Big Meat and Dairy are deploying tactics that delay, distract and derail climate action, according to a new report.
Sustainability NGO Changing Markets Foundation analysed the actions of 22 of the biggest meat and dairy companies in the world and found that instead of taking action on the climate crisis, the industry has used its weight to sway academic research, funnel millions into misinformation campaigns, access political power, and influence decision-making.
Yet, despite deploying the same tactics as Big Oil and Big Tobacco, Big Meat and Dairy influence still flies under the radar, the report says.
The New Merchants of Doubt report’s analysis breaks down the industry’s far-reaching influence in-depth, looking at the likes of Cargill, Tyson Foods, JBS, Fonterra, FrieslandCampina and Nestlé.
ESG Mena takes a look at the report’s findings.
Meat & Dairy’s Big Environmental Price Tag
From its resource intensity to its sky-high emissions, animal agriculture has a massive environmental footprint.
Indeed, as the NGO outlines, animal agriculture requires roughly 100 times more land than cereals for the farming of lamb, mutton, and beef—the latter responsible for 41 per cent of global deforestation. Meanwhile, the average water footprint per calorie for beef stands at 20 times that of grain.
Then there are the industry’s emissions.
Animal agriculture is responsible for almost 60 per cent of emissions linked to agricultural production, which accounts for an estimated 37 per cent of all global emissions.
This includes methane, a potent greenhouse gas, around 80 times more powerful than CO2 over 20 years.
Methane emissions account for an estimated 25 per cent of warming experienced today, and animal agriculture accounts for 32 per cent of it, with beef and dairy production accounting for the lion’s share.
For meat and dairy giants, methane emissions represent between 25 and 80 per cent of their emissions footprint.
But, from muddying people’s understanding of the science to putting forth unproven and unscaled techno-fixes as solutions, the report says these companies have done their best to evade scrutiny and avoid taking responsibility.
Downplaying Methane Emissions
One key tactic employed by Big Meat and Dairy to avert eyes away from their operations is deploying the argument that livestock methane emissions are “part of the natural biogenic Cycle.”
The report outlines that these claims have been propped up by academic institutions funded by the industry, such as CLEAR Center, a research group at the University of California Davis.
However, it notes that these arguments regarding the biogenic cycle fail to mention that methane levels are dramatically rising, with both the livestock industry and fossil fuels key drivers of this.
World Meteorological Organisation analysis from 2022 found that methane emissions in 2021 were 262 per cent above pre-industrial levels, largely because of the increased number of farmed ruminants.
Instead of taking action on methane, the report outlines that most companies prefer “not to talk” about methane emissions in their sustainability documents.
Just two companies—Nestlé and Danone—provide reporting on their methane emissions, with only the latter setting a methane reduction target.
This is despite the fact that some of the giants (JBS, Marfrig) are responsible for more methane than the output of whole countries, the report says.
But, when methane is discussed, the focus is on technical fixes such as feed additives and methane-reducing vaccines.
Indeed, the report reveals that at least 16 of the 22 companies publicly promoted the potential of technical fixes to reduce emissions.
These companies’ focus on unproven technologies is matched by a failure to actually fund them, scale them up, and implement them across their operations. Instead, they often ask for public money to fund these “solutions.”
Failure to Act
This failure aligns with the industry’s broader climate inaction, the report outlines.
Indeed, these companies’ GHG emissions are “so high” that they equal those of some fossil fuel companies.
Yet only a “handful” have set science-based targets, and a “fraction” have targets for Scope 3 emissions.
And there is no international framework covering their activities nor policies in jurisdictions where they operate that would set specific standards for monitoring, reporting or emission reduction targets, it says.
Recent research from climate experts outlines that global livestock emissions must decline 61 per cent by 2036, and diets shift to plant-based food to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
However, none of the companies analysed by the NGO have plans to reduce livestock numbers, and those who are expanding into plant-based are doing so as part of a diversified strategy to complement the growth of their core meat and dairy businesses rather than replace them.
The investigation also reveals that companies spend “much more” money on advertising than they do on low-carbon solutions.
In fact, just 1 per cent of their revenues go towards research and development.
The actual amount that goes into low-carbon solutions, it says, is probably only a small fraction of this, as most companies do not break down their R&D spending.
“Livestock methane emissions are a major driver of climate change, creating a crisis for the environment, public health, and future food security,” said Nusa Urbancic, CEO of Changing Markets Foundation.
“Instead of addressing this issue seriously, our research reveals that Big Meat and Dairy, including major global brands, have lobbied against progressive legislation, greenwashed their products to mislead consumers, and resisted the shift towards healthier, plant-based diets,” she noted.
