Why no one talks about animal agriculture
"Harvesting Denial, Distractions,& Deception: Revealing Animal Agriculture’s Disinformation Strategies and Exploring Solutions” reveals an unsettling landscape of misinformation and disinformation.
Whatever it achieved, in one respect at least, COP28 was ‘historic’: two thirds of the food served at the event was either vegan or vegetarian. Dubbed the ‘1.5°C-aligned menu’, the decision was the result of (arguably) years of campaigning by advocates to address the impact of food systems on climate and nature [1].
More good news followed: during the conference itself, world leaders endorsed the COP28 UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action; the first ever Global Stocktake made clear that food was vital in the response to climate change; the FAO released its Global Roadmap for Sustainable Food Systems and an Alliance of Champions for Food Systems Transformation was launched. Meanwhile, governments and foundations came together to commit financial support to growing sustainable food systems, including $519 million from the UAE, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Bezos Earth Fund and more. [2]
Given the vulnerabilities of food production to the impacts of climate change, it felt welcome but long overdue - and of course, results have yet to be seen. But, while the menu was (mostly) plantbased, talks steered clear of overtly naming on the cow in the room, that is animal agriculture. Given the industry’s disproportionate impact on greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, pollution, animal cruelty, wild species extinction and, finally, world hunger (somehow, finding the resources to feed up to 100 billion animals while a billion - and rising - humans starve), this remains a constant but shocking omission.
It’s not accidental, says a new report, the first by consumer advocacy organization Freedom Food Alliance. Titled "Harvesting Denial, Distractions & Deception: Revealing Animal Agriculture’s Disinformation Strategies and Exploring Solutions," the study reveals an unsettling landscape of misinformation and disinformation, with million dollar campaigns by the industry to slow down the shift from animal-based foods to plant-based ones. [3] “Animal agriculture giants are waging a disinformation war, threatening public health and the planet,” said lead author Nicholas Carter, Director of Environmental Science at the Game Changers Institute and co-creator of Plant Based Data. “Our report exposes their tactics of denial and delay and underscores the need for urgent action.”
Examining the narratives and discourse of the full data community is key to gaining a fuller understanding of the conversations relating to meat and dairy misinformation. From Changing Markets Report: Truth, lies and culture wars: Social listening analysis of meat and dairy persuasion narratives
Changing the stories
Charting animal agriculture’s strategies to ‘deny, derail, delay, deflect and distract meaningful discussion’ makes for depressing reading. Anyone familiar with the Discourses of Delay, the seminal 2020 report by Cambridge University on arguments used to avoid climate action [4], will recognise the terminology. The same strategies are used by other destructive industries including plastics and, in its heyday, tobacco (remember when people were told that smoking was good for them?). When, for example, the prestigious EAT-Lancet Commission Report concluded that, to meet the Paris Agreement, global consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes would have to double, and consumption of red meat and sugar halve [5], its launch and its findings were disrupted by a digital #YesToMeat campaign co-ordinated by US livestock feed industry association iFEEDER.
If you want to see how artificial intelligence is used to manipulate social media narratives, look no further. In the UK, earlier this year, during Veganuary, when DeSmog revealed that a meat-funded government body in the UK – the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board – launched an ad campaign targeting Gen Z called Let’s Eat Balanced.
"While conversations in social media such as Twitter only give you a glimpse of discussions online, it's worrying to see such a clear and successful digital backlash to insights provided by an ambitious scientific synthesis such as the EAT Lancet," said Victor Galaz, co-author and Deputy Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, at the time. But, if there’s one thing animal agriculture has in bucket loads, that’s cash. Between 2015-2020, financial institutions gave over $478bn to meat and dairy corporations (compared to the $5.9bn in investments received by plantbased alternatives, between 2010 and 2020). Worldwide, every single year, more than US$200bn of public money is given to farmers mainly for raising animals or commodity feed cropping.
