Documentary ExposΓ©

World Without Cows: Greenwashing the Beef Industry

Financed by global feed giant Alltech, the film is corporate damage control disguised as a documentary.

Are We Better Off In A World Without
(As Many) Cows?

Let's Dig Into the Bull Being
Swirled Around

We are being fed a narrative that beef and dairy are essential to our health and the planet.

The stark and undeniable reality is that the beef and dairy industry is killing us and the planet.

The Reality

It's perplexing
until you see
the scale

Massive feedlots (CAFOs) such as this one are the norm for the 1.57 billion cows in the world.

The scale of the problem

These are the numbers the beef industry leaves out of the conversation.

30 million kmΒ² of land β€” 25% larger than North America β€” is used to raise cattle while producing just 2% of global calories and less than 5% of global protein
The single largest land use on Earth feeds a fraction of the world. Shifting to plant-based diets could reduce agricultural land use by up to 75%.
Earth's land surface
76% Habitable Land
24%
Of habitable land
45% Agriculture
55% Forests + Other
Of agricultural land
80% Livestock
20% Crops
Of livestock land
32M kmΒ² Grazing Land
6M kmΒ²
Global Calorie Supply
17%
83%
Meat & dairy
Plant-based
Global Protein Supply
38%
62%
Meat & dairy
Plant-based
Ritchie & Roser, 2024 β€” OurWorldInData.org Poore & Nemecek, 2018 β€” Science FAO Global Land Survey
5.55
Earths needed
If everyone ate the same amount of meat as Americans, we would need 5.55 planets to sustain our diets.
2Γ—
Projected Increase in Global Meat Consumption by 2050
With 10 billion people and rising wealth, meat consumption is set to double by mid-century. This trajectory is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy, biodiverse planet.
25:1
The Inefficiency of Beef
It takes 25kg of grain to produce just 1kg of edible beef. To feed a growing global population, we cannot afford these staggering inefficiencies.
πŸ”₯
Beef production dominates the agricultural sector's 31% share of global greenhouse gases.
Switching to plant-based diets can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and help mitigate climate change
GWP100 100-year GWP20 20-year
Animal Products
Beef
71kg COβ‚‚e
Cheese
24kg COβ‚‚e
Pork
12kg COβ‚‚e
Chicken
10kg COβ‚‚e
Plant Products
Tofu
3kg COβ‚‚e
Beans
2kg COβ‚‚e
Apples
0.4kg COβ‚‚e

Kilograms of COβ‚‚ equivalent emitted per kilogram of food produced β€” global averages across all production systems.

Poore & Nemecek, 2018 β€” Science. GWP values from IPCC AR6: methane GWP100 = 29.8, GWP20 = 83.

96.5%
Agriculture's Share of the 2Β°C Budget
By 2100, farming is projected to consume nearly our entire carbon budget. This leaves just 49Gt CO2​e for all other sectorsβ€”barely 1.5 years of current fossil fuel emissions.
83Γ—
Methane's Global Warming Potential (GWP)Over 20 Years in Comparison to COβ‚‚
Methane warms the planet far more aggressively than COβ‚‚ in the short term. Cutting it today is our best strategy to delay peak warming and bridge the gap to a zero-emissions future.
55%
Food System's Share of Global Methane Emissions
Compared to fossil fuel's 34%. Cows alone are responsible for 28% of global methane emissions.
πŸ’§
Switching from beef to a plant-rich diet can reduce your water footprint by 55%
Producing 1 kg of beef requires 15,415 litres of water β€” 48Γ— more than vegetables
Animal Products
Beef
15,415L/kg
Pork
5,988L/kg
Butter
5,553L/kg
Cheese
5,060L/kg
Chicken
4,325L/kg
Milk
1,021L/kg
Plant Products
Nuts
9,063L/kg
Soy Milk
3,762L/kg
Soy Beans
2,144L/kg
Fruits
967L/kg
Vegetables
322L/kg

Litres of freshwater consumed per kilogram of food produced β€” global averages across all production systems.

Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012 β€” Water Footprint Network. Values represent global average water footprint per kilogram of food product.

70%
Agriculture's Share of Global Freshwater Use
Agriculture consumes more freshwater than industry (19%) and households (11%) combined.
10
Loads of Laundry
Equivalent to the blue water footprint of 1 kg of beef
50xper kg
Beef's Water Pollution vs. Tofu's
Green water is often dismissed as rainfall but the runoff contains fertilizer and chemicals that kill aquatic life and degrades ecosystems
We are clearing the world's most biodiverse ecosystems to raise cattle β€” and 48,600 species are paying the price
Nearly 28% of all assessed species now face extinction, driven largely by habitat loss. Reducing beef consumption is the single highest-impact dietary choice an individual can make to return land to nature

Wild land mammals represent just 2.6% of cattle's biomass. Livestock now account for 62% of all land mammals by weight.

