By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Trimmel Gomes for Florida News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration.

In a new paper, University of Miami Professor Jennifer Jacquet and a team of researchers argue that the industry-funded National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) knew about the harms of beef production on climate change as early as 1989 and worked to obfuscate the science. In a subsequent paper, Jacquet and post-doctoral associate Loredana Loy trace how trade groups worked to incite doubt that consumers could make a difference, by choosing to eat less meat, on global climate emissions. There is some evidence, albeit indirect, that these efforts have paid off - a 2023 public poll of 1,404 U.S. adults found 74 percent of them said not eating meat would have little or no impact on climate change.

"Meat and dairy does not want the individual or the consumer to think they have any power, or to think that their choices make a difference at all," Jacquet tells Sentient. "They're constantly saying what you do as a consumer will not make a difference. 'Eating less meat and dairy will not make a difference.'"

Yet a large body of climate research from nonpartisan research groups like the World Resource Institute and EAT-Lancet have concluded that dietary change, in the form of reducing meat consumption, is a necessary component of reducing the anthropogenic effects of climate change.

In a parallel to Naomi Oreskes's and Eric Conway's Merchants of Doubt, which details how a group of scientists worked to incite doubt around scientific topics such as anthropogenic climate change and the harmful effects of tobacco, Jacquet's and Loy's research describes how the meat and dairy industry worked to create doubt that consumers can take action to address the harmful effects of beef on the environment. "I call them the moo-chants of doubt," Jacquet says.

In their other paper, Jacquet and her fellow researchers trace how this stems from a history of recognizing, then downplaying, the effects of the beef industry on global warming.

"There is a long, well-documented history of industry attempts to downplay, discredit and even outright deny science that demonstrates the harms of its activities and products. This strategy was honed to a fine art by the tobacco industry; the beef industry now appears to be following the tobacco model," Oreskes wrote to Sentient.

The question that underlies the research investigating the impacts of industry funding is just how much free will consumers have in their decision-making - especially if the information they receive is flawed.

Trade groups like the NCBA are funded by industry checkoffs, which farmers who sell the commodity pay into on each unit they sell. The checkoff industry is a pot of money worth over $1 billion, and is used for researching and marketing the commodity. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that a commodity program would work to make its commodity look good. But the result, in this case, Jacquet argues, is a misinformed public.

How the Beef Industry Funded Research

In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a report highlighting the impact of animal agriculture on greenhouse gas emissions. In it, the researchers found that the livestock sector is "responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions," which is a higher share than that of the transportation sector. The report ultimately warns against continuing on with "business as usual."

In response to this report, Jacquet et al. write, the beef industry commissioned studies to downplay these findings. In 2009, the NCBA gave University of California Davis Professor Frank Mitloehner a grant to investigate the claims made in the FAO report. Throughout his career, Mitloehner has received millions of dollars of industry funding, Jacquet writes, from corporations and trade groups like the NCBA, the National Pork Board and Eli Lilly, funding that was not always disclosed and that in part funded communications efforts to defend the industry.

Jacquet became interested in the origins of the grant, and its goals, and began digging deeper into NCBA archives. Through her archival work, she discovered that climate change was on the industry's radar long before the FAO report, and that the industry was building plans on how to counter claims that reducing meat consumption could have an impact on the environment.

Documented Obstruction

One of the documents Jacquet uncovered was a 1989 NCBA (then NCA) "Strategic Plan on the Environment," which acknowledged global warming and the great impact it could have on the industry. The recommendations set out in the plan include taking "a leadership role in positively influencing legislation and regulations," as well as a campaign to reach "influencers," then defined as media and educators, as well as lawmakers and the leadership of environmental organizations.

The public relations part of the plan mentions "vegetarian messaging" - messaging that encourages consumers to eat less meat - and included one strategy that recommended establishing "a system for monitoring the media and environmentalist advocacy groups actions."

In 1992, a campaign spearheaded by the Beyond Beef Coalition singled out "beef production as a major source of global warming" and encouraged consumers to decrease their beef consumption by 50 percent. The industry fought back with a campaign of its own, Loy and Jacquet write, urging consumers not to blame cows for climate change.

While fighting one campaign with another campaign seems like par for the course in public relations, Loy and Jacquet write that the NCA also urged radio and T.V. producers to refrain from publicizing campaigns like "Diet for a New America" (1990), and funded academic research at Texas A&M to rebut claims made in the Diet for a New America book, such as "it takes 40 times more fossil fuels to produce one pound of protein from feedlot beef than from wheat."

"They emphasized that individuals would not make a difference, and they also obstructed the sort of public understanding of the role of cows and climate change significantly," Jacquet says.

