8.3% of people cannot afford a proper meal in the EU

Eight in one hundred people in the EU cannot afford a proper meal according to data from 2022, shared on Eurostat. 8.3% of the EU population cannot afford a meal containing meat, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day, which is one percentage point higher compared with 2021 (7.3%). And when it comes to the percentage of people at risk of poverty, this was 2.2 percentage points higher than in 2021, at 19.7% vs. 17.5%.

This is a worrying situation, and varies quite widely between different EU countries. The highest share of people at risk of poverty unable to afford a proper meal was recorded in Bulgaria (44.6%), followed by Romania (43.0%) and Slovakia (40.5%). On the other hand, the lowest share was recorded in Ireland (5.0%), followed by Luxembourg (5.1%) and Cyprus (5.6%).

The capacity to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish or vegetarian equivalent every second day is among the items observed at the household level to calculate the severe material and social deprivation rate, which is one of the headline indicators of the European Pillar of Social Rights – Social Scoreboard of indicators. The capacity to afford a proper meal is also part of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The second goal, “Zero hunger” (SDG2), seeks expressly to eradicate hunger and all forms of malnutrition while ensuring access to safe, nutritious and adequate food.

In light of this concerning situation in Europe, a region considered to be amongst the most developed,  it seems quite illogical that the idea of imposing taxes on meat and dairy products to discourage the purchase of animal-source foods for other types of food, such as legumes and vegetables would gain much traction. In the desire to address environmental concerns, it should not be forgotten that meat and animal-source foods are irreplaceable sources of essential nutrients often missing or unavailable in plant-source foods. Ensuring sustainable production is important of course, but pushing such simplistic solutions that would further prohibit certain populations from affording a proper meal just doesn’t make sense.

A meat tax would threaten adequate nutrient intake, worsening the situation. On top of that, those with a higher income would probably continue to consume the same quantities of meat, while the less fortunate would be further deprived of it or purchase lesser quality foods, increasing social inequality. Ensuring the continued affordability of good quality red meat, chicken, and fish is essential to allow people to make the choice for meals that are healthy and complete.