
A newly surfaced document reveals the beef industry's secret climate plan
It's now well established that for decades, major oil companies knew that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming, and yet did everything in their power to obstruct climate policy. They intensively lobbied policymakers, ran advertising campaigns, and funded think tanks to cast doubt on climate science.
According to two new papers recently published in the journals Environmental Research Letters and Climate Policy, another industry knew of its role in climate change decades ago and engaged in similar tactics: the US beef industry.
The story begins in February 1989, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a workshop for a report on how to reduce livestock methane emissions. Experts at the time knew that cattle produce significant amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that accelerates climate change at a much faster pace than carbon dioxide. (Today, almost one-third of methane stems from beef and dairy cattle).
This story was first featured in the Processing Meat newsletter
Sign up here for Future Perfect's biweekly newsletter from Marina Bolotnikova and Kenny Torrella, exploring how the meat and dairy industries shape our health, politics, culture, environment, and more.
Have questions or comments on this newsletter? Email us at futureperfect@vox.com!
There was also increasing awareness among scientists and environmentalists about livestock's impact on other environmental issues, like water pollution and biodiversity loss.
A representative from the nation's largest and oldest beef industry group — the National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) — attended the EPA workshop, and soon after, an arm of the organization began crafting a plan to defend itself against what they anticipated would be growing attacks over beef's role in global warming and other environmental ills.
The Cattlemen's plan — an internal 17-page memo titled 'Strategic Plan on the Environment' — went unnoticed for decades until two University of Miami researchers, Jennifer Jacquet and Loredana Loy, recently unearthed the document in the NCA's archives.
Notably, the beef industry plan had barely a mention about addressing cattle pollution. Instead, it centered around how the public and policymakers would perceive that pollution.
'Public relations activity directed toward key influencers is a fundamental thrust of this plan,' one part reads. Other goals of the plan: to positively influence legislation and regulations, and commission experts to write papers in response to critics as part of its 'crisis management' strategy. They hired one such expert to address the EPA's report, which came out in August 1989 and called livestock 'one of the larger' sources of methane.
A cattle feedlot near Lubbock, Texas. Richard Hamilton Smith /Design Pics Editorial/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
In 1996, the National Cattlemen's Association merged with another group to become the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The organization didn't respond to an interview request for this story.
Looking back now, the plan seems to be the blueprint for how the beef industry, and the broader animal agriculture sector, would go on to respond to climate scientists and critics for the next 35 years.
While these delay-and-obstruct tactics largely mirror those of the fossil fuel industry, there's one way the two sectors radically differ in their public relations wars: what role they say consumers should play to combat climate change.
What polluting industries want you to do — or not do — on a heating planet
Over the past decade, many environmentalists have become critical of focusing on individual actions — such as purchasing a hybrid vehicle, using efficient light bulbs, or flying less — as meaningful solutions to climate change. Critics argue that putting the responsibility of fighting climate change on individuals has been a tactic purposefully employed by fossil fuel companies to help them evade accountability.
That's largely true. BP popularized the personal carbon footprint calculator while Chevron — which, to be clear, is an energy company — has run ads encouraging its customers to use less energy. A 2021 analysis of ExxonMobil's communications concluded that the company is 'fixated' on individual responsibility.
But when it came to the meat industry, Jacquet and Loy found the opposite: It really doesn't want people to take the individual action of eating less meat.
'Rather than embrace notions of individual responsibility, the animal agriculture industry hired scientists, pressured the media, and formed business coalitions to obstruct' initiatives that encourage people to eat less meat, the two researchers wrote in the Climate Policy paper.
Economist Jeremy Rifkin speaking at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2017.for Ford
One of the earliest examples of such obstruction occurred in the early 1990s, when economist and activist Jeremy Rifkin published the book Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. Rifkin paired the book launch with a large coalitional campaign featuring advertisements, mass protests at McDonald's locations, and a book tour, all aimed at persuading people in 16 countries to cut their beef consumption in half and replace it with plant-based foods.
A beef industry publication considered Rifkin's actions a declaration of war and the industry organized a 'determined counterattack,' according to the Chicago Tribune. That counterattack included an advertising campaign telling people not to blame environmental problems on cows and the formation of an alliance of 13 industry groups to push back against activists like Rifkin, which included tactics like handing out hamburgers at one of his events. Around this time, the Beef Industry Council launched the infamous but influential 'Beef. It's What's for Dinner' marketing campaign with a budget of $96 million in today's dollars.
It was effective: According to a 1992 story in the Washington Post, people screamed at Rifkin on call-in radio shows, his publisher received angry letters and phone calls, and his book tour was canceled early on because people called event hosts to either disparage him or pose as his publicist to cancel. Rifkin chalked it up in part to aggrieved cattle ranchers, a claim that the National Cattlemen's Association fiercely denied at the time.
