Is this click-bait hyperbole?
Wow the AI did a great job on the main title but is this too click-baity or should we tone it down a little? After giving it some thought, it seems to fit the scale of what is to come if we continue to do too little to combat climate change. However doing too little to fight climate change is precisely what Big Meat wants. Max suffering for all living, sentient beings. Whatever animal we are, be it farmed or born by accident or design, the thing that unites us is our desire to live without suffering and pain.
The only difference is that non-human animals are not able to communicate their desires in our language of choice. If they could converse, it’s highly probable that they would tell us they want the same things as we do. A suitable home, a way to provide for our families and to keep them safe and so on. What is at risk is our collective home, Planet Earth. It makes sense on every level for us to do whatever we can to protect it - what’s wrong with taking some climate action to avert the creation of Hell on Earth? Wildfires, food and water scarcity, flooding, extreme weather, mass population displacements, fish-less oceans, more pandemics and so on. Sure sounds hellish to me. Why the hell would Big Meat and Dairy actually want this?
Beware the cunning plans, beware the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt)
Credit Due
Before I continue, I just want to state that a lot of this blogpost uses information gathered from this report by Changing Markets. It’s over 200 pages long, meaning very few people will get around to reading it. This blogpost here is my attempt at summarising this report into a more digestible size whilst retaining its most salient points. So without wasting any more words, let’s get into it.
Why has the Meat and Dairy industry declared war on Climate Action?
As most of us know by now, there is immense urgency to take immediate Climate Action. With global temperatures increasing at an alarming rate, more and more people are witnessing extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts and floods with their very own eyes. Changing weather patterns are affecting agricultural production and water availability leading to food and water scarcity in many regions. Once people start experiencing the consequences first hand, what was once easily swept under the carpet becomes harder to brush off.
The meat industry contributes to the Climate Crisis in three main ways. Firstly, emissions from ruminants like cattle and sheep produce methane, a powerful greenhouse gas during their digestive process. Secondly, animal agriculture is the primary driver of global deforestation as livestock needs large amounts of land for grazing and feed production. What was once a carbon sink in the form of a forest turns into a net emitter as the stored carbon gets released into the atmosphere. Lastly the use of synthetic fertilisers in livestock production results in the release of nitrous oxide, another potent greenhouse gas.
The science is pretty clear. We cannot attain the goal set by the Paris Agreement unless we drastically reduce methane emissions via the consumption of animal products. For the Meat Industry this would spell disaster as the most effective climate-related policy focus would surely damage both their top and bottom lines. Precious short-term profits at risk means all out war. What about the long-term profits though? The Climate Crisis does not care how powerful your lobby is. There is no doubt that long term profits are at severe risk from climate change itself - it is a matter of when. As of right now at least, it’s a war that they’re winning because meat consumption is expected to increase, not decrease. This is largely because Big Meat has been able to learn from the very best in the manipulation game.
GOAT tactics, learn from the best
What tactics would you deploy if the shorter-term future of your entire industry was at peril? It would probably be wise to use the time-tested tactics that have been utilised by the GOATs (Greatest Of All Time) of stalling societal change in the name of profit. Yes that’s right, the tobacco and fossil fuel industry have both used this playbook to great effect.
OK. So what are these tactics then? Three verbs, all starting with “D” for some reason.
Distract! The first 'D' is the least aggressive
As any magician knows, distraction tactics are the cornerstone of any successful deception. Here the meat and dairy industries’ goals are to draw attention away from their lack of climate action.
Greenwashing is probably something you’ve heard of as it really is everywhere you look nowadays but what is it? Greenwashing is a deceptive marketing practice where companies make false or exaggerated claims about the environmental benefits of their products or services. This newly coined term probably drew inspiration from “Brainwashing” as the former describes the process of brainwashing the target into thinking that something is Green or makes them question what being Green means. A quick trip to the grocery store and you’re very likely to see some good real world examples of this. Some common greenwashing methods are:
Plaster the packaging with vague terms like “Eco-friendly”, “All natural” or “sustainable” without providing details about the environmental benefits.
Only focus on the pros. Companies tend to highlight a small environmental benefit whilst ignoring larger negatives.
Companies may even go as far as claiming they have certifications that they don’t actually possess.
