Executive summary

This report reveals the tactics of Big Meat and Dairy companies to delay, distract, and derail action on transforming the food system, mirroring strategies used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. Food systems are responsible for around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with approximately 60% coming from animal agriculture, the largest source of man-made methane emissions.

The report is in English, and the Executive Summary is available in Italian, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Simply click download on the bottom left corner, and select your preferred language. 

The Urgency of Reducing Methane Emissions

The science is clear: we cannot meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree temperature increase target without significantly cutting methane emissions and reducing animal product consumption. The agricultural sector is a major climate change contributor through methane and nitrous oxide pollution and deforestation. Over 200 climate scientists believe livestock emissions must peak by 2025 in high- and middle-income countries and cut globally by 50% by 2030.

Agricultural Exceptionalism and Influence

Despite their huge negative impact on climate, biodiversity and human health, big meat and dairy corporations have largely been off the hook, regarding environmental regulation. Our investigation reveals that the industry has largely succeeded in convincing policymakers of agricultural exceptionalism, getting several concessions, exemptions and delays to climate action in the sector.

In several countries, the industry managed to convince policymakers to adopt all-carrots-and-no-sticks approaches to regulating agricultural emissions, which means that any change in farming practices is voluntary and depends on additional financial incentives, while significant public subsidies that the sector already receives remains off limits for any reforms. Unfortunately, current agricultural subsidies largely support the existing status quo of big farms, benefiting large companies in the middle of the chain (so-called Big Ag) and putting small family farms out of business.

To better understand Big Ag’s influence, we analysed actions by 22 of the biggest meat and dairy companies across four continents, looking at their voluntary climate commitments, greenwashing claims, investments in advertising versus low-carbon solutions and their political engagement, which included political donations, meetings with politicians, money spent on lobbying, as well as what narratives they are pushing either directly or indirectly through the work of industry associations.

We looked at how the industry is co-opting science by funding its own research to downplay the sector’s impact on climate and promoting its preferred solutions, mostly in the form of voluntary technological fixes. The report provides a detailed analysis of different corporate narratives to consumers, media, and policymakers, showing how the industry distracts us with the smokescreen of voluntary climate targets, environmentally friendly products, and seemingly ambitious investments in emissions reduction technologies, while behind the scenes, it mobilises significant resources to delay and derail progressive environmental legislation.

Delay, distract and derail tactics

Our investigation broadly divided the corporate playbook of Big Meat and Dairy into three key tactics: distract, delay and derail. This builds on our previous research into the corporate playbook of Big Plastic, which we published in the landmark report Talking Trash, which launched in 2020. Some companies and industry associations overlap, but the tactics that play out in each sector are different. We found strong correlations with the tactics of climate denial by Big Oil, which are referred to throughout the report.

Distract

Big Meat and Dairy companies are masters of distraction when drawing attention away from their lack of climate action. A significant proportion of these tactics can also be dubbed ‘greenwashing’, which includes claims on the packages of their products, as well as weak net zero targets and other marketing efforts to present their products as climate-friendly, natural and an essential part of a healthy diet. By putting up a green smokescreen through such subtle tactics, companies are creating a collective placebo effect, misleading us into believing change is happening when the environmental impact of the sector has, in fact, deteriorated.

The investigation has shown that the industry is especially concerned about younger generations, which are more worried about climate change and personal health, and therefore targets explicitly Gen Z with its misleading advertising campaigns, using influencers and social media. We found seven examples of companies and trade groups using social media efforts to target young people; on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and other channels, often making misleading claims, such as presenting meat and dairy as healthier dietary choices for young consumers in already high-consuming countries like the UK.

Social media tactics also translate into direct attacks on vegan diets and alternative protein, which are dubbed as ultra-processed, unhealthy options, through various advertising and misinformation campaigns that could be traced back to the meat and dairy industry. Industry giants are getting help in forming these narratives from a variety of PR consultants and agencies. They are working with at least two leading PR companies that helped write Big Oil and Tobacco’s corporate playbook over the last century. This includes US PR company Edelman, one of the world’s oldest and most famous PR companies that has recently boasted of its success in deterring young audiences from plant-based alternatives to dairy products.