When asked for a response on the conclusion of these two most recent papers, Chief Executive Officer of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Colin Woodall, wrote to Sentient: "The author of these papers takes significant liberties with the information available to her. Correcting misinformation with science-based data, is just one of the essential roles of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, one for which we are unapologetic. The Environmental Protection Agency has calculated beef's actual greenhouse gas emissions at just 2.3 percent of U.S. emissions. Meaning that any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by lessening beef consumption would be inconsequential. Any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible."

The trade group frequently cites the 2.3 percent figure, which is accurate, but missing important context, according to climate researchers who study food-related emissions. Focusing solely on U.S. emission percentages is misleading, writes Princeton University researcher Tim Searchinger "because overall U.S. emissions are so high." Per capita, these same emissions would be 24 percent "of an average European's total emissions and roughly all per capita emissions in sub-Saharan Africa." Also left out of this figure is just how much beef the average U.S. consumer eats - three times more than the global average.

Imagining a Different World

Changing your diet is one of the few things that an individual consumer can do to impact the climate, Jacquet tells Sentient. As household actions go, shifting to a plant-forward diet is one of the most effective, according to a 2021 study from Project Drawdown.

Reduced meat consumption helps curb how many cows are raised for food. Beef has an outsized climate impact due to the methane they burp into the atmosphere and the massive amounts of land and feed crops required over the course of their lifetime. And cutting back would also have other carbon benefits such as reverting pastureland back to forest and other wild landscapes, which helps keep carbon emissions out of the atmosphere.

Despite the relative consensus on the role of dietary shifts that emerged around 2018, industry misinformation has made its way to most of the public. In their paper, Loy and Jacquet write that "at least part of the reason for civil society's diminished ambition and hesitation to advocate for dietary change as a climate mitigation strategy was due to strategic opposition by the animal agriculture industry."

Through the 2000s and into the 2010s, trade organizations were still working against campaigns that encourage eating less beef, Loy and Jacquet argue. In 2021, Colorado governor Jared Polis declared a 'Meat Out Day' and encouraged residents to lessen their meat consumption. The Colorado Cattlemen's Association organized against this, resulting in 26 Colorado counties signing "Meat In" proclamations. The Governor then back-pedalled and declared one day 'Colorado Livestock Proud Day' the following week.

The industry campaigns and funding have been so effective in changing public perception, Jacquet and Loy argue, that they have influenced governmental policy and guidance.

"There's never been a huge buy-in on behalf of the government to address consumption," Jacquet says. The Biden administration's 2023 plan to reduce methane emissions did not mention reducing beef consumption once, for instance. "There's a lot of talk about tweaking production methods, very similar to how it is now with feed additives. Not about reducing head counts, by the way, but about proving efficiency. That is the grand narrative, I think, that we are all operating under."


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A joint effort is helping Wisconsin farmers protect water quality in their communities by learning more about how to prevent manure and fertilizer spills and runoff.

"Nutrient Management Farmer Education" is a collaboration across six counties in northern Wisconsin, with partners from the University of Wisconsin, technical colleges and the Department of Agriculture. It helps farmers properly manage manure and fertilizer applications to optimize crop growth while protecting water sources.

Wayne Gajewski, a dairy farmer in Athens, said one of the biggest benefits is the collaborative aspect, where farmers learn as much from each other as they do from the instructors.

"I think it's a 'win-win'. It's good for farmers, it's good for the environment and it's good for the public in general," Gajewski explained. "Because farmers are trying to be as efficient as they can and without polluting or doing any harm to the environment."

State law requires farmers to develop and follow nutrient management plans to minimize their environmental impact. Gajewski noted the training enables them to create plans independently, reducing reliance on potentially costly external services.

Kirk Langfoss, analyst for the Conservation Planning and Zoning Department in Marathon County, said the program is unique in how it standardizes training in the region, educating about 60 farmers a year and covering about 22,000 acres. He pointed out grants allow them to offer incentives to farmers and help cover their tuition.

"They can get up to $750 reimbursement on soil testing, they can get payments to do manure testing, they commit to between eight and 12 hours a year when it comes to the class," Langfoss outlined. "It reimburses them for their time and makes it worth it."

Agriculture spills have been prevalent across Wisconsin, with one reported last month in Monroe County.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio food banks are urging state lawmakers to approve what they said is a modest budget increase needed to get more fresh, local produce into the hands of hungry families.

The request coincides with National Fruits and Vegetables Month and a broader call to support both food access and local farms. Through the Ohio Agricultural Clearance Program, surplus produce from nearly 100 Ohio farms is delivered to food banks statewide.

Alex Buck, president of the Fruit Growers Marketing Association, said the funding request is not just about food access, it is about sustaining local agriculture.

"Our relationship with the food banks isn't for profitability purposes, it is the right thing to do to support our communities," Buck explained. "It also allows our farms to be compensated fairly for produce that would not normally make it to the retailers."

He pointed out the requested increase of just under $5 million would help offset inflation. Food prices rose nearly 24% between 2020 and 2024, while Ohio food banks said their funding has remained flat since 2019, limiting how much food they can purchase.