This back-and-forth fight over the American diet has continued ever since:
Meatless Monday: The Meatless Monday campaign rose to prominence in the 2000s with celebrity support, featuring dozens of large university cafeterias and school districts ditching meat on Mondays, all of which angered the livestock sector. Meat industry lobbyists sent Baltimore City Public Schools
The Meatless Monday campaign rose to prominence in the 2000s with celebrity support, featuring dozens of large university cafeterias and school districts ditching meat on Mondays, all of which angered the livestock sector. Meat industry lobbyists sent Baltimore City Public Schools cease and desist letters for participating in the program, and an industry-funded academic at UC Davis named Frank Mitloehner called it a public policy tool to defeat animal agriculture. According to Jacquet, he also downplayed Meatless Monday's potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions. (Disclosure: From 2012 to 2013, I worked at the Humane Society of the US on its Meatless Monday initiative.)
US Dietary Guidelines: In 2015, an advisory committee of government-commissioned nutrition experts recommended that the government modify the US dietary guidelines to encourage Americans to reduce meat consumption to make their diets more sustainable. In response, industry trade groups
In 2015, an advisory committee of government-commissioned nutrition experts recommended that the government modify the US dietary guidelines to encourage Americans to reduce meat consumption to make their diets more sustainable. In response, industry trade groups aggressively lobbied Congress and launched a petition that decried the committee experts as 'nutrition despots.' Ultimately, the committee's recommendation didn't make it into the final dietary guidelines.
The EAT-Lancet report: In 2019, a
In 2019, a landmark report published by nutrition and environmental experts recommended that people in high-income countries significantly cut back on meat for personal and planetary health. Mitloehner, the UC Davis academic, coordinated massive '#yes2meat' counter-campaign that spawned millions of tweets.
So why do fossil fuel companies and livestock producers seemingly have such a different take on personal responsibility? Jacquet says much of it comes down to the simple fact that consumers have relatively little flexibility in reducing fossil fuel use, so messages that encourage people to make lifestyle changes pose little actual threat to fossil fuel companies' bottom line.
Individuals are 'locked into a fossil fuel energy system,' Jacquet said. But 'food is not like that,' she added. 'You really do have a lot of flexibility in your diet, and you make those decisions three times a day. … These are really dynamic decision spaces, and that's a threat' to the meat industry.
To state the obvious, individual dietary change alone is insufficient to reform the cruel, polluting factory farm system. But it is a start. To pass even modest regulatory reforms, policymakers will first need to see public support, and one way the public can show it is by eating less meat.
Not only is it considered one of, if not the most effective individual actions to reduce carbon footprints, but dietary change also has cascading positive effects. Animal agriculture is arguably the leading source of US water pollution, a major air polluter, and far and away the main cause of animal suffering — around 25 land animals are factory-farmed each year to sustain the average American's diet.
According to agricultural economists Jayson Lusk and F. Bailey Norwood, eating less meat, milk, and eggs does affect how many animals are raised for food. It's not on a 1:1 basis, but if more people reduce their animal consumption, they'd collectively send a signal to the industry to raise fewer animals.
'It may be hard to see the consequences of our decisions,' the two wrote in their 2011 book Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare, 'but let there be no doubt, each purchase decision matters.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
a day ago
- UPI
Five dead in Ukraine-Russian drone duels; Zelensky optimistic
Community workers clean debris at the site of a strike on a residential area in Kharkiv, northern Ukraine, on Saturday. At least six people, including two children, were injured after Russian forces attacked Kharkiv with glide bombs, rockets. Photo by Sergey Kozlov/EPA July 26 (UPI) -- Russia and Ukraine on Saturday exchanged drone attacks, with five people dead in the overnight strikes, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed optimism about his nation's military progress. Zelensky said Ukraine was winning the war against Russia, which invaded his country in February 2022. Since then, Ukraine has regained some territory. "Russian military enterprises, Russian logistics and Russian airfields must see that Russia's own war is now hitting them back with real consequences," Zelensky posted Saturday on X. "The precision of our drones, the daily nature of Ukraine's responses -- are some of the arguments that we will surely bring peace closer." In Ukraine on Saturday, Russia used more than 200 drones and almost 300 missiles, mainly in Dnipropetrovsk. Three people died there. In Russia, a car caught fire after a drone strike, killing two, Rostov's acting governor, Yury Slyusar, said. Military on both sides claimed success. Russia said soldiers took two villages in eastern Ukraine: Zelenyi Hai in the Donetsk region and Maliivka in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Zelensky said his troops were "gradually pushing Russian forces out" of the Sumy region. "Although this region remains one of the enemy's priority directions, our forces consistently block Russian attempts to advance deeper into the Sumy region from the border areas," Zelensky wrote on X. Zelensky noted Russia's airstrikes targeted Kharkin and Sumy. At least six people, including two children, were injured after Russian forces attacked Kharkiv with glide bombs, rockets and drones, the State Emergency Service of Ukraine reported. A village in the region -- Kindrativka -- reportedly was liberated from Russian control. "Particular attention was given to the Pokrovsk direction -- just over the past day alone, there were 51 intense engagements," Zelensky posted on X. "Ukrainian units are defending their positions, and every elimination of occupiers is of great value." He said he plans to discuss with other nations the need for more weapons. Zelnsky said he has commitments from Germany for two Patriot missile systems and one from Norway. He said he's working on Patriot help from the Netherlands Zelensky said drone production will significantly exceed figures projected at the start of the year. Peace talks Fighting is continuing amid hopes to end the war. Delagations from both nations met on Wednesday in Istanbul but both sides rejected each other's ideas. In May, there were two rounds of cease-fire talks, also in Turkey, at the urging of President Donald Trump, who wants an end to the "horrible, bloody war." In Scotland, Trump plans to meet with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday about ending the war. Trump said before departing for Scotland on Friday that he was still considering "severe" secondary sanctions against Russia. On July 14, he suggested they would go into effect in 50 days if Russia doesn't end the war. "We're looking at that whole situation," Trump said Friday. Trump said he is backing Zelensky's proposed summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "It's going to happen, but it should have happened three months ago," Trump said. The Kremlin said a summit with Zelensky will only occur as a final step for a peace deal. Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it is unlikely Putin will accommodate Ukraine's proposal for the meeting at the end of August. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he plans to speak with Trump and Putin about conveying the talks in his nation.


