A leak document shows that the acquired interests may have been behind the “clay challenge” campaign for public relations to discredit the study of the historical environment, according to the investigation.
the Dining committee The study, published in 2019, started to answer the question: How can we feed the growing population in the world without causing the catastrophic climate to collapse?
The report recommended that if global red meat is cut by 50 %, A healthy planetary diet “ It will provide nutrient food for everyone while treating damage Because of animal agricultureWhich represents more than 14 % of all greenhouse gas emissions around the world. suggest Individuals-especially in rich countries-must increase their consumption of nuts, legumes and other plant foods during cutting meat and sugar from their meals.
Perhaps it seemed to be a somewhat direct proposal, but the reverse reaction was fierce, as researchers receive personal threats and insults. Thousands of negative publications were shared on Twitter (now X), and more than 500 articles criticizing the report have been published.
A document leaked at the climate site Desmog It reveals that helping to feed this violent reaction was a public relations company, representing Red Flag, which represented the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a coalition for the meat and dairy industry created to protect the sector from “emerging threats”, which includes Cargill and Smithfield Foods – two of the five of the five in the world The largest meat companies – On her board.
Desmog witnessed a document from the public relations company that states: “In the following two weeks, the Eat-Lancet report was published, the messages of this campaign continued to show remarkable success. The main stories have repeatedly returned in traditional and social media to reach major influencers online, especially highlighting the radical nature of the diet in eating and selective selection in the stable levels of eating.”
As part of the impact of the campaign, in the weeks following the publication, the document states that nearly half of the 315 article on the Eat-Lancet report included “campaign messages and quotes” from Red Flag, and adds that 103 articles were mentioned by the alleged hypocrisy from the founders of the group-“passing a conversation on Twitter more than a million views” of the highest compatibles published on Eat about the report.
It includes the Red Flag Document, as the most prominent in the campaign, article In the spectator in the UK about the plans of “changing your diet by force”, and a number of social media publications that claim that the report is “dangerous” and told “the poor to eat dirt.” The exact role of the public relations company in sowing or amplifying these publications, if any, is unknown.
“The targeted surroundings and stimulating stakeholders,” some of the Eat-Lancet report, as well as a later report, “as a radical and external”. The surroundings included “the participation of the prior press” with the Institute of Economic Affairs, In the United Kingdom Libertari ThanakWith hostile articles on Eat-Lancet study, the group quotes, which rejected the report as an elite attack on ordinary people.
In the year following the Eat-Lancet, the scientists participating online were targeted. In some cases, the reverse reaction led to the withdrawal from the press appearances to discuss research and undermine their academic lives. There is no suggestion that the red flag was involved or responsible for these threats.
One of the authors, Dr. Marco Springman, said that he faced a dangerous release after a year after the publication. The major researcher at the Institute of Environmental Change at the University of Oxford and a research fellow professor at the World Health Institute at College University in London, has repeatedly accused of eating a vegetarian diet.
“I usually lead two studies to three studies per year, but in the year following Eat -anceet, I couldn’t even drive on one,” Sprinmann said.
Dr. Line Gordon, another author of the study, said that she is “mired” with “really bad” comments in the wake of her direct publication, and the reaction was “exhausted”.
She said, “I was excited about the research we conducted, how important it is and the extent of the work we put in it.” “However, when we released, I remember waking up in the morning and I did not face any attack in several ways.”
And Dr. Gunhild Stordalen, CEO of the ECT group, along with the Wellcome Trust, funded the research, was one of these people personally targeted, along with her husband, Peter Stordalin, a member of the Norwegian real estate that was In the picture On Instagram Eat a large burger. Other articles were martyred in the lifestyle of the carbon high -end couple, including having a private plane.
A Study social media publications In the months that followed the publication of the report, published in the Lancet magazine, research opponents found that they took control of the discussions and used “wrong information, conspiracy theories and personal attacks” to discredit work.
After promoting the newsletter
“Instead of accurate talks about data, Red Flag returns us to clay ropes,” said Jennifer Jacket, a professor of environmental science and politics at Miami University and an expert in pressure. This document is a picture of what we face – as people who are interested in the truth, about climate change, and the future. “
Desmog experts told the online violent reaction to one of the first examples A cultural war on food change It has become good in recent years.
Victor Galaz, Associate Professor at the Stockholm Center for Flexibility at the University of Stockholm, who participated in the formation of the Eat-Lancet report, studied online response at the time. He said: “Everyone was shocked by the size and tweets of tweets: aggressive and the degree of lying, to put them very frankly.” “Climate change science has faced this type of reverse reaction for a period of time. But in this field – meals and meat – that was new to people. Everyone shocked.”
The researchers behind the report were clear that they welcomed legitimate criticism of their contents – were not without criticism in the academic world – but articles via the Internet and social media often outperform these accurate discussions.
“We are not perfect. It is good to hear constructive criticism, this is part of the academic discourse.” “But if you enter an ideological screaming match, we will not get anywhere. I do not conduct a search for fighting.”
Although there was no suggestion that the red flag was involved in personal attacks against Eat-Lancet authors, Jacquet told Desmog that the public relations company campaign has probably helped make the report a division.
She said: “The industry does not invest in such prosecution.” “They know this affects the feasibility of the conversation. It is a truly illustrative example on how public relations companies work in the twenty -first century.”
However, despite the opposite reaction online, the Eat-Lancet report was one of the most influential studies in recent decades. He – she Of The papers mentioned by governments and policy summaries are often used in all issues, and they are used in more than 600 such documents since their launch.
With the second Eat-Lancet report that was conducted this year, he told Springmann, who joined the second research group despite the presence of reservations, Desmog is hoping that the new research will raise a more constructive conversation.
“It is a great opportunity to re -discuss a better path,” he said.
