The Disclosure Podcast
Join best-selling author Ed Winters as he dives into veganism and our connection with animals, touching on everything from philosophy and psychology to health, science, politics, and the environment.
The Disclosure Podcast
Investigative reporter uncovers who's orchestrating the meat culture wars | In conversation with Clare Carlile
Meat is becoming a major battleground in the culture wars, but how and why is this happening? Investigative reporter Clare Carlile explains how far-right populists, conspiracy theorists, government departments, lobbyists and PR firms are all contributing to the push to get us to eat more meat.
Clare Carlile is a journalist focussing on environmental and social issues. She is currently an investigative reporter for the award-winning environmental news outlet DeSmog.
Clare earned a BA in English Literature and Languages from Oxford University in 2017. She went on to work as a news and features editor - and eventually co-editor - at The Ethical Consumer Magazine, where she specialised in migrant workers’ rights.
Since 2022, she has worked as a researcher at Desmog, an international journalism platform that investigates misinformation and monitors individuals and organisations opposing climate science and environmental policy. Clare’s work focuses on agribusiness and food politics, exposing how misinformation and lobbying are used to obstruct climate action.
Her investigations have been covered by the organisations including the Financial Times, Politico, and The Guardian.
You can find Clare's work here:
- https://www.desmog.com/user/clare-carlile/
- https://bsky.app/profile/clarecarlile.bsky.social
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
📚To order my new book, click this link.
For more exclusive content and personal writing from me, check out my Substack here.
On my Substack, I share not only my own reflections and personal thoughts on veganism, but also my journey and struggles. You’ll get a deeper insight into the issues that matter most to me and, in doing so, I hope it helps you feel more connected to your own veganism as well. It’s a space where we can connect and explore the intersection of compassion, reason and rationality together. By joining my Substack you also support the work that I do!
Through my Substack you can also receive regular free 'Good News Roundups' - a collection of positive and inspiring stories from the world of veganism.
If you’d like to support my work separately to Substack, you can also make a one-off or monthly donation here or through my PayPal.
If you’re interested in reading my previous books, you can find them here:
📚 My second book How to Argue With a Meat Eater (And Win Every Time) + if you’ve read the book, you can leave a review here!
📚 My first book This is Vegan Propaganda (& Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You).
Additionally, if you enjoyed this episode, I’d be so grateful if you could leave a review or rating. Your feedback helps the podcast reach more people, and it truly means a lot to me. If you think this episode would resonate with someone you know, please share it with them too.
Thank you so much for listening to this episode and for all of your support. I look forward to speaking to you again in the next episode!
Three, four, four, three, three, four, four, four, three, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, four, five, four, four, four, five, four, four, four, four, four, four, three, three, four.
SPEAKER_00:You can also support my work by becoming a paid member of my Substack, through which you will also gain access to weekly articles or by making a donation through my website. For those of you who do support my work, thank you so much. I am incredibly grateful and appreciate it very much. Just a reminder that my third book, How to Go and Stay Vegan, is now available to pre-order. If you do pre-order my book, then thank you so so much. I really do appreciate it. Links for everything can be found in this episode's show notes. Leaving a review for this podcast is also really helpful and encourages more people to listen to it. I hope you find this episode interesting and informative, and thank you for listening. Hello everyone, and welcome to this episode of the Disclosure Podcast. On today's episode, I am delighted to be joined by Claire Carlisle. Claire Carlisle is a journalist who focuses on environmental and social issues. She is currently an investigative reporter for the award-winning environmental news outlet DSmog. Claire has a BA in English literature and languages from the University of Oxford. And before her work at DSmog, she was co-editor at the Ethical Consumer Magazine, where she specialized in migrant workers' rights. Claire's current work at D-Smog often focuses on agribusiness and food politics, which is what we're going to be talking about today. And Claire's investigations have been covered by media outlets, including The Guardian, The Financial Times, and Politico. So, Claire, thank you so much for joining me on today's podcast. I would love to start with looking at the Eat Lancet report and more importantly, the sort of the conversation around the Eat Lancet report. So I'm wondering if you could maybe talk a little bit about the report and about your investigation into red flag and who red flag are.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, definitely. Yeah, so I guess for anyone who doesn't know of the Eat Lancet Report, basically, back, I mean, five or so years ago now in 2019, a group of academics put out this report. And at the time it was, you know, really groundbreaking. Um, it was the first time anyone had tried to look at how to feed the world sustainably with an increasing population and kind of what impact that could also have on health and life expectancies. So it was this massive piece of work. It took several years. It was, I think it was 37 academics from lots of different disciplines. When it came out, there was this crazy backlash online, like huge, yeah, a huge culture war around it, um, which I think really took people aback. And I mean, it focused on one kind of specific recommendation, which was cutting meat consumption. Um, so the report said that particularly in kind of high-income countries, people should be transitioning to more beans and pulses, you know, still some meat, stum fish, but a big cut in particular red meat consumption and um sugar consumption as well. And there was this, yeah, enormous backlash. And basically, what what we found, we um got access to a document that indicates that a lot of this, um, some of it was obviously organic, but kind of quite a lot of this backlash was stoked at least by a PR firm that regularly represents the meat and dairy industry. Um, so that PR firm is red flag, as you said. Um, and you know, this document, essentially this document was an evaluation written by Red Flag of the campaign they did against Eat Lancet. Um, and it shows that, you know, they briefed journalists, they briefed think tanks, they spoke to social media influencers, they tried to frame what was peer-reviewed research as kind of radical, out of touch, hypocritical. Those were their like their key catchphrases. And they were really, really successful. Um, you know, that this this evaluation is actually them kind of boasting about the success of their campaign against the report. I mean, yeah, part of what they did was, in my view, was really distract from the science. Yeah. One of the the main kind of messages that they were trying to get across um was around this this woman called Gunhill Staudalin. So she is the founder of EAT, which is an environmental organization, and EAT had funded some of the research and had initiated the process. Um, but the research was done by academics. It wasn't done by this woman, Gunhill Staudolin. But they they um seeded, I mean, I think it was over a hundred articles that in the end focused on Gunhill Staudlin. You know, the fact that she um flew in a private jet, the fact that her husband was picked as eating burgers, and they use this to suggest that the research as a whole was kind of hypocritical. Um, so just yeah, totally distracted from the research itself.
