WITH the ink not even dry on the latest study recommending a reduction in meat consumption, activist groups are wasting no time in their efforts to prevent any voices opposing the study.

Even before the EAT Lancet 2.0 study was officially released, an organisation called the “Changing Markets Foundation” (CMF) issued a report attacking scientists who had previously raised scientific concerns about the original EAT Lancet study.

CMF highlighted what it termed 20 “mis-influencers”, which included respected academics Frederic Leroy, Frank Mithloehner, Nina Teicholz and Diana Rodgers, and implied that they are part of an industry-funded conspiracy to provide misinformation.

Rather than addressing the substance or validity of the scientific issues these scientists raise, the CMF has opted for an “ad hominem” attack focusing on the scientists themselves.

The approach suggests these groups believe the meat industry has no right to try to defend itself on scientific and evidence-based grounds whenever a report is produced demonising meat consumption or production. Even when those reports are clearly questionable like the first EAT Lancet paper.

CMF has past form in these attacks. Last year it attempted to discredit scientists who support the red meat industry by claiming to expose links to their funding sources – some of those links were tenuous and others were already clearly disclosed as there was nothing sinister to hide.

The organisation was founded by two former Greenpeace bosses, who also run a company called Disruptive Consulting, which works with companies to “disrupt and transform” their markets.

No questioning from “respected” media outlets

Despite its partisan position, CMF was given full voice to criticise the red meat industry ahead of the release of the Eat Lancet 2.0 report by respected media outlets last week.

A Bloomberg article re-published by the Sydney Morning Herald went as far as to suggest, without providing any supporting evidence, that the authors of the first EAT Lancet were “subject to threats, accused of elitism and targeted in social media campaigns backed by the meat industry”.

The article also overlooked the fact that EAT Lancet’s findings have been challenged by scientists from some of the world’s most respected institutions. Nor did it seem to have an issue with the CMF’s own attempts to discredit the same scientists, or see the irony that it was giving the CMF a platform to personally target scientists.

Professor Frederic Leroy, who was mentioned by CMF and has been one of the loudest critics of EAT Lancet said on his Aleph website that the media campaign trying to shutdown debate about EAT Lancet 2.0 began in April this year.

Prof Leroy highlighted an article written by journalist Clare Carlile and published in DeSmog and The Guardian, which portrayed the dissident movement against EAT Lancet as a “biased setup orchestrated by the meat industry.”

“Ironically, scientists with a vegan agenda were quoted in support and the article was referenced by Plant Based News,” Prof Leroy wrote in an article pinpointing the media companies attacking the group of scientists.

Attempt to influence more journalists

It is perhaps no surprise that The Guardian is a founding partner of an organisation called Covering Climate Now, which directly targets journalists with educational seminars instructing them how to push the climate agenda. Including one last year that was teaching journalists how to “pre-bunk” what they regard as climate misinformation before even talking to someone (See earlier Beef Central article here).

They seem to be having some success, judging by the mainstream media reporting now occurring around the release of the EAT Lancet 2.0 report.

The Bloomberg article cited earlier, giving CMF a platform to “pre-bunk” anything scientists might say in the defence of the meat industry, appeared to be straight out of the Covering Climate Now playbook.

Journalists are encouraged to attack funding sources and use the perceived conflicts of interest as a way to negate talking points of scientists supporting industry.

It raises the question – if they have to resort to such nefarious tactics to support their case, maybe that’s all the evidence they need to know they’re on the wrong track?