian Cancer Association stated that “An average meat-eating North American consumes over 200% more red meat than the healthy limit” (13). While Canada’s food guide itself states “Eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, whole grain foods and protein foods. Choose protein foods that come from plants more often”, and that “Eating plant-based foods regularly can mean eating more fibre and less saturated fat. This can have a positive effect on health, including a lowered risk of cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes” (12).

The question that this raises is that if the science is telling us:

• ruminant meat production is one of the main drivers of climate change
• globally meat consumption needs to decrease by at least 50% to hit the IPCC target of a maximum of +1.5 degrees increase in global average temperatures and sustainable diets
• red and processed meat consumption causes cancer while eating plant-based foods reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, and
• North American meat eaters are consuming as much as 200% more red meat than the healthy limit

…then why is the Canadian Government not doing more to financially incentivize consumer behaviour with proven economic principles to align with these fact-based findings?

Section 3: The economics of meat production and taxation

A study published in 2018 by PLoS ONE calculated the economically optimal tax levels for 149 world regions that would account for (internalize) the health costs associated with ill-health from red and processed meat consumption. This study used a coupled modelling framework to estimate the impacts of optimal taxation on consumption, health costs, and non-communicable disease mortality. The health impacts were estimated using a global comparative risk assessment framework, and economic responses were estimated using international data on health costs, prices, and price elasticities (11).

This study concluded that the health-related costs to society attributable to red and processed meat consumption in 2020 would amount to $285 billion (USD), three quarters of which were due to processed meat consumption. Using the frame work described, the study found that under optimal taxation, prices for processed meat would need to increase by 25% on average globally, ranging from 1% in low-income countries to over 100% in high-income countries, while prices for red meat would increase by 4% globally, ranging from 0.2% to over 20% in high-income countries (11).

What impact did this optimization have on consumption? The results showed that consumption of processed meat decreased globally by 16% on average, ranging from 1% to 25% (11) across low to high-income countries, while red meat consumption remained stable as substitution for processed meat (11). This suggests that this level of taxation is insufficient to meet the 50% reductions required globally from an environmental impact perspective, largely because the study focused solely on the health impacts and associated health-care expenditures. In doing so, the study focused on shifting away demand from processed meat to red meat as processed meat is associated with higher health-care costs, while red and ruminant meat is more damaging to the environment and the study did not optimize for costs associated with this variable. That said, it did demonstrate positive results in terms of deaths attributable to meat consumption, public health spending, and governmental tax revenues.  

Specifically, a 111% increase in processed meat prices via taxation increased prices by $4.17USD/kg. This tax was associated with a 25.1 percent decrease in consumption, which led to attributable deaths decreasing 604.5K to 470.2K on average across high-income countries (a 22.2 percent decline). This 22.2 percent reduction in deaths translates to an average of $35 billion USD reduction in health care costs and an average tax revenue increase of $71.25 billion USD (11).

The optimal red meat tax in high-income countries was found to be $0.94USD/kg, correlating to a price increase 21.4 percent. This price increase was associated with a consumption decrease of only 1 percent (again not sufficient to meet the environmental/sustainability targets of 50%). However, attributable deaths decreased on average from 167.2K to 165.8K resulting in an average of $410 Million USD in health care costs and tax revenue of $38.19 billion USD (11).

The Canadian government reported that the red meat industry was worth $21.1 billion in Canada in 2018, with cattle and calf sales making up $9.1 billion (about 43% of the total red meat industry) (9). A study published by Guelph University in 2012 found that the price elasticity of beef in Canada is -0.428 (7), suggesting that the demand for beef in inelastic. Basic micro economics tells us that for any good with a price-elasticity <1, the good is not price-sensitive and therefore people will continue to buy it even if the price goes up, and that total spending will rise.

This means two things for Canada. First and foremost, we can and must tax beef heavily to reduce demand. In fact, to reduce the consumption of beef by 50% we would need to tax it by about 117% (117 * -0.428 = -50.1). Secondly, taxing beef at 117% while expecting to lose only 50% of demand means that the price will more than double while losing only half of sales, setting the industry value as a whole above the $9.1 billion recorded in 2018. This overall net-increase in expenditures will be in the form of tax revenue for the government which should be utilised on a wide variety of initiatives, including:

• invest in re-training of ruminant meat farmers and employees
• incentives and subsidies for plant-based foods to help shift demand
• investments in reforestation efforts to increase our carbon-sink capacity and oxygen production, and
• green energy investment to position Canada as a leader in an industry that is becoming more and more globally important and competitive.

It is worth noting again that the increase in tax revenues is also coupled with an associated decrease in public health expenditures directly attributable to the consumption of processed and red meat. It is also worth noting that this same logic should be applied to all red and processed meats to account for subsitution across categories that consumers would be expected to make. This petition just utilizes beef as one example.

Concluding remarks and call to action:

The science on climate change is clear. Ruminant meat production is a leading driver of GHG emissions (including methane gas which is more destructive than CO2) and contributes significantly to deforestation globally. In order to stay within a global average temperature increase of +1.5 degrees, we must see a significant decrease in red meat consumption (at least 50%).

The science on the impact of red and processed meat on health is also clear. Increased levels of consumption have been irrefutably linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. This results in massive public health spending and high levels of mortality directly attributable to the consumption of red and processed meat.

The economics of the industry are such that extremely high levels of taxation are required to reduce demand to meet the decreased levels of consumption set out by leading climate change research. However, the demand for beef suggests that taxation will result in net increases in spending on this product category, meaning there is substantial tax revenue to be earned which can be put towards re-training any employees or famers who are negatively impacted by such a tax, while also investing in a greener and cleaner future for Canadians.

The signees of this petition are calling on Justin Trudeau and the Federal Government to impose a national sales tax on all red and processed Meat to account for the climate and public health concerns outlined above. This tax should be a minimum of 25% for red meat and 111% for processed meat to account for health care costs, but must go beyond these levels to account for climate impact and push demand down by the targets of at least 50% to align with a sustainable future.

Sources:

1. Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take. McKinsey Quarterly. McKinesy & Company. April 30th, 2020.

2. Carrington, D. Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert. The Guardian. July 21st, 2014. 

3. Gibbens, S. Eating meat has ‘dire’ consequences for the planet, says report. National Geographic. January 16th, 2019.

4. Waite, R. et. al. 6 Pressing Questions About Beef and Climate Change, Answered. World Resource Institute. April 8th, 2019.

5. Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems. EAT-Lancet Comission Summary Report. The EAT-Lancet Commission. January, 2019.

6. Moskin, J et al. Your Questions About Food and Climate Change, Answered
How to shop, cook and eat in a warming world. The New York Times. April 30th, 2019.

7. Cranfield, J. Canadian Beef Demand Elasticity Study - Final report. Department of Food, Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Guelph. January 16th, 2012.

8. What’s the beef with red meat? Harvard Health Publishing. Harvard Medical School. February, 2020.

9. Canada's red meat and livestock industry at a glance. Government of Canada. November 14th, 2019.

10. Boseley, S. Even moderate intake of red meat raises cancer risk, study finds. The Guardian. April 17th, 2019.

11. Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, Wiebe K, Godfray HCJ, Rayner M, et al. Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS One. November, 2018.

12. Healthy Food Choices. Canada’s Food Guide. www.food-guice.canada.ca Accessed July 26th, 2020.

13. Bagha, I. Red Meat Consumption: Getting to the ‘meat’ of the issue. Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration. May 10, 2017.