In a stark parallel to the strategies once employed by Big Tobacco, the meat and dairy industry is deploying a sophisticated playbook to impede climate action, according to a new report from the Changing Markets Foundation, a global organization that investigates and exposes corporate practices. As global efforts to combat climate change intensify, these food giants are accused of using their considerable influence to distract, delay, and derail meaningful reforms in the agricultural sector.
The report paints a picture of an industry determined to maintain its status quo, even as scientific consensus points to the urgent need for transformation in our food systems. With agriculture responsible for about one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental impact of animal farming has become a critical focus in the fight against climate change.
Scientists agree that without significant reductions in methane emissions and decreased consumption of animal products, the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius is unattainable. Livestock emissions must peak by 2025 in high- and middle-income countries and be halved globally by 2030, presenting a formidable challenge to the industry.
The report outlines a three-pronged approach employed by Big Meat and Dairy:
Distract: Companies engage in greenwashing, making weak net-zero commitments and marketing their products as environmentally friendly. They target younger generations through social media, promoting misleading messages about the health benefits of meat and dairy while attacking plant-based alternatives.
Delay: To slow regulatory efforts, the industry highlights voluntary actions and investments in technological solutions. One such investment announced this week is Cargill's $1 million grant to Colorado State University's AgNext research program. This initiative will focus on reducing enteric methane emissions from feedlot cattle through diet experiments, with an aim to develop scalable solutions for the beef industry.
While Cargill emphasizes collaboration with researchers, farmers, and ranchers to enhance sustainability, critics argue that such programs primarily research ways to reduce emissions within the existing system, rather than exploring fundamental changes to industry practices. These investments, they contend, are often dwarfed by companies' advertising budgets, and truly transformative actions remain scarce.
Derail: Perhaps most concerning are the aggressive lobbying tactics and substantial political donations used to shape policy. The industry's influence has led to weakened or abandoned climate initiatives, particularly those targeting methane emissions from agriculture.
In a move reminiscent of past industry tactics, meat and dairy companies are investing in scientific research that supports their agenda. They fund studies to downplay the impact of methane emissions and promote industry-friendly metrics like GWP* (Global Warming Potential Star), which measures methane's warming impact differently from traditional methods. Unlike the standard GWP100 metric that assesses methane's impact over a 100-year period, GWP* focuses on the short-term effects of methane. This approach can potentially understate the long-term climate impact of continuous methane emissions, a key concern for environmental scientists.
The report highlights how the industry is co-opting the concept of regenerative agriculture. More than half of the companies analyzed are embracing this term to claim their business can be good for the planet. However, the industry-led "Regenerating Together" initiative reveals how this concept is being watered down.
All 33 founding members of this initiative are large food corporations, including major meat and dairy companies. The framework they've developed allows for a flexible approach that doesn't prohibit harmful practices or require reducing livestock numbers. It prioritizes farmer profitability and crop yields over environmental concerns.
Importantly, companies can be certified as "regenerative" without making progress on soil health or climate impact - two core principles of true regenerative agriculture. This approach risks greenwashing industrial farming practices without fundamentally changing the industry's environmental impact.
As scrutiny of the industry intensifies, calls for stronger regulatory action are growing. Changing Markets' report emphasizes the need for increased investment in alternative proteins and sustainable agricultural practices to transform the food system and mitigate climate change.
The challenge now lies with policymakers to implement effective regulations that can counter the industry's delaying tactics and ensure meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. As the clock ticks on climate action, the battle between environmental imperatives and industry resistance continues to shape the future of our food system and our planet.
