Currently browsing posts about: Meat

Apparently so.  According to the New York Times, the city has banned ads promoting activities linked to high carbon emissions.  Meat is high on that list.

On May 1, Amsterdam became the world’s first capital city to ban ads for fossil fuel products and meat. It’s part of the city’s efforts to discourage consumption of goods linked with high carbon emissions.

Ads for airlines, cruises, and faraway destinations are no longer allowed because they implicitly promote the burning of fossil fuels. Ads for beef, chicken, pork and fish are also banned because of the environmental harms caused by animal agriculture.

…Amsterdam’s law applies to city-owned properties and public spaces, such as buses and bus shelters, benches, trams, trains and metro stations, and billboards. Advertising in privately owned stores and in media such as newspapers, radio and online formats is exempt.

Here’s why:

Will banning such ads encourage less meat consumption?  I hope someone is evaluating this possibility.

Let me start with a summary from Food Safety News:

The final four in the [meat] consolidation game are:

• JBS – This Brazil-based food giant is the world’s largest beef processor. It owns facilities that slaughter and pack over 20,000 cattle per day in the U.S.
• Tyson Foods – Known for chicken, Tyson is also the second largest U.S. beef processor. Their five beef plants process thousands of cattle daily.
• Cargill – This agribusiness conglomerate is the third largest U.S. beef packer and also owns one of the nation’s largest feedlot operations, Cargill Cattle Feeders.
• National Beef – Majority owned by Brazilian meatpacker Marfig, National Beef operates three U.S. packing facilities that process thousands of cattle per day.

Those are the four companies that control about 80 percent of the U.S. beef market, and there is no reason to believe that any of them are satisfied with their share. American consumers are paying some of the highest, inflation-adjusted prices for steaks and hamburgers than at any time in history.

The Trump administration says it is taking this on.  In a series of announcements on X (formerly Twitter), USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says:

We must work to address this to protect our ranchers and consumers. @POTUS  and this administration are focused on promoting fairness and competition — ensuring our producers have options and a level playing field.

Not only that, she adds,

Half of these meatpacking giants, including the largest meat packer in the world, are either foreign-owned or have significant foreign ownership and control, making them a threat not just to our cattle producers, but a threat to America itself.

Here’s what she says they doing about it:

We’re putting forward short- and long-term solutions through the @USDA  Beef Plan and a major DOJ investigation into anti-competitive practices ordered by @POTUS.  Food security is national security.

And what is the USDA Beef Plan?  This will enhance disaster relief, increase grazing access, and build demand.

Anti-trust regulation?

Not a chance.

I’ve been writing about Beyond Meat’s financial troubles since at least 2022, so the latest problems come as no surprise.

Beyond Meat, you will recall, makes plant-based meat alternatives: nutrition powerhouses, clean protein, fiber essential for the gut microbiome.

Recently, Beyond Meat announced that it would be moving into beverages—“a logical move—and not an admission of defeat—after another grim quarter.”

Grim quarter?  Indeed yes (thanks to Steve Zwick for sending)

As another commentator points out:

1. Beyond Meat has never made a profit.

2. Each $1 of product it sold in 2025 cost it $1.95 to make.

3. That’s a dramatic change since 2024, when each $1 of product it sold cost $1.32 to make.

4. It has $1.2 billion of accumulated losses on its balance sheet.

In the meantime, according to USDA, the per capita availability of red meat has increased by 10 pounds since 2014 and is now 105 pounds per capita per year or roughly a third of a pound a day for every man, woman, and baby in the country—and that’s for boneless.

We would all be healthier, and so would the planet, if we ate less red meat on average.  That was the point of developing plant-based alternatives; these were supposed to substitute for real meat.  Apparently, they don’t.

This means: If you want to reduce the impact of your diet on climate change, reduce your intake of red meat however works for you.

The new MAHA dietary guidelines could mean that changes are coming to school meals.  Or so the USDA says.

While waiting for the USDA to issue new rules, various groups are urging specific improvements.

United We Eat, a coalition of MAHA-supporting groups, urges the USDA Secretary to get busy Aligning School Meal Standards with the MAHA Mandate to Protect Children’s Health.  It is especially concerned about the poor quality of meat served in school meals (something I hear a lot about from school food service directors).