SPEAKER_00:It's interesting, isn't it? I think I think what you've hit on is something really important, which is often when there is this sort of obfuscating of the truth, it's it's it's more about trying to tarnish those who are presenting a message as being hypocrites. And the environmental movement faces this all the time. And and um within animal rights and veganism, you know, we face this as well, which is this sort of accusation that if you do anything that has an impact negatively towards the cause that you are representing, that therefore sort of delegitimizes all of your messaging and all of your arguments. You know, and I I get this as a vegan where people go, oh, well, you know, but what about animals who who who are killed in this situation? Or what would you do in this hypothetical scenario? And then they kind of use that basis to say, well, all of your arguments are therefore unjustified. And what's interesting about the Eat Lanta thing is, you know, even within the report, they sort of had said, if I'm if I'm not mistaken, that, you know, plant-based diets are an option, but for the actual sort of dietary health, you know, diet that they were presenting, it wasn't a necessity from their academic research. They were saying plant-based diets are an option, but also we were more focused on reducing consumption rather than say eliminating it. But but even though they're not necessarily saying eliminate it, they're still getting pushback. And it's strange because it's not that they're anti-meat necessarily. They're just saying that we're eating too much of it. Now, I might personally believe that they should say let's not eat any of it, but from their academic perspective, they're eating they're saying they're saying let's eat less of it. But that's still enough to cause a massive uproar.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, totally. Yeah, and I think it was interesting. Like I I spoke to a lot of academics who were saying like this was really at the starting point of meat becoming quite a culture war. Um, so yeah, I think it was like it was this shifting point. And, you know, not in any way to suggest that red flag was directly behind this, but because there was this massive culture war online, I mean it had like really high cost for the researchers themselves. Like they started getting really badly attacked online. Um, you know, I I spoke to a researcher who said like he was struggling to do any research, he was struggling to put papers out, he feels like his career's still being impacted. They were withdrawing from media, um, interviews where they were supposed to be speaking about the Eat Lancer report. Some of them kind of stopped using social media altogether. Like it was really serious stuff. And it wasn't necessarily that red flag, yeah, was it it wasn't directly behind that. There's no evidence to suggest that it was. But, you know, it was stoking this culture war, um, which is making a very hostile environment for scientists to put out papers on things like meat and dairy reductions.
SPEAKER_00:It's like sort of a right-wing cancel culture in in some ways. So red flag, they're they're a PR firm.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And were they sort of hired, let's say, or what was their relationship to Animal Ag? What why did they sort of come on board and decide to try and tarnish the findings of the report?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's a really good question. Um, so we don't know who funded the work. Um, I mean, it presumably will have had a funder, but everything in the document points towards the fact that they did it either on behalf of or at least in partnership with um a group called the Animal Agriculture Alliance, which is, yeah, a meat and dairy lobby group. Um, and they they were formed um yeah, a while ago to they they say to counter kind of emerging threats for the industry. And when you look at that, it's fighting against everything from kind of meat-free Mondays through to, you know, animal rights activism.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Um, yeah, through to the Eat Lancer report. And we know we saw some minutes of their meetings that said, you know, both Red Flag and the AAA were preparing for this report before it was even published. So they hadn't even seen the findings. They just heard that there was a report which, you know, was negative about the meat industry. Um, and they were already briefing journalists. Um, Red Flag was already briefing journalists, the AAA was already preparing its campaigning.
SPEAKER_00:So that uh that's fascinating. So the report hadn't been published, but they would they got wind that the report was coming out. They didn't know the findings of the report, but they still constructed a campaign to try and attack the report. I mean, that just shows how disingenuous it is if they don't even know what the findings were.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, totally. Um, yeah, and it's really interesting. Red flag was already working with um, I don't know if you know the Institute of Economic Affairs. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Libertarian think tank. Um, yeah, very linked to trust. Um, but they had already briefed the Institute of Economic Affairs and were working with them to brief press beforehand. And the Institute of Economic Affairs was then quoted in so many different media articles saying, like, they're trying to control your diets. Um, yeah, they they're gonna kind of tax you out of being able to do all this different stuff. So it again, very cultural, either like they're trying to control you narrative.
SPEAKER_00:It's fascinating. And I suppose the maybe to touch on on what we were just saying about um the the person who was targeted to whose name Gunnar was Gunhill Stordlin? Gunhil Stordlin. I think that's how you say it. Yeah, it's right Gunhil Gunhill Stordlin. Um, hopefully I'm saying that correctly. Is there, I suppose, because of the current political climate and and sort of the the ravenous appetite of those who are trying to attack this climate science, is there an argument that those within this kind of research and the scientists or the funders, should they also be aware of the optics and how they present themselves? Like because I guess the criticism, while it shouldn't be viewed as justifiable enough to tarnish the findings of the report, is there an argument that the people within this should also be mindful of how they are traveling or how they are eating and should they sort of live by example if they're presenting this evidence?
SPEAKER_01:It's a really good question. I think um in some ways, one I don't feel that qualified to answer. Um I guess it's probably just inevitable that you will get targeted um with this stuff. But also I think that there'll always be things that the meat and dairy industry, like there'll always be things that lobbyists can find, you know.
SPEAKER_00:It also feeds into the idea that this criticism is what we should be focusing on when actually it's the findings of the report. And, you know, if someone let's say someone is an outspoken advocate against um sweatshops, but they're they're they're focused photographed going into a a company that uses sweatshops for for their clothing. That might be like a criticism that you could level, but that doesn't, that doesn't mean that all their arguments against sweatshops are wrong.
SPEAKER_01:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:So we need to sort of we need to stop thinking about individuals and personalizing it and and just look at the the data and the evidence. What does it show us and how should that influence sort of wider society, not just necessarily the the people involved in in that research, let's say.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, and I feel like that's like the big thing. I guess we'll talk about this more, but like the big thing about misinformation in general is, you know, these I think uh particularly around food and farming, like the policy changes that we're talking about are really complicated. Like it is going to be really complicated to support dietary change, to support farmers to transition away from some farmers to transition, at least away from meat and dairy production. But like the misinformation is stopping us having the meaningful conversations about why those policies are difficult and how we do them right.
SPEAKER_00:So, I mean, yeah, yeah, I think that's right. It's if we could all get on the same page and we don't even necessarily have to, I suppose, reach commonality on the whole concept of what would need changing, but if we could all agree that there was change that was needed, and and we kind of took away some of the these biases, the these vested interests, and just sort of as a society established, right? We need we need to change. Then at least we could start to work out what those changes could look like. You know, what sort of government funding, how do we change subsidies, how do we change um farming regulations to help farmers transition? And I think part of the problem is, and we'll talk about talk about this in just a little bit more detail. Part of the problem is there's sort of this binary that's emerging where it's maybe environmentalists, it's animal rights activists versus, let's say, farmers versus the livestock industry, when actually there is a lot that we do share in common, which is we want a sustainable food system that can feed people. And we might not agree necessarily what what it what that is, but the average farmer isn't necessarily thinking, oh, I relish in causing harm to animals, I relish in polluting rivers and streams and releasing methane. They just haven't necessarily been given the ability to formulate a sort of a substantiated viewpoint on their industry because they're being fed misinformation by the lobbyists who represent them or by the organizations that represent them. And these farmers are looking up at these these um unions or looking up at these organizations that are meant to be their voice. And they're being deceived. And I think that they're being led down the wrong path by the people who are meant to represent them.
