Food systems account for about 1/3 of all greenhouse gas emissions, with animal agriculture contributing around 60%. Despite this, meat and dairy companies use strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to distract, delay, and derail efforts to reform the food system, in a concerted effort to protect their profits and market dominance. This study examined how massive animal product corporations use greenwashing, fund their own biased research to downplay their environmental impact, and engage in lobbying to avoid stricter regulations.

Researchers looked at 22 of the largest meat and dairy companies across four continents, analyzing their climate promises, greenwashing claims, investments in advertising versus low-carbon solutions, and political activities like donations and lobbying. They also investigated how these companies used their own research and industry groups to influence public opinion and policy. Case studies from New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., Brazil, and Italy show these tactics in action, highlighting their global impact on climate policy.

The researchers investigated these tactics, and divided them into three key categories: distract, delay, and derail. 

Distract

Greenwashing is a key tactic used by Big Meat and Dairy companies to distract from their lack of real climate action. They make weak net zero targets and promote their products as climate-friendly and healthy, creating a misleading impression. These tactics particularly target younger generations through social media campaigns, using influencers on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. PR companies, including leading firms like Edelman, assist in crafting these misleading narratives. 

Despite these claims, the environmental impact of the sector has deteriorated. Only 15 out of the 22 companies investigated have any net zero targets, and none meet the standards set by the UN Expert Group. Instead of investing in emission reduction plans, companies fund science that aligns with their agenda, particularly downplaying methane emissions. They promote three main narratives: 1) livestock methane is part of the biogenic cycle and naturally absorbed (ignoring methane’s short-term warming impact), 2) the GWP (Global Warming Potential) metric suggesting small reductions could make the sector ‘climate neutral’ (overstating the impact of minor changes), and 3) the potential of regenerative agriculture (lacking clear definition and scientific backing).

Delay

The industry promotes technical fixes, like methane-suppressing feed additives. This tactic was found in 16 of the 22 companies’ PR output. However, only one of those has set a methane reduction target. The research showed that companies spend much more money on advertising than they do on low-carbon solutions. They allocate only 1% of their revenues to research and development, with an even smaller fraction going toward low-carbon solutions. For example, JBS spent only 0.03% of its 2022 annual revenue on net zero efforts. 

One study also found that eating more plant-based foods could cut CO2 emissions by 3.10 Gt, and using freed-up land to capture carbon could increase this to 6.22 Gt. However, while some companies invest in alternative proteins, they do so to expand their market, not to shift to more plant-based foods. They label themselves as ‘diversified’ food companies, similar to how oil companies like BP claim to be diversified while still focusing mainly on oil and gas.

Derail

Big Meat & Dairy companies work aggressively to block climate policies. They spend millions on political donations and lobbying to influence legislation in their favor. These companies exploit conflicts of interest, with policymakers benefiting from agricultural subsidies. For example, the U.S. Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, used to work for the dairy industry and supported large subsidies for methane biodigesters. In the E.U., the 22 big meat and dairy firms and the 25 key trade groups they’re members of had nearly 600 meetings with the European Commission since 2014, spending €9.35- €11.54 million per year lobbying the E.U. for weaker regulations. 

Putting the Tactics Into Play

Big Meat & Dairy companies leverage their influence in an attempt to shape regulations in their favor across different regions. In the E.U. and U.S., where 13 of the 22 investigated companies are headquartered, their political power correlates to weak regulations. The Global Methane Pledge, an international agreement to reduce methane emissions, shows how these companies have successfully limited methane reduction efforts to voluntary actions only, rather than mandatory regulations. 

In New Zealand, lobby groups like Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers blocked efforts to regulate agricultural emissions with the 2003 “Fart Tax” protest, where farmers successfully opposed a proposed tax on livestock emissions. In Australia, industry groups claimed that adopting similar methane reduction measures would harm food security and pushed for consultations to prevent protests. Similarly, in the U.K., despite pledges to address methane emissions, there are no clear plans for reduction. The National Farmers Union (NFU) has promoted tech solutions and biomethane digesters instead of comprehensive climate actions. In Brazil, companies such as JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva have significantly influenced policymaking, favoring techno-fixes and voluntary measures over substantial regulatory changes. Italy’s recent ban on cultivated meat saw a surge in misinformation, linking the ban to broader global conspiracies. 

Overall, these tactics delay meaningful climate action, allowing these companies to continue harmful practices with minimal regulation.

Despite the promises of and demand for alternative proteins, they receive only a fraction of the investment compared to other sectors. In the U.S., animal-source foods get about 800 times more public funding and 190 times more lobbying money than alternatives, and in the E.U., the disparity is even greater—1,200 times more funding and three times more lobbying money. These findings are tremendously valuable for animal advocates, as they underline the power of lobbying in general, and outline many of the specific strategies that animal agriculture lobbies use in opposition to our efforts.