Summary
This global modelling study calculated economically optimal tax levels for red and processed meat that would internalise the health costs associated with their consumption. Using comparative risk assessment and economic modelling across 149 regions, the authors found that optimal taxation would increase processed meat prices by 25% on average (1–100% depending on income level) and red meat prices by 4% on average, preventing approximately 222,000 deaths annually and saving USD 41 billion in health costs globally. The findings suggest that health-motivated taxation represents a feasible market-based policy mechanism to reduce consumption of foods classified as carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic by the WHO.
UK applicability
As a high-income country, the United Kingdom would face substantially higher optimal tax rates on processed meat (likely exceeding 100% based on the study's findings) and moderate increases on red meat. The results are directly applicable to UK policy discussions on Pigovian taxation and public health interventions, though implementation would require consideration of domestic price elasticities, distributional impacts on low-income households, and consumer acceptability.
Key measures
Health-related costs attributable to red and processed meat consumption (USD billions); optimal tax levels by region (percentage price increases); changes in consumption (percentage reductions); attributable mortality reductions (number of deaths prevented); health cost savings (USD billions)
Outcomes reported
The study modelled economically optimal tax levels for red and processed meat across 149 world regions and estimated the impacts of such taxation on consumption patterns, health costs, and non-communicable disease mortality. It quantified global health-related costs attributable to red and processed meat consumption and projected reductions in mortality and healthcare expenditure under optimal tax scenarios.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.