Taxing Multinationals: The Meat Myth and a Global, Ethical Tax

Anna Pellanda*

Professor of Political Economy (Retired), University of Padua, Italy

*Corresponding Author: Anna Pellanda, Professor of Political Economy (Retired), University of Padua, Italy.

Received: July 05, 2021; Published: August 09, 2021

Citation: Elisa Pellegrino and Valentina Marrassini. “Plant Microbiome for Improving Productivity and Resilience of Crops". Acta Scientific Agriculture 5.9 (2021): 03-13.

Abstract

  This contribution calls for the creation of a tax[1] on meat coming from intensive farming. It draws on the novel “minimum global tax” on digital multinationals proposed in recent months by the American government, which has met with international approval as a way to deal with the problem of “tax havens” used to evade and avoid any fair taxation on these companies’ enormous profits. The validity of this new tax is seen as deriving precisely from its global reach. In other words, it is designed to leave no loopholes, neither on the demand nor on the supply side. Such a globalized taxation is set against the tax competition between different countries that has been operating to date.

  The great power of multinationals - be they in the digital or the meat industry - lies in a number of factors, one of which is their size (examined here in our comparison between the two sectors). Another fundamental element on which the multinationals leverage is consumer behavior, as studied by Duesenberry in his time. When it comes to meat consumption, this is where we see what J. Rifkin described as the myth about meat. A myth extremely harmful to human beings and the environment alike, given the very hazardous conditions in which animals in intensive breeding farms are fed and housed.

  In devising a new tax on meat, it would be important to consider those already levied on cigarettes, sugar and carbon, which have revealed weaknesses that need to be avoided. An econometric analysis should be conducted to establish appropriate tax rates for different cuts and types of meat, and to calculate the prices at which it is sold in different countries. As these prices are currently kept very low (given the multinationals’ production methods), the new tax should be global and high enough to prevent meat consumption from continuing to damage human health, the climate, and animal wellbeing.[1]The distinction between taxes, duties and levies is disregarded in this paper.

Keywords: Taxing Meat Multinationals; Meat Production Methods; Damage Caused; Attainable Goals

