Meat, money and messaging: How the environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption are framed by the meat industry

Abstract

Calls to cut consumption of red and processed meat, in order to protect both human and planetary health, are drawing increased attention from policy actors. This poses a potential threat to meat industry profits. It is well evidenced that producers of other harmful commodities (such as fossil fuels or tobacco) respond with a range of tactics to impede policy action when similarly threatened, including framing the issues at stake in a light more favourable to industry interests. In order to investigate how the meat industry in the UK frames discussions about the environmental and health impacts of red and processed meat consumption, thematic content analysis was performed on documents sourced from the websites of 6 organisations representing the UK meat industry. Across the dataset, four main framings were identified; ‘still open for debate’, ‘most people have no need to worry’, ‘keep eating meat to be healthy’ and ‘no need to cut down to be green’. These frames work in conjunction to minimise the perception of harm, whilst also encouraging continued consumption. Messages were constructed using ‘classic’ framing devices employed by other producers of harmful commodities. These findings are of importance as they provide insight into how debates about food policy may be influenced by meat industry framing of the issues at hand.

1. Introduction

Current consumption trends of red and processed meat are being increasingly understood as a threat to both human health and the health of the planet (EAT-Lancet, 2019). The Global Burden of Disease study (GBD) estimated that diets inclusive of any red meat were responsible for 896,000 deaths globally in 2019 (IHME, 2019a), and diets inclusive of any processed meat responsible for 304,000 deaths (IHME, 2019b). Consumption of red and processed meat is linked to cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes (EAT-Lancet, 2019), and in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified processed meat as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ and red meat as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ (Bouvard et al., 2015). Springmann et al. (2018) predict that if those in high income countries switched their meat to plant-based alternatives, premature mortality from dietary risks could be cut by 12%, with benefits resulting both from the cut in meat and the increased consumptions of vegetables, fruits and legumes.

Livestock farming is also problematic for the planet, accounting for 14.5% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Gerber et al., 2013) and having harmful effects across the ecosystem (EAT-Lancet, 2019). As population sizes and incomes increase, it is expected that demand for animal sourced food will also grow (EAT-Lancet, 2019). Even if fossil fuel emissions stopped tomorrow, it is anticipated that these business-as-usual trends in global food systems would prevent the world from limiting global warming to 1.5 °C and threaten a target of 2 °C (Clark et al., 2020). Addressing our appetite for meat will be crucial. Research from Clark et al. and the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health (a collaboration to define a healthy and sustainable diet, hereafter referred to as ‘EAT-Lancet’) has found that best farm practices have lower emissions reduction potential than shifting to plant-based diets, with EAT-Lancet estimating that dietary shift could cut emissions by up to 80% by 2050, compared to a 10% reduction from improved production practices (EAT-Lancet, 2019, Clark et al., 2020). Some argue that grazing systems can capture carbon through soil sequestration, however, soil sequestration can only partially offset emissions (Garnett et al., 2017). Furthermore, grazing systems are incapable of meeting projected demand for animal protein; rearing livestock on grasslands can only produce 7–18 g protein per capita daily, whereas estimated demand for 2050 is 31 g per capita daily (Garnett et al., 2017).

Overall, the evidence that moving towards more plant-based diets is beneficial for both human and planetary health has been described by EAT-Lancet (2019), p.476 as “sufficient and strong enough to warrant action”. The UK Government’s healthy eating guidance recommends eating no more than 70 g of red or processed meat per day (Public Health England (PHE), 2018). However, this does not take into account sustainability, and research by Bradbury et al. (2020) found that those who reported eating an average of 76 g/day of red and processed meat had a 20% higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) than those consuming 21 g/day. EAT-Lancet (2019) states that there appears to be a linear relationship between intake of red meat and adverse health outcomes, and the GBD study has adopted a threshold minimum risk level of 0 g/day for both red and processed meat, meaning that they consider any amount of red and processed meat to potentially have negative health consequences (IHME, 2019a, 2019b). However, EAT-Lancet (2019) also acknowledges that meat can be an important part of the diet where dietary choices are limited, and suggest overall that a range of 0–28 g/day of red meat is optimal.

The health and environmental impacts of meat consumption have begun to be recognised in UK policy spheres. When Public Health England (PHE) updated their healthy eating guidance in 2016, the protein section was retitled ‘Beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins’, and PHE were explicit that this was to draw attention to more environmentally friendly protein options (PHE, 2016). A 2020 House of Lords select committee report into food, poverty, health and the environment argued that a shift to more plant-based diets is required “in order to protect the natural environment and public health” (Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment, 2020, p. 127). A report published by the UK’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) in January 2020 stated that the public sector should lead on encouraging such a shift, and that if softer actions do not prove sufficient to achieve change, “stronger options” such as pricing or regulation should be considered (Committee on Climate Change 2020, p.16). In 2021 the National Food Strategy for England, an independent report commissioned by the UK government, recommended that meat consumption should be cut by 30% in the next decade (National Food Strategy, 2021).

