The science shows regenerative grazing simply doesn't work And I get it, it's a captivating well funded story ($200M from McD's otw), and it's easier to convince many that small tweaks are all that's needed vs. actual systemic changes away from beef 🧵here's 8+ reasons why this won't make beef eco

Was a great find! Was interesting to learn this one page amongst many broader actions listed would trigger the cattlemen's association to pressure the publisher to stop printing them. Guess it didn't fit the little red barn/happy local animal farm dominating theme.

“If the US had reduced beef and veal consumption by 50% starting in 1992 and replaced that consumption with other products…it is possible that somewhere between 4 and 13 Gt CO2eq could have been avoided between 1992 and 2023.” (Jacquet et al., 2025). Not even incl foregone land sparing C seq.

NCA treated global warming as “a public relations concern that could affect consumer demand.” U.S. methane fell 19% from 1990–2022, driven by reductions from landfills & fossil fuels. Agricultural methane increased and livestock (mostly cattle) are now the leading anthropogenic methane source:

I find this part hilarious. They even pressured Random House to stop reprinting a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles book that explained cattle methane and encouraged eating less meat. By coincidence, I randomly found this book for my kids a year or so ago in a thrift shop:

Its “Every Day is Earth Day for American Cattlemen” ad reached ~20 million people. Industry-sponsored reports–mostly w/a Texas A&M animal scientist, similar to recent UC Davis’ Mitloener–minimized cattle methane, both denying climate change but also falsifying %s & pushing out to the public.

The NCA commissioned academic experts, monitored eco groups, attacked advocates for eating less beef, & promoted cattlemen as environmental stewards. Edelman PR recommended recruiting “third-party spokespersons, repeating our messages with a credibility we [the industry] cannot achieve.”

A NCA rep at the 1989 EPA workshop on livestock’s methane contribution was one of 30 who agreed to “increase levels of research to find solutions to limiting CH4 emissions from livestock”. Instead NCA chose to: “control the agenda and prevent environmental issues from eroding consumer confidence.”

John Robbins’ Diet for a New America (1987), Jeremy Rifkin’s Beyond Beef (1992), and the EPA’s livestock methane findings (1989) helped create an early-1990s PR crisis for the beef industry, fueling a disinfo response that has continued for decades.

Just like Exxon knew about the impacts of climate change, the beef industry knew too. A new PLOS Climate study documents how the National Cattlemen’s Association (NCA), now NCBA, responded to evidence linking cattle methane to global warming from 1986–1996 (study 🔗 at end of 🧵)

Dr. Foley is absolutely correct. “Regenerative” grazing being presented as a solution is very problematic from a climate action perspective b/c it is really obstruction that promotes unjust and unsustainable practices. Wealthy people can afford to pay the “regenerative” premium, the planet cannot.

Alot of uncertainty in that analysis you keep pushing like it's consensus. And claiming extinction like it's inevitable isn't helpful. And it's ridiculous to act like using some alfafa way more efficiently is somehow normalizing beef or dairy.

Agreed, legumes are excellent protein sources, but LPC uses otherwise inedible leaves, particularly alfalfa already grown for cattle feed. We can retain vegetation for soil health while producing more food from less land Did you read the analysis? Duckweed & sugar beet leaves also leading options.