SPEAKER_01:You know, I also think a lot of farmers are very aware, you know, and they're not deceived. Like obviously there are farmers, as there are with the general population, who don't trust the climate science or um, you know, are very opposed to the notion of meat and dairy reduction, even though the science points towards that as a necessity, of course. But I also think that there are lots of farmers who are willing to change, but their voices aren't being heard. Like I think people, you know, in my view, it's it's, you know, more, certainly as much, if not more, that that people are kind of weaponizing the group within farming as is within the general population that that is opposed to this, and they're they're using that as kind of yeah, in order to make quite populist arguments that make this too divisive to tackle.
SPEAKER_00:I uh yeah, I I absolutely love what you've just said there. I think that's so true, which is there are voices that are unheard and there are viewpoints that are not presented, perhaps because they're not sensationalist or they're not radical, or they're not necessarily going to feed into sort of the the clickbait that that sort of dominates so much of our media landscape and information landscape. And there are huge numbers, I would sincerely imagine, of farmers who would be open-minded, who are rational, who are, you know, interested in in what needs to happen, but are not being given access to the ability, let's say, or the support, perhaps. We'll talk about sort of politics and populism in just a moment. But before we do, let's just just thinking about the Lancet report and and uh about red flag. One of the things that's interesting about your investigation is it shows how the animal farming sector will use different tactics to try and spread doubt about the science and to discredit scientific literature. And I think sort of generally speaking, as um as a sort of society now, we we are somewhat aware, maybe not as much as we need to be, but we are aware, at least I think, that other industries like the tobacco industry or the fossil fuels industry will use uh a range of tactics to discredit science. Do you think that there is much, as much awareness around how the animal farming sector does the same, uses the same tactics?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, it's a really good question. Um, no, I don't. Um yeah, I guess it's been a process to get to build the awareness around kind of the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry. Um I think meat and dairy has flown under the radar for much longer. I mean, maybe its use of the tactics are kind of building now that there's an increasing amount of pressure and increasing amount of evidence on this stuff. Like, definitely there's been an uptick in the culture war element around meat and dairy since um since scientists started pointing out that we need to reduce livestock numbers. But yeah, I think I think it's really underrecognized. And and when you look at the tactics, I mean they are totally parallel. Like in the US, the meat and dairy industry has given free educational resources to schools. In Southeast Asia, they're working with TikTokers to try and build the dairy market there. Um, you know, there's all sorts of things that we have seen time and time again from the fossil fuel industry. Um, but yeah, I think at the moment it's really underrecognized. I think part of the reason for this as well is like, I guess it's it took a long time for the education around why fossil fuels are a problem to get into the general kind of public sphere in order for people to be able to recognize the these dodgy tactics or recognise the misinformation, whatever. I think like there still is much less understanding of the role that meat and dairy plays, and therefore we're much less well equipped to kind of spot that seems like really dodgy science, that seems really misleading, that's yeah, only part of the picture.
SPEAKER_00:That's interesting. I think I feel that I feel the same. I I feel like even within the environmental movement, um, people who are more savvy to some of the tactics, I still find that there is not as much awareness around how the meat and dairy and egg industries are are using these tactics and and obfuscating the truth and and sort of being quite well, being very disingenuous in terms of how they're sort of presenting their own industry. And I wonder if, from like a consumer perspective, if because we have a lot more of a tie to the food we consume, you know, I people are obviously um opinionated when it comes to fossil fuels, and we we do have sort of political leanings one way or the other that might inform our views on them. But I think with food, what's quite interesting is it's so deeply intertwined with our identities. It's to do with culture and society and it's to do with with with our families and and and festivities like Christmas and Easter or whatever it may be, that food sort of represents something that in our lives has a slightly higher value to us personally than, let's say, maybe some of these other things. My view is that that maybe makes us more receptive to misinformation because it feeds maybe into sort of confirmation bias. Do you agree with that? Do you think that's maybe simplistic, or do you do you think that perhaps that sort of extra tie to food does make it a little bit harder for people to see the clarity in this misinformation?
SPEAKER_01:No, I definitely agree with that. I do think that's true. I mean, I think that's also something that you like see being weaponized, you know, like for example, I think it's amazing how much of the cultural around food is around things like meat and masculinity, um, which I guess like speaks a lot to kind of how culturally important or like how loaded it is. I mean, I think the fossil fuel definitely industry definitely did that as well. Like they've done so much around kind of saying, you know, if you cut fossil fuels, people will be cold. Um, you know, we won't have energy security or risk all those things. I think like those narratives have been picked up and run with by the food industry as well. So there's like so much fear-mongering around kind of food security, whether people have enough eat m enough to meet. Like you see things when people are lobbying and they're saying if you introduce this policy, people are going to starve, you know, and and it won't be based on science, because clearly climate change and biodiversity loss are the biggest threats to food production. But I think, I think you're right in the sense that like it's very culturally and emotionally loaded and it makes that sort of fear-mongering very easy.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. And I suppose also those messages are easier to communicate. And if you're, you know, an average person who spends most of their days working hard to get enough money just to be able to afford to live and to feed their kids and everything, it means that you you don't necessarily have the time or pattern the pun the appetite to be spending, you know, time reading scientific literature and coming to terms with the nuances of these discussions. And so often what what I perceive probably happens is that people find themselves being presented with sort of simplistic messaging. And everyone can remember things like net zero will bankrupt the country and uh and plant-based diets will will cause mass starvation. These are sort of sensationalist emotive statements, which we can we can kind of grasp what they mean. But if we then start talking about net zero more complicated or transitions to plant-based food systems in ways that is more scientifically sound but is inherently more complicated, it's hard to simplify those messages down because they're not necessarily simple. And how do we come? We've got to communicate complex ideas and complex policy changes, but in a way that that is simple and cuts through all this misinformation and noise. It's really hard.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, definitely. Yeah, I feel like that's often one of the biggest problems is like the misinformation is much easier to understand than the the reason why it's wrong.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, exactly, exactly. Um there's the idea that it takes so much, it's it takes so much more energy to refute, you know, misinformation than it does to create it, which is so true, isn't it? Let's talk a little bit more about misinformation. And something that I've become extremely um interested in, um sadly so, but extremely interested in, is sort of the rise of of populist far-right politics. And in particular, this conversation, how it relates to food and farming narratives and conspiracy theories. And I think what's really scary about the modern times that we live in is that conspiracy theories are not necessarily even that fringe anymore. And I think food and farming is one of those examples where conspiracy theories are quite mainstream. I mean, you spoke earlier about the idea that food has been used as a means to control us, the idea that we'll all be forced to eat bugs, which as a vegan I still don't think is good. We'll all be forced to eat bugs. Um and in in the UK, and indeed across the EU and other places, there has been sort of this sort of uh process where where these conspiracy theories are actually becoming intertwined in in more mainstream politics. And I think a great example in the UK is Nigel Farage and a campaign group called No Farmers, No, No Foods. I'm wondering if you could maybe speak a little bit about Nigel, that organization, and maybe more about these conspiracy theories. What are these theories and what impact do they have?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, it's a really good question. I've also become, yeah, totally darkly fascinated by this. Too much time in conspiracy theory. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, so Nigel Farage, I think probably what you're talking about is um we found that um at in March at farming protest, Nigel Farage kind of went on stage and said um that Labour had, um, this is his words, a sinister agenda to acquire lots of land because they're planning for another five million people to come into the country. And what he was referring to um was this conspiracy theory is been around in Europe for a while and it seems to be gaining traction in the UK. Um, this theory that kind of plans to change or transition agriculture are to do with the government wanting to um do a large-scale land grab so that they can house asylum seekers. So, yeah, obviously really scary, in my view, it's truly racist stuff. Um, and you know, it's not just Farage who said this. Last year, Jeremy Clarkson wrote in the Sun that he was again convinced that Labour had a sinister plan to um, again, his was ethnically cleanse the countryside of farmers in order to make room for immigrants and net zero wind farms.
