Former FAO officials accuse the UN agency of having silenced them and of having underestimated the role of livestock farming in global warming.
The allegation revealed by the Guardian is a serious one: former FAO officials have recently accused the agency of having deliberately sabotaged attempts to investigate the link between livestock farming, methane emissions and global warming.
Members of the team at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), headquartered in Rome, tasked with estimating livestock's contribution to rising temperatures, have spoken of internal pressure exerted by the agency's senior levels, which were themselves subjected to pressure from lobbies and member states. In short, the FAO is alleged to have deliberately underestimated the emissions produced by intensive livestock farming in order to prevent more restrictive containment measures from being adopted.
The echo of these accusations goes back to 2006, when "Livestock's long shadow" was drawn up — a pioneering report that for the first time quantified the environmental impact of the meat and dairy industry. According to the report, livestock farming, particularly cattle, contributed 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The report's release not only shook the environmental debate but also attracted media attention through documentaries such as "Meat the truth" and "Cowspiracy". However, it unleashed a storm of criticism from the meat industry, which had long regarded the FAO as a reliable ally.
Former FAO officials maintain that a vigorous campaign of ostracism against them began, and continued until at least 2019. In 2009, the FAO delayed the publication of a second report, "Livestock in the balance", by several months. Subsequently, senior agency officials "softened" key passages of another report and even "buried" a further study, "Agriculture at the crossroads", which described livestock as "arguably the largest sectoral source of water pollution". In short, a full-blown cover-up.
The FAO, founded in 1945 with the aim of ending hunger and improving global nutrition, has, according to the Guardian, been accused of representing the industry rather than scrutinising it.
The figures themselves for emissions attributed to livestock farming were revised downwards, from 18 per cent to 14.5 per cent in a 2013 document, and subsequently to 11.2 per cent. How did the FAO justify this downward trend? Simply by saying that the changes in the figures were due to better practices and methodologies adopted, and to more sophisticated analytical tools. At the same time, however, scientific studies outside the FAO tended to confirm a higher emissions percentage, ranging between 16.5 per cent and 28.1 per cent. Indeed, a recent academic paper by Matthew Hayek, professor of environmental sciences at New York University, argued that the FAO's use of models rather than verifiable monitoring data may have underestimated methane emissions from livestock by as much as 90 per cent in countries such as the United States.
The agency has consistently reacted against its most critical officials, excluding them from meetings. Hans R. Herren, lead author of "Agriculture at the crossroads", revealed that he had been subjected to pressure not to publish the document by countries including the United States and Australia. Henning Steinfeld, head of the FAO's livestock analysis unit, reported meetings between diplomats and meat industry lobbies on one side and FAO senior management on the other, with the former seeking to discourage research into the environmental impact of livestock farming.
The group of researchers had no idea what they were letting themselves in for by doing their jobs. "The lobbyists managed to influence the FAO", a former official told the Guardian, on condition of anonymity. "They had a strong impact on the way things were done and one lived in a climate of censorship. Getting documents through the corporate communications office was an uphill struggle and you had to factor in a fair amount of editorial vandalism."
The Guardian compares the pressure experienced by the officials to that exerted by the fossil fuel industry on energy policy. The FAO, like many other agencies, relies on external funding, which makes it susceptible to pressure. The issue raises crucial questions about the role of the UN agency in addressing global environmental challenges and about the influence of industry lobbies in shaping environmental policy. For now, the FAO and the meat and dairy industry have refused to comment on the allegations.