0Mt
Cattle
45.9% of total
0Mt
Humans
31.6% of total
0Mt
Sheep
12.0% of total
0Mt
Pigs
7.9% of total
0Mt
Wild Animals
2.6% of total

Sources: Bar-On et al., 2018 β€” PNAS · Our World in Data

66%
Livestock's Share of Mammalian Biomass
18Γ—
Cattle vs. All Wild Mammals
At 520 Mt, cattle alone outweigh every wild land mammal β€” from elephants to wolves β€” combined, 18 times over.
2.6%
Wild Animals' Share of Land Mammal Biomass
All wild land mammals β€” elephants, bears, wolves, lions β€” make up just 2.6% of the world's land mammal biomass.

The film is knee deep in bull.

Let's dive into it.

Part III Β· The Doubt Campaign

Myths Debunked

These aren't honest mistakes. Each argument follows a documented playbook β€” the same one the tobacco industry used for forty years.

The Tobacco Playbook

Manufacture uncertainty. Fund counter-research. Attack messengers. Repeat until the public gives up asking questions.

Claim 1 Cherry-Pick 1 / 7

The Industry Claims

“Only 5% of emissions come from cows”

The Science

Full lifecycle analysis puts beef & dairy at 28% of global emissions

The Claim

  • The 5% figure comes from IPCC national inventories — a standardised, internationally recognised accounting method.
  • It measures direct emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management only.
  • A legitimate, transparent methodology used by governments worldwide.
  • The number itself is not fabricated.

The Science

  • It excludes deforestation, land-use change, feed crop production, processing, refrigeration, and transport.
  • Full lifecycle analysis of ~40,000 farms across 119 countries puts food systems at up to 28% of global emissions.
  • Animal agriculture is the dominant driver in that figure.
  • Selecting one accounting layer while ignoring all others is not methodology — it is misdirection.
5% Claimed figure
28% Full lifecycle reality
40,000 Farms studied
Poore & Nemecek, 2018 · IPCC AR6
Claim 2 False Science 2 / 7

The Industry Claims

“The methane from cows is part of a natural carbon cycle — it has no net warming effect”

The Science

Livestock methane has risen 332% since 1890 — this is not a stable cycle

The Claim

  • Biogenic methane does cycle differently than fossil fuel methane.
  • Its carbon atoms were captured from the atmosphere by plants relatively recently — not sequestered underground for millions of years.
  • The distinction between biogenic and thermogenic methane is a real and documented one in atmospheric chemistry.

The Science

  • The warming effect is physically identical regardless of the carbon’s origin.
  • The IPCC explicitly rejects livestock methane neutrality claims.
  • Livestock-sourced methane has risen 332% since 1890 — not a stable cycle but an expanding one.
  • A stable cycle produces stable concentrations. The data shows the opposite.
332% Rise in livestock methane since 1890
86× Methane potency vs CO₂ (20-year)
33–44% Of total planetary warming caused by methane
IPCC AR6 · Carter, EP 104 & 230
Claim 3 Half-Truth 3 / 7

The Industry Claims

“Cows eat things humans can’t — they’re not competing with us for food”

The Science

Feedlots consume 50% of the world’s grain supply

The Claim

  • Ruminants genuinely digest cellulose that human digestive systems cannot process.
  • Vast tracts of marginal land unsuitable for arable cultivation can only produce food through grazing animals.
  • In food-insecure regions, cattle convert otherwise inaccessible vegetation into calories and protein.

The Science

  • The majority of global cattle are grain-finished in feedlots consuming 50% of the world’s grain supply.
  • Even counting only human-edible feed, livestock consume more protein than they return (Baber et al., 2018).
  • The argument is documentably true for a fraction of production — and systematically deployed to justify the whole.
50% Of global grain fed to livestock
3 cal Returned per 100 calories fed
81% Of global soy fed to animals
Baber et al., 2018 · Poore & Nemecek, 2018
Claim 4 Redirect 4 / 7

The Industry Claims

“Soy is destroying the Amazon, not beef — plant-based diets are the real problem”

The Science

81% of soy is fed to farmed animals — the Amazon link is a livestock link

The Claim

  • Soy cultivation is a genuine and documented driver of Amazon land-use change.
  • The aerial photographs of vast monocultures replacing Cerrado and Amazon forest in Mato Grosso are real.
  • Environmental concerns about soy’s land footprint are supported by satellite data and peer-reviewed research.

The Science

  • Only 6% of global soy goes to direct human food consumption.
  • Eighty-one percent is processed into animal feed — predominantly for pigs and chickens in Europe and China.
  • In almost every documented case, the soy-Amazon link is a livestock demand link.
  • Blaming tofu rather than beef is not an ecological argument — it is a deflection strategy.
6% Of soy consumed by humans
81% Of soy fed to farmed animals
90% Of Amazon deforestation driven by livestock
Carter, EP 230 · FAO 2022
Claim 5 Distraction 5 / 7

The Industry Claims

“Buying local beef makes it sustainable — it’s all about food miles”

The Science

Transport is ~1% of beef’s footprint — food type dwarfs food miles

The Claim

  • Reducing food miles has genuine benefits — fresher produce, lower packaging waste, and reduced cold-chain energy.
  • Consumer intuition that proximity reduces footprint is not unreasonable.
  • Buying local creates real community economic benefits.