Consumers that care more about sustainability are the ones that get screwed the most. The more dedicated portion of this segment is more willing to pay a price premium for a more sustainable choice but they are not able to discern between which companies are genuinely investing in sustainability and which are doing so under false pretence.
Some greenwashing methods are subtle to the point where you won’t even notice it until you pay careful attention. Packaging with imagery depicting cows grazing in vast green pastures are quite common whilst extremely rare in reality. This goes beyond greenwashing because it’s about ethics, not just being green. Typical marketing imagery portrays animals living in peaceful, pleasant environments. Another dimension of distraction to fool the ethical consumers that happen to care about animal welfare on top of the environmental footprint and so on. They are trying to sell you on a dream, a dream with hellish consequences.
If you are an environmentally or ethically conscious consumer you are “big game” to Big Meat and Dairy who are looking to profit off your back. YouGov ran some consumer polls and this showed that almost half of the consumers in Germany and the UK regularly buy products with sustainability labels or certifications with nearly one third being willing to pay extra for climate labels and one half being willing to pay extra for animal welfare labels. This illustrates how effectively Big Meat and Dairy can benefit from deploying distraction techniques on discerning consumers.
Nobody wants to be "big game". It sucks.
Thankfully it’s getting harder for these companies to continue with their misleading advertising as more lawsuits force companies to withdraw false claims. In June 2023, a US federal advertising body banned the net zero claims made by JBS because they did not find their claims to be backed by credible plans and later in March 2024 a greenwashing lawsuit was filed against JBS’s US subsidiary. In 2021, Danish Crown was forced to remove a claim about its pork being “climate controlled” from its packaging as a result of campaigners complaining.
The meat and dairy industries seem terribly fearful that Gen Z and Millennials are becoming more and more concerned about the environment. Polling from Pew Research found that 37% of Gen Z said addressing climate change was their top personal concern[1]. They are also concerned about health and are more likely to view plant-based foods as being more healthy. These environmental and health concerns pose a significant threat to these industries’ revenue via changes in their buying habits. According to the consumer market research company Circana, Gen Z bought 20% less milk than the national average in the US in 2022[2].
In response to this, many meat and dairy companies have made concerted efforts to target and win over the trust of the younger generations, with social media at the centre of their strategy - once again learning from the oil and gas industry which hired hundreds of content creators since 2017 to improve perceptions of their companies among the young, environmentally concerned demographic.
In 2022, Dairy Farmers of America launched a major new social media and digital marketing campaign to show how sustainable dairy is and how it can help protect our planet[3]. The campaign featured a collab with big-time YouTuber Sean Evans, host of the “Hot Ones” who has over 14 Million subscribers as of time of writing. The collaboration was also complemented by a series of digital and streaming adverts showing how Milk can help the planet by lowering emissions. Evans also promoted pro-milk facts to his 81 million followers on TikTok in a sponsored video on National Farmer’s Day.
Also in the US, Dairy Management Inc worked with Gen Z influencer Jimmy Donanldson also known as Mr Beast on Youtube with 315 Million subscribers to promote the National Dairy Checkoff’s Undeniably Dairy campaign. Edelman, the world’s largest and oldest PR company said that its work on the Undeniably Dairy Campaign garnered more than 271 million impressions and more than 72 million video views.
Yet again following the tactics of the fossil fuel companies, Big Meat and Dairy also target young people offline via the education system. This is nothing new of course as there is a long and successful history of pushing for milk to form an integral part of “healthy” and “balanced” school meals. Same goes for beef- for example as Wired reported in 2024, the American Farm Bureau Federation has produced industry-backed lesson plans, learning resources, in-person events and webinars as part of a programme to boost the cattle industry’s reputation over the past 8 years[4].
Imagine an Army of influencers at work...
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NBCA) is the beef industry’s main lobby group and they have created an online training course called the Masters of Beef Advocacy program (MBA). This has been remarkably successful as this admissions-only course now has more than 21,000 graduates, effectively creating an army of influencers that help perpetuate narratives and misinformation. We should not be too worried about the growing attention and concern around the environmental impacts of cattle production.
