Mark Harris for Vox; Getty Images

In 2006, the United Nations published a landmark report that singled out the meat and dairy sector as one of the most polluting industries on the planet, one that has “such deep and wide-ranging environmental impacts that it should rank as one of the leading focuses for environmental policy.” 

Ever since, livestock producers have operated an extensive campaign to downplay the industry’s impact and assure policymakers that they can clean up their act by developing questionable initiatives to produce “climate-friendly” beef and “net-zero” dairy.

While some of these projects have the potential to marginally reduce pollution from meat and dairy production, they fall far short of what climate scientists say we must do to bring the food industry in line with global climate targets: Scale down livestock populations and transition to a more plant-based food system. (Globally, meat and dairy production remain a leading cause of climate change and deforestation, and in the US, it’s a top source of air and water pollution.) 

None of this is terribly surprising — it’s largely the same denial-and-deflection playbook used by the oil industry to avoid responsibility for climate change, with help from the usual suspects: industry-aligned academics, front groups, loyal politicians, and social media influencers. 

But among those allies are some surprises, including a few of the world’s largest environmental organizations, like the World Wildlife Fund and the Nature Conservancy.  

I’ve been researching factory farming issues for nearly 20 years, and I’ve long wondered why so many environmental groups either ignore meat’s enormous environmental impact, or even help industry promote initiatives that some critics describe as greenwashing.

So, for How Factory Farming Ends, an ambitious new 10-part Vox series on the past and future of the movement against factory farming, I talked with nearly 40 environmental activists to better understand the green movement’s complicated relationship with meat. Here are three takeaways. (You can read the whole story here.)

Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals Media

Beef, pork, and poultry producers have been under increasing pressure to reduce their environmental impact, and in response, they’ve launched a range of supposed sustainability initiatives.

Many of the projects borrow practices from “regenerative agriculture,” an organic-style farming ethos that’s recently gone mainstream.

While these methods of land management (for example, rotating cattle among different fields instead of grazing them on just one until it’s kaput) do have some proven ecological benefits, research doesn’t bear out the grandiose claims many of regenerative agriculture’s proponents make about its potential to slow down climate change. 

“I think the climate argument in general with regenerative agriculture … is pretty bogus,” said Derric Pennington, a former lead scientist at WWF and now a sustainability scientist at the University of Minnesota.

Then there’s a slate of technological solutions, like feeding cows seaweed to reduce the amount of methane they burp, or changing how animal manure is managed. 

These projects hold some potential to reduce Big Meat’s environmental footprint, but it’s limited. Despite that, these initiatives have helped to prevent environmental oversight of farms: From 2010 to 2022, US meat production increased by over 13 percent while the industry successfully staved off calls for regulation. 

In 2010, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and McDonald’s — along with other companies — launched a conference on sustainable beef, and later, other meat-related projects. For its collaboration, McDonald’s has made sure WWF is well compensated; the company donated $4.5 to $9 million to WWF-US in recent years, and the organization has received millions from other meat-and-dairy driven companies.

Yet nearly 15 years after McDonald’s and WWF launched their sustainable beef project, the fast food giant has little to show for it: An executive admitted recently that the company doesn’t even yet know how to measure and validate its progress.

WWF is hardly alone. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Nature Conservancy, for example, provided technical assistance to Tyson Foods on its so-called “climate-friendly” beef project. What does “climate-friendly” beef even mean? Neither Tyson nor the US Department of Agriculture (which approved the label) could provide data to explain that claim when asked. Yet when you visit Tyson’s website about that beef or view one of its advertisements, it name-drops EDF and the Nature Conservancy.

It’s earned those environmental groups some sharp criticism from fellow activists and academics, including one employee at EDF who told me that this work “provides cover for businesses by letting them set their own ambition.”

And Silvia Secchi, a professor of geographical and sustainability sciences at the University of Iowa, told me, “the taking over of these organizations for greenwashing has reached such a level that I think we need to be honest about it. Because it's pretty obvious that the industry is using them, and whether willing or not, they're letting themselves be used.”

Ed Young /Design Pics Editorial/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

When I asked why these organizations take this approach — and neglect to push for a more plant-based food system — I received a variety of answers. Some said working on policy to shift the American diet isn’t in their wheelhouse, or isn’t a feasible strategy for change. Some said that there’s no realistic pathway to pass legislation requiring livestock producers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so voluntary corporate initiatives must be pursued. 

There’s no doubt that taking on the meat and dairy industry would be a difficult, even toxic fight. Politicians are increasingly pulling meat in the culture war, while European farmers have jammed up highways in protest of proposed livestock regulations.

But some environmental groups have shown that they can indeed advocate for a more climate-friendly food system — and they can do it with little to no political backlash. 

For example, the Breakthrough Institute advocates for the government to fund R&D for the alternative meat sector to produce better plant-based meat and dairy-free milk, while groups like Earthjustice and Food and Water Watch campaign against factory farm pollution that dirties our air and water, and have seen some potential regulatory success. 

European environmental advocates have even helped lower meat consumption in some countries.

None of this is yet enough — as incomes rise around the world, so too does per capita meat consumption. But progress is possible. 

If there is to be any chance at success, however, buy-in from the broader US environmental community will need to precede it. For that to happen, environmental leaders will have to take their own advice: Follow the science wherever it leads, including to the inconvenient truth that changing how we farm alone won’t cut it. We have to rethink our relationship with meat. 

—Kenny Torrella, senior reporter

Getty Images

Are you enjoying the Today, Explained newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up for it right here. 

And as always, we want to know what you think. Specifically: If there is a topic you want us to explain or a story you’re curious to learn more about, let us know by filling out this form or just replying to this email. 

Today's edition was produced and edited by Caroline Houck. We'll see you tomorrow!

Become a Vox Member

Support our journalism — become a Vox Member and you’ll get exclusive access to the newsroom with members-only perks including newsletters, bonus podcasts and videos, and more.

This email was sent to you. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe. If you value Vox’s unique explanatory journalism, support our work with a one-time or recurring contribution.

View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service.

Vox Media, 1701 Rhode Island. NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.