The Science

  • Transport represents less than 10% of most foods’ environmental footprint — and approximately 1% of beef’s specifically.
  • The type of food consumed matters orders of magnitude more than where it was produced.
  • Plant-based protein shipped from the other side of the planet has a categorically lower footprint than locally raised beef.
  • “Eat local” is a genuine value — it is not a climate strategy.
~1% Transport’s share of beef’s carbon footprint
<10% Transport share of most foods
× mag Food type vs. food origin impact
Poore & Nemecek, 2018 · EP 104, 136, 116
Claim 6 Metric Capture 6 / 7

The Industry Claims

“Net-zero beef is real — the science backs it up”

The Science

A 20% cut from a massive baseline is not net-zero — zero means zero

The Claim

  • GWP-STAR, developed by Oxford researchers Miles Allen and Michelle Keane, is a real and scientifically valid metric.
  • It measures the changing rate of methane emissions over time, which has genuine climate relevance.
  • Rapidly reducing methane has documented short-term cooling potential — a real consideration as the world approaches 1.5°C.

The Science

  • Industry actors use GWP-STAR to claim net-zero status by reducing emissions 20% from historically enormous baselines.
  • The existing atmospheric methane stock accumulated over decades continues to warm the planet.
  • The metric erases historical emissions from the accounting entirely.
  • The Oxford researchers who developed it have publicly distanced themselves from this application.
20% Cut needed to claim ‘net-zero’ under GWP-STAR
150 yr Nitrous oxide atmospheric lifespan
265× N₂O warming potency vs CO₂
Carter, EP 230 · Allen & Keane, Oxford
Claim 7 Cultural Myth 7 / 7

The Industry Claims

“Pastoral farming is natural, traditional, and virtuous — it’s part of who we are”

The Science

94% of all mammalian biomass is now livestock — wild mammals are 4%

The Claim

  • Three thousand years of Western civilisation have embedded the pastoral ideal across religion, literature, and childhood experience.
  • The Good Shepherd, Virgil’s Eclogues, the American cowboy, the British hill farmer — foundational moral narratives with genuine emotional, cultural, and economic weight.
  • The connection between farming and human dignity is historically real.

The Science

  • Cultural familiarity is not ecological validity.
  • George Monbiot identifies this as the most strategically important myth — it describes a pre-industrial world that no longer exists at scale.
  • Industrial beef production is the leading driver of deforestation and the primary cause of biodiversity collapse across key habitat areas.
  • It has displaced 94% of wild mammalian biomass.
  • The myth survives not because it is accurate — but because it is beautiful.
94% Of mammal biomass that is now livestock
46% Of all trees lost since start of civilisation
3B ha Available for rewilding if livestock land freed
Monbiot, Regenesis 2022 · Bar-On et al., 2018
L/kg
kg COβ‚‚e
Mt
Expert Testimony

The science, in his words

Nature cannot sustain our appetite for meat

Sir David Attenborough Β· Naturalist & Broadcaster

Part IV · The Regenerative Myth
RE
GENERATIVE BEEF
VS
WILDING
Chapter 01

Regenerative grazing is the new buzzword.

It's a PR ploy packaged as a compelling environmental solution.

For the first time in decades, an environmental argument has emerged that doesn't ask us to give anything up. Regenerative grazing, its advocates say, doesn't just reduce beef's footprint β€” it reverses it. Cattle managed in specific ways, they argue, can sequester carbon in soil, restore degraded land, and actually heal the climate.

Alan Savory, whose TED talk has been viewed over 10 million times, spearheaded the regenerative grazing movement. Joel Salatin built a movement around it. Netflix gave it a platform. The argument is sophisticated, visually beautiful, and emotionally resonant. But it has three major problems.

A meta-analysis of 287 peer-reviewed studies. One conclusion.

Zero cattle operations sequester more carbon than they produce.

First Problem

ZERO Demonstrable Carbon Accumulation.

01

Demonstrable Carbon Accumulation

Carbon must net-accumulate in soil over meaningful timescales. Soil carbon in aerated soils has a saturation point β€” it cycles, not accumulates. The ceiling is physics.

FAILS
02

Sequestration Exceeds Operational Emissions

Soil carbon stored must outweigh methane and nitrous oxide from the cattle. Best case: White Oak Pastures, industry-funded, non-peer-reviewed, offset only 60%.

FAILS
03

Sequestration Exceeds Opportunity Cost

Carbon stored must exceed what the same land sequesters rewilded. Rewilded native ecosystems sequester continuously for decades. Grazing land does not.

