[Food] Beyond Meat boss backs tax on meat consumption

[Postman Pat]

Mr Brown thinks that consumers are already starting to make the choice to eat less meat.

That says we're getting more and more penetration into the broadest swath of the market, which is people who are consuming animal protein, but again, are hearing this information about their health or maybe hearing about climate, or maybe uncomfortable with factory farming, they're deciding to cut down on their consumption of animal-based products."

Cost, as well as taste and texture are, according to Mr Brown, the three elements his company has to get right, as plant-based meat can be much more expensive than animal meat. But he thinks that over time prices will come down.

"As we scale, we'll begin to be able to underprice animal protein - if you look at our facilities, and you look at the facilities of say, some of our plant or animal-based competitors, right, we're still a very small company [but] that's going to change.
--------------------------
So he's already getting market share, consumers are making alternative choices and he is scaling his business to make it cheaper than meat.

Why the need for taxes then seems to be going fine without?

 

[FatSuperman]

I agree education is a good idea but how much education does it actually take to inform a family that eating chicken nuggets every day is a bad thing? Surely most already know and it’s a, relatively, informed lifestyle choice?

I agree, but it turns out that many people need a lot of education / PR / propaganda to learn what is obvious to some. I'm thinking back to the 5-a-day campaign, that was as obvious as it was irritating. But it has definitely become part of our common language now. Even if it's mainly to joke that pringles are vegetables.

The 'eat them to defeat them' campaign isn't quite as successful in my opinion.

 

[studio150]

Education before taxation.

 

[FatSuperman]

the production goes like this
meat burger: grazing/crops x4-5 -> animal raised -> slaughter -> processing -> delivery
meat free: crops -> processing -> delivery

the economy of scale is only in the processing part. this suggest that all the extra crops, animal husbandry etc are costing less than the process to make a meat free product. seems a lot for economy of scale to cover if there are mulitples lower input costs.

Economy of scale is by far the most powerful force multiplier in your equation.

I have no doubt that if I start knitting jumpers, I would have a much shorter process than Zara, with their many stages of design, approval, sourcing etc. But I'm still not going to be able to deliver a lot of jumpers for less than they can.

Plant-based is growing at a phenomenal rate, but is still has some way to go to overtake the 80 billion animals slaughtered a year for consumption.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Economy of scale is by far the most powerful force multiplier in your equation.

I have no doubt that if I start knitting jumpers, I would have a much shorter process than Zara, with their many stages of design, approval, sourcing etc. But I'm still not going to be able to deliver a lot of jumpers for less than they can.

Plant-based is growing at a phenomenal rate, but is still has some way to go to overtake the 80 billion animals slaughtered a year for consumption.

Most of those will be birds, and they don't take up much space. Have you a link for the figure, analysed by species? It would be interesting.

 

[FatSuperman]

Most of those will be birds, and they don't take up much space. Have you a link for the figure, analysed by species? It would be interesting.

Yep, mainly chickens of course. Grown to quota in horrendous shit hole coops. If anyone on here eats food, then I highly recommend the Netflix series 'Rotten', about the food industry (not specifically about meat).


https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

In 2018, an estimated 69 billion chickens; 1.5 billion pigs; 656 million turkeys; 574 million sheep; 479 million goats; and 302 million cattle were killed for meat production.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

I say tax it to the rafters so that only rich people can afford to eat meat. A similar strategy to stop the plebs from driving into London is working a treat.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think taxation is a good way to encourage change, loads of things I would tax differently to encourage different behaviour, some reductions, some increases. On meats, I would hope that highest welfare practices, and locally raised, would attract a lower rate of tax.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It is quite difficult to argue against the general idea, that eating too much red meat is, in the same way as excess sugar consumption, not good for your health (and thus in turn, not good for the NHS).