Nilsson and colleagues (Nilsson et al., 2016) have shown that environmental policies require public acceptance to be implemented by governments. There is evidence that the public are becoming increasingly aware of the footprint of their food, for example, a 2018 survey in EU member states found that 80% of respondents would be willing to Consider the GHG emissions of their food choices (Froggatt and Wellesley, 2019). Though meat consumption is rising globally (Froggatt and Wellesley, 2019), people in the UK are eating less (Committee on Climate Change 2019), with annual per capita consumption of beef and veal dropping from 11.9 kg in 2010 to 11.3 kg in 2020 (OECD, 2020).

Whilst a shift towards diets lower in red and processed meat is likely to be a “win–win” for health and the environment (EAT-Lancet, 2019), those industries involved in the production and sale of meat stand to lose; increasing public and policymaker attention on the harms of meat threatens future revenue. Research has demonstrated that the producers of tobacco, fossil fuels and sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) employ a diverse range of tactics to respond to such threats (Madureira Lima and Galea, 2018, Mialon et al., 2015, Swinburn et al., 2019). These tactics are often consistent across different producers and different categories of harmful commodities and are sometimes referred to as an industry ‘playbook’ (for example, Brownell and Warner, 2009). There are many examples of this playbook being used to successfully impede policy action to the detriment of public and planetary health (Crosbie and Thomson, 2018, MacKenzie et al., 2018, Madureira Lima and Galea, 2018, Jahiel and Babor, 2007). A key playbook strategy is attempting to influence perceptions of the issues at stake by ‘framing’ an issue in a way that is more favourable for industry, in order to influence policy (Bates and Rowell, 2004, Campbell et al, 2020, Supran and Oreskes, 2017). Frames can be defined as “ideational lenses through which problems are understood and portrayed” and are important as they can determine how a topic is understood, whether it is discussed, how much attention it draws, and can guide the choice of options for action (Smith and Shiffman, 2016, p.87). For example, if consumers are persuaded that a product is safe, even when it is not, discussion about how the product should be consumed or whether it should be regulated is much less likely (Madureira Lima and Galea, 2018). A Lancet review (Moodie et al, 2013) and frameworks by Mialon et al. (2015) and Madureira Lima and Galea (2018) highlight a range of devices employed by corporate entities to frame issues more favourably. These are summarised in Fig. 1 below:

Fig. 1. Industry framing devices.

On review of the literature, the authors have found there to be a paucity of peer-reviewed research that examines the public discourse of the meat industry to explore how the health and climate harms of red and processed meat consumption are framed. However, there are indications that the meat industry employs framing devices that minimise the need to reduce consumption. Research by Sievert et al. found that the meat industry has portrayed meat reduction as ‘extremist’ (Sievert et al, 2020). An investigation by DeSmog Christen (2021), an investigative environmental journalism platform, found that a selection of large meat companies and trade bodies portray meat as healthful, claim that live-stock farming is not a significant contributor to Climate change and argue that industry can be part of the solution to Climate change (through improved production methods) whereas a switch to plant-based diets would be ineffective. Given these indications, and the evidence around how other harmful industries frame their products, the authors hypothesised that (A) the UK meat industry frames the health and environmental impacts of eating red and processed meat more favourably for themselves (i.e. to minimise the perception of harm) and that (B) this framing is created using similar devices to those employed by other producers of harmful commodities. Given that a reduction of red and processed meat consumption would be beneficial in the UK, and issue framing has the power to influence debate (Smith and Shiffman, 2016), this is an important hypothesis to explore. To this end, we performed a thematic content analysis of UK meat industry documents to identify how the environmental and health harms of consuming red and processed meat are framed by industry.

2. Methods

2.1. Approach

Public facing documents produced by meat industry representative bodies, explicitly mentioning either health or the environment, were analysed to explore how the relationship between meat consumption and health or the environment is framed. The authors decided to focus on representative bodies of the meat industry as they considered that this would give a broader view of the sector than a sample of individual companies.

2.2. Identification of sources

Purposive sampling was used to identify relevant documents (search performed July-August 2019).

Firstly, meat industry representative bodies were identified. A meat industry representative body was considered to be an organisation representing those who work at a point along the supply chain, from farm to fork, including landowners, farmers and other farming professionals, auctioneers, abattoirs and meat processors, import/export, secondary processors, wholesale meat market, butchers, shops and caterers (based on Lindgren and Hingley, 2013). A combination of strategies was used to identify such bodies: Firstly, a Google search was performed using combinations of key words (full strategy described in Appendix A). The first fifty results for each search were reviewed for potentially relevant organisations. The UK government maintains a list of professional associations approved for tax purposes, and this was interrogated for organisations with names suggesting them to be a meat industry representative body (HM Revenue & Customs, 2019). Finally, a ‘snowballing’ technique was used, with organisations cited on the websites initially retrieved also being reviewed for relevancy. Where a potentially relevant organisation was identified, their website was accessed to enable screening of the organisation against the inclusion and exclusion criteria (described in Table 1 below).

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for organisations.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Meat industry representative body.

UK based.