SPEAKER_02:Wow.
SPEAKER_01:Um, yes, it's really scary stuff. And I mean, this this particular conspiracy theory is based in um, I don't know, have you come across a great replacement conspiracy theory? Yes. It has its foundations in kind of very anti-Semitic tropes, um, but it it basically says that elites are trying to replace um white people in the West with migrants or asylum seekers. Um, there's obviously no evidence supporting this. Um, you know, civil rights organizations have recognized that it's deeply racist, it's white supremacist, but it has gained quite a lot of traction. And one of the places where it it gained traction um initially was in the Netherlands, like back in 2019 when they were having big farming protests. That's where the kind of farming version of this seems to have come from. Um, and the government was trying to close down some meat and dairy farms to address pollution problems there. Um, but you know, the the kind of far-right populist response to this was to say that it was to house asylum seekers. You talked about impact. Um, obviously, like we can't directly say that this is to do with conspiracy theory, but those farmers' protests, which which were kind of very charged by things like this conspiracy theory, totally transformed politics in the net in the Netherlands. They ended up with like a pretty populist uh farming party starting up, which was in the coalition government until very recently. The next election saw big wins for the far right. So, yeah, I mean, again, you can't say that it was down to this conspiracy theory, but it definitely kind of charged that landscape.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. I think the thing about these theories is they uh they're sort of broader than just the the individual theory. More we were speaking about with the sort of food and farming conspiracy theories, relates to yeah, xenophobia, it relates to sort of conspiracy theories around the I see great replacement, the great reset, um, asylum seekers. And so the these kind of theories, they sort of feed off one another. And the the Netherlands thing is so interesting, as you say, because of the, you know, there's this clear problem, a nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands, which has been known about for decades, has continued to get increasingly worse as the years have gone by and and and and reached the point where I think the Netherlands had broken EU law, was it related to it? So there is no dispute that there's a nitrogen crisis. And the number one driver of that, cattle farming for meat and dairy. And something needed to be done about it. And the way I suppose the narrative was weaponized, as you say, was to say, look, the government's going to come in, this is authoritarianism, this is tyranny. They're going to remove hard-working farmers from their land and then take this land and yeah, give it over for asylum seekers. And it's just there's this detachment from reality that that occurs. But what I think the way they legitimize these ideas is by taking kernels of truth, which is there is a problem. The farmers were being offered buy-out schemes that would mean that the the state would buy out the land. And then they take those things and they just ramp them up to 11, distort the truth, and then use them to and apply them to different conspiracy theories to feed into that political base that they're appealing to. And and you just go, this this is this is this is so rampant. It's like a wildfire that you can't get any control over. And it's it's really frightening. And I think in the UK we like to uh falsely perceive ourselves as being somewhat immune from some of this. But actually, that's not really the case. When you're talking about what Nigel Farage saying, Jeremy Clark, and these are not fringe figures. No, these are very mainstream figures. I mean, especially Nigel Farage at the moment. And it makes you makes you scared what will happen in four years' time, let's say, if uh current polling continues the way that it is and nothing really changes. We might have a similar situation here where this person who is deeply racist, who who makes terrible claims and is obviously anti-climate science in all the ways that climate science exists, might be the one coming of policies to determine what happens in this country. And and that's that's frightening. So there is that conspiracy theory, but what about the idea of um sort of eating eating bugs? That's another one that kind of comes into it as well.
SPEAKER_01:Oh yeah, people love that one.
SPEAKER_00:Yes.
SPEAKER_01:Um, yeah, so that one again, which has spread really rapidly. I think it actually came from a joke meme and then has been turned into a conspiracy theory that people really buy. Um, but essentially it's the idea that the World Economic Forum um and the UN and Bill Gates and yeah, other kind of powerful figures um are using climate policies in order to control the food system um and force everyone to eat bugs. Right. And meat will only be available to the rich. Um, but yeah, it's kind of wild. Like it really has taken hold in some places. We we did an investigation last year with yeah, lots of brilliant reporters across Europe and in Italy found you know that that one of the far right parties for the election was putting out billboards that use this conspiracy theories with massive pictures of the buds, bugs saying that the EU was going to force you to eat bugs and things like this. Um so yeah, I mean it seems like totally bonkers, but it is being weaponized politically for sure.
SPEAKER_00:The bugs thing I find really fascinating. Again, I think there's a lot of xenophobia in there because bugs have been eating around the world for centuries, you know. And for, you know, many people eating bugs is completely normal. Um, and for me as an ethical vegan, I think there's a huge level of cognitive dissonance, dissonance and hypocrisy when it comes to saying, oh, we we uh we want to eat these animals, not those animals, and you know, we're scared of eating these animals. I mean, you know, it just seems it seems kind of funny to me to to kind of view it through that lens. But I suppose it's all about control, isn't it? It and I think that's what the conspiracy theorist fears the most, is the idea of having their autonomy denied to them, sort of control taken away, their ability to to do what they choose, and we're all going to be in 15 minute cities with with Bill Gate microchips eating eating bugs every day and and and but these fears really do. Influence people. And I suppose when we think about elections, even outside of conspiracy theories, elections play out through fear mongering, whether it's about the economy, whether it's about migration, whatever it might be, it it's sort of the fear narratives that often cut through. How do we sort of get through that then? How how do we breach this sort of fear narrative and compel people to not be sort of swayed by that?
