Who is driving the anti-livestock agenda and why?

The food system is a battleground. Efforts to influence it—whether to preserve status quo or drive change—are rooted in an interplay of instrumental, discursive, and structural power games. These forces seek to control markets and shape behavior by molding societal norms, values, and beliefs. While it is well-documented that livestock industries have historically played, and continue to play, a role in this process [Sievert et al. 2020], a similar case can be made for anti-livestock agendas and the vegan-tech sector [Leroy et al. 2023]. Much of the current wave of anti-livestock rhetoric seems propelled by a convergence of ideology, profitability, and technocratic interests. Below, we examine how grand schemes for dietary reform, such as the Great Food Transformation, are aggressively championed by powerful vested interests. These initiatives are framed under the banner of 'sustainable development', but are also driven by goals of market expansion, societal engineering, and resource control.

The current anti-livestock movement will be traced back to its various contributors, consisting of (1) an ideological agenda supported by NGOs, (2) an economic agenda driven by food industries, financial players, and philanthrocapitalists, (3) a desire to control public discourse by mass media, (4) an epistemological crusade led by certain activist academics and futurists, and (5) a power struggle to shape policies by public-private partnerships, consolidating the efforts of all these actors. It is important to keep in mind that such an alignment of self-interests should not be mistaken for a cabal or monolithic conspiracy (whether or not in an attempt to stifle criticism) [Rothkopf 2009]. Power networks are fluid and 'messy' constellations. Some of the agendas involved are divergent, if not contradictory (although think tanks do facilitate the streamlining of strategies). Furthermore, not all outcomes of this movement should be categorically dismissed as harmful; a distinction is needed between what can be beneficial (e.g., some of the proposed innovations to increase choice) and what is not (e.g., the further erosion of food resilience, livelihoods, and public health).

NGOs driven by animal rights ideology

The most predictable source of anti-livestock sentiment stems from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), particularly those driven by animal rights ideologies. Prominent examples of hardline animal rights NGOs include well-funded organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which are closely interlinked both financially and logistically. More moderate organisations focus on animal welfare, rather than on animal rights, and argue for more reasonable forms of livestock industry transformation, without demanding to abolish animal agriculture. Moderate and radical organizations may also operate as common fronts, as is the case for the umbrella organization 50by40, which has the mission to halve livestock herds by 2040.

Environmentalist NGOs

In contrast to animal rights-driven NGOs, environmentalist variants have a more planet-centric philosophy (although both agendas often overlap). Some of the more corporatized environmental NGOs play a role in fueling anti-livestock sentiment under the guise of promoting ‘sustainable development’, operating in ways that benefit their corporate partners. Partnerships frequently involve industries producing meat and dairy 'alternatives’, the creation of carbon credit schemes, or the pursuit of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) targets. The rationale behind these collaborations is that securing NGO endorsements can help corporations gain broader societal acceptance for their strategies. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), for example, has faced criticism for facilitating corporate land grabs in the name of establishing Protected Areas, which has led to the displacement of indigenous communities, as well as for its ties to companies accused of greenwashing. Similarly, the World Resources Institute (WRI) has been notably aggressive in its stance against cattle, which occupy vast areas of land globally. Both WWF and WRI have developed interventionist policy frameworks aimed at reshaping dietary habits, with a strong emphasis on drastically reducing the consumption of animal-based foods.

Food corporations

Prominent food corporations and their lobby groups, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), are promoting 'plant-based' products as nutritious and eco-friendly alternatives to animal-source foods, despite these often being ultra-processed products designed for fast-food consumption (e.g., imitation burgers, nuggets, and sausages). Even major meat companies like Tyson and JBS have (rather unsuccessfully) tried to enter the plant-based market, by rebranding themselves as 'protein companies'. The process of transforming plant-derived materials, such as starches, oils, and protein isolates, into imitation foods relies on advanced technology, giving large food processors a competitive advantage. In many respects, this trend echoes the technological and marketing strategies of the low-fat craze of the late 20th century, whereby the underlying intent is to present ersatz products as superior to the original. The goal is to capitalize on the expertise of food processing companies to convert low-grade materials into products with added value, often constructed around unsubstantiated and misleading narratives of health, sustainability, and animal welfare. In an attempt to strengthen policy support and public approval for such products, alliances have been set up with NGOs, scientists, and public-private partnerships. A high-level example is the FReSH initiative, constituting a formal partnership between WBCSD and the EAT Foundation.

Investors and vegan-tech companies

The potential market for food ‘alternatives’—particularly plant-based and lab-grown products—is attracting massive investments from both tech-driven entrepreneurs and established corporate players. Investors like Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos are among those supporting the shift towards a ‘food from factories’ approach, which is portrayed as being disruptive to traditional animal agriculture. Such reshaping of global food systems may have geopolitical implications, including the control of natural resources, carbon credit trading, and international trade patterns, much to the interest of global power centers. The (unrealistic) prediction that animal agriculture will face collapse in the coming decades is driving such investments, with technology all-too optimistically forecasted to revolutionize the agri-food industry. Many of the investors involved are not only focused on profit but also guided by ideological motivations. Groups such as FAIRR, KBW, and Open Philanthropy are closely tied to animal rights organisations and are working with the explicit goal of terminating animal agriculture. Many of them, especially in Silicon Valley circles, are aligned with Effective Altruism, Longtermism, and Transhumanism. The vegan-tech industry is positioned as a solution provider, developing 'alternatives' that range from plant-based products, which may also involve microbial precision fermentation processes, to lab-grown, tissue-engineered ‘meat’. Organizations like the Good Food Institute, founded by a former PETA strategist, are at the forefront of lobbying for these technologies, urging policymakers to invest in them and drive the future of food towards a post-animal agriculture era. Further pressure on the conventional agri-food industry comes from the growing emphasis on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, where organizations like FAIRR, the Good Food Finance Network, and the Food Systems Economic Commission are seeking to influence the financial mechanisms that drive agricultural production.