Do not meet any of the exclusion criteria below.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA (RATIONALE)

Locality specific rather than UK-wide. (To Capture debates at a national level, rather than local variations)

Represent only a specific type of meat e.g. game, pork. (To Capture debates relating to the spectrum of red and processed meats (particularly the largest and most intensely produced meat categories), rather than variations between different meat types)

Organisations representing businesses selling a range of non-meat and meat products directly to end consumers. E.g. supermarkets, caterers, restaurants. (If patterns of red meat consumption changed, these businesses could diversify, without it necessarily negatively impacting on their profits. Therefore, these businesses have different pressures to those who rely on meat for their income, and thus may address the issues differently)

Trade press. (Though the views represented in such sources likely have a lot of common ground with those of industry itself, their profit motive is sale of the trade press rather than sale of meat, and thus there may be differences in how they frame issues)

The websites of meat industry representative bodies meeting inclusion requirements were searched systematically for relevant documents. Documents were included if they were publicly available on the website of an included organisation (i.e. not behind a membership or paywall); one of the following document types- reports, guides, educational materials, fact sheets (including fact sheets presented as a webpage), responses to relevant events or research articles; produced from 2015 onwards or a live webpage (to ensure a contemporaneous understanding of industry framing); and made explicit reference to meat and health

and/or the environment. Documents were excluded if they did not meet all of these inclusion criteria.

For all representative bodies except the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) all relevant documents found on their websites were taken forward for analysis. The AHDB is a non-departmental public body representing the interests of and funded by farmers and others in the supply chain. Its web presence was spread across seven websites with multiple cross-links between them, and a total of 23 relevant factsheets were identified from across four of these sites. Therefore, one factsheet was randomly selected from each of the four sister sites by numbering the factsheets and using Google’s random number generator.

2.3. Analysis

Thematic content analysis of the identified documents was performed by the lead researcher. An inductive approach, deriving the codes from the data, was considered to be most appropriate given the lack of pre-existing theory specific to this research question. The method was adapted from Flick (2014, Chap. 26) and included familiarisation with the data set, iterative generation of codes, examination of the codes for themes and refinement of themes to reflect emerging subthemes. The emergent themes and subthemes were agreed by all researchers, with a full analysis then written for each emergent theme (or ‘frame’). Coding was performed using Excel (Excel 2016, Microsoft, Washington, USA). This approach is in line with previous research into the commercial determinants of health, for example Lim et al. (2019), Petticrew et al (2016), Hessari et al., (2019).

3. Results

The search strategy described in section 2.2 yielded 36 potentially relevant organisations, of which 17 were excluded following assessment against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This process is described in Fig. 2. The websites of the remaining 19 organisations were then searched for relevant documents. 46 relevant documents were identified from 6 organisational websites (these organisations are described in Table 2), however 24 of these were factsheets spread across four of the AHDB sister sites; one factsheet from each sister site was taken forward for analysis, along with the other 22 documents. (These documents are described in Table 2, with website links provided in Appendix B.) 13 websites did not yield any public facing documents.

Fig. 2. PRISMA flow diagram of selection process for industry representative bodies.

Table 2. Identified representative bodies and documents taken forwards for analysis.

	Type of document	Document Name	Year	Organisation	Description
1	Teaching material	Livestock farming	N/a*	Agricultural & Horticultural Development Board (AHDB)#	Non-departmental public body, funded by levy at point of slaughter
2	Report	Landscapes without livestock	2018
3	Report	Five a week: How much red meat should we be eating?	Post- 2015**
4	Report	Red meat: Cutting through the confusion, a report by the Meat Advisory Panel	2016
5	Fact page	Did you know? Healthy eating facts about pork	N/a*
6	Fact page	Red meat and bowel cancer	N/a*
7	Fact page	Nutrition	N/a*
8	Fact page	Health professionals: Benefits of red meat	N/a*
9	Response (EAT-Lancet commission report ‘food in the anthropocene’)	AHDB response to EAT-Lancet report	2019
10	Fact page	Health & Nutrition	N/a*	British Meat Processors	Trade group representing British meat processors
11	Response (EAT-Lancet commission report ‘food in the anthropocene’)	New campaign for plant-based diets could prove very disruptive	2019	Association (BMPA)
12	Response (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report ‘climate change and land’)	Climate Action- Farmers are ready to play their part	2019	Country Land & Business Association (CLA)	Membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses
13	Response (government announcement net-zero by 2050)	Net-zero next steps	2019
14	Response (IPCC report ‘climate change and land’)	New report recognises the positive role of meat in limiting climate change	2019	Craft Butchers	Represent independent butchers, farm shops, small abattoirs, processing and wholesale butchery operations as well as key suppliers to the industry
15	Report	British livestock and climate change: Beyond meat and methane	2017	National Farmers’ Union (NFU)	Large trade body representing farmers
16	Report	The future of food 2040	2019
17	Report	UK- A nation united by food	2018
18	Report	United by our environment, our food, our future	2018
19	Response (EAT-Lancet commission report ‘food in the anthropocene’)	National Papers: EAT-Lancet Commission report	2019
20	Response (Sainsbury’s trial)	Reaction to Sainsbury’s trial to reduce meat consumption	2017
21	Response (CCC report ‘net zero- the UK’s contribution to stopping global warming’)	NFU reiterates its net zero aims for agriculture	2019
22	Response (IPCC report ‘climate change and land’)	NFU responds to IPCC report on land use and climate change	2019
23	Response (EAT-Lancet commission report ‘food in the anthropocene’)	NFU responds to the EAT-Lancet commission report	2019
24	Response (Red meat tax study)	NFU writes to The Guardian on red meat tax	2019
25	Research article	Pasture for Life: A solution to global warming	2019	Pasture for Life (PFL)	Organisation representing grass-based farming and meat production
26	Research article	Research demonstrates the human health benefits of Pasture for Life meat	2016