FAILS
Second Problem
40%

GRASS-FED CATTLE PRODUCE APPROXIMATELY FOUR TIMES MORE METHANE THAN GRAIN-FED FEEDLOT CATTLE.

High-fibre diets produce more methane through fermentation. Longer lives before slaughter increase total lifetime methane output. The premium you pay for grass-fed corresponds to higher environmental impact, not lower.

The UN FAO, recognising this, recommends intensification β€” factory farming β€” as the more environmentally rational method per kilogram of protein. This is not an endorsement. It is a condemnation of the entire system.

Grass-fed β€” methane per kg beef ~110 kg CO₂e
Grain-fed feedlot β€” methane per kg beef ~28 kg CO₂e
Premium paid by consumer +4× damage
— Nicholas Carter, The Proof Podcast EP 104 · UN FAO
Third Problem
3× More land

TRIPLE THE LAND.
NONE OF IT EXISTS.

Regenerative grazing requires vastly more land per kilogram than any other method. Scaled globally, that demand falls on the tropics β€” the Amazon, the Congo Basin, Southeast Asian rainforest. Ecosystems storing 100–400 tonnes of carbon per hectare. The solution requires destroying the very forests that could save us.

Current global beef pasture 1.9 Bn ha
≈ the landmass of South America
Required if fully regenerative 5.7 Bn ha
≈ 3× current global beef pasture
↑ +3.8 Bn ha additional β€” an area the size of Africa and Europe combined
The Deforestation Trap Carbon released dwarfs sequestration gains

Clearing tropical forest releases 100–400 t of stored carbon per hectare. The debt from 3.8 Bn ha would take centuries to repay.

Who Bears the Cost The burden shifts to the Global South

Wealthy consumers demand 'ethical' beef. The forests cleared to supply it are in Brazil, the DRC, and Indonesia. The damage is exported.

— Poore & Nemecek, Science 2018 · IPCC AR6 (2022) · Hayek et al., 2024
The Centrepiece Argument

The Same Land.
A Different Choice.

3.1 billion hectares β€” an area larger than the African continent β€” is currently used for livestock and feed crops. What happens if we choose differently?

Regenerative Beef
≀60%

of its own emissions offset
(best case, non-peer-reviewed)

0 years

of global emissions absorbed

Even in the single most optimistic peer-reviewed scenario, regenerative beef on this land offsets less than two-thirds of its own emissions β€” and the soil eventually stops storing any more.

Rewilded Native Ecosystem
0 Gt

CO₂ sequestered β€” equivalent to
7 years of global fossil fuel emissions

16 years

of global emissions absorbed
(Poore & Nemecek, 2018)

Rewilding the same land would sequester carbon continuously for decades, restore wild mammal populations, recover biodiversity, and end the land competition driving tropical deforestation.

"A global shift to plant-based diets would free up 3 billion hectares. Rewilding that land could sequester the equivalent of 16 years of global fossil fuel emissions."
β€” Poore & Nemecek, Science, 2018
Chapter 06
The Alternative

What the Land
Becomes

The rewilding argument is not simply 'stop beef.' It is: the same land, given back, becomes something extraordinary.

Carrifran Wildwood Β· Scotland
200,000

Trees planted on a single former sheep-grazing site. Wolves, beavers, and lynx under active discussion for reintroduction.

Gorongosa National Park Β· Mozambique
110+ species

Returned to a land-use change site within 15 years of protection. Buffalo, elephant, and lion populations restored from near-zero.

Rewilding Europe Initiative
1M hectares

Under active rewilding across 10 European countries since 2011. Wolverines, lynx, and bison reintroduced at scale.

268 Gt

of CO₂ absorbed β€” from one dietary shift

That's seven years of all global fossil fuel emissions β€” Hayek et al., 2024
Current livestock & feed land use 3.1 Bn ha
If rewilded β€” CO₂ sequestered 268 Gt CO₂
Chapter 07
The Conclusion

Regenerative Beef
Is a Delay,
Not a Solution

The mathematics of planetary survival cannot accommodate the cattle system β€” even its best-managed, most celebrated, most documentary-friendly version. The land is the opportunity. The question was never how to optimise what happens on that land. The question is what we choose to do with it.
0 cattle operations offsetting full lifecycle emissions
60% maximum documented offset β€” best case in literature
3× land required if all beef went regenerative β€” none of it available
268 Gt CO₂ sequestered if same land rewilded (Hayek 2024)
16 yr of global fossil fuel emissions absorbed
What You Can Do
  • Reduce beef consumption β€” particularly grass-fed and 'regenerative' marketed beef
  • Support rewilding organisations: Rewilding Britain, Rewilding Europe, Trees for Life
  • Share this analysis β€” the industry's marketing budget is vast; the counter-argument relies on peer networks
Link copied.
The Damage

Every Day. Every Hour. More Destruction.

We can choose to stop this. We can choose to eat less beef.