Despite the talk of climate action, corporate climate, or net zero targets largely fail on the integrity test. Of the 22 companies investigated in this report only 15 have some kind of climate target. We compared these targets to the main elements in the standard provided by the UN Expert group, published in the Integrity Matters report at COP27 and revealed that none of the companies meets the standard.

Danone leads the pack, when it comes to the scientific integrity of its target, as it roughly aligns to a 1.5-degree trajectory. It is the only company in the sector with a specific commitment to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030 and a shift to plant-based products, while Nestlé is slowly moving in the right direction. Other companies fall behind on the level of ambition and holistic approach, such as a clear commitment to cut supply chain emissions, including methane. This results in companies like JBS having their commitments removed by the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), which has become controversial due to the weakening of its standards.

Instead of investing in proper plans and trajectories to cut emissions, the report reveals that companies prefer to invest in the science that suits their agenda. This becomes particularly evident when downplaying the impact of methane emissions from the sector. We found two main and somewhat conflicting narratives, which were both pushed by industry-funded academics to downplay the impact of methane emissions.

The first is around livestock methane being part of the biogenic cycle and, therefore, naturally absorbed by the vegetation, conveniently ignoring the significant short-term warming impact of this potent gas. The second narrative focuses on the new climate metric, GWP*, claiming that even small reductions could lead to the sector becoming ‘climate neutral’. GWP* is being pushed by at least ten industry groups and allied entities in at least four continents, including at the EU level. Academics from UC Davis and Oxford University – both of which have received funding from industry – have also been part of industry’s push for the metric and advocated for the industry’s use of GWP* in ways that would significantly weaken climate commitments.

The third industry-funded scientific narrative revealed in this report focuses on the emissions reduction potential of regenerative agriculture. More than half of the companies analysed in the report are embracing this term to claim their business can be good for the planet. Unlike agroecology, regenerative agriculture – used by companies including Nestlé, FrieslandCampina and Dairy Farmers of America – has no clear definition and often relies on dubious scientific claims around the soil’s ability to store carbon. Its proponents claim that we do not need to reduce livestock numbers, and just changing practices to regenerative grazing can be part of climate solutions by offsetting (part of) the industry’s emissions and helping nature.

For example, six companies are involved in ‘Regenerating Together’ – an industry initiative which says it is working to provide a definition of regenerative agriculture to improve outcomes, but which promotes a profit and yield-driven model and fails to introduce any curbs on methane emissions or reducing livestock numbers.

Like Big Oil before them, Big Meat and Dairy companies ensure that industry-funded academic research is used both to downplay the sector’s impact on climate and to promote their preferred solutions with policymakers. As we show in the subsequent chapters, this is often used to delay and derail climate action in the sector.

Delay

Closely linked with distraction tactics, delay tactics allow companies to ask governments to slow down any regulation by claiming that they are already taking voluntary action. However, the reality is somewhat different. This investigation shows that companies spend much more money on advertising than they do on low-carbon solutions. Despite featuring techno-fixes in their PR and marketing materials, our research shows that they spend on average 1% of their revenues on research and development. The actual amount that goes into low-carbon solutions is probably only a small fraction of this, as most companies do not break down where their R&D spending is going.

Three companies – Fonterra, Nestlé, and Arla – all spend more on advertising than they do on research and development across their business. JBS – the only company to declare the spend it will give to research and development efforts towards its net zero goal specifically – spends more on advertising than it does on these efforts. This spending on net zero efforts equates to $20 million (€18.99 million) per year, which works out as just 6.2% of its annual advertising and marketing budget (€294 million), and just 0.03% of its 2022 annual revenue ($69 billion or €63 billion).

Our research shows that in recent years, at least 16 of the 22 companies have publicly promoted the potential of technical fixes to reduce emissions, such as methane-suppressing feed additives. However, only one company (Danone) has made commitments to transformative action by setting a methane reduction target, while seven other dairy companies, including Nestlé, have committed to start reporting and come up with a plan to cut their methane emissions.