SPEAKER_01:I think, in my view, like part of it is showing that there's kind of opportunities in transition. Like I guess like the classic example would be like actually retrofitting homes, putting insulation in. You know, stuff like that is really good for people and could really benefit people's quality of life. And same, you know, meat and dairy reduction, the the level of meat that we eat at the moment has such a high correlation with non-communicable diseases that it actually, you know, it has a lot of personal benefits as well. So I think part of it's highlighting that. But I also think like with the fear narrative, alongside the fear narrative, a lot of what conspiracy theories are trying to do is create the like us versus them, elites versus normal people, everything's top, you know, like it's it's all about that kind of like sense of division. And I think that part of the reason or part of the risk with climate transition is that if you don't do it right and you don't do a just transition, like the costs can be borne by normal people. They could potentially be borne by people like farmers. And I do think, I mean, if you look at the kind of level of chaos and uncertainty Labour seems to have bought around farming since it came in, like you can see that farmers are becoming more and more resentful. Yeah. And that is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories. Like, I think we need to be really careful how we do transition, as well as making it seem like a positive thing, so we don't lay the groundwork for populist and far-right characters to just swoop in and make the most of it.
SPEAKER_00:That's right. I mean, they're opportunistic vultures. Um, you've got to try and sort of keep them at bay, I think. And the the you touched on a really great point, which was how do we sort of spread the costs out so it's not impacting consumers? And I think the idea of like a meat tax has always kind of made me feel a little bit uncomfortable because it's it's essentially making the consumer consumer pay for something. And I think what what is a strong message to communicate is, you know, in the UK, at least the NHS we know is is is struggling, you know, perpetually underfunded. And yet we are squandering millions and millions of pounds, billions of pounds indeed, on preventable diseases. And a lot of those preventable diseases are linked to to diet and lifestyle. And if we were to sort of champion more plant-forward diets and we were to sort of inspire people to eat more healthy plants and we were to give them more access to be able to do so, we could actually have a positive impact on the economy. And I think that sometimes these these narratives are lost because maybe they're just viewed as too politically toxic. Is there an argument that that I mean, labor it feels so weak and so uh like it's just lacking any any grit and anything substantial? And and and they're they're putting themselves in this this situation where they're alienating everyone across the political spectrum. They're appealing to people on the right who will never vote for them, and in doing so, alienating the people on the left who actually won them the election, driving them away to other to the to the Greens or whoever it may be. And and you're just thinking, why can't we just get some cohesive, strong narratives that are properly communicated to the public and actually address the needs of the public meaningfully? But do you think that these issues, are they too politically contentious? Is is talking about diet and plant forward thinking and and veganism, even let's say, are these things just too politically toxic for for people like Kirst Starmer or whoever it is to actually meaningfully want to address?
SPEAKER_01:My honest answer is probably like yes at the moment. You know, they are really contentious. They've made been made really contentious. So I think like going headfirst into into strong things around, yeah, like for example, a meat tax could be really politically difficult. Um, but equally, like, I think there's so much that we can do in terms of, you know, for example, some of it I think is just about rebalancing the power. Like at the moment, McDonald's is, I think, the biggest advertiser in the UK. So, you know, if you if you had like more things in place around advertising for meat and dairy, um, which reflected the climate science, which reflected, you know, the move towards banning greenwashing, for example, um, that could have a really big impact. So I don't know. I think there's there's plenty that can be done, even if the the the headlong stuff around dietary change would be quite complicated with this landscape.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I think that's a great point. It's not, it's not just the political arena that needs to change. It's also sort of other other aspects. And yeah, the advertising standards agency in the UK needs to become stronger. It needs to have more strict guidelines, strict policies around the claims that are made, how they're substantiated. There's the kind of like these sort of these phrases that are that are inherently meaningless but are but are employed by by companies, uh, focused towards sustainable production or moving in a sustainable direction or championing a sustainable world, these kind of empty, meaningless greenwashing phrases, which I suppose sort of devalue sort of the environmental message by just making it nothing, right? Making it just so airy and like lacking substance. But as well as doing that, they're sort of driving the idea that these foods are part of a sustainable world, or or or these companies more importantly, are working towards sustainable objectives, even though they're they're actually not.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. So this was actually some um really interesting research done by the campaign organization Changing Markets Foundation, um, which we covered. Um, but essentially they they looked at kind of how much the world's um the world's biggest meat and dairy companies were spending on advertising and how much they were spending on sustainability. And um they're spending a lot more on advertising. So, you know, for example, the Brazilian meat giant, JBS, the world's biggest meat company, they invested just like 0.03% of their revenues into climate measures in 2022, and that was kind of a fraction of what they were spending on advertising. So, yeah, totally. These companies are definitely putting more effort into propping up their image, and I think part of that is certainly propping up a kind of green image. I mean, we were talking before that about this, weren't we? That I think like it's very easy for companies, farming so often is associated with that kind of like bucolic fields and lambs prancing along. And and you know, it's it's very easy for meat and dairy companies to make the most of that preconception in their advertising when maybe like a fraction of their products are produced in that way or none of their products are produced in that way. Um, but it's very hard to regulate because, you know, there is some truth in the fact that some of the UK has prancing lambs and green fields.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. The sort of the way that they present their industry is always look at these these fields and there's these animals grazing. And I think even within that, like when you look at the climate science, we know that that these outdoor grazing areas are among the least sustainable forms of food production because of the land that's used, because of the methane being produced by these by these grazing animals. But that's again, those are kind of more complex scientific ideas. Whereas for most people, we we are used to having a romanticized version of farming that we view as being sort of holistic and sustainable because it's animals outside on grass and that's where they belong, and they're happy on grass, and this is part of the natural world. Again, there are these very simplistic narratives, but they they really work because they just sink into people's minds and and they really shape their perception of them. And so now, yeah, it's it's hardly surprising that this is the advertising that's thrust upon us, even though uh it isn't sustainable and I would say ethical, but it also doesn't represent the vast majority of the industry anyway. So that it's just it's just complete false advertising in that sense.
SPEAKER_01:And I think also like part of the issue, in my view, is that we see farming and livestock farming as kind of one whole sector, whereas actually there's like lots of variation within it. And I think, you know, obviously there are kind of small-scale farmers, there are farmers who are using livestock alongside food crops in a way that potentially is more sustainable, but they're a very, very small fraction. And there's the big kind of JBSs of the world who are massive polluters and they're all clubbed together and seen as one. I feel like in quite a lot of the lobbying, they again lobby groups for those kind of huge producers can use that fact that everyone sees farming as this kind of single sector and make the most of the fact that they're they're representing the farmers, whereas actually they can be representing multi-million pound multinationals, you know?
