The Utility of Meat

While meat consumption has some drawbacks, there is a reason for why individuals like to consume it, as well as for society to accept and foster this consumption culturally.

One can assume a connection to utility or satisfaction, generated from meat consumption. Therefore, if society were to price the externalities, one would have to analyse what this could mean for the utility of consumption. From various sources of

literature (e.g. Abadie, Galarraga, Milford, & Gustavsen, 2015; Lusk & Norwood, 2009;

Kutasi & Perger, 2015), the following aspects have been identified: personal utility, inequality and tax regressivity and meats nutritional benefits. These aspects will be looked at in more detail to provide a full picture of the benefits at hand.

2.3.1. Personal Utility

One cannot deny that the mainstream consumer enjoys meat products and will put great value on it. According to Lusk and Norwood (2009), meat is the most valued food category for consumers. This is also reflected in quantity demanded, despite its comparably high price (if compared to, for example pulses that have a similar nutritional profile). The reasons for this are multiple.

Firstly, we can think of meat as a luxury, that represents a certain social status and sends out a message of affluence (Abadie, Galarraga, Milford, & Gustavsen, 2015). Beverland (2014) argues that "food is more than just fuel - what we eat is a powerful signifier of who we are and whom we would like to be". Hence, as long as society sees meat as a status symbol, people will be putting a higher utility on its consumption. On a side note, it is interesting to observe that a high amount of the vegan, vegetarian and flexitarian population stems from a more affluent group of society. This could be indicating that there is a shift to this way of thinking and that over time meat consumption has the potential to lose that status symbol (The Economist, 2018).

Also, meat can generally be seen as a representation of cultural identity to many. To the individual consumer, it may be a sign of one's country culture, their gender association or other institutional factors such as religion (Beverland, 2014). It is, however, possible for a culture to adapt over time, especially when steered by some external force such as a crisis or well-crafted policies (González, Frostell, & Carlsson-Kanyama, 2011).

Another argument is the need for flavourful food, which meat provides. Whilst vegetables are known to be tasty as well, if the individual's flavour pallet is not adjusted to it, the meat will surely provide a higher utility to the person (Alvaro, 2019). Similarly, form utility may be responsible for heightened satisfaction of meat consumption as opposed to some grain or vegetable products (Lusk & Norwood, 2009). Both may be adaptable over time, but if presented in one momentary instance with a meat and plant-based option, the former one will indeed provide more utility to the omnivorous person than the plant one.

Lastly, the opportunity cost of time is a relevant aspect as well. The possibility of tastes and culture adapting over time to a plant-based lifestyle and generating the same utility from vegetable sources as meat previously provided has been discussed. It is also a fact that whilst meat consumption can generate disadvantages, these are usually in the long-term. However, consumers will usually prefer choosing their utility for the present time.

In other words, the current utility is valued higher than a potential future disadvantage or utility. This becomes relevant when discussing the long-term health and environmental impacts meat can cause. Therefore, a steak today may not keep the doctor away, but it does present a higher form of satisfaction to the individual (Kutasi & Perger, 2015).

2.3.2. Health and Nutrition

While plant-based diets are renowned for being healthier, it is not easy to assess whether it would also work on the mainstream level. The current plant-based population is, to a big part, very health-conscious. This means that they are not only eliminating meat from their diet, but also focusing on getting a variety of nutrients and limiting other unhealthy ingredients, such as sugar and processed foods. If the general population is to shift away from meat due to policy interferences, one risk is that the substitutions chosen would not be healthy goods but rather an increase in fats and sugars (Darmon, Lacroix, Muller,

& Ruffieux, 2014). Kutasi and Perger (2015) argue that "going off a harmful addiction may involve taking up another." While one cannot assume meat to be an addiction, a substitution effect certainly exists.

In past studies, a fat reduction, for instance, increased sugar and salt consumption, which also leads to many health complications, such as coronary heart disease and diabetes (Kutasi & Perger, 2015). It is also relevant to note that many of the meat-substitution products are ultra-processed foods that are, albeit often healthier than their meat-based ultra-processed counterparts, still full of additives, sugars, fats and salts.