Before & After 01 / 03
The Deception

The Road to Ruin

A Timeline of Industry Deception

Part IV Β· The Doubt Campaign

How the Story Was Built

From 1989 to today, the beef industry didn't just respond to the climate conversation β€” it engineered it. This is the documented record.

The Pattern

Five Tactics. One Goal.

Delay, deny, and deflect β€” using the same playbook the tobacco industry refined for forty years.

Political Capture

Campaign donations and documented bribery β€” notably JBS in Brazil and the US β€” to secure favourable regulations and defund independent oversight.

Scientific Obfuscation

Funding centres like the UC Davis CLEAR Center to produce industry-aligned research that carries the credibility of peer review without its independence.

Metric Manipulation

Promoting alternative accounting methods β€” such as GWP* β€” that make stagnant high-emission levels appear "climate neutral" in international reporting frameworks.

Expert Recruitment

Recruiting Registered Dietitians and medical professionals via continuing education credits to act as credentialed brand ambassadors in clinical and social media settings.

Strategic Delay

Using distant "2040" and "2050" net-zero targets to avoid immediate, verifiable action today β€” buying decades of business-as-usual while projecting the appearance of commitment.

Era 01 The Early Warning 1989–1992
What They Said
What Was Happening
No public statement
1989

The National Cattlemen's Association develops an internal "Strategic Plan on the Environment" β€” privately acknowledging global warming as a coming reality and forecasting it will become a major regulatory challenge for the beef industry.

Inside Climate News, March 2025

Beef is a natural, wholesome part of a healthy diet and a healthy planet.

NCA industry messaging, c. 1990
1990

The industry actively suppresses the documentary Diet for a New America β€” applying coordinated pressure on broadcasters to limit any content linking reduced meat consumption to planetary health outcomes.

Mighty Earth Β· A Rotten Business
βœ•

Beef cattle are part of a natural, sustainable agricultural system that has nourished civilisations for millennia.

NCA counter-messaging, 1992
1992

In direct response to the public "Beyond Beef" campaign, the NCA launches coordinated messaging designed to decouple the word "cow" from "climate change" in public perception β€” 3 years after their own internal documents privately acknowledged the link.

Inside Climate News, March 2025
Era 02 The Science Wars 2006–2014

The UN's methodology is deeply flawed. Attributing 18% of global emissions to livestock simply does not reflect the science.

Industry response to Livestock's Long Shadow, 2006
2006

The UN FAO publishes Livestock's Long Shadow, attributing 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions to livestock. Rather than engaging with the findings, the industry immediately funds a challenge to the methodology itself.

UN FAO, Livestock's Long Shadow, 2006
βœ•

Independent research confirms that previous estimates substantially overstated livestock's contribution to climate change.

NCBA-backed messaging, 2009
2009

The NCBA funds targeted research at UC Davis specifically to challenge and revise the UN figure. The research is not independent β€” it is industry-commissioned. The campaign succeeds: the UN later revises its figure downward to 14.5% in subsequent reports.

DeSmog Β· GRSB Industry Profile

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef represents the industry's commitment to meaningful environmental transformation β€” with the world's leading food companies at the table.

GRSB founding statement, 2012
2012

The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is formed — with no binding emissions targets, no independent verification mechanism, and participation on a voluntary basis only. Founding members include McDonald's and WWF, lending critical public credibility to what critics describe as a voluntary façade.

DeSmog Β· GRSB Industry Profile

GRSB's principles represent the most comprehensive framework for sustainable beef ever developed β€” a new chapter for the industry.

GRSB statement, 2014
2014

Friends of the Earth and Food and Water Watch publicly denounce GRSB's principles as "an industry-led attempt to greenwash conventional beef production" β€” citing the complete absence of binding targets and the voluntary nature of every commitment in the framework.

Friends of the Earth, 2014
Era 03 The Digital Playbook 2017–2023
βœ•

JBS is a company built on family values, hard work, and a commitment to the communities we serve around the world.

JBS corporate communications, c. 2017
2017

JBS owner Joesley Batista secretly records President Michel Temer apparently ordering bribe payments β€” then hands the tapes to prosecutors in exchange for immunity. Subsequent testimony reveals JBS bribed 1,829 political candidates across Brazil, spending nearly $250M. The company is fined $3.2B. Brazil's stock market falls 10% in a single day; traders name it "Joesley Day."

The Guardian Β· Globe and Mail Β· Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2017

We are working collaboratively with global partners to build a more sustainable and climate-resilient beef supply chain.

GRSB communications, 2020
2020

GRSB hires MHP Group β€” a crisis communications firm β€” to develop a "new narrative" for beef and lobbies the United Nations directly to push back against the #ActNow plant-based campaign targeting younger audiences globally.

Mighty Earth Β· A Rotten Business
βœ•

JBS is proud to announce our commitment to achieve Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 β€” the most ambitious climate pledge in the history of the global protein industry.

