Introduction

The report examines how agriculture—particularly animal agriculture and diet—is substantially underrepresented in climate-change media coverage. Although agriculture contributes 34% of global greenhouse gas emissions and animal agriculture accounts for 57% of these, only 3% of climate articles mention meat or animal agriculture. Dietary shifts appear in only 1% of articles. This underrepresentation persists despite research showing that reducing meat production and consumption is essential for keeping food systems within environmental limits. The report identifies an ongoing “awareness gap” in media coverage, consistent with earlier findings from Sentient Media, Faunalytics and Madre Brava.

Methodology

The authors reviewed more than 10,000 full-length, English-language climate articles (over 250 words) published by 37 major US news outlets between July 2022 and June 2025, using the Factiva database. They queried articles on climate change, those mentioning meat or animal agriculture, and those referencing agriculture and dietary shifts. Article text and metadata were processed in R, enabling automated text analysis, keyword-in-context assessments and industry categorisation. The approach built on earlier research by Sentient Media, Faunalytics and Madre Brava, with added granularity and breadth of coverage.

Landscape analysis

The analysis finds that animal agriculture and dietary shifts are rarely addressed relative to their climate impact. Only 343 of 10,696 articles (3.2%) mention meat or animal agriculture. If coverage aligned with the sector’s estimated 19% share of global emissions, approximately 2,072 articles—six times the current number—would have included relevant discussion. Even using a lower estimate of 11% from the US Environmental Protection Agency, more than 1,200 articles would have been expected. Dietary shifts appeared in only 1.2% of climate articles, and just 36% of articles mentioning meat also referred to dietary changes.

Energy dominates climate reporting. Energy-related industries appear in 45.5% of the sample (3,121 articles), mentioned seventeen times more frequently than agricultural industries, despite emitting only 8.7 times more greenhouse gases. Even in articles mentioning meat or agriculture, energy industries were referenced more often than agricultural industries. Transportation, with similar emissions to agriculture, is mentioned almost four times more frequently.

Coverage patterns are consistent across most outlets, with low inclusion of agriculture-related content. The exception is Fox News, which mentioned meat in 30.4% of its climate articles—far above other outlets—but these mentions predominantly criticised or mocked proposed dietary shifts rather than disputing the underlying climate science.

Mentions of institutions vary. Corporations are referenced more than any other non-government category, including intergovernmental bodies, in articles concerning meat. Intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations appear slightly more frequently in general climate coverage and more prominently in articles discussing dietary shifts. Nongovernmental organisations are seldom mentioned.

Climate-related reporting declined from 2022 to 2025, aside from spikes during COP summits and extreme weather events. Mentions of meat, agriculture and diet follow the same downward trend, exacerbating the awareness gap.

What language does climate journalism use with animal agriculture?

Terms associated with meat, agriculture and diet rarely appear among the most frequently used climate-coverage vocabulary. “Methane”, the most common relevant term, ranks 204th; “agriculture” ranks 569th; and “meat” ranks 691st. Keywords near “agriculture” tend to relate to regulation or policy, such as “department” or “U.S.”, with “regenerative” appearing more than “emissions”. The report notes that regenerative agriculture is often promoted uncritically despite concerns over scalability and lack of standard definitions.

Keywords near “meat” align more closely with climate implications, such as “less”, “consumption”, “plant-based” and “alternatives”. Dairy also appears frequently, reflecting its substantial emissions contributions.

However, few articles capture both sides of agriculture’s climate relationship. Of 74 articles manually reviewed using the Sentient Media/Faunalytics method, 20 framed agriculture as affected by climate change, 18 framed it as contributing to climate change, and only seven acknowledged both dynamics.

Conclusion

The report concludes that major news publications consistently overlook animal agriculture, meat and dietary shifts despite their climate relevance. Declining climate coverage overall further limits public understanding and weakens policy momentum. The authors encourage journalists to provide more comprehensive reporting, scrutinise agricultural industries, and address greenwashing to support accurate public awareness and climate-aligned food-system responses.