These processed animal products often contain additive heavy formulations, including preservatives
such as nitrites and nitrates, which health authorities have associated with increased colorectal cancer risk in processed meats, as well as other processing agents such as sodium phosphates that raise broader nutritional concerns and kidney damage….Beyond the concerns with processed meat, majority of all animal proteins served in schools are sourced from industrial supply chains that rely on routine antibiotic use, growth-promoting drugs including ractopamine, and feed grown with significant pesticide inputs.

Another coalition, this one of nearly 200 food service professionals, school districts, and other groups, is pressing for plant-based meat alternatives in the protein group.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including those released in January, have long recommended diversifying protein intake across plant and animal sources. Yet in practice, school menus remain heavily dominated by animal-based proteins. A forthcoming analysis of a sample of 45 school district menus from November 2025 found that, excluding nut butter and jelly sandwiches, fewer than one in ten school lunch entrée offerings utilized plant-sourced protein to fulfill the M/MA requirement. More than 90% of school lunch entrees contained animal-sourced proteins…a plant protein subgroup within the Meats/Meat Alternates category would provide a clear, practical framework to diversify protein intake, increase fiber consumption, and improve inclusivity within child nutrition programs.

USDA ought to be issuing new school food rules soon.  I can’t wait to see what they are.  In the meantime, this is a good time to weigh in.

Plant- and cell-based meats are not doing as well as expected, and the new dietary guidelines, pro-meat and anti-highly processed don’t help this cause much.  Here are some items I’ve collected lately on this topic.

• Does plant-based meat still dominate the meat-free sector? Meat alternatives are in trouble, but traditional plant-based and vegetarian foods will not necessarily replace them… Read more
• Cultivated meat’s casualties: who is failing and why?  Makers of cell-based meat are falling, fast. We round up who’s shutting up shop and why… Read more
• Plant-based meat isn’t dead, but it is in a reset: Plant-based meat faces a slowdown as price, foodservice strategy and manufacturing innovation shape the next phase for the sector… Read more
• What will it take to rebuild plant-based and cultivated meat?  As protein demand rises and consumers grow choosier, Good Food Institute Founder Bruce Friedrich outlines how plant-based and cultivated meat can move beyond hype and become investable, scalable industries… Listen now
• Meat alternatives are too niche – plant-based can do so much more: Meat mimicry shows little sign of broad appeal, yet plant-based foods have opportunities beyond it… Read more
• 5 ways to boost plant-based meat sales: Health claims may be an overlooked lever that could reignite plant-based meat demand, according to consumer research by the Good Food Institute… Read more  
• What’s driving the rise of hybrid meat? Industry is showing keen interest in the hybrid trend… Read more  [Hybrid combines plant-based with real meat]
• Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research: FFAR and GFI seek research to improve flavor of plant-based proteins: A new funding call from the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) and the Good Food Institute (GFI) will support precompetitive academic research to reduce off-flavors and improve the sensory quality of plant-based and fermentation-derived protein ingredients.Read More
• Plant-based meat laws aren’t misleading, court rules: Court finds that requiring disclaimers like “does not contain meat” violates free speech, marking another victory for Tofurkey, Plant Based Foods Association and the Animal Legal Defense Fund… Read more

Comment

Alt-meat products comprise their own industry, one hard at work to make these products desirable, accessible, affordable, and acceptable.  Clearly, it has work to do on all counts.

In my post last week, “The government is actively promoting meat and dairy intake,” I said

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

I then noted that this government takes promotion to new levels through its milk mustache ads and pronouncements that we have ended the war on protein (protein has long been understood as a euphemism for meat).

I ended with this comment: “I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.”

Whew.  Did that ever get a response.

Readers raised two issues:

I.  The guidelines and inverted pyramid give equal weight to plant foods.

That’s not how I read them.  I see them as giving lip service to plants but prioritizing meat.  They visually present meat most prominently in the interactive graphic at realfood.gov.  Subsequent statements of the USDA and HHS secretaries also support this view.  And then there are the authors with financial links to beef industry groups who wrote the scientific reports relevent to meat.

II. This is not about meat industry lobbying; it is about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s ideology.  Well, yes.  That too.  “Ideology” refers to belief systems that structure views of the world.  Everybody has them.