Funding for an online digital campaign, then, feels like peanuts. Industry groups like the North American Meat Institute (members: Cargill, JBS USA, Smithfield Foods and more) pay researchers and academics to cover specific meat production and consumption impacts; if they don’t like the findings, they hold back the funding. More insidious still is ‘astroturfing’, the creation of fake grassroots organizations paid for by large corporations. Names such as Citizens for X, Save the X - and #YesToMeat - give the illusion of popular support, while social media feeds are flooded with comments and content under multiple pseudonyms. Wikipedia pages are ‘adjusted’ and influencers monitored round-the-clock in case ‘rapid response counter-measures’ need to be deployed.
Harvesting Denial cites the Beef Checkoff Program, a pot of public funds to which all US beef and pork farmers and ranchers are required to contribute, that pays for meat-positive messaging. Managed by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB), the fund has enabled choice headlines such as “Land without cattle could mean land without butterflies and deer”, “Nicely done, beef. You’ve just proved that meat substitutes are just that. Substitutes” - and, of course, “We’re beefing up sustainability through regenerative grazing.”
Regenerative grazing is a current ‘mot du jour’ for meat and dairy - and a challenge for those who think systemically about climate issues. Essentially a form of greenwashing, the regenerative agriculture movement works hard to delay change away from animal-based foods by appealing to interests shared by nature advocates, such as soil health. Holistic grazing is positioned as the alternative to intensive practices and as a carbon sink. On paper, it is the issue that could draw together animal agriculturists and nature protectors. Unfortunately, science disagrees.
A 2020 meta-analysis by the University of Alberta concluded that livestock exclusion increased abundance and diversity [6]; a 2021 meta-analysis by Su & Xu found something similar, that removing cows from the land enhanced plant production and soil carbon. [7] In Grazed and Confused (2017), by the University of Oxford: “Only under very specific conditions can [grazing] help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the GHG emissions these grazing animals generate.” [8] Is regenerative grazing the net zero of nature restoration; a clever manipulation to maintain the status quo?
Playing the victim
The list goes on: from the fear mongering campaign about plant-based foods as ultra-processed (whereas sausages and processed meats tend to top those lists) to the exploitation of the topic of food security to rationalize meat consumption in affluent nations. Gorges rise most, however, when the industry portrays itself as targets of unjust scrutiny. When the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (IATP), Desmog, and Feedback highlighted JBS’ slow progress towards its ‘net zero by 2040’ goals, the world’s largest meatpacking company cited “flawed methodology and grossly extrapolated data to make misleading claims.”
In instances like this, advocates for future-friendly foods then invest substantial resources in fact-checking, research, and persuasive communication to debunk these narratives. “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it,” wrote Phil Williamson in a 2016 article in Nature, aptly called ‘Take the time and effort to correct misinformation.’ [9]
But despite a long history of multiple polluting industries using these tactics, scientists, policymakers and the general public alike are still ill-equipped to confront them. The report - endorsed by author George Monbiot, Dr Shireen Kassam, Founder of Plant-Based Health Professionals UK, CEO Changing Markets Nusa Urbancic and Dale Vince, Founder of Ecotricity - explores current and potential solutions that address the challenges at hand.
Approaches are multi-faceted but united by a common necessity: the need for more and better education. Individuals have to hone skills in media literacy, in data interpretation, and in understanding the basics of scientific inquiry. They need to be able to critically evaluate the information they consume; and scientists and other experts need to be encouraged to actively engage with the public, as well as use available tech to flag disinformation. Last year, NGO Global Witness developed an online tool to monitor and reveal deforestation connected to JBS. The twitter bot, called ‘Brazil Big Beef Watch, detected an average of 64 football pitches of deforested land every single week in 2022.
Last month, lawmakers in the United States and the United Kingdom sent letters to the Securities and Exchange Commission, vehemently cautioning against the listing of JBS on the New York Stock Exchange.