Philanthrocapitalists 

Philanthropic foundations play a significant role in shaping public perception and advancing corporate agendas. They exert considerable influence over global health policies, often promoting business-friendly models and technological quick fixes. For example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has been a major donor to the World Health Organization and an investor in 'plant-based' products. It wields significant influence through its funding across various sectors, including mass media and academia. The Open Philanthropy (OP) Project, an Effective Altruist centre linked to Silicon Valley, has donated millions to animal rights groups and vegan technology. Like BMGF, OP also influences media, in this case by funding publications like The Guardian to produce commissioned content that portrays animal agriculture as harmful.

The media's interest in the ‘plant-based’ narrative, often with anti-livestock overtones, is driven by several factors. Firstly, substantial financial backing from organizations like Open Philanthropy, which supports vegan-tech and animal rights causes, influences media coverage in journals like The Guardian. Other more specialized media, like Sentient Media, are simply to be seen as activist hubs for animal rights-inspired journalists. They do, however, work closely together with mainstream media like The Guardian and Vox. Secondly, the media is drawn to sensationalist and provocative narratives that capture public attention and engagement. By focusing on extreme environmental and ethical implications of animal agriculture, media outlets generate reader interest and discussion, which in turn drives their reporting strategies. Social media further amplify these messages, as user-generated content on platforms like Twitter and Facebook spreads anti-meat messages widely. Due to the ‘negativity bias’ effect, where negative information tends to have a greater impact on consumer evaluations and decision-making than positive information, anti-meat content is particularly influential. This dynamic further encourages media outlets to highlight and sensationalize negative aspects of meat consumption to attract and maintain audience engagement.

Academics

Academics, particularly young scientists, are vulnerable to adopting excessive anti-livestock views due to several factors that compromise scientific objectivity. Firstly, academics careers are no longer a simple matter of scientific output but also of public visibility. Academic institutions may incentivize researchers to produce striking, easily digestible messages to maximize public engagement. The pressure to achieve societal impact and media visibility can push researchers to simplify complex issues. Sensationalist findings and statements attract considerable attention and media coverage, encouraging researchers to present dramatic claims and extreme viewpoints. Secondly, financial support from industry and philanthropic organizations with specific ideological agendas can skew research outcomes. This financial influence may lead to biased reporting or the promotion of one-sided narratives that align with the interests of the funders. Similarly, government funding and policy agendas can drive researchers towards extreme recommendations to align with political or strategic goals. Finally, the academic environment can foster ‘my-side bias’ and ‘white-hat bias’. My-side bias occurs when researchers favor information that supports their pre-existing views or ideologies, while white-hat bias involves distorting information to advance what is perceived as a righteous cause. Together, these factors can lead to the endorsement of extreme anti-livestock positions as researchers may unconsciously prioritize alignment with ideological beliefs over scientific objectivity.

Ecotopian futurists 

The concept of a radical shift in dietary patterns, as currently proposed in policy discussions, has been influenced by the field of 'futures studies.' This discipline, which has been criticized for its lack of scientific rigor, is focused on scenario-building and, ultimately, technocratic control over global resources. Think tanks, such as the Club of Rome, Stockholm Environment Institute, Tellus Institute, and Planetary Health Alliance have been actively engaged in promoting a radical shift towards a new utopian model that also includes dietary transformation. Their reductionist 'food system' lens may potentially harm food security, livelihoods, communities, and rural landscapes. Their promotion of a Great Food Transformation aligns with a broader framework of grand transition schemes, echoing the vocabulary and agendas of the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' and 'Great Transformation.' These similarities suggest a common framework and origin.

Capitalist power centres

History has shown that top-down policies promoting grand schemes often come with control, exploitation, dispossession, and self-legitimization. Transnational corporations and investors operate within an aggressive globalist economy, in which certain think tanks represent the strategic planning and consensus-forming centres of the capitalist elites. Such think tanks, like the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum in Davos, leverage the interconnections between corporate executives, mass media, and global bureaucrats to shape policy frameworks. The ‘Great Food Transformation’ which seems to have originated as a WEF initiative exemplifies this.

Global management institutions

Corporate globalization is facilitated through global management institutions like the World Bank and United Nations. These institutions, although with limited liability, have the power to weaken national sovereignty and shift power from governments to investors, financial markets, and international organizations. Ecotopian worldviews have found favour among certain prominent UN figures. Maurice Strong, the founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), was not only associated with New Age centres but also had ties to the corporate world and the Rockefeller sphere. He organized key UN conferences which laid the foundation for the profitable international agenda of 'sustainable development', portraying the environment as a lucrative enterprise. This strategy shifted the focus from major polluters to individuals who were blamed and urged to alter their consumption patterns. To facilitate collaboration between the UN and the business community, Strong developed the concept of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in 1997. Such PPPs have been criticized for their lack of democratic accountability, as they tend to operate beyond national boundaries and regulatory structures, making it challenging for civil society to effectively resist corporate influence, especially during times of societal shocks like economic crises or pandemics. 

EAT and the Strong legacy

The support for the EAT Foundation's 'Great Food Transformation' builds on the exact same network of organizations and establishment NGOs that Maurice Strong promoted in the 1970s. Strong's personal network extended to various organizations that are now directly associated with EAT, such as the World Economic Forum, Club of Rome, World Resources Institute, Stockholm Environment Institute, WWF, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The concept of 'planetary boundary' conditions introduced by Strong was later formalized by the Stockholm institutes and is now used to legitimize the Planetary Health Diet.