Greenwashing is Rife
Indeed, against a backdrop of inaction, companies are spending the big bucks to convince the world otherwise—especially as consumers are now more likely to pay more for products with environmental claims.
Changing Markets Foundation has found greenwashing to be rife within Big Meat and Dairy, which has been exhibited in claims of “carbon neutral” beef and “carbon neutral” milk powder.
However, legislative changes in the EU banning such vague labels means that more companies have moved away from this wording, instead focusing messaging around emissions reductions.
Then, there are the more “subtle” forms of greenwashing. The report notes that this can be seen in advertisements depicting cows grazing in “empty, rolling green fields.”
In reality, according to The Sentience Institute, globally, an estimated 74 per cent of land livestock are actually factory-farmed.
Alongside blatant greenwashing, the industry has also co-opted movements such as regenerative agriculture, utilising the term’s loose definition and overstating the potential of soil carbon sequestration to argue that cows can contribute positively to climate change.
In contrast to these claims, a 2023 academic paper published in Nature Communications showed that carbon sequestration in soil has only a “very limited role” to play in mitigating climate warming caused by grazing animals.
The Net-Zero Farce
Another weapon of inaction in the industry’s arsenal is corporate net zero strategies, the report says.
Identified as “one of the most prominent ways in which companies greenwash,” the report found that of the 15 companies who have published or are working on a net zero or other type of climate target, just two—Nestlé and Danone—have pledges aligned with 1.5 degrees of warming under the SBTi’s highest ‘net zero’ standard.
Indeed, while seven companies (Bigard, Cargill, DMK, Marfrig, NH Group, OSI Group and Saputo) have no net zero – or equivalent – target, even the companies that do have weak ones.
Six companies (Arla, Danish Crown, Danone, Nestlé, FrieslandCampina and Vion) have received a 1.5˚C rating for their short-term emissions but have not set targets for longer-term emissions reductions.
Meanwhile, seven companies that have set net-zero targets did not have any targets approved as 1.5˚C compliant with the SBTi.
Overall, it was found that none of the targets set by the 15 companies meet the standard by the UN Expert group, published in the Integrity Matters report at COP27.
“Significant Concerns” with SBTi Evaluations
However, there are issues with the SBTi itself, and in recent months, the non-profit has been the subject of much controversy after a shock announcement from the organisation’s board to loosen its carbon credit rules.
Indeed, the report notes that there are “significant concerns” with the strength of the SBTi’s evaluations and reason to believe that companies that have had targets rated as 1.5˚C emission compliant by the SBTi are “a long way from this.”
Here, Changing Markets Foundation references an analysis by Planet Tracker from 2022, which found that Nestlé’s plan was on track for +2˚C and that, if it continues on its current trajectory, Nestlé’s emissions in 2030 will be almost double that advised by the SBTi.
Further, it outlines that its standards for short-term emissions contain “numerous gaps and loopholes,” in addition to them not mandating any action past the mid-2030s.
Moreover, although the industry is a significant contributor to rising methane emissions, the SBTi does not require companies to report methane and other non-CO2 emissions under its FLAG guidance.
Gen Z Targeted with “Misleading Advertising Campaigns”
Amid this industry inaction and greenwashing, people are increasingly concerned about both the state of the planet and their health, particularly Gen Z and millennials, and this is informing everything from their purchasing decisions to the companies they choose to work for.
However, Big Meat and Dairy are also aware of these shifts, and companies are deploying campaigns to ensure they don’t affect their bottom line, according to the report.
One way that the industry is doing this is by targeting this demographic with misleading advertising campaigns.
This misinformation ranges from using narratives that plant-based foods are “processed and full of unnatural chemicals” to claiming that meat and dairy are sustainably produced while alternative protein products are bad for the planet.
According to the report, the industry is using a number of methods to convey these narratives in its campaign to recruit Gen Z, from social media and online collaborations and infiltrating the education system to working with big PR firms—such as Edelman—for high-profile advertising efforts.
One example the report presents is an advert run by the Checkoff-funded body Milk PEP in the USA in 2023. The ad featured Aubrey Plaza in a parody of an advert for a type of milk named ‘Wood Milk.’
As Changing Markets Foundation explains, the advert centres around Plaza “attacking the authenticity of plant-based milks.” The final words of the ad? “Is Wood Milk real? Absolutely not. Only real milk is real.”
Another example is the Dairy Farmers of America’s campaign featuring YouTuber Sean Evans, host of the ‘Hot Ones’—a YouTube show where he interviews guests while eating spicy chicken wings. The campaign was centred on demonstrating that milk “cuts the heat in spicy foods” but can also help “keep the planet from getting too hot by lowering emissions.”