JBS press release, 2021
2021

JBS simultaneously expands production capacity. No verified roadmap exists for achieving Net Zero while increasing output. The New York Attorney General will later call this claim "misleading" β€” a legal case that ultimately costs the company $1.1M in environmental restitution and forces a rebrand of the "pledge" as a "goal."

NY AG Lawsuit, 2024 Β· JBS Settlement, 2025

The Trailblazers program empowers the next generation of farmers and ranchers to share their story with authenticity and confidence.

NCBA, 2021
2021

The Trailblazers program provides professional media training to an elite tier of influencers specifically targeting Gen Z with messaging designed to be "emotional and aspirational" rather than evidence-based. Part of the Masters of Beef Advocacy network, which will reach 20,000 graduates by 2026.

NCBA Β· Beef Checkoff documentation
βœ•

The science clearly demonstrates that balanced, sustainable healthy diets acknowledging nutritional needs are the path forward β€” not prescriptive dietary ideology.

Brazil & Argentina delegate position, IPCC review, 2023
2023

Leaked IPCC drafts reveal Brazil and Argentina delegates successfully removed language recommending plant-based diets from the Sixth Assessment Report β€” replacing it with "balanced, sustainable healthy diets." Also deleted: references to meat as a "high-carbon" food and calls for wealthy nations to reduce consumption. The underlying science, cited in the same report, found meat produces 10–50Γ— more emissions per kilogram than plant-based foods.

Quartz Β· Corporate Knights Β· Common Dreams, 2023

The Masters of Beef Advocacy program gives farmers and ranchers a voice β€” equipping them to share the true story of beef with confidence.

NCBA Β· Beef Checkoff, 2023
2023

A Guardian investigation enrolls in the MBA program β€” finding a sophisticated PR operation, not an education course. The NCBA operates a "Digital Command Center" tracking over 200 beef-related topics across media and social platforms, described as looking like "a military operations center combined with an electronics retailer." Checkoff money funds $9.1M in content marketing annually. Industry-placed stories in the LA Weekly, Westword, and the Denver Post carry no disclosure of NCBA involvement.

The Guardian Β· Joe Fassler, May 2023

Brazen Beef is the first USDA-verified climate-smart beef β€” delivering a measurable 10% reduction in emissions while maintaining the quality consumers expect.

Tyson Foods, 2023
2023

The "climate-smart" label is approved by the USDA without a requirement for third-party independent audit. The 10% reduction claim is not externally verified at point of approval. The Environmental Working Group immediately challenges the label β€” a dispute that ends in settlement two years later.

Grist Β· EWG, 2023

Sustainable beef production is not part of the climate problem β€” it is part of the solution. We are here at COP28 to make that case to the world.

GRSB at COP28, November 2023
Nov 2023

GRSB coordinates a major PR presence at COP28 promoting sustainable beef as a climate mitigation strategy. No new binding commitments emerge from the participation. Critics describe the delegation as "lobbying disguised as climate action" at the world's preeminent emissions reduction summit.

DeSmog Β· GRSB Industry Profile
Era 04 The Legal Reckoning 2024–2026

JBS remains fully committed to our Net Zero by 2040 pledge and stands behind the integrity of every climate commitment we have made.

JBS statement, 2024
2024

The New York Attorney General files suit against JBS, alleging their "Net Zero by 2040" claim is legally misleading β€” the company has no viable pathway to the target while continuing to expand production. The first major government legal action against beef industry climate marketing.

NY Attorney General lawsuit, 2024
Label quietly retired
Nov 2025

Tyson Foods settles with the Environmental Working Group, agreeing to stop using "Net Zero" and "Climate-Smart" labels for five years unless independently verified by a qualified third party. The Brazen Beef campaign ends without admission of wrongdoing.

Grist Β· EWG Settlement, November 2025
Pledge becomes "goal"
Nov 2025

JBS settles with New York State, agreeing to rebrand its climate "pledge" as a "goal" and paying $1.1M in environmental restitution. The language change is not cosmetic: a pledge implies commitment; a goal implies aspiration. The distinction is now legally enforced.

JBS Β· New York State Settlement, November 2025

The agriculture sector is here at COP30 as a partner in the climate solution β€” bringing science-based approaches and the voice of producers to the table.

CNA (Brazil agribusiness lobby) at COP30, November 2025
Nov 2025

A DeSmog investigation finds 302 industrial agriculture lobbyists at COP30 in BelΓ©m β€” a 71% rise from COP27 and more than the size of Canada's entire delegation. One in four have direct access to official negotiations. JBS sends 8 delegates including its CEO. Brazil's agribusiness lobby CNA brings 30. Bayer and NestlΓ© are "diamond" sponsors of the COP Agrizone. Indigenous leader Vandria Borari: "More than 300 agribusiness lobbyists occupied the space that should belong to the forest peoples."

DeSmog Β· Kick Big Polluters Out, November 2025

20,000 advocates. 20,000 voices for beef. The most powerful grassroots movement in food today.