A common pitfall of policies such as taxation is also the lack of adaptability to the individuals' needs and demands. Especially as nutritional needs vary vastly amongst people from different genders, age groups and origins, a tax on a single food group cannot take those needs into account and therefore may cause unwanted damage (Abadie, Galarraga, Milford, & Gustavsen, 2015).

In conclusion, this means that health issues may arise for some population groups, especially those that have less knowledge or require specific dietary needs. This can cause severe damages to individuals and society (Darmon, Lacroix, Muller, & Ruffieux, 2014).

2.3.3. Food Equality

Prohibiting or regulating meat prices might also cause inequality. To start, one must realise that already without any policy interference, the food profiles of the less wealthy are higher in fats, sugars and other unhealthy foods than of the wealthier. In France, low-income consumers were found to commonly buy less fruit and vegetables, and more unhealthy products as compared to medium-income consumers (Darmon, Lacroix, Muller, & Ruffieux, 2014; Muller, Lacroix, Lusk, & Ruffieux, 2016). While it was initially assumed that by introducing taxes one could improve their nutritional profiles, the research found this not to be true. Instead, it led to an increase in the disparity between the consumer groups (Muller, Lacroix, Lusk, & Ruffieux, 2016).

One of the reasons was that lower-income consumers tended to spend a higher proportion of money on food in general and were more price-sensitive. A price increase, therefore, affected them more than the other income groups (Caillavet, Fadhuile, &

Nichele, 2019; Säll, 2018). Furthermore, the foods taxed in the past have usually been those consumed in higher quantities by the lower-income groups. This, however, might be slightly different with meat, due to its already higher-than-average price (Darmon, Lacroix, Muller, & Ruffieux, 2014). Also, Nordström and Thunström (2010) found that in Sweden the most significant benefit of food policies was obtained by the most affluent.

Another reason for the disparity between the richer and the more impoverished community may be a lack of education and nutritional knowledge. Peñalvo et al. (2017) discovered that whilst an educational effort made in the US improved the diet of its population overall, the results were a lot better amongst higher income groups. This, in turn, was creating yet another reason for the wide gap within the population.

However, one of the most common reasons for inequality may be that a tax increases prices and that the tax burden will most certainly not be entirely carried by the producer, leading to a decrease of real income for the consumers. Due to a change in regulations, producers may either add the value of the tax to their good or to avoid the tax, they may

change the ingredients to higher-quality ones, increasing the cost of production and hence ultimately also increasing the price of the good (Kutasi & Perger, 2015). If the tax aims to shift consumers away from the good altogether, then the cost of the alternative, "healthier" diets will have to be taken into account. According to Drewnowksi, Darmon and Briend (2004), one can see an apparent increase in dietary cost with an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption.

Figure 4: Healthier diets rich in vegetables and fruits are also costlier (Drewnowksi, Darmon, & Briend, 2004).

Researchers also discussed combating such disparity by introducing subsidies at the same time as the tax. While this paper will not be focusing on subsidies as such, a quick discussion of the matter shall be included here: albeit benefitting all income groups, subsidies still seem to favour higher-income groups over the poorer ones (Muller, Lacroix, Lusk, & Ruffieux, 2016). The research by Muller et al. (2016), for instance, resulted in a decrease of cost of 4.7% for the poor and a nearly three times as high one (12.1%) for the reference group when introducing both a tax and subsidy. While this does not negate the benefits of a subsidy, it still does not improve the regressivity of food taxes and the risk of increasing disparity of social classes.

A last note needs to be directed towards the welfare of producers of meat. While the focus in this paper is on the consumers rather than the producers, one cannot ignore the fact that shifting away from meat would mean a significant restructure of the industry.

This may mean a shift in jobs, and a reduction in income or need for re-education for many farmers and other workers of the meat industry. In a paper analysing the Finnish

agricultural model, which heavily relies on meat and milk production, a shift away from meat consumption was predicted to be harmful to the sector and economy. (Lusk &

Norwood, 2009).