ArticleNature food2023
Animal welfare is a stronger determinant of public support for meat taxation than climate change mitigation in Germany.
Article in Nature food, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2023Trial
- Policy mix for a low-carbon food system.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Veterinary clients value animal welfare and environmental sustainability in pet food choices.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- A framework for a comprehensive animal welfare label: scientific, logistic, and ethical challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025Article
- A reform of value-added taxes on foods can have health, environmental and economic benefits in Europe.Nature food · 2025Article
- Using Animal Welfare Framing as an Effective Approach to Communicating Climate Change-A Review.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
- Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable.Nature food · 2024Article
- Data on Swiss citizens' preferences and perceptions of agricultural policy.Data in brief · 2024Article
- Why don't politicians talk about meat? The political psychology of human-animal relations in elections.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A tax on meat could help address the climate impact and animal welfare issues associated with the production of meat. Through a referendum choice experiment with more than 2,800 German citizens, we elicited support for a tax on meat by varying the following tax attributes: level and differentiation thereof, justification and salience of behavioural effects. Only at the lowest tax level tested do all tax variants receive support from most voters. Support is generally stronger if the tax is justified by animal welfare rather than climate change mitigation. Differentiated taxes that link the tax rate to the harmfulness of the product do not receive higher support than a uniform tax; this indifference is not driven by a failure to anticipate the differential impacts on consumption. While the introduction of meat taxation remains politically challenging, our results underscore the need for policymakers to clearly communicate underlying reasons for the tax and its intended behavioural effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.