Bibliography

1. Friedman M. Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago, Chicago University Press (1962).
2. Zodrow GR. “Tax competition and tax coordination in EU”. International Tax and Public Finance6 (2003): 651-671.
3. Pellanda A. “Multinationals: the role of consumers and a new European fiscal trend”. in: Paghanetto, L., Yearning for Inclusive Growth and Development, Good Jobs and Sustainability, FUET, Economic Foundation, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Springer, 219 203.
4. Sokol N. “Corporate tax systems and tax competition in EU new Member States”. Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business 2 (2008): 81-94.
5. Wilson JD. “Theories of tax competition”. National Tax Journal 52 (1999): 269-304. Boria P. “La concorrenza fiscale tra stati”. Padova, Cedam (2019).
6. BORDIGNON M and DA EMPOLI D. “Concorrenza fiscale in un’ economia internazionale”. Milano, F. Angeli (1999).
7. D’Alfonso G. “Vantaggi e svantaggi della concorrenza fiscale internazionale”. Il Fisco 25 (2005): 6.
8. Edwards J and Keen M. “Tax competition and Leviathan”. European Economic Review 1 (1996): 1131-1134.
9. Morgenstern O and Neumann J. “Theory of Games and Economic Behavior”. Princeton University Press (1944).
10. Wildasin DE. “Nash equilibrium in models of fiscal competition”. Journal of Public Economics 2 (1988): 229-240.
11. AMATO G. “Il potere e l’antitrust”. Bologna, Il Mulino (1998): 118.
12. The most famous American multinationals in the food sector are the “ten sisters” (a term borrowed from the “seven sisters” in the oil industry): Associated British Food (ABF), Coca Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft (partly renamed Mondelez), Mars, Nestlè, Persico, and Unilever.
13. PENROSE E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (1959), Oxford University Press, 3rd ed. with a new Foreword by the A (1995).
14. Graziani A. “Teoria economica”. Prezzi e distribuzione, Napoli, ESI, 3rd ed. (1993): 649.
15. China has taken the intensive use of space to a new level, building farming installations for pigs (called “hotels”) that extend vertically over several stores, to save space. The privately-run Guangxi Yangxiang farm in Southern China is building one 13 stores high (due to be the tallest in the world), where the animals will be moved using lifts. It is expected to contain 30,000 female pigs in 11 hectares (source “Reuters”).
16. Duesenberry J S. “Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behaviour”. Cambridge, Harvard University Press (1949).
17. The account of the dinner prepared by Trimalchio (a freedman who became rich), described by Petronius in his Satyricon (1st century AD), is an example of how important food can be to social climbing.
18. Rifkin J. Beyond Beef: the Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, E.P. Dutton and Co., (1992).
19. The European Commission has estimated that beef production dropped by 1.7%, and its consumption by 2.7% in 2020. In Italy, there is expected to be a 20% drop in the consumption of beef by 2030, a 7.8% drop for pork, but a 3-4% rise for poultry (ISTAT data) and a 2% increase for fish (ASSOITTICA data).
20. Already in the 1st century AD, Plutarch wrote that it was not easy to make people abandon their bad habits and, although man is not naturally carnivorous - since “he has no hooked beak or sharp nails or jagged teeth, no strong stomach” - he cultivates his appetite for dead animals by “smothering with countless condiments the taste of gore so that the palate may be deceived and accept what is foreign to it”; PLUTARCH, On the Eating of Flesh (my translation from PLUTARCO, Sul mangiar carne, Ed. G. Ditadi, Torino, AgireOra Edizioni (2016): 82, 71, 72-77.
21. “L’insostenibile impatto della carne in Italia”. Il fatto quotidiano, 10.03.2021; “L’insostenibile costo della carne”. demetra.net., 15.03.2021; “I costi nascosti della carne”. LAV, 08.05.2021. The debate on these topics is hotting up and occupying more and more space, not only in the specialist journals (like NATURE Sustainaibility, NATURE Genetics, etc.), but also in the mainstream media.
22. In the Cerrado, the second Brazilian biome after Amazonia, more than 800 km2 of forest have been destroyed to make space for breeding farms, and more than 12,000 forest fires have been started since 2015 (source AgireOraEdizioni).
23. Now approximately 71% of all farmland in the EU is used to produce animal feed.
24. Newsletter of the Fondazione CMCC dated 16/02/21.
25. FOER JS. Eating Animals, Little, Brown and Company (2009).
26. Intensive breeding farms started almost by accident in 1923 in Delmarva (Delaware) when Celia Steele ordered 50 chicks for her chicken coop (which contained about 23 animals), but she was sent 500 by mistake. She succeeded in keeping them all alive by using food supplements. Three years later she had 10,000, and by 1935 she had 250,000 chickens.
27. Lymbery P and Oakeshoot I. Farmageddon. The True Cost of Cheap Meat, London, Bloomsbury Publishing (2014).
28. PIGOU AC. Economics of Welfare, London, Macmillan and Co., (1920).
29. PAUL, Letter to the Romans 13: 5-6.
30. https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org
31. Greepeace dossier “Soldi pubblici in pasto agli allevamenti intensivi”.
32. They could be placated by suggesting that the revenue coming from the meat tax, after its approval, could be used to support breeders who switch to farming plant crops instead – an idea worth examining in the future.
33. In 316-315 BC, Theophrastus concluded his essay “On Piety” by saying: “Similarly, we believe that all men, but all animals too, are of the same original stock because the first principles (archai) of their bodies are by nature the same … and even more because the soul that is in them is no different in nature as regards their appetites, their fits of rage, their reasoning (logismoi) and, above all, their sensations. Like their bodies, some animals have a more or less perfect soul; but for all living beings the principles are by nature the same. The kinship of their affections is proof of this” (my translation from TEOFRASTO, Della Pietà, a cura di G. Ditadi, Este (PD), Isonomia (2005): 261263.

---

Copyright: © 2021 Anna Pellanda. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.