Governments are brainstorming for ways to combat the devastating environmental effects of factory farming, and several countries in Europe are calling for a tax on meat. No other industry involves the most pressing environmental and health issues of today, like GMOs, increased greenhouse gases, the destruction of natural habitats, herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, quite like factory farming. Even worse, the meat and the corn and soy that feed them are on the receiving end of a massive amount government subsidies. Our government pays nearly 38 billion dollars a year to hasten the death of our eco-system and ourselves.

Yet meat is still powerfully entrenched in cultures worldwide, and the likelihood of a completely vegan or even vegetarian world is not high. 84% of vegetarians and 70% of vegans return to eating meat at some point in their lives. Our current carnivorous habits are not sustainable. Is a meat tax the way to fix it?

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

Progressive Europe

Denmark

The Danish Ethics Council started with a call for a tax on beef. That measure was passed by the council and is now scheduled for government consideration. While beef causes 10 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions, more than chicken and pork, the council has plans to extend the proposed tax to other red meats.

The United Kingdom

Several studies in the United Kingdom have resulted in a national conversation likely to result in meat taxes within the next 10 years. Analysis from Glasglow University and Chatham House, an international thinktank, indicate that public would see government intervention in this issue as a positive. According to Laura Wellesley from Chatham House, lead author of the research,

Governments are ignoring what should be a hugely appealing, win-win policy…The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.”

The survey analysis also found that many were surprised to learn of government subsidies for meat production, particularly in the large amounts given by the U.S. government.

Recommended: Start Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Germany

Germany already has a tax of 7 percent on animal products. The German federal environment agency has expressed a desire to raise that number to 19 percent, in order to keep with the Paris climate accords. Consumers would be the ones to pay this fine, although the agency has suggested that the estimated 5.2 billion euro tax revenue would lower consumption taxes on other food items.

My Opinion: We Pay to Produce It, Now We Pay to Eat It…?

America is much more attached to its meat products than Europe. The average American eats 200 pounds of meat a year, and for that American to be eating healthy (as it pertains to cancer and heart disease) levels of meat, those 200 pounds need to be reduced by two-thirds. But would Americans be so gung-ho about meat if they knew they’re actually paying an extra 8 dollars in hidden costs (healthcare, subsidies, and environmental degradation) for each Big Mac?

Here’s an idea…rather than tax consumers and charge them twice, slowly pull subsidies away from corporations running businesses contributing to climate change. This likely won’t happen, as the U.S. government cares about businesses, not people. Maybe if businesses weren’t so short-sighted, they would realize that people with more money buy more products.

In our current iteration, a meat tax in the United States is more likely to leave poor people without the funds or the knowledge for proper nutrition. Replacing everything meat with a version of tofurky isn’t sustainable or healthy either. In our school systems, we need real health and real food education that includes gardening.

On the other hand, if the tax happens, and it does promote awareness and reduced meat consumption, we’re not going to be too angry.

Recommended Reading:

• How to Make the Healthiest Smoothies – 4 Recipes
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
• How to Detoxify and Heal the Lymphatic System
• Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease
• Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

Sources:

• Here Comes the Meat Tax – The Atlantic
• Meat tax far less unpalatable than government thinks, research finds – The Guardian
• Denmark ethics council calls for tax on red meat to fight ‘ethical problem’ of climate change – Independent
• Germany pushes for tax hike on meat and cheese – Politico
• 10 Things We Wish Everyone Knew About the Meat and Dairy Industries – PETA
• The 9 Foods the U.S. Government is Paying You to Eat – Dr. Mercola
• 84% of Vegetarians and Vegans Return to Meat. Why? – Psychology Today

How Excess Carbon Dioxide Diminishes Nutrients in Plants

Our food system has become a game of Jenga, and we’re running out of blocks to pull from the bottom. Disease and challenging growing conditions threaten popular foods like coffee, chocolate, bananas, and wheat. Bees, nature’s perfect pollinator, are stressed and disappearing rapidly. Plants are also less nutritious, thanks to climate change.