Our review of scientific literature shows that many technical fixes promoted by the industry have questionable impacts on methane emissions reductions, but even when some of them prove promising, the companies often refuse to scale them up due to cost barriers. Instead of investing in techno-fixes that they spend so much time promoting in their PR materials, they request more public money to finance their use.

Regarding the transition to more plant-based diets, we found a glaring lack of action. Science clearly shows that significant changes in the way food is produced are needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and that a dietary shift can provide significant emissions reduction opportunities.

One study found that a dietary shift could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 3.10 Gt CO2. This reduction could more than double to 6.22 Gt CO2 equivalent if the land that is spared is used to draw down carbon. However, our research shows that although some companies are investing in alternative protein, this is with a view of growing an additional market and not as part of a transition towards more plant- and less-and-better animal products. One of the tactics is selling the growth of its meat and dairy products under the banner of being a ‘diversified’ food or protein company. This echoes the tactics of oil and gas giants such as BP and TotalEnergies, which have promoted themselves as diversified energy companies, all while continuing to invest nearly all of their business into oil and gas.

Derail

These tactics are the most aggressive of them all, and we reveal how they have played out in two of the biggest livestock-producing regions: the US and the EU.

Derail tactics include spending millions on political donations, direct and indirect lobbying through industry groups to ensure industry influence and the highest level of access. We reveal examples of conflicts of interest, where elected politicians benefit from the agricultural subsidies they are supposed to reform, and examples of revolving doors, where key policy experts come from the industry and return there after the end of their public office.

The most prominent example of revolving doors is the current US Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, who previously worked as the president of the US Dairy Export Council, and before that, as the US Agriculture Secretary under Obama. He is a strong proponent of voluntary action and has overseen large hand-outs to the industry through incentives and subsidies, including in methane biodigesters, while denying any need to reduce livestock production in the US.

This makes the interests of the powerful agricultural companies even more entrenched at the highest political level, resulting in the sector setting its own political agenda, which translates into all-carrots-and-no-sticks approaches to emissions from agriculture. The special treatment this polluting industry gets is reflected in the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – touted by the government as the ‘largest investment’ in reducing carbon pollution in US history. But, when it comes to mitigating the impact of the meat and dairy industry, particularly in relation to methane emissions, it is severely lacking, as it comes with no strings attached to prove actual emissions reductions.

For example, USDA is already providing funding of almost $20 billion to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture (much of this going to techno fixes, such as biodigesters and feed additives), but will only study possible climate benefits in 2024. Alongside all these carrots, in a pre-emptive strike to prevent methane regulation, the industry-funded Senators and Congressmen from both parties even proposed amendments to ban reporting of methane emissions from farms completely.

In the EU, the farm lobby successfully decimated the Green Deal, which set out to transform Europe’s economy to produce net-zero emissions by 2050. A key part of the Green Deal was the Farm to Fork strategy, which promised to create a ‘green and healthier agriculture’ system, significantly reducing chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Farm to Fork recognised that moving to a ‘more plant-based diet with less red and processed meat’ would reduce the food system’s environmental impact. New laws and revisions of existing policies were promised.

In this report, we review eleven policy initiatives resulting from the Green Deal and show how most of them were either weakened or completely dropped. This has repercussions way beyond the current legislature, as the powerful Copa-Cogeca lobby group also managed to remove an obligation to reduce agricultural emissions by 30% from the long-term 2040 climate target.

Our investigation revealed that between them, the 22 big meat and dairy firms, and the 25 key trade groups they’re members of, have had close to 600 top-level meetings with the European Commission (commissioners, their cabinets, and director generals) since November 2014. They also hired specialised public relations consultancies, used industry-dominated NGOs and set up new groups, such as European Livestock Voice, which was behind several misinformation campaigns to derail legislation and push the industry agenda.

Only seven of the companies declare their lobby efforts in the EU Transparency register, and they employ 16 lobbyists and declare annual spending of €1.8-2.4 million per year lobbying EU institutions. This shows that indirect lobbying through industry groups, where Big Meat and Dairy companies are members, is much more prevalent as a tactic: these groups have together spent €9.35- €11.54 million per year lobbying the EU and employing 72 lobbyists. These publicly disclosed figures are just the tip of the iceberg of their influence, as companies also deploy numerous public affairs firms and lobbyists at the national level.