NCBA Β· Masters of Beef Advocacy, 2026
2026

The MBA network reaches 20,000 graduates β€” a decentralised influence operation trained to enter social media conversations, "correct myths," and distribute industry talking points via a private Facebook group. The program, launched in 2009 and funded by the mandatory Beef Checkoff levy, now operates alongside Trailblazers (elite media-trained Gen Z influencers) and a Digital Command Center monitoring 200+ beef-related topics in real time. None of the citizen advocates are required to disclose their industry training.

NCBA Β· Beef Checkoff Β· The Guardian, 2023–2026
Sources Inside Climate News Β· The Beef Industry Knew Mighty Earth Β· A Rotten Business Grist Β· Tyson Drops Climate-Smart Label DeSmog Β· GRSB Industry Profile JBS Β· Statement of Facts (DOJ)
Evidence reel
The science is settled The proof

Five numbers that show the true cost of beef β€” and the scale of what's possible when we change our plates.

01 / 05
Land use 77%

of all agricultural land raises livestock

That's 40 million kmΒ² β€” an area larger than North and South America combined β€” yet it produces just 18% of global calories and less than 20% of protein.

Source: Poore & Nemecek, Science, 2018

02 / 05
Climate 14.5%

of all greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock

More than the entire global transport sector β€” every car, plane, ship and train on Earth combined. Beef and dairy alone account for 65% of that total.

Source: FAO, Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock, 2013

03 / 05
Water 1,800gal

of water to produce one pound of beef

Producing the same amount of protein from plants uses 90% less water. Global livestock uses 8% of all freshwater β€” water increasingly scarce in the regions where most feed crops grow.

Source: Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012

04 / 05
Biodiversity 86%

of threatened species are affected by livestock agriculture

Habitat conversion to pasture and cropland for animal feed is the leading driver of biodiversity loss globally β€” ahead of urban development, mining, and pollution.

Source: IUCN Red List data via Poore & Nemecek, 2018

05 / 05
The solution 75%

reduction in food-related land use β€” if the world went plant-based

Even cutting meat in half in Western diets would free an area the size of the EU from agriculture, sequester billions of tonnes of COβ‚‚, and slash freshwater use.

Source: Poore & Nemecek, Science, 2018

By the numbers

The scale is undeniable

77% of land

77% of agricultural land

Dedicated to livestock β€” producing just 18% of global calories

14% of GHG

14.5% of greenhouse gases

All livestock combined β€” more than the entire global transport sector

75% reduction

75% less land needed

If the world shifted to a plant-based diet

The Path Forward

Progress doesn’t demand perfection.

Why Plant-Based is Better For You. The Planet. And the Future.

01 / 04

The Scientific Consensus is Clear

These are not opinions. They are conclusions backed by decades of peer-reviewed research.

The evidence is clear

One Choice. Every Meal. Help or Harm?

Going plant-based is the single biggest individual action you can take for the environment. Take the first step today.

What you can do →

References

All sources are APA-formatted

2021 Global Nutrition Report: The state of global nutrition. (2021). Development Initiatives. https://globalnutritionreport.org/documents/851/2021_Global_Nutrition_Report_aUfTRv0.pdf

Baber, J. R., Sawyer, J. E., & Wickersham, T. A. (2018). Estimation of human-edible protein conversion efficiency, net protein contribution, and enteric methane production from beef production in the United States. Translational Animal Science, 2(4), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txy086

Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(25), 6506–6511. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

Bennett, C. E., Thomas, R., Williams, M., Zalasiewicz, J., Edgeworth, M., Miller, H., Coles, B., Foster, A., Burton, E. J., & Marume, U. (2018). The broiler chicken as a signal of a human reconfigured biosphere. Royal Society Open Science, 5(12), 180325. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180325

Berners-Lee, M., Kennelly, C., Watson, R., & Hewitt, C. N. (2018). Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 6, 52. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.310

Bowman, M., & Hurley, N. (2024). Policy Briefing: GWP* – An Inappropriate and Dangerous Measure of Livestock Methane’s Contribution to Global Warming. Feedback. https://feedbackglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Feedback-2024-GWPStar-Policy-Briefing.pdf

Carter, N. (2024). Harvesting Denial, Distractions & Deception. Freedom Food Alliance. https://www.freedomfoodalliance.org/thereport

Carter, N. (n.d.). The Climate Crisis Secret. Sentient Media. https://sentientmedia.org/the-climate-crisis-secret/

Carter, N. (n.d.). The Hidden Climate Culprits. Freedom Food Alliance. https://www.freedomfoodalliance.org/unfork-the-food-system/the-hidden-climate-culprits

Carter, N., & Urbancic, N. (2023). Seeing Stars: The New Metric That Could Allow The Meat And Dairy Industry To Avoid Climate Action. Changing Markets Foundation. https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Seeing-stars-report.pdf

Institute for Future Food Systems. (n.d.). Regenerative Ranching vs. Rewilding. IFFS. https://iffs.earth/

Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Redefining agricultural yields: From tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 034015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015

Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change. (2019). IPCC.

