“cowgate” Meat Eating And Climate Change Denial

Generated Summary

This book chapter, titled “Cowgate” and authored by Vasile Stanescu, examines the phenomenon of “meat-eating denial” within the context of climate change discourse. The chapter employs a critical analysis of the strategies used by the meat and dairy industries to misrepresent scientific findings and influence public opinion, drawing parallels to climate change denial tactics. The primary focus is on how these industries, particularly through the work of Dr. Frank Mitloehner, a researcher with ties to the animal agriculture sector, have shaped the debate surrounding the environmental impacts of meat consumption and livestock production. The chapter employs a research approach that includes analysis of media coverage, industry publications, and scientific reports to illustrate how misinformation is disseminated and how it distorts public understanding of the relationship between meat-eating and climate change. The scope of the chapter encompasses a broad range of issues related to the environmental effects of eating meat. The chapter also critiques the arguments that suggest reducing meat consumption will lead to hunger.

Key Findings & Statistics

• The FAO report concluded that the livestock sector is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a higher share than transport.
• In April 2008, 71 percent of U.S. citizens believed in climate change; by 2009, that number had fallen to only 51 percent, with 36 percent believing human activity caused climate change.
• The study found that worldwide meat production produced 18 percent of all emissions relating to climate change.
• The number 18 per cent represents only a worldwide average.
• The research by Dr. Frank Mitloehner, a researcher at the University of California at Davis, received $26,000 U.S. dollars from the Beef Checkoff Program, and 5 per cent of the five million dollars in funding he has received since 2002 has come explicitly from the beef industry.

Other Important Findings

• The study by Dr. Mitloehner, while not disputing the link between animal agriculture and greenhouse gases, has been used to suggest that the original FAO report was incorrect.
• Mitloehner’s presentation had nothing to say about the amount of greenhouse gases livestock actually emitted, only a minor correction of the amount produced by transportation, which, in turn, had only been included for the purposes of comparison.
• The American Chemical Society released a press release, inaccurately entitled “Eating Less Meat and Dairy Products Won’t Have Major Impact on Global Warming” (2010).
• The Cattlemen’s Association followed quickly with a press release to the AG (agriculture) Network entitled “Meat Avoidance Cures Flat Feet & Other Lies”.
• The Center for Consumer Freedom generated a series of press releases to the same effect.
• FOX News first seized on these findings with a headline “Eat Less Meat, Reduce Global Warming or Not” with the introductory line “Save the planet, eat less meat . . . right?”
• CNN carried a headline “Scientist: Don’t Blame Cows for Climate Change”.
• Time Magazine covered it with the headline “Meat-Eating Vs. Driving: Another Climate Change Error?”
• Both the Washington Examiner (Hollingsworth, 2010) and the Washington Times (Haper, 2010) ran the article under the headlines “Don’t Blame Climate Change on the Cows” and “Meat, Dairy Diet Not Tied to Global Warming” respectively.
• The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and Maclean’s published articles that support that claim.
• Mitloehner’s claim is that confined feeding operations or factory farms actually represent an environmental model that the rest of the world should attempt to emulate.

Limitations Noted in the Document

• The chapter does not provide specific details on the methodology used by the author, such as search terms used or databases searched.
• The analysis is primarily based on secondary sources, including media reports, industry publications, and scientific studies, which may be subject to bias.
• The chapter’s focus on Dr. Mitloehner and the meat and dairy industries may not fully represent the complexities of the broader debate on meat consumption and climate change.
• The study does not cover other related aspects, such as a discussion of the economics of meat production.

Conclusion

The chapter concludes by emphasizing that the widespread dissemination of misinformation by industry groups is a significant factor in the public’s lack of awareness regarding the environmental impacts of meat consumption. It highlights how these groups employ public relations strategies to distort the mainstream discourse. The author’s analysis reveals that the tactics used by the meat and dairy industries mirror those employed by climate change deniers, including the selective use of scientific findings, the promotion of industry-funded research, and the downplaying of the severity of environmental consequences. The chapter underscores the importance of recognizing and countering these strategies to facilitate informed public discourse and drive meaningful change. The implications of this research extend beyond the immediate discussion of animal agriculture, as the communication strategies employed by the animal agriculture sector highlight the ways that industry can shape public opinion. The chapter suggests that the focus should be on correcting the misinformation and promoting transparency.