EVU finds higher VAT on plant-based foods in 12 EU countries

Plant-based foods face higher VAT than comparable animal products in 12 EU countries, according to a European Vegetarian Union (EVU) report that calls for common classification guidance to remove tax disadvantages affecting alternatives to milk, meat and fish.

• Twelve EU countries apply higher standing VAT to some plant-based foods.
• Plant-based drinks face the most widespread gaps.
• EVU wants common classification guidance.

The analysis, VAT Rates of Plant-Based Foods 2026: A Level Playing Field, finds that tax differences alone can make some plant-based products 17-21% more expensive at the checkout when compared with animal-based equivalents carrying identical pre-tax prices.

The report compares 33 food categories across all 27 member states, using rates collected by EVU members and partner organizations between March and August 2026. Its comparisons use standing retail VAT rates, excluding temporary relief measures and other taxes on food and beverages.

Across 405 comparisons covering 15 product pairs, 83% are taxed equally and 17% carry a higher rate on the plant-based product. None of those pairs shows a lower rate for the plant-based alternative.

However, the gaps are concentrated in particular countries and categories, with plant-based drinks the most frequently affected. Eight countries tax soy, oat and almond drinks above cow’s milk: Austria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.

Hungary has the largest absolute differential recorded. The report lists a 27% rate for plant-based drinks, meat and fish alternatives, compared with 5% for their relevant animal-based comparators, a difference of 22 percentage points.

Italy has the largest relative difference, applying 22% to plant-based drinks against 4% for cow’s milk. That represents a VAT rate 450% higher, rather than a product price 450% higher. For products with the same pre-tax price, the resulting difference at the checkout is 17.3%.

The equivalent calculation produces a 21% premium in Hungary, 19% in Croatia and 16% in Portugal for the product comparisons carrying those countries’ largest gaps. These are calculated tax effects, not measurements of actual supermarket prices.

EVU argues that the discrepancies place an additional cost on consumers choosing plant-based foods and on manufacturers competing with animal-based products. The organization, an umbrella association advocating increased production and consumption of plant foods, identifies national classification decisions as the main cause.

Some reduced-rate lists and customs categories were established before modern plant-based alternatives reached the market. When governments define preferential treatment around those classifications, newer products can fall outside the reduced bracket even when consumers use them for a similar purpose.

The report points to cow’s milk and plant-based drinks being classified in different customs chapters. Germany, for example, applies 19% VAT to the surveyed plant-based drinks against 7% for cow’s milk.

Rules distinguishing processed and unprocessed foods create another source of unequal treatment. Plant-based alternatives are generally classified as processed, which can exclude them from reductions available to fresh animal products.

Portugal illustrates how the treatment varies by format. Plant-based meat cuts and mince are taxed at 23%, compared with 6% for conventional equivalents. Yet plant-based nuggets and sausages are at parity with their animal-based comparators because both fall within the 23% bracket.

For burgers, the report records a 23% rate for pulse-based products against a range of 6-23% for meat burgers, depending on the product. A fresh meat preparation can therefore receive a reduced rate unavailable to its pulse-based alternative.

The analysis also covers traditional plant proteins, including tofu, tempeh, seitan and pulses, which it benchmarks against fresh meat rather than treating as direct product pairs.

This comparison finds that tax disadvantages extend to established protein staples. Hungary taxes both dry and canned pulses at 27%, against 5% for fresh meat, while Slovakia applies 19% to pulses against 5% for fresh meat.

Canning can itself trigger a higher rate. Croatia taxes canned pulses at 25% and dry pulses at 5%; Portugal applies 23% and 6%, respectively. Spain taxes canned pulses at 10% and dry pulses at 4%, with the latter below its 10% fresh-meat rate.

Croatia, Hungary and Poland each apply higher rates to plant-based products in 11 of the 15 direct pairs. The scale differs substantially: Poland’s gaps are three percentage points, while Croatia’s are 20 percentage points across its affected pairs.

Fifteen countries show parity across the surveyed categories under their standing rate structures. EVU cautions that equal treatment does not necessarily mean a low tax burden: the rates range from zero in Ireland and Malta to 25% in Denmark.

“A uniform rate guarantees parity, but not affordability,” the report states.

Temporary measures complicate that picture. Latvia is classified according to its standing 21% rate, although temporary relief on products including milk and fresh poultry is not extended to plant-based alternatives. Sweden’s temporary food VAT reduction is also excluded from the baseline comparison.

The study does not measure the effect of tax changes on sales. It cites research showing that price affects purchasing, while acknowledging that VAT reductions are not always passed through fully to shoppers.

Its discussion of retailer price-parity initiatives also notes that pricing was combined with other changes, meaning the contribution of price alone cannot be isolated. EVU calls for further studies examining the impact of recent tax reforms.

The organization argues that governments can align comparable products without replacing differentiated VAT systems. It identifies revisions in Czechia, Portugal and Belgium as examples of plant-based drinks being brought into the same reduced category as cow’s milk.

EU rules already provide scope for reduced, super-reduced and zero rates on food, subject to the VAT framework. Member states determine their rates and the categories receiving them.

EVU wants EU-level guidance establishing common classification criteria, while retaining national control over rate levels. Its recommendation is to include functionally comparable plant-based products whenever governments define reduced-rate categories for core or essential foods.

‍If you liked this, check these out...

• UK plant-based meat remains 34% pricier as Dutch market reaches parity

• Price remains the biggest hurdle for alternative proteins, major Lancet review finds

• World Animal Protection Canada urges grocers to turn plant-based demand into sales