Unethical Journalism - an open letter to Vox
By Diana Rodgers, RD, Executive Director, Global Food Justice Alliance
The Global Food Justice Alliance advocates for the right of all people to choose nutrient-dense foods such as meat, milk, and eggs, which are critical for nutritious, environmentally sustainable, and equitable food systems that can sustain both human life and the planet.
Simplistic and/or biased media coverage frequently denigrates nutrient-dense meat, dairy, and eggs, a mistake that must be urgently corrected.
Background:
According to the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.” Most importantly, ethical journalists should, “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story.”
It’s a shame that much reporting on meat utterly fails to uphold these standards. For example, consider Vox’s recent Instagram post which, without citation, claims that eating less or no meat is one of the most effective actions people can take to reduce their carbon footprint (this is false). Vox further argues it’s the role of the government to reduce livestock production and then – here’s the kicker – solicits followers to enroll in Vox’s own free, 5-day course on how to go vegan.
The emotional manipulation in Vox’s post begins with the accounting for “animals per person per year” that are used to make “meat.” Of the 174 animals per person “killed” for our food, 137 of these are shrimp. SHRIMP, which of course have nothing to do with what the post calls “industrial meat production” or the “abysmal treatment of animals and workers” in meatpacking. The subjective language ought to be a giant red flag.
This is not honest and fair reporting, it is advocacy and dietary dogma, pushing readers to dramatically alter their diets without even a shred of nutrition expertise or evidence. Silly me, I was under the impression journalists’ job is to ask questions and report facts. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.
And it’s not just Vox doing this. Many other examples of biased anti-meat journalism can be seen from The Economist, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian, which actually accepts funding from vegan groups for editorial content.
The majority of comments on this post show consumers aren’t buying it.
“Huge overreach here.”
“Think we ought to start switching to coal and oil alternatives before we start laying the majority of the blame on consumers?”
”Did the 100 companies responsible for 71% of all global emissions write this?”
As a practicing “real food” dietitian and the founder of the Global Food Justice Alliance, I am calling on Vox and all media outlets to report the facts – nutritious, affordable foods like meat, dairy, and eggs are uniquely healthy and cannot be replaced by plants, especially not ultra-processed and expensive fake “substitutes” and pills. And despite frequent misunderstanding and misinformation, meat, dairy, and eggs can also good be for the planet and are key to achieving true sustainability.
Here are the facts:
So-called plant-based diets are nutritionally-deficient
Nutrient deficiencies are more common in vegan and vegetarian populations, and in most cases, meat is the only or best way to solve them. Plus, in many parts of the United States and the world, people don’t have the luxury of pushing away nutritious meat. Policies and media messages taking meat away from those already receiving too little nutrients will increase the devastating health consequences already being experienced, especially for women and children.
Iron and B12 are two of the most common nutrient deficiencies worldwide, and meat is the best source of these nutrients. Multiple studies, experts, and international organizations agree that nutrient-dense meat, dairy, and eggs are essential in healthy diets. We also know that as people have more access to meat and other animal-sourced foods, they live longer, healthier lives.
1.6 billion pre-school aged children and women of reproductive age are deficient in one or more minerals. These issues are not isolated to low-and middle-income countries. Iron deficiency alone is 21% in the UK and 22% in the US among women of reproductive age. Zinc deficiency is 10% in the UK and 14% in the US among women of reproductive age, and this population also is Vitamin D deficient in 22% of the group and 19% are folate deficient in the UK.
Animal-sourced foods are also the only sources of retinol, heme iron, vitamin B12 and vitamin D and the most bioavailable sources of zinc and protein. Other than sea algae (which is quite difficult to source and has its own sustainable production issues), animal source foods are the only sources of essential fatty acids (DHA and EPA) needed for healthy brain function. They also contain uniquely potentially beneficial compounds including creatine, anserine, taurine, cysteamine, and CLA. The chart below shows the massive increases in calorie consumption that would be needed to meet recommended intakes for critical micronutrients.
Calories and grams needed to provide an average of one-third of recommended intakes of vitamin A, folate, vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and zinc for women 15–49. Source: Beal and Ortenzi. (Under review). Priority micronutrient density in foods
Not All Protein is Equal
Currently, 1 billion people in the world do not eat enough protein, that’s approximately one in 7 people. And how we define “enough” is actually based on a bare minimum, which is in fact not enough!