Blocking action to cut agricultural methane was a specific target of these lobbyists. With the help of industry-funded scientists, lobbyists present methane emissions as part of a biogenic cycle and promote the industry-friendly metric GWP* in various public consultations and meetings. This report reveals several tactics to block any measures to regulate methane in the EU.

For Copa-Cogeca and the European Dairy Association (EDA) lobbying centred around the argument that cutting methane emissions would be subject to double regulation. This tactic was used in response to the National Emissions Ceiling (NEC) directive, Effort Sharing Regulation and Industrial Emissions Directive. In the end, not a single one of these regulates agricultural methane, and the fearmongering of double regulation designed to kill any regulation succeeded. The EDA’s internal background document on the ‘Dairy sector and the Green Deal’ even stated that: ‘With regards to clean air, the ammonia targets of the NEC are still under implementation [Methane targets thankfully were ejected out of the deal – we may need to make sure they do not come in again].

Putting the tactics into play

The report also investigates how these tactics play out in real-time in different geographies. The EU and the US are powerful examples of how the political influence of Big Meat and Dairy and their industry groups have resulted in the sector setting its own regulatory agenda, translating into all-carrots-and-no-sticks approaches to emissions from agriculture.

These two powerful regions, where 13 of the 22 investigated companies have headquarters, are also key in setting the global agenda. The influence of Big Meat was clearly visible in the language of the Global Methane Pledge, where methane mitigation from agriculture is confined to “incentives and partnerships with farmers” – the victory that the meat industry celebrated.

Similarly, our FAO case study shows that the industry successfully pushed their narratives on the primacy of increasing efficiency in the sector through various techno-fixes over the scientific consensus that the highest emissions savings potential comes from dietary shifts towards more plant-rich diets. Two important reports that the FAO published during COP28 in Dubai, Pathways towards lower emissions and Achieving SDG 2 without breaching the 1.5 °C threshold: A global roadmap, were criticised for adopting industry-friendly narratives to food systems transformation and significantly downplayed the potential of dietary shift.

Conclusion

This report shows the power of Big Meat and Dairy lobby groups, fighting across the world to maintain status quo, blocking climate action, such as dietary shifts and the adoption of alternative proteins. While tactics resemble Big Oil, which have now been widely discredited as harming public interest, Big Meat and Dairy influence still flies under the radar, and they continue to benefit from agricultural exceptionalism. In the US, about 800 times more public funding and 190 times more lobbying money goes to animal-source food products than alternatives. In the EU, about 1,200 times more public funding and three times more lobbying money goes to animal-source food products. Alternative proteins are a promising technology, but they received only a fraction of investments deployed in other sectors. This is blocking progress towards climate solutions in the food sector.

A report by the Boston Consulting Group found that per dollar invested, plant-based proteins have the highest CO2 savings of any sector and have ‘ready consumer interest’. Market trends also show that there is a huge appetite for plant-based foods. In 2022, a survey covering 31 countries found a global average of 44% of consumers who were ‘likely to eat less meat or replace it with alternatives to limit their contribution to climate change’. Millennials are also more likely to try not to eat meat, and 22% of the world’s population are vegetarian, while actions like Veganuary have been increasing year on year, with an estimated 25 million people taking part in January 2024.

The climate science is clear: actions that we take in this decade will define temperatures and the world we live in for the decades to come. The livestock sector is both a significant source of GHG emissions and uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change that are already being felt by farmers and ordinary people everywhere. The studies show that as temperatures increase further, climate impacts will only get worse, with significant financial implications for the sector, as well as with potential catastrophic food security implications across the world, impacting the most vulnerable the most. As the industry fights to resist any reduction to livestock numbers and the transition to healthier, more plant-based diets, we must take urgent action to regulate the industry, reduce emissions and invest in alternatives. As Big Tobacco and Big Oil are scrutinised, Big Ag should be too.

The report’s Executive Summary is available in Italian, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Simply click download and select your preferred language below.