Welcome to the uprising
Reminding the animal agriculture industries that they are not financially immune to breakdown hits where it hurts: the wallet. According to investor network FAIRR, current global warming pathways towards 2°C render vast swathes of the planet ‘unliveable’ - and certainly harder to cultivate animals for their meat. In this bleak scenario, meat and dairy giants face higher feed and fertilizer prices, increased animal deaths, higher carbon taxes and more. But, of the 40 meat and dairy companies assessed, only 6 had a climate scenario analysis; 88% of publicly listed meat & dairy companies which supply to the likes of McDonalds, Nestlé, & Tesco don’t track methane emissions (2019 FAIRR survey); 93% of the listed meat & dairy firms (so, world leaders in deforestation) don’t have deforestation policies.
Even now, funders are demanding accountability, prompting shareholders to withdraw support. Last month, lawmakers in the United States and the United Kingdom sent letters to the Securities and Exchange Commission, vehemently cautioning against the listing of JBS on the New York Stock Exchange, arguing that expanded capital would allow the company, responsible for so much deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, to do even more harm. [10]
Evidence of citizens rising gives the authors hope - “that society can successfully navigate and manage a transition to a plant-based food system, one that’s better equipped to handle misinformation and disinformation.” Around the world, student groups are urging universities to refuse animal agriculture research money, to divest from it and to offer plant-based research as a default instead. Employees of animal agriculture, as much subject to exploitation as the pitiful animals trapped within the system, could start to engage in protest, in whistle blowing and in vocal dissent; experts might also align against their own industry to unveil practices.
Holding companies responsible, regulating corporate climate and animal agriculture transition plans and the continued pressure of environmental organizations, as well as a comprehensive meat representative database would help, with some efforts already underway .
“Sources of pressure that could accelerate the transition may be found in new social norms and values around diet-related diseases, awareness of the environmental impacts of the food system and its contribution to the climate and biodiversity crises, and the growing “eco-anxiety” and concerns about the future among young generations,” write the report’s authors.
“Destabilizing events from ecological collapse - including a warmer planet with more extreme weather events, the consequences of mass extinction events, and zoonotic diseases and pandemics - will only increase the urgency for food changes to plant-based and animal- free systems. While there may be livelihood disruptions in attempting to proactively get there in the short-term, these impacts will be minimal in comparison to the major societal disruption from these fully realized crises.” Whether they go down gently or put up a fight, could it be that meat and dairy are finished?
Reference:
Chiorando, M. (2023) Two thirds of all food served at COP28 will be vegan and vegetarian in move described as ‘historic decision’, https://www.veganfoodandliving.com/news/food-cop28-vegan-vegetarian-historic-decision/
Davey, E. (2023) 6 Major Food Breakthroughs at COP28 — and What Comes Next https://www.wri.org/insights/food-system-breakthroughs-cop28-whats-next
Carter, N. (2023) Harvesting Denial, Distractions & Deception. https://www.thefreedomfoodalliance.org/report/home
Lamb, W., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Timmons Roberts, J.; Capstick, S., Creutizig, F., Minx, J., Muller-Hansen, F., Culhane, T., Steinberger, J. (2020) Discourses of climate delay. Published online by Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/discourses-of-climate-delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7
Willett, W., Rockström, J., EAT-Lancet Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems (xxx) https://eatforum.org/content/uploads/2019/07/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf
Filazzola, A., Brown, C., Dettlaff, M.A., Batbaatar, A., Grenke, J., Bao, T., Peetoom Heida, I., & Cahill Jr, J.F. (2020). The effects of livestock grazing on biodiversity are multi- trophic: a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 23(8), pp.1298-1309
Su, J., & Xu, F. (2021). Land Degradation & Development, 32(11), 3326-3337.
Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., De Boer, I.J.M., zu Ermgassen, E., Herrero, M., Van Middelaar, C.E., Schader, C., & Van Zanten, H.H.E. (2017). Grazed and confused?: ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question-and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions. Food. Climate Research Network, University of Oxford.
Williamson, P. (2016) ‘Take the time and effort to correct misinformation’ https://www.nature.com/articles/540171a
Maisonnave, F. and the Associated Press. Big Meat giant JBS’ bid to list on NYSE draws widespread opposition from UK, US lawmakers over Amazon deforestation. https://fortune.com/2024/01/18/jbs-big-meat-brazil-new-york-stock-exchange-deforestation-amazon/?ref=biztoc.com