^*Webpage

^**This document is not dated; however, the authors assume it was published after 2015 as it references work published in 2016.

^#The AHDB web presence was spread across 7 sites: AHDB.org.uk; meat matters; meat and health; simply beef and lamb; love pork; food a fact of life and meat and education (last excluded as no relevant documents). These all are owned by the AHDB and links frequently take the page user between sites. For simplicity, these sister sites are all referred to here as ‘AHDB’.

On analysis, 76 unique codes were identified. From these codes, four over-arching themes were identified, which can be understood to be the frames employed by the meat industry to portray the health and environmental harms of red and processed meat consumption. These frames are ‘still open for debate’, ‘most people have no need to worry’, ‘keep eating meat to be healthy’ and ‘no need to Cut down to be green’. Within these frames 17 subthemes were identified. Table C.1 (Appendix C) describes the distribution of subthemes and appearance of frames across the document set.

Main frames employed by the meat industry

Frame 1: ‘Still open for debate’

The harmful impacts of red and processed meat consumption on both health and the environment were portrayed as still being open to debate. This message was constructed from 3 main arguments:

1. ‘Lack of scientific consensus’: Discussions around the harms of meat were framed as an ongoing debate with valid evidence existing in dispute of ‘meat is harmful’ claims. For example:

   “While we at BMPA advocate a balanced diet that includes animal protein, our main aim is to ensure that the debate remains balanced and that basic, scientifically proven facts from both sides of the fence are given due consideration by both Governments and consumers alike” (11)

   It was claimed that there was lack of clarity, with further research needed regarding the impact of red/processed meat consumption on health or the environment. For example, AHDB document (4), which focussed on meat and cancer, is titled ‘cutting through the confusion’ and the NFU asserted “We do not yet understand the implications of a heavily plant-based diet … on either our health or the environment” (12). The BMPA stated that the findings of the landmark EAT-Lancet report on sustainable diets could “easily create a false impression of scientific consensus” (11). This subtheme appeared in approximately a third of all documents.

2. ‘Advice is of questionable quality’: Claims were made that the harms of meat have been over-inflated; newspaper articles that declared meat-eating to be damaging to health or the environment were described as “alarmist” (4) and “sensationalist” (12) respectively. Concerns were raised about the quality of evidence used to build claims of harm, e.g. the AHDB claimed that “The evidence linking red meat and CRC is very inconsistent and based on extremely weak observational studies” (4) and the NFU stated that it “firmly contests” (20) research from Scarborough and colleagues (Scarborough et al., 2014) predicting health and environmental benefits from diets lower in meat, though no reasons for this rejection were given.

3. ‘Trust us not them’: Doubt was at times cast over the reliability of scientists claiming that meat is harmful, particularly seen in the BMPA’s response to the EAT-Lancet commission, for example, “On a more cynical note, the campaign could open the door for new (and old) players in food and agriculture to Capitalise on a lucrative new market” (11). Conversely, there were occurrences of industry implying themselves to be trustworthy by declaring themselves objective, independent or evidence-based. For example, the Meat Advisory Panel, who produced materials for the AHDB, described themselves as “tasked to provide objective and evidence-based information about red meat” (4), though they were funded by the AHDB(32) (who state that one of their priorities is to increase demand for beef and lamb⁽³³⁾).

   This frame was used by all organisations and appeared in 14 of the 26 documents.

Frame 2: ‘Most people have no need to worry’

1. ‘As long as you don’t eat too much, it’s safe’: Documents described eating meat up to a threshold amount to be safe, with risk only encountered above this level. For example, “There is nothing to suggest that eating red meat in line with the 70 g a day cooked weight impacts negatively on health” (4).

2. ‘Most people don’t eat too much’: Across the AHDB documents, we found 20 statements that the average intake of red meat is not high or that consumption has fallen over time. For example:

   “4 in 10 men and 1 in 10 women eat more than 90 g of red and processed meat a day. Therefore, most people do not need to make any changes to their present consumption patterns in order to achieve the recommendation” (3)

   Such statements imply that most people do not need to Cut down.

3. ‘In some specific circumstances, consumption should be cut down’: Where suggestions to Cut down were seen, these suggestions were directed only to those who eat large amounts. This was with one exception, which advised sausages and burgers to be considered “occasional foods” (4).