Common protein intake recommendations (46 grams per day for women and 56 grams per day for men) are based on a “reference” weight of 125 lbs for women and 154 lbs for men. How many men do you know who weigh 154lbs and women who weigh 125lbs?
Spoiler: the average man weighs nearly 200 lbs, and the average woman weighs 166 lbs (CDC data). Properly calculating protein needs per body weight, average American men actually need a minimum of 71 grams of protein per day, and average American women need at least 60 grams per day.
Recommendations based on actually limiting disease, rather than just eating the minimum protein needed to – you know – stay alive, say a 2,000 calorie diet should include 20% of calories from protein (U.S. Library of Medicine). That’s 100 grams of protein per day - DOUBLE what the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend.
Furthermore, protein is not actually a single nutrient but a collection of amino acids that humans need to thrive. While large quantities of “plant-based” foods may meet a simple protein calculation, they may not supply the adequate amount of amino acids in the right combinations.
In fact, one study showed that many children in low- and middle-income countries are deficient in several amino acids, even though they meet their recommended total protein intake. This is due to their diets being low in animal-sourced foods. Plus, animal-sourced foods happen to be rich in the majority of micronutrient deficiencies worldwide, which I will address later in this post.
The great thing about aiming for 100g of protein largely from animal-sourced foods is that you’re much more likely to get the recommended intake of vitamins and minerals just from the meat or fish you’re eating. Furthermore, protein is the most satiating micronutrient, so the more protein you consume, the lower your appetite will be for junk food. Between animal-sourced foods like meat, fish and eggs plus dark leafy greens, you’ve basically covered the majority of your nutrient requirements in far less calories than if you were to try to get these nutrients from plant sources.
Pushing vegan and near-vegan diets is elitist and harms billions of people who don’t have the privilege to push away healthy food
Unlike urban elite reporters, perhaps, many people don’t live within immediate vicinity of expensive gourmet grocery stores and vitamin shops. The majority of people on the planet do not have access to the variety of exotic produce, volumes of sea algae, expensive ultra-processed plant-based protein foods and dietary supplements required to make vegan or near-vegan diets nutritionally adequate.
It would take enormous quantities of vegetables (which are highly perishable and most of which would have to be imported in many countries) to come near the essential nutrients found in meat, dairy, and eggs - massively increasing calorie intake and not accounting for differences in nutrient quality and bioavailability.
Demonizing meat consumption for the general overconsumption of calories in some countries is illogical and not supported by evidence. By comparison, ultra-processed foods in the form of refined grains, oils and sugars are high in calories and low in nutrients and their consumption is at an all-time high due to their hyper palatability. In the United States, 57% of our calories come from ultra-processed foods. Reduction of these foods should be the real focus of our efforts, not a global reduction in consumption of nutrient-dense foods in the supposed name of climate action.
In fact, when we vilify meat as unhealthy and “bad” what happens to the rest of the plate? Consider typical children’s foods: peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, macaroni and cheese, pizza, hamburgers, chicken nuggets, grilled cheese. As a dietitian I’d strongly argue that the animal-sourced foods in that list (ground beef, chicken, cheese) are the healthiest - they contain critical iron, B12, and protein. I highly doubt that telling parents to avoid meat will result in kids eating more kale salads topped with huge quantities of chickpeas. In all likelihood, it will result in taking the most nutrient-dense foods out and replacing them with more calories and empty carbs.
Expensive plant-based meat and milk substitutes usually cost about twice the price and lack the micronutrients required for optimal growth and brain development. How could it be equitable or ethical to make such recommendations?
Radical plant-based diets are not better for the planet
The environmental impact of raising animals for food is frequently overstated and mischaracterized. There is no strong evidence that reducing or eliminating animal-sourced foods would have a meaningful impact on greenhouse gas emissions or could be achieved without damaging people’s health. In fact, one study found that if everyone in the United States were vegan, U.S. emissions would decrease by a minuscule 2.5% decrease in total GHG emissions, while Americans would eat more calories and more carbohydrates and suffer from more nutrient deficiencies.
Worldwide emissions from livestock continue to be widely misreported and misunderstood. One long-debunked figure from a report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, incorrectly stated that cattle represent 14.5% of global GHG emissions. That is hugely overstated because it represents a full life cycle analysis (cradle-to-grave) of beef production while other emissions (like transportation) are calculated only based on to direct tailpipe emissions, failing to account for the same full life cycle.
