A new global report from the Changing Markets Foundation exposes the systematic tactics used by the world’s leading livestock and dairy companies to deflect, delay, and attempt to derail climate action. These are maneuvers and strategies to avoid implementing regulations that protect the environment and prevent temperature increases in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. It is not new to single out the meat and dairy industry as one of the biggest contributors to emissions and environmental pollution. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the meat sector emits more greenhouse gases than all global transportation combined (14.5% of total emissions).
Despite this clear implication in environmental damage, the Changing Markets report denounces that this economic activity benefits from exceptions, postponements and justifications to avoid the regulations that the rest of the industries must comply with, as well as citizens. It also highlights the power it has to block, hinder or even modify national and supranational regulations. “Our research reveals that the industry has managed to convince policy makers of the agricultural exception, obtaining several concessions, exemptions and delays in climate action in the sectors,” comments the foundation.
The report points out that the food sector is one of the sectors that can most change the emissions figures. Specifically, they cite scientific studies that highlight the increase in emissions in the meat industry and whose peak is expected to reach in 2025. After that, thanks to changes in consumption, it is believed that it will begin to decrease until reaching 50% of these emissions in 2030. “The science is clear: we cannot achieve the 1.5 degree temperature increase target of the Paris Agreement without significantly reducing methane emissions and the consumption of animal products. The agricultural sector is a major contributor to climate change through methane and nitrous oxide pollution and deforestation,” the report explains.
“Airsome” in the face of the laws
The report accuses the dairy and meat industries of having “largely evaded environmental regulations.” “In several countries,” it explains, the industry has managed to convince policymakers to adopt strategies that do not impose any type of penalty or incentive when regulating agricultural emissions, meaning that any changes in farming practices are “voluntary and dependent on additional financial incentives.” It also points out that these economic incentives are accompanied by large public subsidies that are difficult to change. “Unfortunately, current farm subsidies largely support the current status quo of large farms, benefiting large companies in the middle of the chain (known as “Big Ag”) and putting large companies out of business,” it explains.
Also denounced are the so-called revolving doors, a mechanism by which the meat and dairy industry ensures that it has legislators on its side. And this is not the only mechanism by which they show their power. In the report, they offer several examples of flagrant cases in the United States, but also in the European Union itself. This is the case of the agricultural lobby when it managed to decimate the Green Deal, which proposed to transform the European economy to produce net zero emissions by 2050.
“A key element of the Green Deal was the Farm to Fork strategy, which promised to create a “greener, healthier agricultural system” by dramatically reducing pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The strategy recognized that moving to “a more plant-based diet with less red and processed meat” would reduce the environmental impact of the food system. Ultimately, this regulation had to scale back its targets, soften its intentions, and continually delay its entry into force.
Lobbying work not always transparent. The report reveals that the companies analysed and the sectoral organisations to which they belong have had almost 600 high-level meetings with the European Commission since November 2014. But only seven of the companies declare their lobbying activities to the European Union Transparency Register. , employs 16 lobbyists and declares an annual expenditure of almost 2.4 million euros on lobbying activities with the European institutions.
Smokescreen and greenwashing
FAO already points out in a 2023 report that these emissions must change, especially regarding their origin. If we talk about direct emissions from the animal products sector, 60% come from “the enteric fermentation of ruminants and nitrous oxide from manure management systems”. To this must be added the emissions produced by the manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides for the production of animal feed, from the production of animal feed itself, from the transport of animal feed, live animals and livestock products, in addition to land use changes. involved in livestock farming.
Among the recommendations made by the UN agency – such as better forest use of pastures, a change in animal feed or a reduction in additives in feed – is the reduction of the consumption of these animal products responsible for so many emissions, waste of water and land and highly polluting waste. From environmental organizations such as Greenpeace to very prestigious institutions such as Harvard, they speak of the need to reduce the consumption of animal products for environmental, health and animal welfare reasons.
In the face of so much evidence, the meat and dairy industry is resisting. Changing Markets, in its analysis of 22 companies on four continents – Arla, Bigard, Cargill, DFA, Danish Crown, Danone, DMK, Fonterra, FrieslandCampina, Itoham, JBS, Lactalis, Marfrig, Mengniu, Nestlé, NH Foods Group, OSI Group, Saputo, Tyson, Vion, WH Group, Yili – highlighted their voluntary climate commitments, their allegations of greenwashing, their advertising investments against low-carbon solutions and their political engagement, which included political donations, meetings with politicians, money spent on lobbying, as well as narratives pushed to change public opinion.
All of these strategies also involve funding so-called scientific studies that they use to boost their image, contradict standards or push for legislative change. “The industry distracts us with the smokescreen of voluntary climate targets, environmentally friendly products and seemingly ambitious investments in emissions-reducing technologies, while behind the scenes it mobilizes significant resources to delay and derail progressive environmental legislation,” the Netherlands-based foundation denounces.
Target: the youngest audience
For the meat and dairy industry, it is also not insignificant that young people consume less meat than at other ages. As the Spanish Ministry of Consumer Affairs indicates, those under 35 consume significantly less meat products than others, such as those over 50. Therefore, to avoid losing consumers, these industries are focusing on the so-called Generation Z. They do this with advertising campaigns that Changing Markets describes as “misleading”, with “influencers” and with greater action on networks such as TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and other channels. “Social media tactics also translate into direct attacks on vegan diets and alternative proteins, which are considered ultra-processed and unhealthy options,” the report explains. A typical example is the action of Edelman, one of the oldest public relations firms in the world, which recently boasted of its success in discouraging young audiences from plant-based alternatives to dairy products.
On the other hand, the report also focuses on companies that have begun to realize that this activity is not sustainable. It cites the example of Danone or Nestlé, which are increasingly marketing plant-based products that replace dairy products and significantly reduce their footprint, according to the opinions they themselves publish to increasingly surveyed organizations. “Instead of investing in appropriate plans and trajectories to reduce emissions, the report reveals that companies prefer to invest in science that fits their interests. This becomes particularly evident when the impact of the sector’s methane emissions is minimized,” the report details.
Another strategy revealed by the report is the delay in taking action. Many companies analyzed ask for more time to analyze and study new forms of industrialization, packaging, production or transportation in order to minimize the impact on the environment. The reality is very different: “Although they present technological solutions in their public relations and marketing materials, our research shows that they spend on average 1% of their revenues on research and development. The actual amount spent on low-carbon solutions is probably only a small fraction of this amount, because most companies do not detail where their R&D spending goes,” he says.
Diversify markets, do not replace polluting products
The report is particularly negative with the progression of 100% plant-based products of the companies analyzed. While it is true that they are increasing, the foundation believes that this is due to a commercial strategy and not an environmental one. “One study concluded that a change in diet could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 3.10 Gt of CO2. This reduction could more than double to 6.22 Gt of CO2 equivalent if unused land were used for carbon reduction. However, our research shows that while some companies are investing in alternative proteins, they are doing so with the intention of developing an additional market and not as part of a transition to more plant-based products and fewer higher-quality animal products.
Finally, Changing Markets concludes that the techniques and tactics analyzed are very similar to those of the big oil companies in terms of their responsibility towards the environment. “As the industry struggles to resist any reduction in livestock numbers and the transition to healthier, plant-based diets, we must take urgent action to regulate the industry, reduce emissions and invest in alternatives. While tobacco and oil giants are under scrutiny, so too should big agriculture,” it concludes.
