A newly leaked document has shed light on the extensive public relations tactics employed to discredit the Eat-Lancet Commission’s landmark environmental study, published in January 2019. The investigation indicates that a campaign orchestrated by PR firm Red Flag, which represents the Animal Agriculture Alliance, significantly contributed to a backlash against the commission’s recommendations regarding dietary change. The findings were reported by climate-focused website DeSmog.

The Eat-Lancet report aimed to provide a solution to the pressing dilemma of how to sustain a growing global population while avoiding severe climate consequences. It recommended a 50% reduction in global red meat consumption and advocated for the adoption of a “planetary health diet.” This diet promotes increased intake of plant-based foods, such as nuts and legumes, while reducing reliance on meat and sugar. The study argued that animal agriculture is responsible for over 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Following the report’s release, a fierce backlash ensued, leading to a wave of personal attacks against the researchers involved. Researchers reported receiving threats and negative comments, with nearly 1,315 articles discussing the report—many of which echoed Red Flag’s messages. One document from Red Flag indicated that campaign strategies effectively highlighted perceived hypocrisy among the Eat-Lancet founders and painted the recommended dietary changes as extreme and impractical.

The document detailed that within two weeks of the Eat-Lancet report’s publication, nearly half of the related articles included messaging from the campaign. It also cited instances of articles in influential publications, including the Spectator, framing the report as a coercive attempt to reshuffle public diets, further intensifying the negative narrative surrounding the research.

Dr Marco Springmann, a senior researcher at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford and one of the authors of the Eat-Lancet report, spoke about the tumultuous aftermath of the study’s release. He reflected on the severe burnout he experienced during the media storm and highlighted the professional repercussions, stating, “Usually I lead on two to three studies a year, but in the year following Eat-Lancet, I wasn’t able to even lead on one.” Dr Line Gordon, also an author of the study, conveyed feeling overwhelmed by the level of vitriol and hostility directed at her, revealing, “I remember waking up in the morning and I’ve never been attacked in so many ways.”

On social media platforms, a subsequent study published in the Lancet journal reported that discussions were dominated by critics who employed misinformation and personal insults to undermine the report’s credibility. Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, noted, “Red Flag turned Eat-Lancet into a culture-war issue,” signalling a shift from constructive dialogue to aggressive confrontation.

Experts highlighted that the campaign was one of the early instances reflecting a culture war around dietary changes, drawing parallels to the type of backlash often encountered in climate science debates. Victor Galaz, an associate professor at the Stockholm Resilience Center, remarked on the unprecedented nature of the aggressive reactions towards dietary recommendations, stating, “Everyone was shocked by the volume and tone of the tweets.”

Despite the intense criticism faced by the Eat-Lancet report, it has remained influential, cited in over 600 governmental and policy documents internationally. With a second report expected to be released this year, Dr Springmann expressed hope that it could lead to a more constructive discourse regarding dietary recommendations and their environmental implications. “It’s a big opportunity to put the debate back on a better track,” he stated.

Source: Noah Wire Services