It’s old news by now, superseded by the real announcement by Epicurious taking advantage of the dust-up to reaffirm the site’s commitment to no longer publishing new content involving beef, but I’d like to take the opportunity to reflect on the “fake news” about Biden’s climate plan calling for drastic reductions in beef consumption and the social media outrage it caused.

When I came across a tweet with an image from Fox News indicating that “Biden’s Climate Requirements” would require you to “cut 90% of red meat,” eat a “max of 4 lbs [of red meat] per year” and consume only “one burger per month” (with “Department of Agriculture, University of Michigan — whatever that is — listed as a source), my immediate reaction was a hefty dose of skepticism. How on earth could I, of all people, have missed that in Biden’s announcements? How was I only finding out about it from this tweet? And why is Fox the only outlet covering this?

It didn’t take long to track down the source of this massive bit of misinformation: A Daily Mail story out of the UK that looked at “what would need to change by 2030 to reach the goal.” While that story does indicate that Biden hasn’t actually released any details about specific policies within his climate plan, it cites a study from Michigan University’s Center for Sustainable Systems (which inaccurately became “Department of Agriculture, University of Michigan” on Fox) that stated that reducing red meat consumption by 90% by 2030 “could see diet-related greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 50%.”

Unfortunately, not everyone took those few seconds to do a quick fact-check of this claim, and it provoked many social media responses from both farmers and ranchers concerned about their livelihoods and consumers concerned about what can go on their grill. The official response came quickly from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who clarified “there is no effort designed to limit people’s intake of beef coming out of President Biden’s White House or USDA.”

I understand the strong knee-jerk reaction to “news” like this that would have grave consequences for the animal agriculture and meat community. I also see why it might not seem that far-fetched given announcements like the one by Epicurious and another from this week about a restaurant in New York City revamping its entire menu to be plant-based due to climate concerns. However, it’s hard for us to ask our consumers to seek out credible sources and not buy into rumors and misinformation about meat if we aren’t holding ourselves to the same standard.

The outrage also drove a ton of attention to the University of Michigan study and prompted articles with titles like, “Biden’s climate change plan may not nix cheeseburgers, but science says beef should be on the chopping block” and opinion pieces with headlines like, “Biden isn’t trying to cut meat consumption - but he should” – not great news for us, especially if the goal of posting about the supposed policy was correcting misinformation.

I know it’s hard, but when you see things (especially on social media) that raise your blood pressure about meat and animal agriculture, take a deep breath, do some research and think carefully about how to best engage, and if engagement is even appropriate. We absolutely need to step up and set the record straight, especially right now about animal agriculture and sustainability. But we need to do so in a way that represents the animal agriculture and meat community as science-based, reasonable and open to collaboration with others who share our commitment to sustaining the planet.

Takeaways from bogus beef ban

Join for free* to continue reading.