Sometimes it goes fast with the change of opinion in the policy. Last year, the Ministry of agriculture objected to a higher tax on meat products. On Twitter was read from the Union pale: “no to the green meat tax”. A year later, the party is required across a new meat tax. Now, it is not dishonest to change due to new findings, his opinion, if they lead to more animal welfare and consumer protection. The demand for a meat tax, skepticism is appropriate. Because here is not true: Only more expensive helps.
Consumers are often accused of, their outrage over poor living conditions is large, their willingness-to-pay is small. More on animal taste probably. That’s true. And the knowledge and also the animal and the consumer, say advocates and many consumers. Most of the meat buyers are, according to surveys, are willing to pay for more animal welfare. But they can’t see where it is plugged in. In the freezer you don’t see if the pig, whose neck is in the cellophane-wrapped Steak in front of you, better than another, whether it ever saw the sun, and if his snout in the mud dug up. Whether the chicken or the Turkey were healthier, better food, and a little more space. Even if consumers have feeling that chicken lives in a Kilo of thighs for two euros, can’t be much of a “been”, you do not know, whether the life of the chicken for three or four euros more is really better. The quality of life of the animals cannot taste it.
We recognize could exist, consumers only if it is a label, a binding animal welfare. But the uniform, immediately across the Board bearing the animal’s label, it will not give, unfortunately, for the foreseeable future. In Berlin, it is not the progress and on the European level. The Label-the jungle may be useless instead, because in this Form there is no comparability managed to grow more. The consumer advocates have to admonish tedious misleading advertising.
Finally, the consumer has made Central Brandenburg before the regional court of Nürnberg-Fürth, a success against a Discounter. The supermarket chain had printed a photo of pigs on a green Meadow beside the animal’s attitude indicator with the lowest level. According to the court, the figure of pigs in the free-startle ” […]a normal consumer to agree to the adoption, the processed animals would, at least temporarily, access to an outdoor enclosure to receive”. The lowest level 1, which is for conventional housing, calls, corresponds, however, only the statutory minimum standard, the pig does not have access to Free and about a 110 pounds of heavy Mast a limited space of 0.75 square meters. This Form of advertising leads consumers astray, they destroyed also the willingness to pay for real animal protection.
If you want quality, organic Meat but can’t afford, or want, for the handle to the cheapest piece of meat to rational action. If I can verify the multiple benefits for the animal, the price is not a true indicator, then I maximize the own Benefit and pick up the Cheapest.
That price is no indicator more, because the lack of appreciation of the consumer is not to blame. Consumers in Germany, has for years taught “greed” was “good”. To buy from the discounters, so it was suggested to the consumers to be smart, because there is the same quality product will be available in other packaging for less money.
Politicians complain frequently reproachfully in the direction of the consumer, the appreciation for food in other countries is much higher. There, people spend a much higher percentage of their income on food, so your line of reasoning. Such an argument, closes the eyes before the connection of supply and demand. This logic that would have people in Saxony-Anhalt, a lower appreciation for affordable housing as a tenant in an expensive city like Munich – which is of course nonsense.
Relevant to the principle of “honest prices on the other hand is”. Types of farming, the concerns for animal welfare, generally lead to higher costs and prices also higher end Consumers. Cost-covering prices, to form finally on the market. Then you are for animal welfare, health and safety and climate protection reasons, be higher than it is now. Meat will be more expensive.
The starting point for the reconstruction of animal husbandry should be no new tax discussion
The animals and thus also to the image of agriculture would be a fundamental reconstruction of the livestock with higher legal Standards and more controls for the Verification of the actual animal health help. There is a need for binding targets, to which the farmers can align their investments and conversions. In the case of the improvements of the place should be the only factor, but the health of the animal. A sick pig to 0.9 square meters is not automatically better than a healthy to 0.75 square meters. There is more than that, and that’s the hallmark of a good and dedicated farmers. The animal welfare standards in a reliable increase. The best way to do so through ambitious legal requirements, a long-term improvement path, the farmers can rely on, and reliable state funding, make the way possible.
The starting point should be, therefore, no new tax discussion, but – in addition to the Label, a binding roadmap for the step increase in the statutory Standards, and a comprehensive control system. Exactly these Commitments, there is but so far neither the Federal government nor the länder. Too often, we have to listen, ultimately it is the consumers in the Hand, which he supports. This has been the last decades as an Illusion. Who repeated this Mantra again and again, wants nothing changes.
It is the Federal government can set Standards so that the conditions are right and the desired result: More animal welfare and fair income for the farmers. The new Commission future, agriculture will carry this insight hopefully. If in the centre of the discussion, but first, a new tax, and the consumer believes the price increases only because of the policy balanced, a tax on food, then we are neither the welfare nor the appreciation for the agricultural product closer.