Further, GHG emissions from livestock are part of a natural, biogenic cycle and cannot not be compared to emissions from burning fossil fuels. (As a side note: of course, all food has an environmental impact. The carbon footprint of fresh produce is highly impacted by perishability and transportation, which also contribute to high food waste rates for fresh produce. Ultra-processed, plant-based meat alternatives can have substantially higher GHG emissions than animal-sourced foods. And I’ve already explained they don’t pack nearly the same nutrition benefits as meat!)
The activists and industry backers who stand to profit from radical shifts to plant-based diets ignore the many environmental benefits of livestock production (such as upcycling, making use of non-arable land, improving soil health, and providing manure for crop systems) and wrongly dismiss the significant improvements over decades in conserving natural resources while producing uniquely nutrient-dense meat that supports hundreds of millions of livelihoods around the world.
Emissions from ruminants like cattle are part of a natural biogenic cycle, where short-lived methane converts to carbon dioxide and water, which become part of the photosynthetic process and water cycle. By contrast, emissions from tilling crops and the fossil fuels needed to power crop equipment and processed meat alternative factories comprise a one-way road of pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Livestock’s Land and water use
Ruminants can graze on marginal land that can't support other crops, turning grass human can’t digest into nutrient-dense meat. Removing all cattle and sheep would have very little impact on use of land that can grow other crops and would mean grazing land would stop producing food, with disastrous food security repercussions.
Even in conventional farming systems, cattle use the same or less groundwater (“blue water”) compared to many crops like almonds, rice, avocados, walnuts, and sugar. In well-managed grazing systems, cattle actually improve the water-holding capacity of the soil, reducing soil erosion and run off. These benefits are typically excluded from water-use models used to denigrate meat. This study estimated that each head of cattle was worth $1,043.35 and $2.74 per pound in ecosystem services from their grazing on public land, yet this sort of information is left out of simplistic media coverage of why we all need to rely on monocrop soy for food.
Animals raised for food do not compete with or displace crops grown for human consumption. We currently produce more than a generous surplus of grains. Hunger is a political and food distribution issue, not a food production issue. Globally, nearly 90% of livestock feed in fact comes from “up-cycling” waste produced by crops, for example leftover grain produced during alcohol production. These byproducts are not edible by humans and have no other use; they would otherwise decompose and produce emit greenhouse gas. Beef cattle in the United States produce more energy than they consume, making them net “up-cyclers.” In many parts of the world, cattle consume only grass and graze on land that cannot physically produce other crops; therefore they do not compete at all with humans for edible food.
Rather than perpetuating infeasible, incorrect claims against meat, the media should cover more stories about sustainable livestock farming and crop systems, which go hand in hand. Livestock improve the soil and produce natural fertilizer for crops; crop production creates byproducts that are used to feed livestock. Sustainable farming of animals for food is not a liability but rather a very material asset.
Meat and other animal sourced foods are nutritious, traditional and culturally appropriate to most societies
Eating meat, dairy, and eggs is a traditional and integral part of food cultures in many places around the world, as is raising animals to provide these nutritious foods. Not everyone prefers or will tolerate a plant-based diet, and no one should be forced to. Farmers, ranchers, and pastoralists contribute to the economic stability of rural communities. Owning livestock empowers women in areas where they have limited or non-existent rights to own land and other property.
These farmers and ranchers are first and foremost stewards of the earth. They produce nutrient-dense meat that is particularly important in the diets of vulnerable populations, children, women, and the aging. An estimated 12% of the world’s population depends on raising livestock for their sole income. Women in half the world still cannot own land but many of them can own livestock, which can be important walking “piggy banks” for them as opposed to crops, which you must own or rent land and one storm can wipe out your entire crop at once, ruining both food security and livelihood.
simplistic and/or biased media coverage frequently denigrates nutrient-dense meat, dairy, and eggs, a mistake that must be urgently corrected
Ethical reporting is a journalistic responsibility. Vox should not be promoting just one simplistic side of a complex and nuanced scientific story – only to benefit those who can afford ultra-processed, expensive foods and dietary supplements. This biased reporting pushes dietary dogma that is not likely to be affordable, healthy, or accessible for the majority of people who are most at risk from food insecurity and nutrient deficiencies.
I urge Vox and other media outlets to report the facts on the real sustainability solutions and the food rights of women, children, aging populations, indigenous peoples, farmers, ranchers, and pastoralists - all of whom depend on getting the future of sustainable meat right.
Diana Rodgers, RD
Executive Director, Global Food Justice Alliance
Real food dietitian, sustainability advocate and defender of global food equity