4. ‘Minimisation of health harm’: IARC classify red meat as a 2A substance (probably carcinogenic to humans)⁽¹⁾. Document (4), the AHDB’s discussion of IARC’s findings, provided examples of other 2A substances such as “very hot drinks” and “shift work”, and noted that “only one agent out of hundreds has been identified as safe [by IARC]” (4). This use of mundane comparisons and the implication that IARC is unlikely to ever class a substance as safe could be seen to build an impression that classification as 2A is not overly consequential. Document (4) went on to describe IARC’s findings as excessively dramatic: “the messaging from IARC which implied an 18% increase in CRC risk with each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily was unhelpful and exceptionally scaremongering”.

5. ‘There are other things we should worry about more’: AHDB report (4) and factsheet (6) both emphasised that meat eating is just one among many risk factors for CRC (8 occasions when at least 1 alternative cause was mentioned, across the 2 documents), with other factors flagged as more important to address. For example, “Avoiding red and processed meat in the diet is not a protective strategy against cancer … the top priorities for cancer prevention remain smoking cessation, maintenance of normal body weight and avoidance of high alcohol intakes” (4). Both documents identified that smoking increases risk of lung cancer more than meat consumption increases risk of CRC. For example:

   “Currently, in the UK, six out of 100 individuals are predicted to develop CRC over a lifetime. If these 100 individuals ate more than 50 g of processed meat daily, this would increase to seven out of 100 cases. Putting this into Context, the risk for smoking is 35 times higher so that out of 100 smokers, 20 are predicted to develop lung cancer. This is why eating meat is nowhere near as risky as cigarettes and those headline writers who said last year that eating meat was as bad as smoking got it badly wrong.” (4)

   This is arguably an irrelevant comparison and could be considered misleading. A meta-analysis found the Relative Risk (RR) of smoking on lung cancer to be 8.96, but RR of smoking on CRC to be 1.2 (Gandini et al., 2008), i.e. much less dissimilar to the RR of eating 50 g processed meat a day on CRC (1.18) (Bouvard, 2015).

   This framing was seen in AHDB, BMPA and NFU documents. The most forceful message of reassurance was seen in document (4); “Red and processed meat do not give you cancer”, though generally the message was that red meat can be consumed safely within a limit.

Frame 3: ‘Keep eating meat to be healthy’

1. ‘Meat is healthy’: References to red meat being healthy were prolific (15 documents). Some of these claims were generic, some made reference to meat and athleticism, while others focussed on protein, healthy fat or vitamin and mineral content and the potential benefits of these, for example “Red meat is one of the few natural dietary sources of vitamin D … There is emerging evidence that it [Vitamin D] protects against bowel, prostate and breast cancers, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and multiple sclerosis” (3). The NFU described red meat as a “vital” dietary component (23). In contrast, mention of health harms occurred rarely, with 17 suggestions of harm in comparison to 110 counts for benefit (~1:6). All statements of harm were either oblique, accompanied by a qualifier or caveated, or obfuscated by undefined scientific terminology. For example, “A meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies found a 17% increased risk with every 100 g of red meat consumed daily and a 18% increased risk for every 50 g of processed meat consumed daily” (4) (with the term ‘meta-analysis’ not defined in the document).

2. ‘We should eat some meat’: The UK government’s healthy eating guidance (PHE, 2018) recommends to “on average eat no more than 70 g red and processed meat a day”. In contrast, some industry documents portray 70 g as an amount to aim to eat, rather than an upper limit. For example, “Government guidelines suggest we should have 70 g of red meat a day” (9). Similarly, the ADHB document (3) is based around a “five-a-week” message, promoting 70 g five times a week.

   The AHDB portrayed meat as a solution for avoiding nutrient deficiencies and appeared to advocate for blanket advice to eat more meat:

   “The evidence is clear, red meat and milk both provide important nutrients which millions of people are lacking in their diet. We should be encouraging increased intakes, not muddling messages on what constitutes a healthy balanced diet” (3)

   It was also Claimed that blanket advice to eat less meat could be risky; “There is no such thing as a ‘bad’ food, but there is no doubt that excluding entire food groups from the diet is a major risk for nutrient adequacy” (3). The NFU suggested that a meat tax could lead to health inequality; “A blunt meat tax would simply make an important part of a healthy, balanced diet less affordable, inevitably hitting lower income households the hardest” (24).

   Across the 26 documents there were 13 statements framing red meat as advantageous over non-red meat alternatives, such as “iron and zinc in beef and lamb are much more easily absorbed by the body than that found in plant-based foods” (10), though approximately a third of these referred specifically to vitamin B12 (which is predominantly derived from animal products).

3. ‘Some people could eat more’: Statements such as “some groups such as women, girls and pre-school children, could eat more red meat” (4) appeared in AHDB documents (3) and (4).

4. ‘We can choose healthier meats’: Both AHDB and BMPA documents stated that red meat is becoming lower in fat and that different preparation methods can be used to make meat healthier. Pasture for Life (PFL) argued throughout document (26) that health impacts vary according to farming method, with livestock raised on pasture producing healthier meat.

