In January 2019, the non-profit organization EAT Foundation and the medical journal The Lancet published one of the most influential academic studies ever released: the EAT-Lancet report. The report outlined a “planetary health diet” designed to balance human nutrition and ecological sustainability for a global population of 10 billion people. It recommended that, globally, we double our consumption of healthy foods like fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts while more than halving our intake of sugar and red meat, particularly in the Global North where animal products are overconsumed.

The report’s potential to drive regulation and societal change posed a major threat to the meat and dairy industries, which led to a significant and coordinated online backlash. This backlash marked a pivotal moment, entangling dietary change in a “culture war.” In partnership with Ripple Research, the Changing Markets Foundation analyzed the backlash, mapping the network of industry-friendly scientists, doctors, and journalists who worked to discredit the EAT-Lancet report’s findings.

The analysis is based on Twitter (now X) posts from three time periods: June 2018 to April 2019, June 2022 to July 2023, and June 2024 to May 2025. This allowed the researchers to cover the months before and after the report’s launch, as well as monitor more recent developments. They captured posts critical of the EAT-Lancet report using keywords and specific hashtags like #Yes2Meat and #ClimateFoodFacts. The team also analyzed leaked documents and materials obtained through Freedom of Information requests to reveal the industry’s behind-the-scenes coordination.

A Tightly Coordinated Network

The investigation found that the online backlash was driven by a small but highly committed group of “mis-influencers” — individuals who spread misinformation and disinformation. The top 100 mis-influencers were responsible for over 90% of the total engagement, while the top 20 alone accounted for 69%.

There were clear signs of a coordinated campaign. Within the top 100 accounts, the researchers identified a core network of 33 mis-influencers who consistently tagged each other, shared one another’s content using similar wording, and timed their posts to amplify the messaging, creating peaks of activity. Over 60% of the links shared within this network were to articles written by people within that same network. This group was composed of three main categories:

• Scientists and academics: These individuals often presented industry-friendly narratives as independent science. Pro-industry scientist Frédéric Leroy was the fourth most influential person overall and the most central figure in the network, while Frank Mitloehner of the industry-funded UC Davis Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research Center ranked sixth.
• Doctors and health influencers: These individuals had significant engagement, playing a key role in driving the backlash. The top influencer was pro-meat doctor Shawn Baker, followed by Ken Berry, a doctor who promotes paleo diets. Berry ranked third.
• Journalists and authors: Many of these individuals have built careers promoting high-meat or keto diets through books and articles. Author of The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, nutritionist Nina Teicholz was the second most influential person overall.

Industry-Backed Campaigns

The backlash converged around two main hashtags, #Yes2Meat and #ClimateFoodFacts.

#Yes2Meat

This hashtag became the key rallying cry for the “official opposition” to the EAT-Lancet report. It was first used on January 14, 2019 — three days before the report’s public launch — by Ken Berry and Frédéric Leroy. Documents suggest that Frank Mitloehner launched an academic opposition of 40 scientists that coincided with the #Yes2Meat campaign, later using the backlash’s “remarkable success” to fundraise from industry sponsors. The campaign reached 26 million people on Twitter, and critical posts were shared six times more frequently than supportive ones.

#ClimateFoodFacts

Leaked documents reveal this hashtag was part of a campaign created by the public relations agency Red Flag, likely on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, an industry lobby group. It was launched on January 9, 2019, to preemptively discredit the EAT-Lancet report by attacking its credibility and greenwashing animal agriculture. The Meat Institute, a major industry trade group and another Red Flag client, also used the hashtag. The campaign featured identical, pro-meat messages posted simultaneously by multiple industry-aligned accounts.

The Current Context

The 2019 backlash was just the beginning. The meat industry has since built on its success, continuing to coordinate messaging through events like the 2022 International Summit on the Societal Role of Meat, where the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock was launched, and the follow-up Summit in 2024, where the Denver Call for Action was issued. While billed as scientific conferences, these events were primarily public relations exercises designed to create industry-friendly narratives and maintain the industry’s social license to operate.

With the EAT-Lancet 2.0 report having launched in October 2025, the Changing Markets Foundation argues that the online environment is far more hostile. The landscape is now shaped by:

• Mainstream conspiracy theories: Far-right theories about global elites controlling diets are increasingly common.
• The “manosphere”: Meat consumption is tied to masculinity through carnivore and high-protein diets, which are promoted by influential figures like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson.
• Weaker social media moderation: Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have rolled back fact-checking and content moderation, allowing misinformation to spread more easily.
• Artificial intelligence: Generative artificial intelligence can accelerate the spread of disinformation by creating convincing fake content and highly targeted messaging.

The meat industry understands the power of online backlash to distract, delay and derail action that could affect its profits and is prepared to attack again. To counter this, it’s urgent for advocates, media, and policymakers to understand who’s behind these social media narratives and what their affiliations are. Without this awareness, we risk losing a significant opportunity to transform our food systems for a healthier and climate-safe future.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, as well as studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.