UPI
a day ago
- UPI
Military clash between Thailand, Cambodia escalates at border
A crater is seen near homes at a residential area amid clashes along the disputed Thai-Cambodian border, in Surin Province, Thailand, on Saturday. Photo by Kaikungwon Duanjumroon/EPA July 26 (UPI) -- Cambodia and Thailand military forces on Saturday fought each other for the third day over contested border territory as the death toll rose to at least 32. The dead were 19 in Thailand, including 13 civilians, and 13 in Cambodia, with eight civilians, in the bloodiest fighting in more than a decade, The Guardian reported. Acting Thai Prime Minister warned the situation "could develop into war." "For now, it remains limited to clashes," he told reporters in Bangkok, and his nation was acting to "protect our land and the sovereignty of our nation." Fighting involving tanks began Thursday near Prasat Ta Muen Thom, an ancient temple claimed by both nations. Thailand also used F-16 jets. Weapons included cluster munitions, which are internationally prohibited though both nations haven't agreed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. "Neither Thailand nor Cambodia appears to be paying attention to international humanitarian law at great expense to civilians," John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said in a news release Friday. "Diplomatic efforts underway need to prioritize protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure." On Friday, United Nations diplomats from both countries sought a cease-fire during an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council in New York. Cherdchai Chaivaivid, Thailand's envoy to the U.N., urged Cambodia to "immediately cease all hostilities and acts of aggression, and resume dialogue in good faith." The diplomat said his nation agreed "in principle" to the deal but said Cambodia was continuing "indiscriminate attacks on Thai territory." Cambodia's U.N. ambassador, Chhea Keo said "Cambodia asked for an immediate cease-fire -- unconditionally -- and we also call for the peaceful solution of the dispute," said Chea Keo, Cambodia's U.N. ambassador. "If this conflict escalates, the peace and stability of the entire Southeast Asia region will be at stake," Keo added. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged both sides to exercise the "utmost restraint." "The United States is gravely concerned by reports of the escalating fighting along the Thailand-Cambodia border," a State Department press spokesperson said Thursday. "We are particularly alarmed by reports of harm to innocent civilians. We express our deepest condolences on the loss of life. We strongly urge the immediate cessation of attacks, protection of civilians, and peaceful settlement of disputes." On Saturday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social from Scotland that he "I just had a very good call with the Prime Minister of Cambodia, and informed him of my discussions with Thailand, and its Acting Prime Minister. Both Parties are looking for an immediate Ceasefire and Peace. They are also looking to get back to the 'Trading Table' with the United States, which we think is inappropriate to do until such time as the fighting STOPS. "They have a long and storied History and Culture. They will hopefully get along for many years to come. When all is done, and Peace is at hand, I look forward to concluding our Trading Agreements with both!" Malaysia, which heads the 10-member Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, offered to mediate. China has also expressed concern about the situation, which worsened on Saturday. Cambodia's Ministry of Defense accused Thailand of "unprovoked and premeditated act of aggression" on -- firing five heavy artillery shells in Pursat Province on the southern edge of the shared border. Thailand said Cambodia attacked in neighboring Trat Province but their naval forces pushed back "the incursion" early Saturday. Trat, bordering the Gulf of Thailand and the Pacific Ocean, includes numerous islands with white-sand beaches and coral reefs. Tensions have escalated since May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in an exchange with gunfire. Then last week, Thai soldiers were injured by new landmines. Cambodia has denied putting them there. Thailand recalled its ambassador from Cambodia and said it would expel Cambodia's diplomat in Bangkok. At least 138,000 people have been evacuated from Thailand's borders. Cambodia said more than 23,000 people were moved from near the border. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Thai prime minister, visited evacuees at a shelter in Ubon Ratchathani Province on Saturday morning. Cambodia has a population of 17.4 million and Thailand has 71.7 million residents. Vietnam borders both nations.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why