This is not just about providing the public with more pro-meat talking points but also about seeding doubt and misinformation about plant-based meat products all over the Internet. The efforts in their advertising and social media campaigns have most often taken the approach of attacking the authenticity and health credentials of plant-based products in hope of creating mistrust among consumers.
Some major blows were landed against meat and dairy alternatives such as a $5 Million Super Bowl advertisement that drew focus on methylcellulose, a scary sounding plant-based compound used as a stabiliser/binder/emulsifier found in a wide array of supermarket products from sauces, cakes, cookies, bread and even processed meat products like sausages to shampoos and creams. Predictably the ad targets youth and creates a scene of a spelling bee competition where children are asked to spell some of the ingredients of alternative protein products. The snappy punchline of the ad suggests “If you can’t spell it or pronounce it, maybe you shouldn’t be eating it”.
Shots were also fired on social media aimed squarely at meat and dairy alternatives from Professor Frank Mitloehner, head of the CLEAR Center at UC Davis, a high-profile actor. Among multiple attacks, one included tweeting a quiz that asked which ingredients are for Beyond and Impossible burgers and which are for dog food. This post went viral and created so much momentum that it was later adapted for an advert.
Advertisement featuring Aubrey Plaza mocking plant-based milks.
This torrent of content attacking alternatives to meat and dairy have become so widespread with social media users that the narratives have infiltrated diverse online communities including wellness influencers, the keto diet followers, the anti-seed oil crowd resulting in what feels like an echo chamber of users parroting the pro-meat and dairy narratives with high conviction.
Narratives are powerful because they are simple but they also need to be believable but how can Big Meat create narratives that disagree with scientific consensus? Well, they made their own scientific arguments to downplay their industry’s impact on the climate. They use academic institutions like UC Davis, Colorado state university to conduct studies that then legitimise their talking points. A famous example of this is “Regenerative Agriculture” which was covered in the Netflix show “Kiss the earth”. This narrative is all about how cows actually help the environment by regenerating soil. However there is substantial evidence that points to the contrary. This recent paper on soil carbon sequestration shows how this idea is untenable.
These pro-meat and dairy narratives are continuously being updated as can be seen by the push for a new metric that works in their favour - Global Warming Potential Star (GWP*). The scientific community uses a variety of different metrics for measuring the impacts of various greenhouse gases. GWP100 for example looks at methane’s impact over 100 years which has 30x the warming potential of CO2. This metric understandably is not popular with Big Meat and Dairy hence the push for GWP*. This new measurement method only takes into account changes in the current level of methane in the atmosphere. The half-life of atmospheric methane is approximately 12 years which means that after those 12 years, half of the methane initially released will have been removed or transformed into other compounds. They use this to argue that it’s therefore okay to keep emitting methane so long as they can keep atmospheric methane levels constant whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that over a 20 year period, methane warms the planet 80X faster than CO2.
Source: Changing Markets
Some scientists have concluded that GWP* is scientifically sound and a useful metric but only when applied in a global context and not in isolation - it is only one useful metric alongside other more established methods for measuring methane. The IPCC has specifically mentioned that contrary to some industry claims, it has not specifically recommended GPW*[5].
Delay! The second 'D' is all about denying the science and empty promises
The objective for these industries is to deploy tactics that successfully delay regulations. One of their go-to plays is to enthusiastically draw focus on hyping technological fixes to reduce methane which remain unlikely to be developed or scaled in the short-term. The industry creates the illusion of action by presenting all these fixes as silver bullet solutions - a miraculously simple and easy solution to the complex problem that is climate change while often at the same time refusing to invest in them. The next step would be to pair this delay tactic with industry-funded research, performed by industry-friendly scientists with the goal of developing favourable arguments and presenting them to policymakers.
Even when specific technological fixes show promise of efficacy, companies often refuse to invest in them out of their own pocket - they would rather spend that budget on advertising campaigns than on climate solutions. Instead, they ask the taxpayers to pay up! One example of this is biogas from manure excreted from livestock operations, which is presented as a ‘renewable’ energy source that relies heavily on public subsidies. The State of California has spent USD 600 Million of public money to fund the construction of ‘manure digesters’, the technology that converts manure into biogas. In the end, biogas still releases CO2, is highly flammable and explosive whilst being toxic to breathe.
