When Big Agriculture Funds University Experts
Livestock’s Long Shadow, a groundbreaking report published by the United Nations in 2006, was the first global estimate of the animal agriculture industry’s role in climate change. The report concluded that the industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and, ultimately, climate change. This conclusion aligns with many other studies conducted in the last 18 years. Given the scientific evidence, the authors of this study question why the animal agriculture industry’s greenhouse gas emissions have basically gone unregulated in the United States.
To answer this question, the researchers studied connections between the animal agriculture industry and U.S. universities. They focused on the activities of two professors who lead academic research centers and publicly refute the role of animal agriculture in climate change.
This research is a case study based on two methods. First, the researchers reviewed publicly available materials (e.g., university websites and press releases) and materials from public records requests to explore the animal agriculture industry’s involvement with U.S. universities. The researchers used the materials to identify funding sources for two academic centers, outline two professors’ “potentially misleading claims,” and create a timeline of their influence on climate change policy and public discourse.
Second, the researchers created a set of 20 yes-or-no questions about the university experts’ relationships with the animal agriculture industry. The questions covered industry funding, transparency, political influence, research influence, popular media influence, and kinds of arguments. For example, they asked: “Is there evidence that the individual has failed to disclose industry funding in instances when it would be the norm or required to do so?” Questions answered as “yes” were scored with 1 point, while questions answered with “no” were scored as 0. A high score suggests close ties with the animal agriculture industry and, therefore, considerable potential for bias.
The results of this study show that one way the animal agriculture industry has protected itself from climate criticism is by funding the work of university professors who have the perceived academic expertise to shape both public opinion and policy in the industry’s favor. The study identifies Dr. Frank Mitloehner and Dr. Kimberly Stackhouse-Lawson as two academics who have led the climate change countermovement with significant financial backing from the animal agriculture industry.
Dr. Mitloehner
Dr. Mitloehner of the University of California, Davis scored a 19/20 on the yes-or-no questions. From 2002-2021, Dr. Mitloehner received nearly $5.5 million in research funding from the animal agriculture industry. That means that 46% of Dr. Mitloehner’s total funding over two decades came from industry groups such as the National Pork Board.
Starting in 2009, the beef industry funded Dr. Mitloehner to fight the Livestock’s Long Shadow report. A timeline covering 2009-2023 shows that Dr. Mitloehner used industry-funded research, white papers, social media, communication with policymakers, and testimonies to the federal government to influence climate policy in favor of the animal agriculture industry. For example, the authors argue that Dr. Mitloehner was instrumental in preventing reduced consumption of animal products from being part of the 2015-2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
In 2018, Dr. Mitloehner founded the Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research (CLEAR) Center at the University of California, Davis. According to the authors, the CLEAR Center focuses on minimizing the connection between climate change and farming animals and is largely funded by the animal agriculture industry. However, the authors found that Dr. Mitloehner and/or the CLEAR Center have failed to declare all industry funding.
Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson
The second professor highlighted in the study is Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson, a former student of Dr. Mitloehner. Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson served as a sustainability executive for at least one animal agriculture company before becoming the director of AgNext in 2020. AgNext is an academic center at Colorado State University that focuses on animal agriculture sustainability research and receives funding from multiple industry groups.
Like Dr. Mitloehner, the authors found that Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson has worked directly and indirectly on shaping climate policy in favor of the animal agriculture industry. The center also has close ties with industry: according to the study, one presentation states that AgNext’s advisory board (made up mostly of agriculture industry professionals) provides input on the center’s research plans and communications initiatives. Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson scored 15/20 on the yes-or-no questions.
Big Ag: Protecting Its Interests
Overall, the authors argue that one reason the animal agriculture industry’s greenhouse gas emissions are essentially unregulated is that the industry has funded university professors and academic centers to “obstruct” evidence that animal agriculture contributes to climate change.
In other words, the industry builds public trust and protects its interests by funding university-based researchers who downplay the link between the industry and climate change through research, media interviews, and policy advocacy. The authors describe the industry’s influence as “corporate capture of academic institutions” — when academic institutions are swayed by industries to push their corporate interests through research, communications, and policy recommendations (often unbeknownst to the public).
Notably, the authors of this study received a $25,000 grant from the Climate Social Science Network at Brown University. The authors also acknowledge their employment with institutions related to animal rights. It’s important to recognize these funding sources and ties, as bias can be present in all research (even pro-animal studies).
This study provides an eye-opening description of the ties between universities and the animal agriculture industry. Animal advocates can help the media, policymakers, and members of the public understand that university experts who appear independent and unbiased may be influenced by industry funding. It may not be realistic to prevent “corporate capture,” but animal advocates can at least raise awareness about it.
Editor’s Note for transparency: Faunalytics’ Content Manager co-authored a research paper in 2020 with one of the authors of this study.