Animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change, with growing evidence suggesting that a shift toward plant-based diets is crucial to prevent catastrophic climate impacts.

However, despite increasing scientific evidence, many environmental organizations avoid linking animal farming to environmental damage. This reluctance may stem from several factors: a belief that animal agriculture isn’t central to their mission, a lack of experience with advocating against animal farming, and concerns that campaigns against animal agriculture could be perceived negatively by the public. This research aims to understand how staff at environmental organizations in the U.S. view messages about animal agriculture, exploring their hesitations, motivations, and overall perspectives on the issue.

Researchers surveyed environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), targeting state organizations with at least 10 full-time staff and national organizations with at least 20 full-time staff. This resulted in a list of 533 state and 105 national NGOs from 48 states (no organizations in Mississippi or Oklahoma met the criteria). A survey was sent to each of these organizations via email. Of the 111 responses received, 70 were included for analysis because they were the most complete. Closed questions were analyzed with descriptive statistics, while open-ended questions were analyzed inductively to capture respondents’ perspectives.

Animal Agriculture Not A Top Priority

Environmental NGOs advocated on a variety of issues, including water, air, and soil pollution, renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and wilderness conservation. However, only 11% of respondents listed tackling animal farming as a top priority in their organization. Although 86% said they include messaging on animal agriculture in their campaigns, 61% admitted that it’s done infrequently, suggesting that while it’s acknowledged, it’s still seen as less important compared to other environmental issues.

On a personal level, the majority of respondents (92%) believed that addressing animal agriculture is vital for fighting climate change, despite their organization giving it low priority. Practical obstacles included the belief that messaging on other issues was more impactful, a lack of expertise, and concerns about audience pushback and animal agriculture messaging detracting from other, more important issues.

Interest In Encouraging Meat Reduction

Despite these hesitations, there was considerable interest in promoting plant-based alternatives in the future. In fact, respondents were open to encouraging a reduction in meat consumption by promoting options like tofu, beans, or lentils (40%) or products such as Impossible and Beyond (41%), even though less than 3% currently included this in their messaging. When it came to advocating for adopting a veg*n diet, 11% had previously done so, but very few were actively messaging on it at the moment (2%) or planning to do so (2%).

Removing Barriers For Environmental NGOs

When asked what changes could help their organization focus more on animal agriculture in their messaging, the responses highlighted three ideas:

1. Better communication tools (e.g., clear data linking animal agriculture to specific environmental harms, highly engaging visuals and other educational materials);
2. Standardized communication strategies (e.g., organized campaigns that could be modified to fit local or regional needs); and
3. Adapting to changes in political and cultural trends (e.g., taking advantage of public backlash against new factory farms, acknowledging cultural traditions of veg*nism).

Additionally, virtually all respondents (98%) identified raising public awareness of the environmental harms of animal agriculture as the most effective motivator for including it in their messaging. Other motivators, such as environmentally conscious politicians (76%), scientific reports (52%), or more plant-based alternatives (21%) were considered less impactful. When asked about the target audience, respondents indicated they were more likely to focus on younger, non-male, and non-white audiences, though they were generally open to messaging to all groups.

This study suggests that environmental NGOs are more open to addressing animal agriculture’s environmental impact than previously thought, but a lack of expertise and familiarity with the issue restrict their efforts. For animal advocates, the results reveal an opportunity to assist and collaborate with these organizations by sharing evidence-based, easy-to-adopt messaging campaigns. On a broader scale, enhancing public awareness of the harms of animal agriculture — potentially through media coverage or influential figures — could create the conditions necessary for more environmental NGOs to engage in advocacy efforts on the issue.