Buck argued cutting funding could make it unsustainable for farms to participate, especially as labor and production costs have risen. He added the program shortens the distance between farm and table, preserving freshness and reducing food waste.

"Our farmers care. None of our farmers live in mansions. They love what they do, they love to feed families, they love to support the communities," Buck emphasized. "It doesn't make it viable for farmers to continue to support this program, if there's not funds behind it."

Food banks are bracing for a drop in state support from $32.5 this year to $24.5 million next year, which could mean 8 million fewer pounds of food. Advocates said the funding boost would help prevent the loss.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

At least eight miles of a Southwest-Wisconsin stream were polluted by a manure spill earlier this month. The spill killed hundreds of fish, including many wild brown trout. The affected waterways — Spring Valley Creek, Moore Creek and the Kickapoo River — have long been remarkable for their healthy water quality, healthy enough to sustain naturally-reproducing trout populations. The source of the spill appears to be manure applied to fields by a 600-head dairy operation near Norwalk, Ben Uvaas, who works at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), tells Sentient. A “gully washer,” or massive rain event, appears to have triggered the runoff, he says. Though the farmer of the dairy operation took measures to protect soil health, the combination of heavy rains and 11,500 gallons of applied manure per acre were enough to trigger a spill.

This year, there have been at least 9 documented manure spills in Wisconsin, according to the DNR. The Kickapoo River, where some of this manure was observed, eventually carries water all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Contaminants like manure and other agricultural byproducts contribute to an oxygen-depleted area known as the “dead zone” that can kill marine life. In 2024, the dead zone spanned 6,705 square miles.

On May 17, the DNR received a call about this spill to their violation tip line. The warden who received the call — a law enforcement official tasked with enforcing natural resources laws — went out to the stream, where they observed the hundreds of dead fish.

Uvaas works on the state DNR’s non-point source pollution program, referring to the kind of pollution that tends to be carried by rain or snowfall, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The warden was able to track the source back to a farm field in Monroe County, southwest of Norwalk, Uvaas says. Wisconsin Public Radio reported the farm as Brueggen Dairy Farm, a 600-head cow operation.

Brueggen Dairy is not considered a concentrated animal feeding operation as it falls under the 700-head dairy threshold set by the EPA. In 2022, the operation received the Monroe County Conservation Farmers of the Year award.

On Monday, May 19, the DNR fisheries team examined most of the area — collecting hundreds of dead fish along the way. Spring Valley Creek, Moore Creek and the Kickapoo River, where the spill occurred, are prized trout habitats in a region that is a destination for fishers and other recreationalists.

So far, the investigation has determined that the week of May 11, a farmer injected approximately 11,500 gallons of manure, per acre, to around 130 acres of farmland. A Wisconsin DNR official recently said that anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 gallons per acre is acceptable.

On May 14, the rain storm hit. Farmers frequently apply manure to their fields as fertilizer, but over-application can contaminate drinking water with nitrates, and high levels of ammonia can kill fish and other wildlife.

The farmer had been performing a range of what Uvaas describes as “soil health” practices meant to improve soil structure and the amount of manure applied does not appear to be beyond acceptable ranges. But the spill occurred anyway, illustrating that manure application has the potential to go wrong.

“Despite all our efforts to find the best time to apply (manure), Mother Nature is unpredictable,” Farm owner Randy Brueggen wrote in a statement to Wisconsin Public Radio.

“We as a dairy farm know how valuable this resource is, which is why we utilize incorporation practices in an intentional, safe and compliant manner,” Brueggen continued. “We strive to utilize our organic fertilizer over synthetic fertilizer for our crops. Our group’s farming practices always prioritize conservation. We want to sustain the land, so the land sustains us.”

In Wisconsin, “more than 1,500 miles of streams and rivers, and 33 lakes, in the nine counties assessed have impaired waters due overwhelmingly to combined pollution from manure and commercial fertilizer,” a 2022 investigation by the non-profit Environmental Working Group and non-profit law group Midwest Environmental Advocates found.

In the Driftless region of the Midwest, an area that covers parts of Northeast Iowa, Southwest Wisconsin and Southeast Minnesota, pollution containment and cleanup is especially difficult, Uvaas says. Unlike the rolling hills and lush soils of the Corn Belt, the karst topography is characterized by natural spring-fed streams, rocky bluffs and a thin layer of topsoil.

As a result, the streams are “fairly high gradient” and “high velocity,” says Uvaas, and this creates “an extremely narrow window” for response time, at least “compared to other parts of the state.” In the flatter parts of Wisconsin for instance, officials can put in barriers and collection sumps to collect contamination. But by the time DNR officials got to this site, it was too late. “There’s not any kind of collection or containment that’s feasible in the waterway, which is unfortunate, but that’s largely driven by timing and the topography here.”

Sentient is awaiting records from the Wisconsin DNR for more information regarding this spill, including enforcement action.


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email