How Media Hides the Truth About Soy | Rising Anxieties

I'm not doing the song anymore. I've, I've, I've taken a stand. All right. This is the podcast... I don't even know whether it's the right title anymore because, you know, it sounds like it's a, it's a therapy podcast.

But anyway, it's where we kind of unpack the things that are making the meat industry anxious and there are quite a few things. We are among them and, and then also unpacking some of the things that make us anxious about the meat industry. I can't talk about all the things that are making us anxious about everything.

'Cause let's face it, I don't got that kind of time. Uh, alright, I'm gonna start by talking about something that I saw on, on, uh, you know, something I was watching on YouTube. It was the Bulwark Podcast with the host Tim Miller, and, you know, it covers the news of the day and he was talking about this insane situation with the fact that our tariffs, you've heard about the tariffs, have caused China, who's mad at us, uh, to forego American agricultural products, which they were pretty big buyers of.

And it was particularly focused on soybeans and they were a huge buyer of our soybeans and now they're gonna buy them from Brazil instead. Alright. So because now American soybean farmers have no place to sell their soybeans, uh, the idea is in the administration that we should take the money that we get from the tariffs and give it to the farmers.

So American consumers are paying more for goods because of the tariffs, and then that money goes to soybean farmers who are losing money because of the tariffs. He points out that this is probably the most insane policy that's ever been invented, and I agree with that, but you know, that's not what I'm here to report on.

So at some point, he's talking about the Chinese need for a lot of soybeans and how they have to find another, um, another, another, uh, seller. And as I mentioned, he mentions that they are turning to Brazil for their soybeans so they can, and this is what he says, so they can make soy sauce or whatever else they do with soy.

That's a paraphrase, but that's literally like the gist of what he said. Oh, the unbelievable naivete about agriculture. They don't know that soybeans the vast, vast majority... he thinks. How much soy sauce does he think the Chinese can use? They, they don't know that soybeans are animal feed. It's unbelievable.

The vast majority of soybeans are animal feed. He also doesn't mention that increasing Chinese reliance on Brazil for soy is probably a bad idea since, you know, Brazil grows more and more soy because it rips down more and more of the Amazon. Uh, which is, you know, a pretty bad idea since it's, you know, among the things that are destroying the planet.

But yeah, I won't go into all of that. Alright, so that made me anxious, but it made them anxious too, I guess. But it brought me to this other article. This is In The Guardian. This makes me nuts. It truly makes me nuts. It's this big, long article, how the World's Taste For Soya is Eating Brazil's Amazon.

I don't think they even address, in this case, the problem with, with the Chinese turning to, uh, Brazil instead of America. Um, and it points out cultivation of the crop has made a few wealthy, but at a huge cost to untouched forest as it spreads across vast areas of former wilderness wilderness. And it is actually a really great breakdown of, of what's going on in the Amazon and how they are growing all of this soy and how they, they, they just have the market for it.

It's really a lot of information here if you're interested in that. I am, I'm not. I'm not gonna lie, so I'm not gonna go into all of that. But it's good. It's really good. Nowhere in this article, which is pretty long, do they mention that soy is used for animal feed. No. Like the whole article is about how soy is destroying the Amazon and nowhere do they mention what the soy is used for.

Like the world, uh, is insane. Just insane. Alright, this is another article from The Guardian to Let the Guardian off the hook, uh, for that one stupid article. Um, this is a good article and actually it was inspired by Sentient Media, you know, this is what Sentient Media does. It, it puts out all these articles for us to read, which is great 'cause they're very, very informative, but they also try to encourage other outlets to write articles about these same topics, which they otherwise wouldn't, because as we all know, there is a bit of a blind spot when it comes to talking about animal agriculture. And so this article, which did make it was inspired by Sentient Media, which The Guardian acknowledged, which is great, uh, is, is a very, is a great article.

Meat is a leading emission source, but few outlets report on it, analysis finds. So this is exactly addressing the problem I was just talking about that nobody's talking that, that the Guardian did, just in that other article, and now the Guardian is talking about how that's a really bad thing to do. And, and they're saying that because of Sentient Media, so yay for Sentient Media.

Sentient Media, this article says, reveals less than 4% of climate news stories mention animal agriculture as source of carbon emissions. I'm not surprised. You're not either, but it's nice to know that, you know, there's some attention starting to be paid by this. It points out that food and agriculture contribute one third.

They're not just talking about animal agriculture. Contribute one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, second only to the burning of fossil fuels. And I know some other people who, you know, judge those numbers differently and, and attribute even more to food and agriculture. And yet the vast majority of media coverage of the climate crisis overlooks this critical sector.

Um, about a quarter of climate articles in 11 major US outlets, including The Guardian and, and a bunch of other ones. Uh, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, New York Times, Reuters, Star Tribune, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. So that's, you know, a pretty wide range of major news outlets.

