NOW SERVING Psychedelic Culture

Food and Global Warming: The Silent Treatment

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest
Share on linkedin


The following is adapted from Diet for a Hot Planet (Bloomsbury USA).


I learned three things on my first trip to
Nashville, Tennessee. Number one: there is an entire museum devoted to Cooter
from the Duke's of Hazzard. Number two (and perhaps less unexpected): don't
order the sushi. And number three, the meat industry and its communications
experts are unfazed by the threat to their markets of public concern about the
livestock sector's impact on global warming, or if they were, they certainly
weren't yet talking about it in the spring of 2008.

That March, six hundred meat industry reps
descended on the Gaylord Opryland Convention Center for the annual convention
of the Food Marketing Institute and American Meat Institute. As a presenter
joked from the stage, their attendees may have been significantly smaller than
the National Religious Broadcasters who filled most of the rest of the convention
hall with their throngs of thousands, "but our booze is better." That got a
rousing applause from the crowd of meat vendors, producers, and retailers from
across the country.

Any alarm about public concern or imminent
policy on greenhouse gas emissions from their sector? Not a peep. The words
"global warming" were never uttered, at least not at any of the plenaries or
workshops I attended. Mind you, this is two years after the United Nation's Livestock's Long Shadow report was
released, which spelled out in no uncertain terms that the global livestock
sector is responsible indirectly and directly for 18 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions. To put that into perspective: That's more then all
transportation-related emissions combined at the time.  

The big public relations concern was the YouTube video depicting animal
at a slaughterhouse in Northern California, show by a hidden camera
and then gone viral.  The
industry's strategic communications teams were in overdrive, working to repair its
damaged reputation. Among their responses was to produce their own video of a
"humane" slaughterhouse, said Deborah White of the Food Marketing Institute. Other
communications workshops included one on how to beat back anti-meat groups in
which the presenter compared animal welfare organizations to Hezbollah and the
Irish Republican Army.

Meat-industry silence on global warming was
perceptible, not only at the conference, but also in reports required by law to
be submitted annually by public companies to the Security and Exchange
Commission. Interested to see
whether the industry has been changing its tune about climate change, I
searched these "Form 10-k" filings back through the mid-1990s.

Since these are
legal documents filed in part to explain exposure to risk, nearly every filing
referred to the context of national and international environmental regulation.
But did the impact to the
industry of public concern about "global warming" or "climate change" appear
anywhere in these reports? Rarely.

Smithfield, the
country's largest pork producer remained mum about most environmental concerns,
including climate change, except to say in its 2007 10-k: "Hog production
facilities generate significant quantities of manure, which must be managed
properly to protect public health and the environment." That same year the
company also noted $50 million in assistance to preserve wetlands in eastern
North Carolina to promote "environmental enhancement activities." (A relatively
small price tag for a region that is regularly ravaged by hurricanes that have
flooded the state's large-scale hog facilities-and manure lagoons. In 1999,
Hurricane Floyd, called the "worst disaster to hit North Carolina in modern
times," by the governor Jim Hunt, caused $3 billion in damages, in part from flooded hog
farms. Hard-hit counties include Duplin County, 50 miles south of Raleigh,
home to 2.2 million hogs and only 42,000 people.)

The only 10-ks I
found that mentioned global warming were the 2008 filings from Hormel, Tyson,
and Cagle's, and then only because the companies had no choice. The anti-meat
advocacy organization, PETA, known for its celebrity spokespeople like Pamela
Anderson and controversial ads, had submitted shareholder resolutions which
requested disclosure by 2010 of "the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions caused
by individual products." (Using shareholder resolutions to force companies to
talk about climate change is not a strategy unique to PETA. In 2007, the number
of environmental resolutions before shareholders reached a record high, spurred
by demands that companies address the climate crisis.) The companies that PETA
targeted urged their shareholders to vote against the resolution.

Flash forward one
year and the American Meat Institute has changed its tune: The silent treatment
strategy has turned into the denial method of shirking blame. Exhibit A: The
Climate Change and Animal Agriculture fact sheet that the institute released,
which claims that the official figure of livestock-related emissions is a
paltry "2.8 percent of U.S. emissions," in other words "only a small part of
U.S. GHG production."

What the authors
of the Fact Sheet obscure is that this figure only counts methane emissions
from ruminant digestion (that'd be cattle) and manure management (that'd be
those cesspits that fill with waste from factory farms). It doesn't even begin
to account for the full range of sources of emissions from…

  • producing synthetic fertilizer for feedcrops for
    livestock and the emissions from using it. (Worldwide, half of all corn and 90
    percent of all soy is diverted to feed livestock, which give back to us only a
    fraction of the grain and soy we feed them);
  • depleting our soils to raise those feedcrops;
  • producing agricultural chemicals and fertilizers
    to raise feedcrops;
  • heating, cooling, and cleaning feedlots and
    processing plants;
  • processing, packaging, and transporting

And more, like the meat industry's
proportion of methane emissions from landfills, which contain food waste,
including our uneaten meat morsels. Add these together, and the industry's toll
on climate is much more significant than the American Meat Institute is trying
to get you to believe. For the AMI must know that if more Americans were to get
wise to the connections between industrial livestock and the climate crisis, they'd
expect the industry to take responsibility-to change.

The typical
American is smart and getting smarter about the severity of the climate crisis.
More of us get it: Every industry-including meat and dairy-needs to do its
part. We expect more than just a deft deflection of public concern with pseudo-scientific
fact sheets. And if the industry doesn't take this public concern seriously? Well,
the feedlot hamburger might just go the way of the Hummer and end up in the
dustbin of history.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

RS Newsletter

Related Posts

The Battle to Save Mt. Shasta

In California, fire and water are the big worries. How can we ensure having enough fresh water? How can we avoid out of control wildfires? In this dialogue, Dr. Arielle Halpern and Andy Fusso of the Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center discuss serious threats facing the Mt. Shasta area, how indigenous cultures can teach us about solving problems, their lives before they became Water Protectors, and more.

Read More »

Reality Sandwich uses cookies to
ensure you get the best experience
on our website. View our Privacy
Policy for more information.