5. ‘Other reasons to keep eating meat’: It was argued that people “enjoy eating meat” (16) and eating red meat was highlighted as the cultural norm:

   “Red meat is eaten and loved by millions of people around the world. In the UK 96% of people eat meat” (10)

Personal choice was also raised. For example, when Sainsbury’s announced plans to influence customers to purchase less meat, the NFU responded; “We are seeking urgent talks with Sainsbury’s to ensure all British produce can have pride of place on their shelves for customers to make up their own mind about what they buy” (20).

Overall, a message to keep eating meat was constructed through the delineation of potential risks of low intake and emphasis on the benefits of red meat, with little acknowledgement of health harms, and reassurance that healthier meats can be chosen. This is illustrated by the ADHB statement: “A healthy diet is all about balance, and advice on healthy eating should focus on getting the right balance between known benefits and potential risks” (3), i.e. that benefits are a given and harms uncertain.

Frame 4: ‘No need to Cut down to be green’

1. ‘Livestock farming benefits the environment’: It was stated in 10 documents that land used for livestock can act as a carbon sink, and thus grazing animals are “part of the solution to global warming” (25). Livestock systems were als°Credited with “the maintenance of … iconic landscapes and habitats”, with references to improving biodiversity also seen in (18) and (25). PFL argued that livestock grazing can “rebuild soil fertility” (25).

2. ‘Reducing livestock numbers could have negative impacts’: ADHB document (2) ‘Landscapes without Livestock’ described how “simply cutting livestock numbers will have knock-on effects which will themselves have a negative environmental impact”, and gave examples of how reduced livestock numbers could detract from countryside aesthetics and lead to Cultural loss, such as “a loss of the knowledge and traditions associated with family-based beef and sheep farming” (2).

   It was also argued that cutting British production would export GHG emissions, for example, “We will not halt climate change by curbing British [meat] production and exporting it to Countries which may not have the same environmental conscience, or ambition to reduce their climate impact” (21).

   Whilst five documents explicitly stated that livestock can cause environmental harm (with one additional count of implied harm, and tw°Cases of harm being presented but with a caveat) there was only one acknowledgement of possible benefits from reducing livestock numbers. This was in a case study and referred to a potential improvement in biodiversity in a very local area (2).

3. ‘Environmental harms from livestock aren’t a given’: The NFU and PFL both emphasised that environmental impacts are dependent on farming method, arguing that some systems have the potential to be sustainable. For example, “Pasture-fed, grain-free production systems such as Pasture for Life, that use existing pastures or have been converted from crop production and do not involve the destruction of forests or other ecosystems, have the potential to be carbon–neutral” (25). The NFU and AHDB state that the UK already uses less harmful methods of production, for example “it is important we recognise that the British livestock industry is one of the most efficient and sustainable in the world” (23).

4. Industry was represented as rising to meet the threat of climate change, for example the CLA stated that its “Members around the country have been adopting best practice to help our government achieve its future net-zero ambitions” (12). However, the focus was on efficiency improvements rather than reducing production. For example, NFU document (15) presented 23 case studies describing measures taken by livestock farmers to decrease their environmental impact, none of which involved reducing animal numbers. Despite this, commitment to net-zero emissions from agriculture is reiterated, for example the NFU declares an “ambition to be Net Zero by 2040” (21), giving the impression that carbon neutral farming is possible without need to reduce consumption.

5. ‘Bigger picture’: It was argued in 7 documents that land used to graze livestock is not suitable for any other purpose, and that livestock is needed to Convert grass into food that humans can eat. For example, “The only way you can turn grass into nutritious protein-rich food is to graze it with ruminant animals” (14). It was also argued that methane is a natural part of the carbon cycle or has a short half-life and is therefore less concerning, such as:

   “Methane has a big immediate effect but a short lifespan, unlike carbon dioxide that persists in the atmosphere for much longer. Herds that have existed for generations at a stable size will not be adding directly to global warming with their methane emissions” (25)

   These different subthemes create a message that livestock can benefit as well as harm the environment and reducing livestock numbers would not have a positive impact. The focus is on ‘British is best’ and how farming practices can be improved to diminish impact. The NFU used this framing frequently, though use of this frame was seen across all of the organisations examined.

Miscellaneous codes of interest

Industry acknowledged that meat can be seen negatively, with both the BMPA and NFU stating that such a frame could affect industry interests. For example, the title of the BMPA’s response to the publication of EAT-Lancet was ‘New campaign for plant-based diets could prove very disruptive’ (11) and the article raised concerns that “Ultimately we could see changes in Government policy and legislation” (11). This article also described the EAT-Lancet recommendations as unachievable.