Acceptance of this, led to the sugar tax on soft drinks, so it really isn't a huge leap to accepting similar for meat products.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It’s called “pigouvian tax”. Good idea?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58032552

Really ? The founder of the worlds biggest plant based meat firm wants to make his competitors’ products more expensive ? Hmmm I am flabbergasted. I am not against it as I can afford the tax but it is quite a regressive idea as will impact low income families.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Really ? The founder of the worlds biggest plant based meat firm wants to make his competitors’ products more expensive ? Hmmm I am flabbergasted. I am not against it as I can afford the tax but it is quite a regressive idea as will impact low income families.

Meat isn’t essential though. You can make numerous tasty and nutritious meals with vegetables and/or beans so it doesn’t need to impact low income families.

 

[beorhthelm]

Really ? The founder of the worlds biggest plant based meat firm wants to make his competitors’ products more expensive ? Hmmm I am flabbergasted. I am not against it as I can afford the tax but it is quite a regressive idea as will impact low income families.

to be fair, meat is already the expensive part of any meal, so we need to educate the lower income people they shouldn't be eating meat.

 

[GT49er]

I say tax it to the rafters so that only rich people can afford to eat meat. A similar strategy to stop the plebs from driving into London is working a treat.

Let's tax all food to the rafters - get rid of the poor entirely within a generation or two!

 

[dsr-burnley]

Meat isn’t essential though. You can make numerous tasty and nutritious meals with vegetables and/or beans so it doesn’t need to impact low income families.

Of course it impacts them. If someone likes eating meat, then it's surely a bit arrogant to tell them to eat something cheaper and they'll be just as happy.

 

[dsr-burnley]

It is quite difficult to argue against the general idea, that eating too much red meat is, in the same way as excess sugar consumption, not good for your health (and thus in turn, not good for the NHS).

Acceptance of this, led to the sugar tax on soft drinks, so it really isn't a huge leap to accepting similar for meat products.

Why is it generally assumed that eating lots of good food is bad for you?

Point 1 - on average, we eat lots more food than we used to, we are taller, we are heavier, we are fatter.

Point 2 - average life expectancy is vastly higher than when we ate less and were thinner.

Cast your minds back fifty years, 100 years, 200 years. The people who ate lots of meat have always lived longer than those who couldn't afford it. The wealthy today (ie. everyone in the world who can afford meat, so nearly everyone in Britain) live longer than the poor. Part of this is certainly due to better health care, but look at the people who didn't need much health care in the olden days because they didn't catch the various fatal diseases of the time - measles, and so on. A 70 year old even fifty years ago was older than a 70 year old is now. My grandmother remembered seeing an 80 year old playing cards and thought it remarkable that she was so fit. It isn't now.

Remember all the extra years you can gain will come at the end of your life, not in the prime of life. Those years might not be worth giving up meat for.

 

[Postman Pat]

8 Asda Plant Based Vegan burgers - £1.75
10 Smartprice burgers - £1.62
10 Asda Beef burgers - £3.75
10 Birdseye burgers - £3.00

Not sure cost is the issue here, or everyone would be buying the plant based burgers surely?

 

[talk2knighty]

I say tax it to the rafters so that only rich people can afford to eat meat. A similar strategy to stop the plebs from driving into London is working a treat.

Totally agree, I’d go as far as trebling car tax on second cars in same household, that’ll drive the car numbers down, charge everyone £20 to drive into central Brighton and another good one, tax people who take more than 1 flight a quarter [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course it impacts them. If someone likes eating meat, then it's surely a bit arrogant to tell them to eat something cheaper and they'll be just as happy.

It will impact lower income families, obviously. But not necessarily in a negative way. As I say, there’s some excellent tasty and nutritious meat free recipes out there. Take a look at Yotam Ottolenghi’s recipe books for example.

 

[Baker lite]

Meat isn’t essential though. You can make numerous tasty and nutritious meals with vegetables and/or beans so it doesn’t need to impact low income families.

I must need my bumps reading….I find myself in agreement.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Meat isn’t essential though. You can make numerous tasty and nutritious meals with vegetables and/or beans so it doesn’t need to impact low income families.

Oh, I agree. I’m happy to eat such healthy, meat free meals. But then I’m middle class and am happy to pay up anyway when I eat meat ie such a tax won’t affect either my choices or bank balance in a way that is of any significance to me.