Climate change leads to more carbon dioxide in the environment. Plants enjoy the extra food, growing more quickly, but they are unable to sustain that growth. Too much carbon dioxide affects the amount of macro and micronutrients that in plants. What we eat contain fewer nutrients than ever before due to their “junk food” diet. Do we need to put plants on a low-carb diet?

The Deets

Scientists know that foods are less nutritious than they used to be but previously attributed that discrepancy to modern agriculture’s preference for higher yield crop varieties. Irakli Loladze, a mathematician studying the effect of CO2 on pants for 15 years, finds that climate change has an equal or greater effect on plant health and nutrition content.

Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising…We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”

How diluted are we talking here? A 2017 research paper estimated that by 2050, many of the staple crops we rely on like rice, wheat, barley, and potatoes will lose 7.6%, 7.8%, 14.1%, and 6.4%, of their protein, respectively. This is devastating news for countries that rely on those crops for protein. Eighteen countries could lose more than five percent of their dietary protein, and 148.4 million people will also be at risk.

Plants are also losing many of the essential micronutrients we need. One in three people is deficient in zinc. The concentration of calcium, magnesium, potassium, zinc, iron, and other minerals in the food we eat has by 8% because of rising carbon dioxide. Scientists and climate deniers alike agree the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still growing. Will we be able to counter the effects that has on the food we eat?

No Easy Solutions, No Quick Fixes

Farming takes time, and results from changes are not always apparent. A new crop takes 15 to 20 years to arrive in stores. Other potential fixes like mass scale composting or reducing carbon dioxide in the air are also time-consuming processes. The well-being of the food we eat and our food system are deteriorating in a world where fewer people have the resources to produce their own food. Are we at the point where we are unable to stay healthy through food alone? Only time will tell…yet it’s the biggest unknown in this entire equation.

Recommended:

• Healthy Sugar Alternatives & More
• Start Eating Like That and Start Eating Like This – Your Guide to Homeostasis Through Diet

Sources:

• The Great Nutrient Collapse – Politico
• Climate Change is Making Plants More Nutritious – Grubstreet
• Estimated Effects of Future Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Protein Intake and the Risk of Protein Deficiency by Country and Region – Environ Health Aspects
• Hidden shift of the ionome of plants exposed to elevated CO2 depletes minerals at the base of human nutrition – ELife

“I do know how your president now has decided to jeopardize your budget, your initiatives, as he is extremely skeptical about climate change.”

These are the words that the newly elected president of France, Emmanuel Macron, used to empathize with American entrepreneurs and scientists as he welcomes them to France to continue their work on climate change, renewable energy, and other technologies that could help our planet.

He ends the video by saying, “France is your nation.” It is hard to not to trust the man and his desire to implement solutions to global warming, but before we jump to conclusions let’s develop a better understanding of what Macron is all about.

After a tumultuous election process filled with protests against both candidates, Macron will be taking over as the youngest president in French history, but don’t let the numbers fool you. Although he garnered 66.1% of the vote, the French people may have simply been voting for the lesser of two evils, an election process that sounds a lot like what Americans experienced during the United States presidential election of 2016.

However, unlike President Trump, Macron is attempting to unite the left, right, and center by recruiting people to government based on “their experience, their competence, what they have done and not for what they represent or their political weight.” Even former president of the United States of America, Barack Obama, endorses Macron for his liberal values and how he appeals to people’s hopes rather than their fears.

Based on what Macron said in his video to American scientists and entrepreneurs, it is hard not to agree with Obama’s point of view. Macron is not only providing solutions for France, he is also addressing the concerns of many Americans.

Macron may be the spark of positive change that France, the European Union, and the United States need.  However, it is important to remember that words are just words. Until these words become actions, we can only hope that Macron is the antidote to Trump’s climate change ignorance and a saving grace for climate change scientists and entrepreneurs.

Sources:

• As Le Pen and Macron Fight for Presidency in France, Unions Are Split — The New York Times
• Barack Obama endorses Emmanuel Macron for French presidency — The Telegraph
• Macron wins French presidency, to sighs of relief in Europe — Reuters
• What happens now Macron has been elected France’s president? — The Guardian