4. Discussion

4.1. Interpretation of the findings

Our analysis of industry documents identified four key frames used by the meat industry. We found that the meat industry questions scientific consensus as to the degree of harm and attempts to persuade that there is likely no need to worry about health risks. Industry focussed on how farming technique influences environmental impact and emphasised potential benefits of animal agriculture, distracting from the need for a net reduction for environmental reasons and developing a frame that there is no need to Cut down to be green. As predicted by hypothesis A, these themes downplay the health and environmental impacts of eating red and processed meat and are more favourable to the UK meat industry than scientific understanding that consumption should be reduced. The frames ‘most people have no need to worry’ and ‘no need to Cut down to be green’, along with the fourth framing that you need to eat meat to be healthy, skew the picture further in industry’s favour by supporting continued purchasing.

Our findings complement the existing evidence base as to how producers of harmful commodities frame the harms of their products, with the four ‘classic’ industry framing devices described in Fig. 1 all clearly or partially demonstrated in this analysis. Firstly, the meat industry has been shown to employ devices that shape how evidence is understood. The meat industry fosters uncertainty about scientific consensus and casts doubt over the reliability of both researchers and the evidence, a technique that has been employed by the tobacco, fossil fuel and alcohol industries (Diethelm and McKee, 2009, Petticrew et al, 2018). Cherry-picking and misrepresentation of evidence was seen. For example, whilst the argument that different production practices have different environmental impacts is valid (EAT-Lancet, 2019), this ignores evidence that efficiency improvements alone can achieve a minimal reduction in GHG emissions compared to dietary shift, with net reduction in consumption of meat required to meet environmental ambitions (EAT-Lancet, 2019). Industry also rejected evidence that disagrees with their message (for example, as seen in the sub-theme ‘advice is of questionable quality’, described in section 3). The framing ‘keep eating meat to be healthy’ is discordant with scientific understanding of healthy diets and is constructed from statements that at times seem to have little basis in fact, for example the NFU’s unreferenced claim that “Scientific communities agree that red meat plays a vital role in a healthy, balanced diet” (23) (Section 3, ‘meat is healthy’ subtheme).

Research (for example, EAT-Lancet, 2019) and advice from the UK’s National Health Service (NHS, 2018) consider plant-based diets to be a healthy choice (whilst acknowledging that supplementation of vitamin B12 and iron may be required). We did not see notable framing of the issues as too Complex to attribute to one cause or solution.

The meat industry was also found to have changed the focus to deflect attention away from the main issues. For example, risk factors for cancer other than red and processed meat consumption were high-lighted and health benefits of meat consumption emphasised, with information about the health harms of red and processed meat consumption appearing less frequently. For example, in document (4), the stated purpose of which is to explain IARC’s findings, it is not until p.7 that the findings are stated, and they are presented in a manner that may not be clear to lay readers, pushing the harm to the ‘background’ (see Section 3, subthemes ‘there are other things that we should worry about more’ and ‘meat is healthy’). Similar distraction from key information has been seen in examinations of alcohol industry information documents about the harms of drinking during pregnancy, and alcohol’s link to Cancer (Lim et al, 2019, Petticrew et al, 2018).

Industry was portrayed as well intentioned, with steps taken to manage harms highlighted, for example the making of net-zero Commitments, (Section 3, subtheme ‘environmental harms from livestock aren’t a given’). Arguments that livestock farming can have environmental benefits, for example, by sequestering carbon in the soil (Section 3, frame 4) could make industry appear to be the champion of the piece.

Free choice receives some mention, for example the meat industry discusses how we can choose healthier meats, and diets are described as a personal choice (Section 3, subthemes ‘we can choose healthier meats’ and ‘other reasons to keep eating meat’).

Overall, the meat industry’s frames are created using similar devices to those employed by other producers of harmful commodities, as predicted by hypothesis B.

4.2. Policy implications

There is a growing body of evidence that corporate actors may act to undermine evidence or policy if it is in conflict with business interests, however little is known about this in the context of the meat industry and sustainability or health. Rather than seeking to inform ethical or empiric judgements on sustainable levels of meat consumption, this article sought to identify how the environmental and health harms of consuming red and processed meat are framed by the meat industry. The finding that industry minimises the potential environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption and frames these harms as ‘still open for debate’ is important as these framings may lower the position of this issue on the policy agenda. If red and processed meat consumption is not perceived as harmful, there is a risk that reducing meat consumption may not be considered an acceptable topic of discussion by the public or policy makers. As Madureira Lima and Galea (2018) explain, ‘if the existing evidence around the harmful effects of a given product is ambiguous and there is no Consensus around it, then there is no need for regulatory action’. This could delay or preclude system-wide interventions that have been shown to be the most effective type of public health action (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2007).

As we have seen, such system wide interventions, and blanket advice to eat less meat, were criticised by industry. The AHDB claimed that there is no such thing as a ‘bad’ food (3) (see section 3), which could be seen as an attempt to shift focus to promotion of balanced diets rather than on calls to reduce meat specifically. This argument has also been used by the SSB industry, which, in retaliation to WHO recommendations to reduce sugar intake, claimed that there are ‘no bad foods’ (Brownell and Warner, 2009).

