Who is driving the anti-livestock agenda and why?

Attempts to manipulate the food system, whether to maintain the status quo or to drive change, are said to rely on instrumental (e.g., lobbying), discursive, and structural power plays, shaping norms, values, and beliefs with the ultimate intention of controlling choice [Sievert et al. 2020]. We argue that this also applies to the anti-livestock agenda. Much of the current trend in anti-livestock discourse appears to be driven by a symbiotic convergence of ideology, profitability, and technocracy. Below, we will document how grand schemes for dietary change, such as the Great Food Transformation, are aggressively endorsed by powerful vested interests, justified by a rationale of 'sustainable development,' market expansion, societal design, and resource control.

However, it is important to keep in mind that what is essentially an alignment of self-interests should not be mistaken for a cabal or monolithic conspiracy (whether or not it is an attempt to stifle criticism) [Rothkopf 2009]. Power networks are fluid and 'messy' constellations. Some of the agendas involved are divergent, if not contradictory, although think tanks do facilitate the streamlining of strategies. Furthermore, not all outcomes of this movement should be categorically dismissed as harmful; a distinction is needed between what is beneficial (e.g., innovation) and what is not (e.g., the further erosion of food resilience, livelihoods, and public health).

The anti-livestock agenda will be traced back to its various contributors [Leroy et al. 2023], consisting of (1) an ideological agenda supported by NGOs, (2) an economic agenda driven by food industries, financial players, and philanthrocapitalists, (3) a desire to control public discourse by mass media, (4) an epistemological crusade led by certain activist academics and futurists, and (5) a power struggle to shape policies by public-private partnerships, consolidating the efforts of all these actors.

The most obvious contribution to anti-livestock sentiment comes from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), particularly those inspired by animal rights ideologies or more radicalized environmental movements. Typical examples of hardline animal rights NGOs include PETA and PCRM, which are also closely interconnected financially and logistically. In addition to the ideological component, some more corporatized NGOs are also contributing, whether consciously or unconsciously, to economic strategies under the guise of alleged ‘sustainable transitions.’ The underlying rationale is that securing formal endorsements from NGOs may help garner societal acceptance. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), for instance, has faced criticism for aiding corporations in land claims that lead to the displacement of indigenous communities and for its affiliations with companies engaged in greenwashing. WWF supports the Great Food Transformation and is aligned with the EAT-World Economic Forum (WEF) network. Alongside WWF, the World Resources Institute (WRI) devises plans for shaping dietary preferences toward drastically reduced consumption of animal-source foods.

Food corporations

Prominent food corporations and their lobby groups, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), are promoting 'plant-based' products as nutritious and eco-friendly alternatives to animal-source foods, despite these often being ultra-processed products designed for fast-food consumption (e.g., imitation burgers, nuggets, and sausages). Even major meat companies like Tyson and JBS have (unsuccessfully) tried to enter the plant-based market, by rebranding themselves as 'protein companies'. The process of transforming plant-derived materials, such as starches, oils, and protein isolates, into imitation foods relies on advanced technology, giving large food processors a competitive advantage. In many respects, this trend echoes the technological and marketing strategies of the low-fat craze of the late 20th century, whereby the underlying intent is to present ersatz products as superior to the original. The goal is to capitalize on the expertise of food processing companies to convert low-grade materials into products with added value, often constructed around unsubstantiated and misleading narratives of health, sustainability, and animal welfare.

Investors and vegan-tech companies

The 'plant-based' trend presents market opportunities for a corporate system seeking expansion, with transnational companies and vegan startups attracting substantial investments from Silicon Valley and other major investors like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos. This proposed shift in food systems also has broad geopolitical implications, involving (natural) resource control, carbon credit trading, and international trade, which have drawn the interest of global power centers. Investors are influenced by predictions of technology-driven market disruptions, including forecasts of animal agriculture's decline in the coming decades. Additionally, some influential investors, such as FAIRR, KBW, and Open Philanthropy, are driven by ideological motivations and have close ties to animal rights organizations.

Philanthrocapitalists 

Philanthropic foundations play a significant role in shaping public perception and advancing corporate agendas. They exert considerable influence over global health policies, often promoting business-friendly models and technological quick fixes. For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has been a major donor to the World Health Organization and an investor in 'plant-based' products. It wields significant influence through its funding across various sectors, including mass media and academia. The Open Philanthropy (OP) Project, an Effective Altruist centre linked to Silicon Valley, has donated millions to animal rights groups and vegan technology. Like BMGF, OP also influences media, in this case by funding publications like The Guardian to produce commissioned content that portrays animal agriculture as harmful.