Importantly these tactics draw attention away from and delay more transformative change - solutions that have the potential to actually decrease the sector’s emissions in the required timeframes to combat climate change. So what are these “technological solutions” then? Let’s cover some of these so you can get an idea.
Feed Additives
Probably the most common type of technological solution to methane emissions from enteric fermentation (cow digestion) proposed by companies is Feed Additives. These are added to the livestock feed to reduce the amount of methane produced by the cows on a daily basis. They are often identified as the most viable short-term solution to bringing down methane emissions by this sector. The most promising feed additive option is Bovaer, which is the trademarked name for the molecule 3-nitroxypropanalol which piqued the industry’s interest however this initial enthusiasm was short-lived. In 2023 Bloomberg reported that these companies had backed away from Bovaer after it had become commercially available in the EU citing cost concerns.
Vaccines
According to research groups Reisinger et al. and the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Consortium, reductions of 30% from methane vaccines are possible[6]. While the technology is now beyond the proof of concept stage, uncertainty around its efficacy remains. Like any other vaccine, these will have to go through medical approval processes which will delay time-to-market assuming they can be developed to work at commercial scale.
Selective Breeding
This method of reducing methane emissions from livestock is to selectively breed cattle to produce types of cow that emit less methane. One study into breeding techniques to reduce emissions estimated that methane reduction might reach 15% which is considerably lower than the Feed Additive Bovaer[7]. While this has the potential to be a cost-effective solution it is far from a quick fix. It will take time for inherited traits to come through and translate into methane reductions[8].
Another high profile tech solution: ZELP is a methane capturing mask.
Although these are the main 3 classes of technological solutions that companies use to stall transformational change by creating the illusion of action without any real spending or investment, this is not the only tactic - another one is arguing for diversified diets that still include meat and dairy as well plant-based options. This narrative works for them because it helps protect their core business.
For example the UK’s Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board’s “Let’s Eat Balanced” campaign encouraged consumers (youth in particular) to eat more meat in order to achieve a ‘balanced’ diet. This goes against the science because the UK is already consuming very high levels of meat so an act of balancing should surely mean reducing meat consumption towards the median or average.
Again this is reminiscent of oil and gas companies that have misled us by presenting themselves as diversified energy companies talking about meaningful green transition but if you follow the money, only fractional investments were made in these technologies. Lots of talk, too little walk. For example BP and Total, 2 major oil companies have been criticised for rebranding themselves to “Beyond Petroleum” and “Total Energies”. Names like these portray diversified energy companies while over 90% of their businesses are still in oil and gas[9,10,11].
These companies also appear unwilling to even talk about the idea of reducing meat consumption and treat it as a taboo subject. Those that do openly talk about reducing meat consumption only do so in a manner that yields an increase in emissions. Danish Crown for example talks about reducing meat consumption because while it’s true that European demand is falling, there is increasing demand in other regions such as East Asia.
As you’ve seen, Big Meat and Dairy don’t want things to change and will deploy the same distract and delay tactics to resist meaningful transformation, like reducing their herd sizes and switching to plant-based proteins.
Derail! The last 'D' is the most aggressive
This could be the endgame and represent the last bastion for Big Meat and Dairy. This is where they aggressively derail transformative policies that would require a complete overhaul of their business model. But did you know that the agricultural sector is special? It is protected from change.
The agricultural sector benefits from significant public support in the form of subsidies, granting farmers significant influence over policy decisions related to these subsidies. A study published in One Earth in 2023 found that both the US and EU governments predominantly supported animal-based production and consumption, despite scientific consensus on the need to reduce emissions from this sector[12].
Old MacDonald had a farm...
This ongoing support stems from "Agricultural Exceptionalism," which allows the sector to operate under different rules than other industries, leading to widespread abuse in the food system. This romanticised notion of farming masks the industry's negative impacts on climate change and mass pollution.
The US's notion of "feeding a hungry world" further shields the industry from environmental regulation. Agricultural Exceptionalism enables big meat and dairy companies to derail climate mitigation policies and operate outside of legal agreements. The industry's positive perception grants them access to corridors of power and permanent seats within government buildings. Public funding ties the industry closer to the government, making their engagement crucial for sustaining the system and profits.