The meat industry’s suggestion that the consumer can choose ‘greener’ meats and their implications that there is a threshold for health harm opens the door for arguments relating to personal responsibility: In this case, the responsibility to Consume a safe amount, or to eat ‘less but better’ meat could be argued to lie with the consumer, thus changing the ‘menu’ of policy responses that may be seen as most appropriate. This has been seen across industries, for example the alcohol industry generally opposes more powerful generalised interventions such as minimum unit pricing (McCambridge et al, 2018) in favour of interventions such as responsible drinking education (Petticrew et al, 2016).

Framing that positions the meat industry as part of the solution to environmental issues may improve the industry’s credibility and help to stave off regulation. The food industry has been demonstrated to use the same frame in their response to the obesity crisis, arguing that their self-regulatory programmes are part of the solution (despite these programmes having been found to often be ineffective) (Nixon et al, 2015). Even if industry accepts arguments that there is a need to limit global production, the messaging that ‘British is best’ and ‘environmental harms from livestock aren’t a given’ may open the door for the British meat supply chain to argue that, as a responsible global producer, the UK meat industry should not be regulated.

Of course, we cannot conclude from this research whether industry framing is impacting on consumer or policy-maker behaviour. However, the meat industry is a powerful voice. For example, the 10 largest meat producers in the US have spent $109 million on lobbying since 2000 (Lazarus et al, 2021). In the UK, the NFU, an organisation featuring heavily in this analysis, is active in both Westminster and Brussels and has access to senior Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (DeSmog, agribusiness database NFU). The AHDB is of particular interest as it is a non-departmental public body for whom DEFRA is the lead sponsoring department (AHDB, 2018). The AHDB’s affiliation with government may increase their credibility and lobbying power, and they are listed as part of the external reference group for the Eatwell Guide healthy eating guidance (PHE, 2014). The use of frames that are not concordant with scientific understanding of the harms of red and processed meat consumption by organisations with a ‘seat at the table’ raises concerns about the potential for disruption of the burgeoning recognition of a need to take action on meat consumption, and could be seen as justification for including the meat industry in broader discussions about how policymakers should engage with producers of harmful food products.

This research has focussed on the UK, and thus generalisability to the policy context of other countries is unclear. However, given that the ‘classic’ industry framing devices described in Fig. 1 have re-occurred between different industries, over different time periods and in different geographies, we would expect there to likewise be similarities in the behaviour of the meat industry players in other countries.

4.3. Limitations

Our decision not to focus on individual companies reduced the available data. However, choosing to examine bodies representative of industry allowed for the distillation of the main arguments of the largest and most established industry stakeholder groups and increases confidence that the findings are representative of the UK meat industry, though we cannot conclude definitively that our results represent general practice and that other individual industry actors will necessarily employ these framings. The representativeness of our findings may have been limited by the lack of public facing documents available for 13 of the 19 organisations that met the inclusion criteria, however this is likely mitigated to some extent by the inclusion of large organisations such as the NFU and AHDB.

This work was intended to provide a contemporary picture of how the meat industry frames the environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption. However, the frames identified may shift over time as the context changes, for example as new research emerges or pressure to reduce GHG emissions increases. The source material was collected in 2019 and some documents may have subsequently been amended or removed from their original links (the AHDB websites have been significantly updated, for example). As such there is a need for ongoing research to ensure that understanding of the frames used by the meat industry remain up-to-date and to Confirm that these findings reflect the current practices of the meat industry. Future research would also benefit from considering how the meat industry frames issues pertaining to antibiotic resistance.

This research did not examine all public-facing communication routes, such as social media channels, news articles or blogs. However, though using alternative sources to triangulate findings can be useful in establishing the consistency and variability by audience in organisational messaging, and for analysing how responsive to Current events they may be, the study of other industries has found that certain rhetoric tends to be triangulated via multiple communication routes and aligned to internal documentation (Gilmore et al, 2019, Lauber et al, 2021).

The robustness of the results would have been improved if the coding had been verified by a second researcher.

4.4. Conclusions

This is the first peer-reviewed systematic analysis of meat industry documents and shines a light on how the harms of red and processed meat consumption are portrayed by the meat industry in the UK. Four main frames were identified; ‘still open for debate’, ‘most people have no need to worry’, ‘keep eating meat to be healthy’ and ‘no need to Cut down to be green’. Though it is not possible to Comment on whether the meat industry is using these frames intentionally to resist reductions in consumption, they are in line with the ‘playbook’ used by producers of other harmful commodities to portray their products in a more favourable light and to avoid regulation. Thus, their demonstration here should be of concern to those with an interest in food policy. Though the playbook is well thumbed, its use by producers of other harmful commodities has and continues to impede action on environmental and public health harms (Anderson et al, 2021, Crosbie and Thomson, 2018, Jahiel and Babor, 2007, MacKenzie et al, 2018, Madureira Lima and Galea, 2018; Supran and Oreskes, 2017). In comparison to other producers of harmful products, the meat industry has thus far avoided significant inspection of its wider corporate tactics (Sievert et al, 2020), and the findings of this research should act as a call to scrutinise the meat industry to the same extent as producers of other harmful products.