Coimbra, Z. H., Gomes-Jr, L., & Fernandez, F. A. S. (2020). Human carnivory as a major driver of vertebrate extinction. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 18(4), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.10.002

FAO. (2022). FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9970en

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2024). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024 – Financing to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. https://openknowledge.fao.org/bitstreams/d5be2ffc-f191-411c-9fee-bb737411576d/download

Gautam, M., Laborde, D., Mamun, A., Martin, W., Pineiro, V., & Vos, R. (2022). Repurposing Agricultural Policies and Support: Options to Transform Agriculture and Food Systems to Better Serve the Health of People, Economies, and the Planet. The World Bank and IFPRI. https://doi.org/10.1596/36875

Goldman, D. M., Waterfall, T. J., & Nagra, M. (2025). Traditional Maasai Dietary Practices and Their Inapplicability to Modern Carnivore Diets: A Narrative Review. CurΔ“us, 17(2), e78448. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.78448

Hayek, M. N., Harwatt, H., Ripple, W. J., & Mueller, N. D. (2021). The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nature Sustainability, 4(1), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4

Hayek, M. N., Piipponen, J., Kummu, M., Resare Sahlin, K., McClelland, S. C., & Carlson, K. (2024). Opportunities for carbon sequestration from removing or intensifying pasture-based beef production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 121(46), e2405758121-. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2405758121

Lanou, A., Barnard, N., & Raymond, J. (2008). Healthy Eating for Life for Children. Turner Publishing Company. https://books.google.com/books?id=DnzuEAAAQBAJ

Lucas, E., Guo, M., & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. (2023). Low-carbon diets can reduce global ecological and health costs. Nature Food, 4(5), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00749-2

Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of The Total Environment, 536, 419–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022

Pendrill, F., Gardner, T. A., Meyfroidt, P., Persson, U. M., Adams, J., Azevedo, T., Bastos Lima, M. G., Baumann, M., Curtis, P. G., De Sy, V., Garrett, R., Godar, J., Goldman, E. D., Hansen, M. C., Heilmayr, R., Herold, M., Kuemmerle, T., Lathuillière, M. J., Ribeiro, V., … West, C. (2022). Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science, 377(6611), eabm9267. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm9267

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Raj, S., Guest, N. S., Landry, M. J., Mangels, A. R., Pawlak, R., & Rozga, M. (2025). Vegetarian Dietary Patterns for Adults: A Position Paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2025.02.002

Ritchie, H. (2021). Drivers of Deforestation. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation

Ritchie, H. (2022). Wild mammals make up only a few percent of the world’s mammals. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

Rizzo, G., & Baroni, L. (2018). Soy, Soy Foods and Their Role in Vegetarian Diets. Nutrients, 10(1), 43-. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10010043

Roberts, S. (2022, October 14). Feed vs. Food: How Farming Animals Fuels Hunger. A Well-Fed World. https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/

Ruggeri Laderchi, C., Lotze-Campen, H., DeClerck, F., Bodirsky, B., Collignon, Q., Crawford, M., Dietz, S., Fesenfeld, L., Hunecke, C., Leip, D., Lord, S., Lowder, S., Nagenborg, S., Pilditch, T., Popp, A., & Wedl, I. (2024). The Economics of the Food System Transformation (Global Policy Report). Food System Economics Commission (FSEC). https://foodsystemeconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/FSEC-Global_Policy_Report.pdf

Saget, C., Vogt-Schilb, A., & Luu, T. (n.d.). Jobs in a net-zero emissions future in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank and International Labour Organization. Retrieved March 17, 2025, from https://www.ilo.org/publications/jobs-net-zero-emissions-future-latin-america-and-caribbean

Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T., & Dumas, P. (2018). Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature, 564(7735), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z

Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E., & Milo, R. (2018). The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(15), 3804–3809. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

Sun, Z., Behrens, P., Tukker, A., Bruckner, M., & Scherer, L. (2022). Global Human Consumption Threatens Key Biodiversity Areas. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(12), 9003–9014. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c00506

Weis, T. (2016). Industrial Livestock and the Ecological Hoofprint: Inequality, Degradation, and Violence (pp. 205–214). Routledge.

World Bank. (2019). Illegal Logging, Fishing, and Wildlife Trade: The Costs and How to Combat it. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/1462c00a-6ef5-5964-9805-f31a9b1463ab

WWF. (2024). Living Planet 2024—A System in Peril. WWF. https://wwflpr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/2024-living-planet-report-a-system-in-peril.pdf

Xu, X., Sharma, P., Shu, S., Lin, T.-S., Ciais, P., Tubiello, F. N., Smith, P., Campbell, N., & Jain, A. K. (2021). Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2(9), 724–732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x