They’ve been highly successful at derailing almost every policy that would force them to change using lobbies, government connections and fear mongering. Agricultural subsidies can create conflicts of interest because sometimes elected politicians benefit from the subsidies they were tasked with reforming. Once this process starts, it can result in revolving doors where key policy experts come from the industry and return there after they serve in public office. Tom Vilsack for example went from being a dairy industry lobbyist to the Secretary of Agriculture (under Obama) then to President of a dairy lobby group and finally to Secretary of Agriculture (under Biden). Tom Vilsack is just one of a whole host of lobbyists actively derailing changes that would force the Meat and Dairy industry to make significant changes to their business model.
Revolving doors - from industry into government office and back...
When policies actually make it past the lobbyists, Big Meat and Dairy resorts to fear mongering. Although most environmental policies would only affect large corporations, the industry creates fear among all the small family farmers by telling them that these policy changes would put their livelihoods at stake. This resulted in farmer protests across Europe which created the political justification for dropping urgently needed policies. Some protests even turned violent with farmers setting fires in the street. Interestingly, when climate protests do that they get arrested but when farmers do it, they are rewarded with meetings with high level politicians who can fulfil their demands. This highlights the problem that is Agricultural Exceptionalism.
There is also fear mongering targeting plant-based and lab-grown meats. Misinformation on social media on food and farming fell into two main categories:
Disparage - Plant-based products are unhealthy. Undermine scientific research and conspiracy theories “the global elite are planning a great reset”.
Enhance - Animal based food products are essential for good health whilst being environmentally friendly.
These loaded narratives were mainly pushed by mis-influencers ranging from far right commentators and conspiracy theorists to individuals promoting their own health and wellbeing brands and agendas. These ubiquitous narratives have decimated plant-based meat sales, driving revenue and stock prices to all-time lows.
The campaign's influence was so far-reaching that Italy prohibited lab-grown meat, asserting that it was a crafty conspiracy by Bill Gates and the global elite to control people by making them weaker.
Over a 12-month period, seven spikes in misinformation were observed, aligning suspiciously with crucial legislative events, indicating potential targeted campaigns.
A change of tune
Ok so we have covered “Distract”, “Delay” and “Derail”, Big Meat and Dairy’s go to tactics to stall climate action. These are arranged in order of desperation and aggression but what is next?
What we are starting to see on the market are interesting products like SMUG Dairy from global, traditional companies like Kerry Dairy, a dairy company that produces cheese, butter and milk etc.
SMUG Dairy is a brand of blended oat and dairy milk. It is positioned as a healthier, more sustainable alternative to traditional dairy milk. This is no longer greenwashing because it is not pretending to be more sustainable, it actually is because it contains more plant-based milk and less real dairy.
This is certainly a big change of tune after all that misinformation, fear mongering etc. Is Big Dairy finally admitting that plant-based milk has health benefits on top of being better for the planet? That's what it says on the packaging.
To me it feels like this idea of “fake it till you make it”. These industries were faking it with all their greenwashing efforts. Hybrid products like SMUG Dairy may indicate we are in transit but not there yet which means we have started to head in the right direction. Despite Big Meat and Dairy’s aggressive attempts to maintain the status quo, even their immense power will eventually succumb to market forces driven by ordinary consumers like you and me. We can move the needle but the thing is, we are running out of time. Plantee's mission is to accelerate the world's transition to a plant-based diet - find out more about it here.
References:
Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement With Issue. Pew Research Center
Got Milk? Not this Generation. Circana
DFA launches new nerd herd campaign for World Milk Day. Dairy Farmers of America
Inside the Beef Industry's Campaign to Influence Kids. WIRED
The Merchants of Doubt. Changing Markets
Can a vaccine for cows slash methane emissions? Fast Company 2022
Mitigation of greenhouse gases in dairy cattle via genetic selection. Science Direct
OFFLINE - Searchinger, T., Herrero, M., and Yan, X., et al. (2021) Opportunities to Reduce Methane Emissions from Global Agriculture (Discussion Paper)
Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum'. The Guardian
Oil giant Total rebrands as TotalEnergies, but some call it a greenwash. Electrek Energy Brief
Revealed: Two Thirds of Online Posts from Six Major European Fossil Fuel Companies ‘Greenwashing’
DeSmog