Abstract

Between 1986 and 1996, the National Cattlemen’s Association (NCA), a major trade organisation for the United States beef industry, reacted to emerging scientific evidence regarding its products’ impact on global warming. Research into anthropogenic methane identified cows as a significant source, expanding responsibility for climate change beyond the fossil fuel sector. The NCA responded primarily with strategic communications, including gathering information on civil society, commissioning experts to reframe statistics, and using discursive tactics to influence the public and politicians. No evidence was found that the NCA researched or promoted recommended production changes to reduce emissions.

Introduction

Following the emergence of scientific knowledge about their role in global warming, trade organisations played a vital role in shaping public understanding. While some oil and gas firms delayed action as early as the 1970s, the American Petroleum Institute also misrepresented findings. A study of 89 trade organisations across nine sectors found they collectively spent an estimated $3.4 billion between 2008 and 2018 on climate-related political activities. This research focuses on the NCA before its transition to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) in 1996. Beef is the most greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive food, and the U.S. was long the world’s largest producer.

Methods

The researchers analysed 719 boxes of NCA archival records at the University of Wyoming, creating a database of 154 internal documents. They also reviewed 48 media articles and various governmental reports. The team searched for terms related to suggested production modifications—such as feed, supplements, and manure management—to determine if the industry considered these mitigation options. Messaging was classified as proactive or reactive, focusing on how the organisation challenged the problem, causation, policy recommendations, or messengers.

Findings

The NCA engaged in extensive strategic communications rather than pursuing emissions reductions. They hired third-party spokespeople, including academic experts, to develop messages influencing members and the public. A chronology shows a major shift in public perception of cows’ role in global warming during this period. There is no evidence that the NCA considered any options to reduce emissions, instead treating the issue as a public relations concern that could affect consumer demand.

Awareness of global warming

The NCA was aware of the global warming issue by 1989. Representative Richard Neal attended an EPA workshop that produced the report ‘Reducing Methane Emissions from Livestock’. This report stated that managed livestock accounted for 15 to 20 per cent of annual methane emissions. NCA’s 1989 ‘Strategic Plan on the Environment’ subsequently listed ‘atmospheric emissions’ as one of 22 relevant environmental issues. The plan aimed to counter efforts to reduce beef consumption by circulating what it termed ‘factual information’.

Developed strategic communications

The NCA identified relevant audiences, including members and Congress, and spent significant sums on public relations. In 1990, the beef industry spent $6.8 million on public relations, with the NCA accounting for $2.3 million—half of which related to environmental issues. They commissioned experts like animal scientist Floyd M. Byers from Texas A&M University, who produced non-peer-reviewed reports claiming U.S. beef cattle were responsible for less than 0.5 per cent of global methane. This figure was used to rhetorically downplay the industry’s role in global warming.

The organisation also utilised contracted media analysts and developed positive campaigns, such as the $100,000 ‘Every Day is Earth Day for American Cattlemen’ advertisement. Reactive messaging involved questioning the existence of global warming or negating the role of cows. The NCA also successfully pressured Random House to stop reprinting a children’s book that stated cattle expelled methane and encouraged reduced meat consumption. In 1992, the NCA helped found the Food Facts Coalition to defend the industry against ‘anti-cow arguments’.

Neglected methane emissions reduction options

Despite scientific recommendations and mentions in reports by their own commissioned experts, the NCA did not research or promote production changes to reduce methane. Potential strategies like feed supplements or improved manure management were mentioned in academic reports but were never implemented in NCA’s own materials or practice. Instead, the NCA prioritised protecting consumer confidence and protecting the economic interests of its members over environmental mitigation.

Discussion

The NCA treated environmental issues as threats to consumer demand. While total U.S. methane emissions decreased by 19 per cent between 1990 and 2022 due to efforts in landfills and fossil fuels, emissions from agricultural activities increased. Methane from enteric fermentation in U.S. beef cattle rose from 4,742 kt in 1990 to 5,018 kt in 2020. The organisation’s reaction reinforces a public relations approach to environmental problems, prioritising the reframing of issues over substantive changes to production practices.