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

    The Ivor Cummins guy seems a bit crazy though…