Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

No Surprises Behind the Fake Meat Lobby

As usual, elites are pushing a radical change so they can line their own pockets.

Credit: The Toidi

Around 2.6 million years ago, humans started eating meat and, up to today, we have not stopped. Thanks to this, our brains became bigger and more developed. Under the guise of slowing climate change, environmentalist campaigns, the U.N., the Davos Club, and lots of progressive governments’ efforts against the livestock industry and meat consumption have grown. They claim that, after the burning of fossil fuels, the livestock industry is largely responsible for the climate apocalypse they trumpet. The Washington Post gives a taste of the collective vegan madness that has seized our media and political classes. 

The origin of this new offensive against meat comes in the form of a recent study published in Nature Communications that proposes a 50 percent reduction in meat and milk consumption by 2050. The study claims that this course of action will almost completely halt deforestation and reduce greenhouse gasses and land use by 31 percent.


Notwithstanding the dubious correlation, it is interesting to look at who is behind this study.

The author in question is Marta Kozicka of Integrated Biosphere Futures (IBF), an organization dedicated to the “development of transformations in food and bio-based sectors that enable satisfying human needs while ensuring the sustainable use of terrestrial and marine environments.” 

“We can have a real impact by replacing our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based alternatives—even just partially,“ says Kozicka in the Washington Post, leading the journalist to compare the imperative of changing diets to smoking. “Going cold turkey on turkey is hard,” they point out, “but even if you're unwilling or unable to go fully vegan, you can still craft a diet much better for the environment.”

“We need much more than ‘Meatless Mondays’ to reduce the global GHG emissions driving climate change,” says Eva Wollenberg, a co-author of the study. Wollenberg works for the Biodiversity Alliance and Gund Institute, two organizations that lack credibility when it comes to analyzing climate-meat relations because their raison d'etre and premise is precisely to change the world's food supply. Biodiversity Alliance says on its website that its plan is “a unified strategy to solve global crises, turning food systems around,” while Gund Institute bases its strategy on partnering with governments and companies, not to research, but to promote change, including food change: “research is not enough to solve our environmental problems; we also need action.” 

The Gund Institute for Environment is part of the University of Vermont, which is behind the study and which, in turn, is distinguished in its environmental militancy and vegan catechesis. In a document published in 2021, the university openly admitted the reason for this green fervor:


University of Vermont's students today are earth and health-conscious, with 42% of students choosing UVM because of the institution's commitment to these values. Often these values translate to the food choices students make. Working closely with students, UVM Dining has shifted food offerings to meet increasing requests for plant-based food options in the dining halls. More vegetarian and vegan options are now available to students at all meals. 

But if all those involved in the study still seem credible to you, no matter how much they support a single conclusion in the research, it gets worse: The third contributor to the report published in Nature Communications is Impossible Foods, one of the largest companies dedicated to the production of laboratory meat, whose investors include Peter Jackson, Serena Williams, Katy Perry, and of course, Bill Gates.

To no one's surprise, the conclusion this research reached was that it is urgent to abandon meat consumption (at least up to 50 percent before 2050) and that a vegan diet would solve our problems—specifically, a diet based on products from Impossible Foods. In other words: to slow down climate change and avoid death by roasting, freezing, or flooding (the danger changes depending on the decade), we urgently need to consume Impossible Foods products. 

It should be noted that what all these organizations seek is, in effect, to secure that position. Their plan is not to convince people but to compel them. That is why they admit that they work closely with governments and international bodies to ensure that their research drives real action.

Needless to say, no one has bothered to ask the opinions of the livestock sector, which employs millions of people around the world and upon which many more millions of consumers depend. Nor have environmentalists explained why global warming is due to methane gas from cows in the United States and Europe, and not to the 12,466,316 megatonnes that Chinese communism emits each year. (The Nature Communications study quietly admits this problem, recognizing that “the main impacts on agricultural input use are in China.”)

The study has other holes. On the one hand, it proposes to plant the same amount of crops and reduce livestock farming by half without explaining how it will prevent millions of people from starving to death. On the other hand, it also fails to explain how it will be possible for the middle and lower classes to gain access to synthetic meat, which is much more expensive than real meat, without radically accentuating economic inequalities, as is already happening with regard to the imposition of electric cars in European countries.

Davos, the U.N., and the globalist left are behind studies that seek to promote real and profound changes. In the case of the fake meat lobby, it is clear that the environmentalism of the elite is an excuse to plunder and worsen the lives of the middle classes.