This report assumes EAT Lancet is gospel, and anything that doesn’t follow the opinions of EAT is misinformation, they provide a hit list of social media targets who are spreading pro-meat misinformation.

I don’t recognize everyone but -

  • Shawn Baker
  • Nina Teicholz
  • Ken Berry
  • Jason Fung
  • Garry Fettke
  • Peter Ballerstedt
  • Zoe Harcombe
  • Tim Noakes

Are all people I respect and have found both their published work and lectures informative and reasonable. I imagine the other people on this hitlist are worth looking into.

Here is the report in full

summary of the Meat vs EAT Lancet Report

Summary — Meat vs EAT-Lancet: The dynamics of an industry-orchestrated online backlash (Changing Markets Foundation, Sept 2025)

Purpose & Scope

  • Analyzes how meat/dairy–aligned actors coordinated an online backlash against the 2019 EAT-Lancet Commission report, and how similar tactics are being primed ahead of “EAT-Lancet 2.0” (scheduled Oct 2025).
  • Methods described: social-network and content analysis of Twitter/X activity around the 2019 launch; review of leaked/FOI’d documents; profiling of highly active accounts; and timeline of hashtag campaigns.

Key Findings

  • Identifies a tightly connected network of “mis-influencers” (industry-aligned scientists, doctors/health influencers, journalists/authors) who coordinated messaging to discredit EAT-Lancet’s findings.
  • Within 100 highly active accounts, a smaller core repeatedly tagged each other, reused similar wording and hashtags, and amplified in-network links—characterized as hallmarks of coordination.
  • Doctors/health influencers were among the highest-engagement accounts; pro-industry scientists served as central nodes that bridged online narratives and offline activities.
  • Industry accounts and allied organizations participated (e.g., North American Meat Institute, Animal Agriculture Alliance).
  • The “official opposition” hashtag #Yes2Meat and the campaign #ClimateFoodFacts were seeded and amplified ahead of and during the 2019 launch window; critical content spread more than supportive content.
  • Reported offline impacts included the WHO pulling sponsorship of a 2019 event promoting the EAT-Lancet report after political pressure echoing online narratives.
  • Anticipates renewed and expanded pushback for EAT-Lancet 2.0 due to weaker platform moderation, the rise of AI content, and growth of carnivore/keto influencer ecosystems.

Evidence Threads Described

  • Leaked/FOI’d materials tying PR agency involvement to seeding counter-narratives and briefing “experts.”
  • Documentation connecting industry funding to academic/communications centers positioned as independent authorities.
  • Links between online campaigns and later convenings (e.g., 2022 “Dublin declaration,” a 2024 Denver summit) framed as PR-driven efforts to maintain the meat industry’s “social licence.”

Claimed Implications

  • Coordinated online backlash can shape public perception, media coverage, and institutional decisions, delaying or derailing diet- and climate-related policy shifts.
  • The report reiterates that reducing meat/dairy consumption is presented as critical for climate goals and public health, and warns of escalating mis/disinformation ahead of EAT-Lancet 2.0.

DOI Links to Papers Referenced in the Report/Page

  • jetOPMAEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    This report is the great example of the weaponization of centralized censorship, label something you don’t like as misinformation and take a debate about science and publications and evidence and turn it into a “protecting people from dangerous ideas” narrative. On lemmy we have many people cheering for censorship, this community has been blocked by hexbear (heh), and is often described as misinformation. It’s just a lazy label use to short-circuit discussions, and silence others through social pressure (or to pressure central authority to censor)

    When misinformation doesn’t have the desired effect, the rhetoric escalates - A real lemmy post from 2 months ago – All meat-eaters are nazi’s

    We have a group fighting a philosophical battle against data, evidence, and even basic scientific experimentation