SPEAKER_00:I think what's interesting is there are discrepancies within animal farming. I mean, my my position is always, you know, there might be more sustainable ways of doing it or more ethical ways of doing it, but that doesn't mean that they are the most sustainable or ethical ways of producing food when when we don't have to use animals. But I also think there is a really interesting component to that, which is how these big lobby groups, PR firms, yeah, they they sort of um they sort of appropriate the language used by other types of farming, uh, sustainable, but but more recently sort of regenerative. And all of a sudden you hear JBS saying, where we do, we're we're we're you know pushing on with regenerative measures and Burger King sourced this from there, and you go, this is completely meaningless. And but again, these words do carry power, but these, these, these terms are just they're they're labels assigned to create an impression of something that isn't actually there. And regenerative is just another buzzword, like grass-fed or organic or pasture-based or whatever the the phrasing may be. It's just become another symbol of of what I believe is just another form of greenwashing, really. It's just a nicer way of saying the same thing, which isn't true.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, definitely.
SPEAKER_00:I'm fascinated by eat balanced um because it has, I sadly believe, had had a strong impact in the UK. Um, and I'm wondering if you can maybe talk about the eat balanced campaign and also talk about sort of the relationship between eat balanced, those behind it, and sort of more mainstream government backing of those things. Not necessarily a backing of meat and dairy diets overtly, but just sort of um a funding um element that's been involved between governments and and this campaign in the UK.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, definitely. Um, so I mean, I imagine a lot of people have seen Let's Eat Balanced. Um, but basically every January, the an organization called the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board or AHDB, which is easier to say. Yes. So the AHDB puts out this advertising campaign. It's specifically time to coincide with veganary, um, and it's specifically aimed at maintaining meat and dairy levels in the UK, which obviously, you know, flies in the face of climate science. Um, but they put out this advertising campaign, which is around usually around the kind of nutritional benefits of meat and dairy. Um, and when we looked at it, which was last year, last January, um, they were very heavily targeting Gen Z. So they were working with influencers, all their videos were young people, um, making smoothies, things like this, um, and yeah, promoting kind of it's great for this nutrient, it's great for this mineral. Um, and obviously when you talk to nutritionists, they say this is misleading because the amount of meat and dairy that we're eating in the UK is above dietary recommendations, and it's actually potentially quite far above what's healthy, given the links to non-communicable disease. But this campaign, I mean, it's it's really interesting partly because of the impact it's had. So, so when it came out last year in 2024, they were expecting it to um, they were expecting it to reach nine out of ten adults in the UK. Really. Um, and we got through doing some kind of freedom of information requests, we got hold of some of their kind of internal marketing stuff, which showed that people in previous years who'd been exposed to the campaign were something like 11% more likely to buy meat in their next shop.
SPEAKER_02:Really?
SPEAKER_01:Um, so we know, yeah, we know that it's having a real impact. But the other element that's really interesting, as you mentioned, is that the AHDB is actually overseen or in some ways part of DEFRA. Um, so yeah, the UK government's farming department, essentially. Um, and the way that it works is an arm's length department. So it is governed independently, but DEFRA has oversight. Um, it's funded through kind of mandatory taxes on farmers. So farmers don't really have a choice whether they pay into it or not. Um, and about 10% of that money is used every year on this advertising campaign. Um, and the AHDB also gets government funding as well. Um and yeah, when when we asked the government about this, they said that they kind of couldn't comment on the AHDB's activities.
SPEAKER_00:It's quite interesting that that's the situation because even though the government has has uh a relationship with the AHDB, the HDB are the ones behind this this e-bounds campaign, the UK government also has a food strategy review that they've published, which shows that we need to reduce the amount of of animal products that we're consuming to meet UK climate targets. So there's this sort of um this this strange discrepancy between what the UK government's own food strategy review is saying and then what these organizations that the that DEFRA is linked with, tied to in some ways, what they're promoting. Surely the government should be sort of advocating for us to be consuming fewer products, not necessarily providing funding to organizations that are telling us to well maybe increase the amount that we're consuming.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, totally. I mean, it's it's fascinating. I think like the AHGB would say that it represents farmers and is steered by farmers. Again, it's adverts, you know. I was speaking to experts who're saying this flies in the face of science. So arguably, you know, they should be acting in a way that is in line with the science and therefore in line, you know, they they could be supporting them to transition.
SPEAKER_00:That's the thing that really frustrates me. Again, it's a little bit like what I was saying earlier. It it frustrates me because I I feel like farmers are being let down by the people who represent them because we we can't continue like this. And, you know, the continuing as we are isn't is of no benefit to farmers in the long run, especially the next generation. So the people who are farming now their children and their children's children, these are the people who who are living off the land currently, but who's who will be able to do so less because of the impacts of climate change. And I'm just I find it so frustrating that it is these organizations that should actually be the voice of farmers and should be helping them are the ones that are continuing down, continuing them and on on this road, which is not even to their benefit necessarily. I feel like there's a lack of responsibility and accountability being held on the heads of these organizations. And and maybe and maybe the scientific literature and even maybe the vegan conversation about animal rights can sometimes focus on on farmers, but but I also think there's the argument that it is, it is these these huge bodies, these organizations that are funded by farmers and indeed receive funding from the government who are at most to blame for the continuation of these harmful industries. Um, what can we do about that? I mean, I that's a bit of a mad question, I suppose, to ask you, because it's it's not as easy as that. But should there be more accountability held on these organizations and should the government be holding them to account for not following the scientific literature?
SPEAKER_01:In my view, yes, you should be held to account for not following science. Um I mean, I think I think it's incredibly complicated because I think a lot of these organizations essentially have a conflict of interest at their heart. Right. Like it's more obvious. So a lot of my work has focused on the EU. And if you look at the the main kind of farming lobby group in the EU, it's called Coppa Kajka. Um, and it essentially represents farmers, but it also represents agricooperatives, and those are like some of the biggest multinational food companies in Europe. So it's people like, you know, Danish Crown that's one of the biggest pork producers. And there is a tension, like ultimately companies are making a lot of profit from very large-scale monoculture, intensive polluting forms of agriculture, and want that to continue, even yeah, if farmers want to transition. So I think governments should be holding these groups to account, but I think there's also a bigger problem in terms of how farming unions are structured and things like this, that there isn't enough power in kind of small scale with small-scale farmers, and the the loudest and wealthiest voices are usually the ones that are making the most profit from polluting systems.
SPEAKER_00:And I suppose they're the ones in the EU, they're the ones who are reaping the most from subsidy policies there as as well. Because the subsidy system in the EU is set up to benefit those who own the most amount of land, right? So it's naturally naturally leads to taxpayers' money being funneled through to people who are already wealthy and are among the wealthiest people within the community because they have the most amount of land and also receiving the highest amount of subsidies. It the whole system seems broken.
SPEAKER_01:Totally. Yeah. There has been some shift to integrate some nature-based stuff in it. But yeah, like you said, it's mostly still based on the the amount of land people have, and that does mean small-scale farmers get very little. Um, but it's really hard to make these things change. I mean, you asked before about kind of connections between the government and organizations, and Corpka Jaca has, I mean, it has unreal access to politics, like so much more than any other lobby group I've ever seen.
SPEAKER_02:Really?
