Knew it. My bullshit detector is finely tuned.

The animal agriculture industry hired scientists to produce industry-friendly emissions reports and challenge individual action, influenced public discourse around dietary change, and created a front group, the Food Facts Coalition, with a mission to defend the industry against ‘anti-cow arguments’. The animal agriculture industry’s response to individual dietary change illustrates a unique form of climate obstruction and suggests that an industry’s approach to personal responsibility is context-dependent and action-specific.

It’s not even the usual scam disinformation, they get into fascist fantasies, as made clear with the “alt” right types, Jordan Peterson and others. They treat beef as a better “masculinity” supplement than injecting testosterone or taking ED pills. Yet another nightmare forming fantastic narrative unleashed to protect a capital sector that’s destroying the world.

The animal agriculture industry’s opposition to dietary change contrasts with the oil and gas industry’s support for individual energy reduction and shows that industry attitudes towards individual action are context-dependent and action-specific.

Yeah, that’s because the fossil fuel industry knows that people are dependent on their products, like addicts. The carbon footprint (per capita GHG emissions) is like a reminder of who the dealer is, who has the power.

The meat industry tries to sponsor science that claims that eating meat is not just necessary, but nearly confers superpowers. That’s compensating for the fact that consuming meat is not necessary. While they may have addicts based on hyperpalatable high-fat meat, it’s not the same as the dependency on fossil fuels.

While asserting that its products do not cause climate change and changing one’s diet will not make a difference (e.g. Wright, Citation2009) and that emphasis on individual responsibility ‘distracts from the problem’ (Mitloehner, Citation2020), the animal agriculture industry has simultaneously made a series of products and claims aimed at climate-conscious consumers. For example, the Oregon-based dairy company Neutral claims to be carbon neutral and states on its packaging: ‘This milk fights climate change’ (Hamlett, Citation2023). Tyson Foods, the largest US meat company, introduced ‘Brazen Beef’, which it claims emits 10 percent fewer GHGs (Samuelson, Citation2021). JBS USA, part of the largest meat company in the world, has made many climate-related claims, including that the company will reach net-zero by 2040, which led to a lawsuit by the Attorney General of New York alleging that JBS USA has repeatedly misled consumers (Gelles & Andreoni, Citation2024). This paradox is reminiscent of the tobacco industry, which, in the 1950s, began funding a large network to challenge the causal link between smoking and cancer while they also started manufacturing filtered cigarettes that they claimed removed tar and nicotine (Proctor, Citation2012; Whiteside, Citation1963). If smoking does not cause cancer, why was a filter necessary? Likewise, if meat and dairy do not contribute to climate change and/or dietary change is insignificant, why produce Neutral milk or Brazen Beef, or commit to net-zero?

The meat cartels are all too rich from various subsidies too. Like the fossil industry, they have a big “war chest” to spread disinformation and attack opponents.

As for civil society groups, the evidence presented here that the industry has fought even modest forms of dietary change is reason alone to suggest that dietary change is an effective climate intervention and should be part of climate action and advocacy.

It’s going to get worse under the Trump regime and that RFK Jr.