Which Would You Prefer: Higher Beer Tax or New Meat Tax?
Oregon State Representative Ben Cannon has proposed a 1900% increase in state beer tax, leading PETA to issue a letter asking him to instead consider a small meat tax in the state.
PETA reminded Cannon that eating meat can lead to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other health problems. They claim that taxing it would persuade people to eat less meat, and instead eat more plant-based proteins, thus improving health and welfare in the state.
The meat industry is also responsible for a large portion of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, so cutting meat out of Oregonians’ diets would help the state reach their climate change goals.
“Slapping a long-overdue tax on artery-clogging meat would save countless lives,” said PETA Director Sarah King. “After all, it’s better to drink Rogue’s Dead Guy Ale than to wind up as its mascot.”
Check out the full letter:
Via Salem News Photo Credit: lucianvenutian on Flickr under Creative Commons license.February 20, 2009
The Honorable Ben Cannon
Oregon House of Representatives
Via e-mail: rep.bencannon@state.or.us
Dear Representative Cannon:
As an Oregon native and a beer aficionado, I was extremely interested to read about the bill that you recently sponsored to increase Oregon’s tax on beer. On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our more than 2 million members and supporters worldwide, including thousands of Oregonians, I’d like to propose an alternative that would keep beer—a product that’s important to the state’s economy—affordable, yet still bring in needed revenue: an excise tax on meat. A 10-cent “sin” tax on every pound of chicken, turkey, pig, fish, and cow flesh sold in grocery stores and restaurants would not only raise funds but also help stop climate change and reduce health-care costs.
Tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, and luxury vehicles are all taxed because of the negative impact that they have on the environment and/or human health, so it makes sense to add meat to the group. Please consider the following:
Meat is the number one cause of climate change, which threatens the U.S. with billions of dollars in damages from rising sea levels, worsening storms, and increased droughts. According to a 2006 United Nations report, the meat industry produces 40 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, SUVs, planes, and ships in the world combined. A tax on meat would help recoup some of the environmental costs associated with its production.
Meat is a leading contributor to many of the worst health problems that Americans face. According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians have lower rates of obesity heart disease, certain types of cancer, and diabetes than meat-eaters do. Just like the excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, a meat tax could be used to promote health and well-being through educational programs.
With this proposal, a typical meat-eating family of four would pay only about $5 per month, and families who replace the meat in their diets with healthy vegetarian foods would likely save thousands of dollars in medical expenses over time.
Revenue shortages and climate change are two of America’s biggest problems. Adding a “sin” tax on meat could help alleviate these problems, in addition to improving the health of Oregon’s residents. After all, it’s better to drink Rogue’s Dead Guy Ale than to wind up as its mascot.
You can learn more about this proposal at TaxMeat.com. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sarah King
Director








I don’t take PETA seriously at all. They kill more animals than they save and try to tell people what to do.
I think it would be better if they made more places switch to free range meat instead of slaughter houses or inhumane ways of killing the animal for food. Would be better for the animals and environment.
The average household cannot afford free range meat. It is cost prohibitive to raise free range meat. The cost of land will not permit affordable free range meat. We cannot produce enough food on the available land suitable for farming that does not include the production of meat animals for food. Bottom line is we have to produce food as is presently accepted as sound practice to assure our food supply is adequate.
If there really are 2,000,000 crazies who support peta then a tax on stupidity would really fill the coffers.