What new challenges does next year hold for the meat industry? Directionally, the industry should expect increasing environmental attacks.

Climate change policy has become a cause célèbre of the Biden administration. At the recent international COP26 meeting, methane reduction permeated discussions.

Animal agriculture is squarely in the crosshairs. It’s been tied to 40% to 50% of global methane. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 36% of methane production in the United States stems from agriculture. (However, animal agriculture’s overall contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is only around 4%.)

Cows are the culprits behind much of the methane production. This may leave stakeholders in pork, chicken or other protein businesses to believe they’re in the clear. After all, this is the beef industry’s problem, not theirs. But the formation of public policy is often illogical and, consequently, messy. Take alcohol regulation, as an example.

The wine industry views itself as culturally different from the beer or liquor crowd. And in fact, abusive binge drinking is more associated with beer and liquor. But, anti-alcohol activists have ensured there’s no such separation in government policy: Wine is lumped in with beer and liquor when it comes to most controls and regulations.

The lesson? Environmentalists and anti-meat activists will intentionally conflate criticisms of cattle and beef production with all animal protein. Consumers may not have the data handy to debunk the false equivalency.

This has already played out in California. The egg industry fought alone against a ballot measure regulating production while other protein producers remained unengaged. There’s a certain logic to that; if a ballot measure only affected eggs, why would the beef industry spend its resources fighting it?

But they now know that activists will use one victory as momentum for another. Now, nearly every protein industry has been affected. Californians are going to be lucky if they can get their hands on a package of bacon in 2022.

On the activist side, the Humane Society of the United States has implemented a divide-and-conquer strategy. They are able to target each industry with limited response as others are lulled by the false sense of security. The meat industry shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.

Today, environmental criticism of agriculture is being broadcast every day to consumers. It’s being taught in schools. It’s being streamed on Netflix and Amazon Prime documentaries. And it’s the Wild West for rhetoric on problem identification and solutions.

Surveys typically find the reason people reduce meat consumption is a belief that it’s better for personal health. But environmental harms are a growing concern, often taking the second spot on surveys.

With the amount of exposure these messages are getting, they will advance the needle with consumers, especially younger consumers. Who will advance the counterarguments? Have you seen any overwhelming and unified industry narratives to control public opinion?

I’m reminded of a quote by Benjamin Franklin: “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

Meat producers must consider their past battles with anti-meat activists as they now face off with environmentalists. PR challenges don’t often accommodate nuance. You can’t wait to correct first impressions. Early engagement is the best strategy to draw the debate foul lines. It's always easier to create an opinion rather than change one.

2022 Outlook: You can’t spell 'methane' without 'M-E-A-T'

Join for free* to continue reading.