Beyond the digital realm, the industry is also looking to gain favour through the education system.
According to the report, dairy industry groups have pushed educational materials and programmes that present milk as a “healthy and necessary” choice for students, while the beef industry has produced industry-backed lesson plans, learning resources, in-person events and webinars.
The report also highlights findings from researchers at the University of Miami and Yale University, who found that “the animal agriculture industry is now involved in multiple multi-million-dollar efforts with universities to obstruct unfavourable policies as well as influence climate change policy and discourse.”
Conflicts of Interest and Revolving Doors
Much of the greatest influence bought by Big Meat and Dairy is through lobbying, and in recent years, the industry has utilised this in full force.
According to the report, the industry has spent millions on political donations, engaging in direct and indirect lobbying through industry groups to “ensure industry influence and the highest level of access.”
In the US, roughly 190 times more lobbying money is funnelled into animal-source food products than alternatives. Meanwhile, in the EU, it is three times higher.
Indeed, in the EU, the report outlines that seven of the 22 companies—the only ones that declare their lobbying efforts in the EU Transparency Register—spend €1.8-2.4 million per year lobbying EU institutions alone and employ 16 lobbyists.
Moreover, since November 2014, the 22 Big Meat and Dairy firms—and the 25 key trade groups they are members of— have had close to 600 top-level meetings with the European Commission.
And their lobbying efforts have been incredibly successful, as seen in the “decimated” Green Deal and the outcome of the Inflation Reduction Act, which failed to tackle methane emissions from the industry.
The report also highlights ongoing conflicts of interest, where elected politicians benefit from the agricultural subsidies they are supposed to reform, and revolving doors, where key policy experts come from the industry and return there after the end of their public office—this is seen most notably in the current US Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, who was president of the US Dairy Export Council before his new role and US Agriculture Secretary under Obama prior to that.
Indeed, meat and dairy subsidies are huge. The report highlights that the US government allocates $38 billion annually to subsidise meat and dairy industries while only dedicating 0.04 per cent ($17 million) to fruits and vegetables.
A $5 Big Mac would cost $13 if the retail price included hidden expenses that meat producers offload onto society, the report shares.
Steps for Driving Real Change
The report makes a list of recommendations for governments, companies and consumers, spelling out what’s needed from each to drive real change.
For the former, ambitious national methane action plans must be developed and implemented, and governments should also include wider food systems transformation in their upcoming National Determined Contributions (NDCs).
Another key area of recommendation is obliging companies operating in these markets to establish science-based emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C trajectory, including Scope 3 emissions and regular reporting of their progress.
The report also calls for reforms in subsidies to support more plant-based production and better farming practices, national targets for reduction in meat sales and food waste in supermarkets, the promotion of research and development for the uptake of plant-based foods and other meat and dairy alternatives and a crackdown on greenwashing.
On the company side of things, the report says that voluntary action is often used as a smokescreen, and will “not be enough to drive transition in the timescale needed for climate action,” which is why mandatory regulation on the side of government is critical.
That said, the report does make a number of recommendations on actions companies should take, including setting short- and long-term climate targets aligned with a 1.5°C temperature trajectory, which includes an “ambitious” methane target and regular, independently verified reporting of methane and other GHG emissions.
Companies should also present concrete plans that include disclosing investments on how they will reduce emissions from their supply chains, the report said, while carbon offsetting should be banned.
Disclosure of lobbying expenditures (including political donations and fees paid to consultancies and PR firms) is also key, and the report says that firms should leave industry associations that lobby against climate and health legislation.
It also calls for companies to invest in alternative protein, including plant-based and fermentation-based products, and set “clear trajectories” that include reductions of livestock numbers and a shift to less and better meat and dairy as well as more plant-based products.
Meanwhile, for consumers, the report says personal consumption of meat and dairy products should be reduced, shifting to healthier plant-based options.
Consumers should also put pressure on food companies to implement robust climate targets, which include reducing sales of meat and dairy and offering more plant-based options.
This can be facilitated by writing to companies, sharing and signing petitions, and through their purchasing power, the report says.
Alongside this, consumers should, where they can, support small organic farmers.
“This report exposes the blatant hypocrisy of Big Meat and Dairy, which claim to be committed to climate solutions while employing deceptive tactics to distract, delay and derail meaningful action. These tactics mirror those of Big Oil and Big Tobacco, allowing them to continue their harmful practices unchecked,” said Urbancic.
Adding: “This report further proves that the real battle lies not in telling people what to eat but in regulating corporate interests and reining their influence to derail the efforts to address the climate crisis.”