SPEAKER_01:They have unparalleled access in terms of briefing ministers. Um, they have this kind of huge number of meetings. They've openly omitted to drafting um amendments that MEPs then um put to the European Parliament. You know, they they have an unbelievable amount of power. You know, even to the extent that, like, so this union Kopaka Jekit has members in all the different EU states, um, and lots of MEPs within countries have formal or informal links to these unions. So, for example, one of them has their office space paid for by one of these unions. One of these unions um is partly led by the brother of an MEP. You know, there's all these kind of these really deep political ties that, yeah, mean that it is so hard to shift things like the cap subsidy system that you were talking about.
SPEAKER_00:It's crazy. And there's also, I suppose, like a revolving door between politics and the private sector, and that also relates to the agricultural private sector. And obviously, we'll talk a bit more about the EU in just a moment. But in the US, under Biden, was the, I think it was the Secretary of Agriculture, was someone called Tom Vilsack, who was part of the dairy industry before before then. So it's just this this revolving door. And how how can we expect the the person in charge of agriculture in the US to be followed by the scientific literature and by what's reasonable and and necessary if they have ties to one of the industries that needs changing and and needs to be, you know, updated? It's how it's just it's kind of almost it's just so it feels so heavy sometimes to be like, wow, this is a this huge beamoth that's in front of us and and there's no accountability because everyone's involved with one another in different ways and has relations either literally through bloodlines or just through ideologies and and previous career paths.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I mean, I think the um the Vilsek example is amazing because he was actually he was also um in government under Obama, and then he left government under Obama, went to a dairy lobby group, and then came back to government under Biden. So he did a double reforming to wow.
SPEAKER_00:Okay, wow, he's getting whiplash. Yeah. But then that also just shows like, you know, we speak about right wing and and populist right-wing politics, but there's been uh it seems like a failure from the left, from left-wing politicians, at least. Maybe calling Biden a left-wing politician is somewhat up for debate, but from centrist politicians and left-wing politicians to also meaningfully engage with this, you know, we expect it from Farage, we expect it from Trump, we expect it from right-wing populists.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I do I mean, I do agree. I think, yeah, Labour clearly is not doing enough on a lot of these topics. I think honestly, like, in my view, one of Labour's biggest failings has just been having this absolute kind of crazy ride for farmers that has just lost their support. Um, yeah, I think when I've interviewed farmers, like the level of anger and disappointment is kind of unreal. I think, you know, whatever you think of things like the inheritance tax laws, um, they were politically incredibly unhelpful. And it means that on things like climate and the environment, they've lost support of people that they need the backing of.
SPEAKER_00:Feels like they've made just a number of terrible decisions and overlooked sort of the big picture change that's needed. And, you know, whether it's the the winter fuel allowances, like these these things that are not shifting the dial enough to be to be a part of the conversation meaningfully, and yet they become these huge dominant narratives that dictate the media landscape, dictate the conversation, and ultimately will shape people's perceptions of the government. And it's just like, why why this? Why? Surely you've got strategists who could see this coming, we all could see it coming. How could you not, you know? Um but if we talk about the EU, um obviously the EU has been notable in the past sort of half decade or so for the farming protests that have taken place there. And I think you're quite right to sort of analyze the that relationship between EU members and that sort of private sector in the lobbying world. But there's also sort of the mobilization of farmers that's occurred in the EU. What strikes me as interesting about farming is the ability to mobilize. You think about maybe fossil fuels, you don't really think about sort of mobilization of oil rig workers, you know, sort of taken to the streets. And the tobacco industry, it doesn't happen. But with farming, they've kind of got tractors and they can occupy roads and they can spray slurry, and you know, and and and they can do things that are quite visual, they can take up space, there's lots of them, and there's lots of people who are sympathetic to them, it seems. Do you think that kind of ability to mobilize has has played a part in sort of the watering down of regulations within the you know, the EU's proposals?
SPEAKER_01:I think probably to a certain extent, yes. Like the farming protests obviously were time before the election, and you know, politicians are absolutely scrambling to show that they have that vote. Um, so I think that they made they responded to those protests in a way that they wouldn't respond to other protests. I actually think those protests were really diverse in terms of what they were asking for. Like when you look at them, they weren't necessarily, there were, there were concerns around the like kind of level of bureaucracy that some of the green reforms could result in. But a lot of the complaints were actually about other farming-related issues, which weren't to do with the climate at all. But I think essentially a seed that had been planted around those green farming laws that made them an easy target for politicians who wanted to kind of seem on side with the farming sector. Like the decision should roll back a lot of those laws. I mean, so what we're talking about, I guess, is the EU farm to fork policy, which was kind of this big package of reforms that the EU agreed. The parliament actually signed it off, um, but it was in the process of being translated into law in order to get farming in line with net zero goals. And so many of these laws have been kind of dropped, backtracked on um recently, and particularly in the run-up to that election. But I think basically what happened was like lobby groups had been seeding that for so long. Um and, you know, we're not even talking about farming lobby groups, we're talking about like people like Bayer and Singenta, you know, massive pesticide firms um that have an extremely vested interest in pesticides continuing to be sold. Yeah. Um, so I think essentially, in my view, what happened was the farming process were really impactful, but the messaging of them was actually much more mixed than the media represented. And then this seed had already been sown for politicians to just wipe out green laws in response.
SPEAKER_00:Interesting. That's really interesting. I suppose the protests provided sort of a good opportunity for maybe infiltration is too much of a strong word, but um, an opportunistic sort of reaction from the right, from from maybe conspiracy-minded individuals, from those with sort of more hidden divisive political agendas they could kind of get involved in in those protests and sort of play on those fears. And I wondered, were were they kind of overrepresented then because they're quite clickbaity, because they're quite sensationalist. Were they kind of overrepresented in in the reporting around those farming protests?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I think so. Interesting. Um, I mean, it's a tricky one, isn't it? Because I think it's a lot of there was a lot of strong reporting on the fact that the far-right was trying to hijack these protests. And, you know, far-right parties in Germany kept showing up, far-right parties in the Netherlands kept showing up. You know, these politicians go and they pretend to be speaking for armors, and part of what the media is doing is calling that out. But I do also think that there was there was definitely an overrepresentation of the like anti-climate sentiment that that was there in some protests, but in a lot of countries wasn't the main concern.
SPEAKER_00:Interesting. I always think of um Nigel Farage turning up at inheritance tax protests. Oh, this is terrible. And this is the man who spearheaded Brexit, which was so hugely impactful to farmers. Yeah. Uh and and it's it's just, it's, it's shameless. You you completely screw over an industry by pushing misinformation around uh around Brexit that then it impacts these farmers, and then you have the audacity to try and put on a barber jacket and flat cap and pretend you're a man of the people by by being amongst these farmers. And it's just it's it's kind of really shocking, but I suppose it does speak to the the way they try and hijack political narratives or political moments to try and just kind of sow some seeds of doubt and kind of put this messaging into different bases and different demographics and see how it works within those ones as well. Do you think we'll see more of that?
