It has become a favourite pastime of the right-wing press to criticise vegan diets and revel in the perceived decline of veganism.
Almost every week, there will be stories of the decline in sales of meat substitutes or the closure of vegan restaurants. If not, then there will be reports on the dangers of vegan diets (lack of protein, vitamin B-12, calcium or iodine) or questioning of the environmental credentials of meat substitutes, avocados or plant milks.
Conversely, the science is pretty clear on the environmental impact of the consumption of animal products for food. Beef production is one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation, milk production is a huge drain on water resources and chicken farming has a hugely damaging effect on waterways. Similarly, the numerous health benefits of plant-based diets are well-established.
Many people who are concerned about the environment and their health (but are still ok with animal slaughter) often promote buying local and organic. However, transportation is only a tiny proportion of the carbon footprint of animal food production, and organic farming can be highly exploitative (and still ends in death).
As with many contentious issues, social and political vested interests and coordinated disinformation campaigns are making it harder for some people to make well-informed decisions about their lives.
One study has become a particularly big flashpoint in the last few years. The EAT-Lancet Commission’s “Planetary Health Diet” sought to provide guidance for an “optimal diet for human health and environmental sustainability”. It recommended a “plant-forward” diet focused on whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes with meat and dairy in “significantly smaller proportions”.
Despite the study’s strong scientific credentials it faced a huge backlash on social media and in many articles in mainstream outlets. But this was not a “natural” response. A recent investigation by DeSmog, a climate news site, found that the negative response to the EAT-Lancet study was coordinated by the PR firm Red Flag commissioned by the Animal Agricultural Alliance representing the meat and dairy industry.
A leaked document produced by Red Flag highlighted the success of their framing in the media of the study as “radical”. The leak detailed the “remarkable success” of their placement of many stories in traditional and social media reaching major influencers including their use of outlets such as The Spectator and briefings to the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Such well-planned and funded strategies like those used by Red Flag have continued with the notorious case of the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock, usually known as the Dublin Declaration (DD), the most prominent. This was a joint statement by a group of scientists at a meeting in Dublin in 2022 and other signatories not present at the meeting. It claimed to:
“give voice to the many scientists around the world who research diligently, honestly and successfully in the various disciplines in order to achieve a balanced view of the future of animal agriculture”.
The crux of their position was:
“livestock-derived foods are the most readily available source of high-quality proteins […] well-managed livestock systems […] can generate many other benefits, including carbon sequestration, improved soil health, biodiversity, watershed protection”.
The authors of the DD have boasted of its influence on legislation citing some member states ditching some policies on meat consumption reduction. While the DD, and supporting academic publications, are presented as neutral scientific reporting they have not been subject to the normal scholarly review processes. Moreover, many of the contributors are heavily embedded in the meat industry and have significant conflicts of interest when discussing vegan diets (which were only made apparent after a journalistic investigation).
A sheen of scientific respectability makes it easier for sympathetic policy makers to reject the need for change to farming or consumption practices. The coordinated undermining of more authoritative scientific work, such as the EAT-Lancet study, combine to create what a recent paper referred to as “epistemically harmful” effects. That is, people don’t know who or what to trust.
Contemporary life is beset with disagreement, mistrust, and uncertainty. What we eat is a particularly emotional and personal issue and the greater the confusion the more likely many people are to revert to what they know and be afraid of change. If we are to improve and safeguard the future health of ourselves, other animals and the environment then challenging vested interests and disinformation will be essential.
Disinformation, vested interest and the campaign against vegan diets
by Chris Till May 21, 2025It has become a favourite pastime of the right-wing press to criticise vegan diets and revel in the perceived decline of veganism.
Almost every week, there will be stories of the decline in sales of meat substitutes or the closure of vegan restaurants. If not, then there will be reports on the dangers of vegan diets (lack of protein, vitamin B-12, calcium or iodine) or questioning of the environmental credentials of meat substitutes, avocados or plant milks.
Conversely, the science is pretty clear on the environmental impact of the consumption of animal products for food. Beef production is one of the biggest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation, milk production is a huge drain on water resources and chicken farming has a hugely damaging effect on waterways. Similarly, the numerous health benefits of plant-based diets are well-established.
Many people who are concerned about the environment and their health (but are still ok with animal slaughter) often promote buying local and organic. However, transportation is only a tiny proportion of the carbon footprint of animal food production, and organic farming can be highly exploitative (and still ends in death).
As with many contentious issues, social and political vested interests and coordinated disinformation campaigns are making it harder for some people to make well-informed decisions about their lives.
One study has become a particularly big flashpoint in the last few years. The EAT-Lancet Commission’s “Planetary Health Diet” sought to provide guidance for an “optimal diet for human health and environmental sustainability”. It recommended a “plant-forward” diet focused on whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes with meat and dairy in “significantly smaller proportions”.
Despite the study’s strong scientific credentials it faced a huge backlash on social media and in many articles in mainstream outlets. But this was not a “natural” response. A recent investigation by DeSmog, a climate news site, found that the negative response to the EAT-Lancet study was coordinated by the PR firm Red Flag commissioned by the Animal Agricultural Alliance representing the meat and dairy industry.
A leaked document produced by Red Flag highlighted the success of their framing in the media of the study as “radical”. The leak detailed the “remarkable success” of their placement of many stories in traditional and social media reaching major influencers including their use of outlets such as The Spectator and briefings to the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Such well-planned and funded strategies like those used by Red Flag have continued with the notorious case of the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock, usually known as the Dublin Declaration (DD), the most prominent. This was a joint statement by a group of scientists at a meeting in Dublin in 2022 and other signatories not present at the meeting. It claimed to:
The crux of their position was:
The authors of the DD have boasted of its influence on legislation citing some member states ditching some policies on meat consumption reduction. While the DD, and supporting academic publications, are presented as neutral scientific reporting they have not been subject to the normal scholarly review processes. Moreover, many of the contributors are heavily embedded in the meat industry and have significant conflicts of interest when discussing vegan diets (which were only made apparent after a journalistic investigation).
A sheen of scientific respectability makes it easier for sympathetic policy makers to reject the need for change to farming or consumption practices. The coordinated undermining of more authoritative scientific work, such as the EAT-Lancet study, combine to create what a recent paper referred to as “epistemically harmful” effects. That is, people don’t know who or what to trust.
Contemporary life is beset with disagreement, mistrust, and uncertainty. What we eat is a particularly emotional and personal issue and the greater the confusion the more likely many people are to revert to what they know and be afraid of change. If we are to improve and safeguard the future health of ourselves, other animals and the environment then challenging vested interests and disinformation will be essential.