
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


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bipartisan senators seek to prevent Trump from cutting EPA science research office
A bipartisan Senate appropriations bill seeks to prevent the Trump administration from cutting the EPA's scientific research office. Text of the appropriations bill, which advanced 26-2 on Thursday, was not immediately available. However, a summary posted online states that the bill 'requires EPA to maintain its Office of Research and Development to ensure cutting-edge research, such as research into the risks from hazardous chemicals like PFAS or contaminated water, continues.' This bipartisan pushback comes as the Trump administration said last week that it wants to eliminate the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). It did announce previously that it wanted to create a different science office known as the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions (OASES). OASES will be within the office of the administrator while ORD is its own office within EPA. Critics of this restructure have warned that it creates the potential for more bias and political influence in what should be independent science. The Trump administration has billed the changes as improving 'the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA operations.' Every year, Congress needs to pass an appropriations bill to fund the government. Doing so requires at least some degree of bipartisan consensus because of the Senate's 60-vote threshold to clear the filibuster. It's not entirely clear whether this provision or any others will remain in a bill that ultimately passes, as both the House and the Senate need to agree. However, its inclusion in the bipartisan Senate legislation shows it has a strong chance of passing. In addition, the Senate proposal appears to reject some cuts proposed by the Trump administration. It also maintains funding levels at the National Park Service, where the Trump administration has proposed 30 percent operations and payroll cuts. A Senate aide told The Hill that the bill includes requirements for staff to carry out the mission of the agency, but does not have an explicit minimum staffing level. Senators rejected an amendment from Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) that would require the Interior Department, National Park Service and Forest Service to maintain 2020 staffing levels in a 15-14 party-line vote.


Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
DOGE prepares to literally drain the swamp by banishing Biden's ‘overreaching' water rule
EXCLUSIVE: After scoring a victory in her effort to undo the Biden-era expansion of clean water regulations that led to outrage from farmers and homesteaders, Senate DOGE Chairwoman Joni Ernst put forward permanent policy exclusions Thursday to prevent future Democratic administrations from "overreach." "If you try to navigate a wastewater treatment pool, you'll be up a creek without a paddle," Ernst, R-Iowa, said, mocking what she and many heartland landowners see as federal overreach into clearly unnavigable waters. Rainwater pools, farm runoff, small property ponds, and other ephemeral or seasonal water bodies – like prairie potholes and temporary channels – were suddenly subject to federal regulation, not local farmers or landowners. "WOTUS regulatory uncertainty has threatened the livelihoods of hardworking Iowa farmers, small businesses, and landowners for far too long and I was thrilled to join EPA Administrator (Lee) Zeldin in announcing that the Trump administration is revising this misguided and harmful regulatory expansion," Ernst told Fox News Digital, noting her announcement Thursday builds on an effort announced in March by the EPA that opened the door to such revisions. Ernst has called the original Biden and Obama expansions of the law disastrous and "overreach" that continue the trend of Democrats "mounting unnecessary environmental regulations to overwhelm the commonsense voice of hardworking Americans." Iowa Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig said Ernst's "CLEAR Waters Act" will provide necessary clarity and consistency to such "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) regulations. Naig said it should "end the constant policy whiplash that changes with each new administration." "It's a commonsense approach that brings certainty to those who are working every day to responsibly manage our land and water." A 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA stripped some of the Biden administration's control via their "significant nexus" test of waterway categorization. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 9-0 majority opinion that the EPA had ordered Idaho landowners Michael and Chantell Sackett to restore a wetland where they were building a home or pay $40,000 per day in penalties. Alito said the EPA had considered the area a wetland because "they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake; a navigable intrastate lake." "The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'" That decision enraged Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who said the "MAGA Supreme Court is continuing to erode our country's environmental laws." "Make no mistake – this ruling will mean more polluted water, and more destruction of wetlands," he warned at the time.


UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
U.N. warns Lebanon's at a "turning point," faces prolonged crisis risk
Emergency services and residents inspect the scene of an airstrike in the town of Nabatieh, southern Lebanon, on June 25. The United Nations has warned that war-torn Lebanon is at 'a turning point' and must undertake urgent and immediate recovery efforts. Photo by EPA BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 24 (UPI) -- The United Nations has warned that war-torn Lebanon is at "a turning point" and must undertake urgent and immediate recovery efforts to avoid prolonging its six-year multifaceted crisis that has been exacerbated by the recent Israel-Hezbollah war, according to a U.N. report released Thursday. The report, prepared by the United Nations Development Program and United Nations Economic and Social Council for for Western Asia, in collaboration with other U.N. agencies, highlighted the devastating impact of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict -- that began Oct. 8, 2023, and escalated in September 2024 -- by examining its effects on Lebanon's economy, infrastructure and society. More than 4,285 people, including 292 children and 861 women, have been killed and some 17,200 wounded as of Jan. 9. Since the Nov. 27 cease-fire agreement took effect on Feb. 18, an additional 200 people, including civilians and Hezbollah operatives, also have been killed. The war, moreover, displaced over 1.2 million people, damaged or destroyed nearly 64,000 buildings and disrupted education for hundreds of thousands of students, according to the U.N. report. It indicated that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up 90% of Lebanon's economy, were hit especially hard: 15% shut down permanently, 75% suspended operations during the war and nearly 30% lost their entire workforce. In the most heavily bombed areas, up to 70% of businesses were forced to close permanently. Moreover, about 500,000 students experienced severe educational disruptions during the war, with 69% of children out of school until the cease-fire. Child nutrition also reached critical levels, particularly in the eastern Baalbek-Hermel and Bekaa governorates, where more than 51% and 45% of children under the age of 2, respectively, suffered from severe food shortages. Some 1.6 million people are expected to face high levels of acute food insecurity, including 928,000 Lebanese citizens, the report warned. The proportion of Lebanese citizens living below the poverty line more than tripled between 2012 and 2022 -- rising to 33% from 11% -- and that the 2024 war, particularly in eastern and southern Lebanon, further exacerbated poverty. Moreover, the war significantly deepened Lebanon's labor market crisis. During the conflict, employment among private sector workers declined by 25%. In the areas most heavily affected by bombardments, 36% of workers lost their jobs, compared to 17% in regions less impacted. Even after the ceasefire, 14% of workers remained unemployed. The report explained that the economic impact has been profound, with Lebanon's economy contracting by 38% between 2019 and 2024, while the country's Human Development Index fell back to 2010 levels; marking a 14-year setback caused by the compounded effects of the crisis and war. Key sectors of the economy have been severely affected, including tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, trade and finance. The tourism sector has taken a significant hit, with its contribution to the economy in 2024 expected to have declined to just 5.5%. "Lebanon is at a turning point," said Blerta Aliko, the resident representative of the U.N. Development Program in Lebanon, emphasizing the need for Lebanon to shape "a nationally led recovery plan." Aliko said it was imperative that "state institutions are strong and well-equipped" to drive a sustainable and inclusive recovery process. The report indicated that a reform-driven recovery could help reverse the economic decline, with projections estimating GDP growth of 8.2% in 2026 and 7.1% in 2027. However, even with these necessary reforms, GDP would remain 8.4% below its pre-crisis 2017 peak of $51.2 billion. To sustain recovery, key sectors such as agriculture, construction, tourism and manufacturing must be prioritized, it said. It recommends the Lebanese government to focus on four key areas for its recovery: rebuilding and strengthening state institutions; revitalizing the economy and generating employment; restoring basic services and expanding social protection; and rehabilitating damaged environmental ecosystems. Tarik Alami, the economic and social council cluster leader on governance and prevention, said Lebanon continues to face a "polycrisis" that was made worse by the recent devastating war. "This critical juncture calls for the urgent and accelerated implementation of essential reforms; particularly within public administration, as well as across socio-economic and financial sectors," Alami said. He emphasized that "the root causes of recurring hostilities along Lebanon's southern border must be addressed decisively and sustainably," in full accordance with international law and relevant U.N. resolutions. The U.N. report noted that Lebanon's path to recovery requires urgent, coordinated action between the government, donors, U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations, while substantial financing will be required from domestic resources, private sector investments, international development assistance and foreign direct investment. "Without immediate intervention, economic rebound will take longer, poverty will deepen, state institutions will further weaken and Lebanon's social stability will be at risk," it warned. Last March, the World Bank estimated that Lebanon would need $11 billion for its reconstruction and recovery needs after the Israel-Hezbollah war. However, any international or Arab financial support remains unlikely unless Lebanon implements the necessary reforms and fully disarms Hezbollah -a condition Israel has set as a prerequisite for halting its ongoing attacks on the country.