The media's interest in the ‘plant-based’ narrative, often with anti-livestock overtones, is driven by several factors. Firstly, substantial financial backing from organizations like Open Philanthropy, which supports vegan-tech and animal rights causes, influences media coverage in journals like The Guardian. Other more specialized media, like Sentient Media, are simply to be seen as activist hubs for animal rights-inspired journalists. They do, however, work closely together with mainstream media like The Guardian and Vox. Secondly, the media is drawn to sensationalist and provocative narratives that capture public attention and engagement. By focusing on extreme environmental and ethical implications of animal agriculture, media outlets generate reader interest and discussion, which in turn drives their reporting strategies. Social media further amplify these messages, as user-generated content on platforms like Twitter and Facebook spreads anti-meat messages widely. Due to the ‘negativity bias’ effect, where negative information tends to have a greater impact on consumer evaluations and decision-making than positive information, anti-meat content is particularly influential. This dynamic further encourages media outlets to highlight and sensationalize negative aspects of meat consumption to attract and maintain audience engagement.

Academics

Academics, particularly young scientists, are vulnerable to adopting excessive anti-livestock views due to several factors that compromise scientific objectivity. Firstly, academics careers are no longer a simple matter of scientific output but also of public visibility. Academic institutions may incentivize researchers to produce striking, easily digestible messages to maximize public engagement. The pressure to achieve societal impact and media visibility can push researchers to simplify complex issues. Sensationalist findings and statements attract considerable attention and media coverage, encouraging researchers to present dramatic claims and extreme viewpoints. Secondly, financial support from industry and philanthropic organizations with specific ideological agendas can skew research outcomes. This financial influence may lead to biased reporting or the promotion of one-sided narratives that align with the interests of the funders. Similarly, government funding and policy agendas can drive researchers towards extreme recommendations to align with political or strategic goals. Finally, the academic environment can foster ‘my-side bias’ and ‘white-hat bias’. My-side bias occurs when researchers favor information that supports their pre-existing views or ideologies, while white-hat bias involves distorting information to advance what is perceived as a righteous cause. Together, these factors can lead to the endorsement of extreme anti-livestock positions as researchers may unconsciously prioritize alignment with ideological beliefs over scientific objectivity.

Ecotopian futurists 

The concept of a radical shift in dietary patterns, as currently proposed in policy discussions, has been influenced by the field of 'futures studies.' This discipline, which has been criticized for its lack of scientific rigor, is focused on scenario-building and, ultimately, technocratic control over global resources. Think tanks, such as the Club of Rome, Stockholm Environment Institute, Tellus Institute, and Planetary Health Alliance have been actively engaged in promoting a radical shift towards a new utopian model that also includes dietary transformation. Their reductionist 'food system' lens may potentially harm food security, livelihoods, communities, and rural landscapes. Their promotion of a Great Food Transformation aligns with a broader framework of grand transition schemes, echoing the vocabulary and agendas of the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' and 'Great Transformation.' These similarities suggest a common framework and origin.

Capitalist power centres

Transnational corporations and investors operate within an aggressive globalist economy, in which certain think tanks represent the strategic planning and consensus-forming centres of the capitalist elites. Such think tanks, like the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum in Davos, leverage the interconnections between corporate executives, mass media, and global bureaucrats to shape policy frameworks, including a so-called 'Great Food Transformation' towards a 'Planetary Health Diet'. The latter has been initiated and promoted by the EAT Foundation, a 'Davos for food'.

Global management institutions

Corporate globalization is facilitated through global management institutions like the World Bank and United Nations. These institutions, although with limited liability, have the power to weaken national sovereignty and shift power from governments to investors, financial markets, and international organizations. Ecotopian worldviews have found favour among certain prominent UN figures. Maurice Strong, the founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), was not only associated with New Age centres but also had ties to the corporate world and the Rockefeller sphere. He organized key UN conferences which laid the foundation for the profitable international agenda of 'sustainable development', portraying the environment as a lucrative enterprise. This strategy shifted the focus from major polluters to individuals who were blamed and urged to alter their consumption patterns. Strong's personal network extended to various organizations that are now associated with the EAT Foundation's 'Great Food Transformation', such as the World Economic Forum, Club of Rome, World Resources Institute, Stockholm Environment Institute, WWF, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

The Strong legacy

The above-mentioned actors (i.e., corporations, investors, global power centres, philanthrocapitalists, non-governmental organizations, ecotopian futurists, and UN factions), have formed public-private partnerships (PPPs) to synergistically maximize their influence. The PPP concept was introduced by Maurice Strong in 1997 to facilitate collaboration between the UN and the business community. It has been criticized for its lack of democratic accountability, as PPPs tend to operate beyond national boundaries and regulatory structures, making it challenging for civil society to effectively resist corporate influence, especially during times of societal shocks like economic crises or pandemics. The support for the EAT Foundation's 'Great Food Transformation' builds on the exact same network of organizations and establishment NGOs that Maurice Strong promoted in the 1970s. The concept of 'planetary boundary' conditions introduced by Strong was later formalized by the Stockholm institutes and is now used to legitimize the Planetary Health Diet. History has shown that top-down policies promoting grand schemes often come with control, exploitation, dispossession, and self-legitimization. Therefore, it's not surprising that EAT's 'Great Food Transformation' attracts the main power centres of the corporate food system.