I, for example, am ideologically in favor of the dietary guidelines’ advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed food, but ideologically opposed to advice to prioritize animal protein over plant protein.  I would argue that the vast preponderance of research supports that view.

People holding other ideological views disagree, evidently.  They pick different studies to read and come to different conclusions.

Two members of the nine people writing scientific reviews for the guidelines assure me that their reviews are unbiased.  But those reviews invariably reflect the ideology of the people who wrote them.

As I often point out, nutrition research is impossible to control rigorously, unless you lock people up for extended periods of time.  That is why the best controlled studies, those done in monitored metabolic wards, can only be done for a few weeks at most.  Diets are complicated; eaters are complicated; research is complicated.  Complicated research requires interpretation.  Interpretation depends on the interpreter’s particular ideology.

That is why appointing a diverse committee to look at research questions has its benefits; people with differing ideologies have to work out points of agreement.

I will say this for RFK, Jr.  He makes his ideology clear.  It prioritizes personal experience over science.

My ideology: We need science to distinguish anecdote from fact.

Let’s agree that on the meat priority issue, RFK Jr’s ideology fits well with meat industry objectives.

The meat industry has a long history of lobbying around dietary guidelines (see my book, Food Politics).

I have not seen specific reports of meat industry lobbying around the new dietary guidelines.  Apparently, no lobbying was necessary.

A reader, Harish Chintakunta, sent this suggestion for one of my Monday posts on conflicted science.

Subject: UC Davis Methane Summit—A Case Study in Industry-Framed Science?

Dear Dr. Nestle,

…UC Davis hosted a “State of the Science Summit on Reducing Methane from Animal Agriculture” (link). While the summit was billed as scientific, it was organized by institutions with strong financial ties to the livestock industry. Unsurprisingly, the most effective methane reduction strategy—phasing out animal agriculture—was not mentioned.

Instead, the narrative centered on sustaining and expanding animal production, framed as essential for global nutrition which you very well know is not supported by science. The result was less a discussion of science and more a reinforcement of corporate priorities, masquerading as objectivity.

I believe this event is a powerful example of how public institutions can unintentionally (or otherwise) advance industry agendas while sidelining viable alternatives. Your perspective on this would carry tremendous weight.

Methane emissions from cattle are greenhouse gases that strongly contribute to global warming.  The livestock industry would like to reduce methane if it can.  UC Davis, the University of California’s land grant campus, has long provided research to support the state’s industrial producers.  Its scientists recently found that feeding seaweed to cattle can reduce methane emissions.

I looked at the agenda for the 2025 conference.  It appears at first glance to be quite well balanced.  Speakers come from industry, but also from academia and at least one environmental organization.   Several speakers come from the Global Methane Hub, which funds methane-reduction programs; the Hub is sponsored by a variety of industry- and privately funded foundations.

Without having been there, I have no way of knowing whether anyone at this meeting talked about how people and the planet would be healthier eating less meat.  As far as I can tell, no representatives of the EAT-Lancet Commission, which promotes a less-meat Planetary Health Diet, were listed as speakers.

So Mr. Chintakunta is correct: by focusing this meeting on reduction of methane emissions from cattle, rather than on methane emissions in general, it avoids having to deal with the inconvenient truth that eating less meat—which would be bad for the meat business—would be a lot better for planetary health.

The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy.  The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.

But the current government takes this new levels.

Here are the Secretaries of HHS and USDA:

More on the milk mustache campaign here, here, here, and here.

And how about RFK Jr’s birthday celebration:

Earlier, in 2025, USDA announced its plan to “fortify the American beef industry.”

• USDA Action: USDA FNS is encouraging schools, sponsors, and institutions participating in any USDA Child Nutrition Programs (CNP) to source and serve locally grown foods, including beef, in program meals.,,,These efforts will improve access to local foods, including high-quality meat, for American students, and will improve child health and nutrition and reinvigorate American livestock producers by better connecting them with USDA’s Child Nutrition Programs.
• USDA Action: Together with HHS, ensure the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) reflect sound science and practical advice for the American family, including encouraging protein as the foundation for every meal.

Comment

I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries.  Fruit and vegetable growers (“specialty crops”) do not have this kind of clout.  Will eating more meat and dairy foods Make America Healthy Again?  That seems highly unlikely.  In my reading of the evidence, we—and the planet—would be healthier getting more of our calories from plant foods.I