When it comes to meat in relation to sustainability and the climate, the conversation often centres on the choices that can be made at an individual level: what I buy and where, what I eat and why. And so on. Indeed, the communication strategy of large industries has, for decades, been precisely to concentrate responsibility for pollution and rising greenhouse gas emissions on the individual, on the person. In the case of fossil fuel products, for example, the aim was to divert attention away from the activities of production and industry so that they could offload responsibility and maintain their own business as usual. But in the case of the meat industry, too, the issue of individual responsibility is continuously promoted – and not only by the industries themselves.

The impact of the meat industry

According to an analysis by researchers at the University of Oxford, Stanford University and the State University of New York, between 2006 and 2018 media platforms in the United States and the United Kingdom rarely reported on the link between the consumption of animal-based foods and climate change. The authors of the study observed that when the media did cover the topic, they placed far greater emphasis on the impact of individual consumer choices than on the responsibility of large meat companies.

It is clear that individual choices are important – indeed, fundamental. But by focusing solely on individual responsibility, there is a risk of completely overlooking that of industries. According to the most recent estimates, approximately 14 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the meat and dairy industries. Meat production has more than quadrupled over the past sixty years. Despite this enormous growth, projections suggest that the world is still far from reaching what is known as "peak meat" – that is, the maximum level of meat production. Companies know this. And it is in this context that they have stepped up their efforts to market their products as "sustainable".

The meat industry has deployed several strategies to appear sustainable, according to a recent investigation by DeSmog, an independent news platform that combats climate denial and disinformation. The investigation focused primarily on the communication and lobbying activities of the meat industry over a five-month period and examined hundreds of documents and statements from companies and industry trade associations.

DeSmog ✓ @DeSmog

𝕏

“Our strong belief, based on the science, is that livestock and animal source food benefits people and the planet,” says Hsin Huang from the International Meat Secretariat.

Check out Desmog's new investigation on the meat industry’s “climate-washing”.
buff.ly/3kvIeWp

♥ 14💬 2 26 lug 2021 · Apri su X →

The investigation concluded that the most commonly used strategies are the following:

• downplaying the impact of livestock farming on the climate;
• casting doubt on the effectiveness of meat alternatives and meat substitutes;
• promoting the health benefits of meat while at the same time overlooking the industry's environmental footprint;
• overstating the potential of agricultural innovations to reduce the ecological impact of the livestock farming industry.

The industry's communication tactics, from tobacco to meat

Also according to the investigation, the meat industry is following a path already trodden by fossil fuel companies and, before them, by those in the tobacco sector. Both industries denied the risks of their products and concealed the link between their activities and the harmful consequences for health and the environment. "Like the tobacco and fossil fuel industries before it, the meat industry is engaged in a communication battle," DeSmog argues.

In particular, the investigation identified a series of tactics that are deployed in a more specific way by the meat sector. Producers aim to minimise — at least in appearance — the impact of their products. To that end, they often withhold certain information from the public. For example, land use and land-use change involve emissions that fall, according to the classification of greenhouse gas emissions, under what is known as Scope 3, the third category, which covers indirect emissions: in the case of livestock farming, the grazing of cattle and the cultivation of crops for feed production.

Studies show that these activities account for the majority of the sector's emissions, yet many meat companies exclude them when calculating their CO2 footprint, DeSmog argues. The result is that the emissions calculations of many companies do not account for land use: an intentional omission that significantly reduces the total emissions figure, the investigation concludes.

Another tactic employed, according to DeSmog, is that of presenting meat as a "solution" to world hunger. The largest producers justify the expansion of the industry on the premise that "meat is indispensable for feeding the growing global population." Many experts, however, contest this argument and stress the need to change practices in a way that respects the climate, ecosystems and animals. In Italy alone, for example, livestock farming is consuming 39 per cent of the natural resources of the country's agricultural land. Furthermore, the United Nations argues that the emphasis should be on supporting small farmers, whose livelihoods could be threatened by the expansion of multinational meat giants.

The argument of justifying ever-growing meat production as a solution to global hunger closely resembles the justification offered by the fossil fuel industry for continuing its activities undisturbed, when it claims that fossil fuels are "an essential factor in eradicating poverty and achieving a decent life on this planet."

Finally, another tactic of the meat industry is to overstate the potential of certain technological innovations that are supposed to make the industry "sustainable". DeSmog argues that "the meat industry constantly talks about innovations that, it claims, will soon drastically reduce the sector's emissions."

One need only read DeSmog's investigation to understand that there are several points of contact between the strategies of the meat industry and those of other polluting and harmful industries that came before it. But unlike the fossil fuel industries, which for decades denied the existence of global warming, and the tobacco industries, which for just as long denied the health harms of smoking, research from New York University highlights how the meat sector has sought above all to downplay the link between its products and climate change through targeted communication strategies and political lobbying.