SPEAKER_01:Yes. It does seem like food and farming is ripe for it. And I think that, well, the really interesting thing that I think we're seeing, which is quite new to like the far right, is the level to which it's coordinated at the moment. Like a lot of what we do at D Smog is kind of tracing these networks and the influence, say, of of Trump think tanks in the US and the way that kind of people who are behind things like Project 2025 are bringing that idea to Europe, collaborating with European partners in places like Hungary, seeding these things. So I think, you know, in the UK, we have potentially seen less of the conspiracy theories of around food and farming and less of that divisiveness than in places like the Netherlands, potentially than places like the US. But I think the level of coordination between the far right at the moment means that probably those ideas are just going to get propagated, particularly because they've been so successful. I mean, why wouldn't you replicate them?
SPEAKER_00:It's true, isn't it? And I guess in the UK and in the US, because we s we have like a sort of a first past the post-electoral system, also places sometimes uh it places more power in the hands of uh sort of countryside communities or in the US, states that are very agricultural states, but from a population perspective, have far fewer people within them, but are still getting the same number of Senate seats, for example, or oh overrepresented in the electoral college. And I suppose this these kinds of systems naturally lend themselves towards supporting more rural communities in many ways. And I guess that kind of makes their desires or their appeals or their wants sometimes more attractive to those trying to gain, gain votes. And does if if that is the case, is there a risk that if farmers continue to become radicalized or more farmers continue to become radicalized and start to believe in these in these right-wing beliefs or these conspiracy theories, will that shift the Overton window further and further to the right? Because to win votes, you'll have to appeal to these people, but their their views and demands are becoming more extreme.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I mean, I do feel like we're already seeing the Overton window shifting. I I feel like this is, in my view, where a lot of kind of centre, right wing, even left-wing parties have really failed, is that they are like they're trying to replicate the same narratives as the kind of far-right parties who are taking votes away from them. You know, there's like, I don't know if you've heard this, but there's this kind of principle in voting that the original will always do better than the replica. Right. So, like, even if you say, like, oh, we're as strong on immigration as reform, reform is then seen as the original. It will bolster them. You know, it doesn't, it actually doesn't work. And I think there's an issue, there's there's a risk, which is probably what we're seeing in Europe, but there's a risk that around things like climate parties do that as well, that they they see the far right getting votes, they replicate their talking points, they try and say that they're kind of up there, there as, you know, anti-net zero, whatever else. And in doing so, they just legitimise them. They don't actually win any voters back.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, it's almost it's it's like we need that kind of I don't want to say energy, but we need that kind of commitment to opposing ideals. We don't need centrist or left-wing parties trying to replicate the policies of the right. We need left-wing parties to have policies that oppose the right. We need we need them to have that sort of that binary so that people are given more choices and and aren't going to feel like, why why vote for the for the duplicate when we've got the original? Obviously, we've spoken a lot about some of the some of the pushback. There's been a lot of pushback. We've spoken about some of the sort of the challenges, challenges that are faced and what. Continue to be faced probably for at least the near future. With that in mind, we've got a few minutes left. Maybe we try and end on something a little bit more positive. Are there things that can be done? Are there tactics or strategies that can be implemented? Essentially, is there anything that can be done to kind of cut through some of this pushback and to actually encourage these necessary changes to be brought about?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, it's a great question. I always hate questions on solutions.
SPEAKER_00:They're the hardest art there, yeah.
SPEAKER_01:They're so hard. Yeah, I definitely think there's things we can do. I mean, I think some of it is around education. You know, right, like we were saying right at the start, there is kind of a baseline understanding of the science around fossil fuels now, I think, in a way that there isn't around kind of methane and animal agriculture-related emissions. So I think some of it is just that. Um, but I also think that there is a huge amount that can be done to scrutinize and tackle the lobbying of these groups. You know, I guess as a journalist, some of it is things like uh investigating and exposing the bad faith actors and the networks that they run in. But I also think there's a lot around kind of transparency laws, how lobbying is regulated, um, advertising standards like we were talking about, you know, you know, trying to cut out some of this kind of misleading messaging and trying to resettle the balance in who's influencing politics around things like food and farming.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I think there's probably a a number of different different ways of of approaching it. And it's not just like this one-track mind politics or or whatever it might be. There's there's a number of different ways of approaching this, and they will all have benefits in different ways and add up to something a little bit add up to something more generally that's that's positive. Um and actually, if we tie it right back to what we're talking about at the beginning of the Lancer report, obviously there was a huge amount of pushback against it, uh, especially in terms of how it was represented in the media, but scientifically and academically, it's it's actually been very positive and very influential and it's been cited thousands of times. Is that is that right?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, totally. Yeah. I mean, it's been cited 9,000 times in academic literature. It's um it's one of the most widely used papers in terms of policy decisions. So, you know, some of this is uh having cut through. It just feels like there's this disjoint, doesn't there, between kind of public and science and yeah, and it's how how do you bridge that gap?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I suppose there is, because as as sort of consumers or as as uh social media users, we uh we see what's happening on that level. We see the sort of the conversation that exists there. But from policy perspectives, from legislative perspectives, we don't we're not necessarily involved in that. We don't see what's happening, we don't see the the conversations that are occurring, the small little changes, the little micro movements that are occurring behind the scenes, and we just kind of see like often the bad stuff. But there is this positive influence that scientific literature is having. The Ulans Report's a big one. And they're about to release uh an updated one um this year, is it?
SPEAKER_01:They are, yeah, yeah. Um I think towards the kind of end of this year, there'll be another one coming out.
SPEAKER_00:And, you know, hopefully they'll be better prepared. And, you know, that it allows them to kind of expand on on that. And, you know, there's another opportunity for something that'll actually be really influential in in years to come, hopefully. Um, thank you so much, Claire, for joining me. I really appreciate it. And I've had a really great time speaking with you, even though the conversation hasn't always been about topics that are fun. Um it's been really enjoyable to sort of pick your brain and and to delve into these topics. So I appreciate you for coming and spending an hour or so with me and talking through these things.
SPEAKER_01:No, it's great. Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you so much for listening. If you've enjoyed this episode, make sure to subscribe to the disclosure podcast on whichever platform you listen to it. As doing so means that you can always stay up to date with new episodes. Leaving a review and sharing the podcast is also really helpful. And if you'd like to support the podcast and my work more generally, you can either make a donation through the link in the show notes or sign up to my Substack where I post weekly and share my thoughts and feelings about the experience of living vegan. Just a reminder that my third book, How to Go and Stay Vegan, is now available to pre-order, and links to do so can be found in the show notes. If you do pre-order my book, then thank you so so much. I really do appreciate it. And a huge thank you to all of you for listening to this episode of the Disclosure Podcast.