Only about a quarter of the climate articles in all of those outlets, uh, mentioned food and agriculture as a cause of, of climate change. And of the 940 articles analyzed only 36, 36 out of 940, um, mention animal agriculture or meat production, by far the largest source of food related emissions. So they're not just talking about the fact that people are ignoring food, they're talking about the fact that people are ignoring food and people are ignoring animal based food, which is the most important type of food as, uh, you know, as you all know, I, I've been preaching to people who already know this.

But I'm pointing out that maybe they'll catch onto this as well. Uh, another statistic here. 74% of US respondents believe eating less meat has little to no effect on the climate crisis. Well, of course they do. How would they know if nobody's reporting on it? I, you know. Oh.

Alright, so there's a quote from this, um, guy Danush Dinesh, that's a cool name, the founder of the food systems focused think tank Clim-Eat, said Climate organizations sometimes shy away from the topic due to food's fraught cultural status, which may have helped to keep it from the media spotlight. Y you know, really? Like, is that a, is that a... does that make any sense at all?

Like, this is a big deal. This is causing cl climate crisis, but it's, it's got a cultural status, so we should ignore it and all die? I mean, is that the point here? Like. Like if it has cultural status, then you address it. I don't think that's really what's, I think the main thing that's going on is the pushback.

Um, and, and uh, also the other topic that they don't address, which is of course, extremely related is land use. Only about 15% of stories analyzed by Sentient Media mentioned land use changes in connection with the climate crisis. IE like the Amazon, like, like all of it, like, like this is the other way in which animal agriculture is destroying the climate.

It's not just it, it's that, that the, they're, they're permanently changing the use of land from forest to agricultural land. And it says conversion of forest to, into agricultural and takes an unthinkable, toll responsible globally for as much carbon emissions each year as the entire United States. And they're just ignoring it.

I know you know that, but it really is insane. Alright, new topic. New topic. And not in The Guardian. This is from Rise for Animals. And uh, so I'm not sure anybody in the press is covering it. Maybe they are, I'm sure they're not. Um, but Ridglan nabs industry insider to reshape its quote unquote story.

Alright, you've all heard of Ridglan La... Ridglan, um, laboratory, Ridglan Farms, they call it. This dog breeder. Uh, and they've gotten in a lot of trouble. They're facing some legal scrutiny because of the work of, of Direct Action Everywhere and other advocates. Um, there's been community backlash, uh, and, and some political, uh, problems, criticized in the press, whatever, and they're upset.

They don't like to be criticized. Um, and so they're, they're, they're hiring the old, you know, they, they got a stable of people who take care of this for them. And one of them is this guy, Jim Newman, a quote, longtime industry communication strategist who served as director of strategic communications for Americans for Medical Progress, a really charming organization. And he was paid six figures by AMP in 2021. And he recently began identifying himself as representative for Ridglan Farms. So as this article points out, he's one of the industry's most seasoned spin doctors. And they know what they're doing. They're, they're, they know how to do this.

They've done it a million times. They're working... 'cause people, well this isn't, the situation is not as bad as in the meat industry, but people hear what they wanna hear, and when you're telling people what they wanna hear, it's a lot easier to get through. Um, so he is not addressing the, this ongoing animal cruelty investigation, which is ongoing, and which is, you know, really the result of, uh, hard work by animal activists, or the 311 regulatory violations documented by state inspectors, he's not talking about those things.

He's, um, he does point to some USDA inspection reports, but doesn't mention that they failed to document the exact same violations that the state inspectors found. So maybe they're not a reliable source. Uh, he's just kind of what, as this article points out, recycling one of the industry's most familiar refrains that animal research is responsible for modern medical breakthroughs, um, which is not true as we all know.

And doesn't have anything to do with this because they're not talking about research, they're talking about housing conditions, basic animal care, uh, and horrific, horrific stuff. But, you know, these guys are good at what they do. Maybe, maybe their moment has passed. You know, one of the things I keep saying about these fraught, fraught political times we're living through is that I think it does create an atmosphere in which people pay more attention.

Not just to, not just to the federal government or what's going on there, but, but to things in general and are more suspicious and, and are more open to change. I think. I think it's the moment to grab. Alright, let's see, what's this article about?

Oh, this is from Inside Climate News and it's talking about Climate Week NYC, which, you know, just concluded and which was a huge, big deal with loads and loads of presentations. And this is spec specifically talking about regenerative agriculture. And I always say when I talk about regenerative agriculture, that I don't really understand what what it means.

And it seems to mean different things depending on who's talking about it. And it turns out that I'm exactly right. As always, well, maybe not always. Uh, and, and, and nobody knows what it means. 'cause it's just an amatory term that everybody uses to suit their own, uh, sort of their own preferences.

Regenerative agriculture is all over the agenda at Climate Week NIC, but what does it mean? Critics say the term is vague and are pushing for specific standards so consumers aren't lured into false climate promises. This is by Georgina Augustine, and, uh, yeah. It can mean almost anything a producer or marketer wants it to because it's not, this article points out, because it's not defined anywhere in the law or even in regulations.

Um, the federal agencies that oversee the food industry, like the USDA and the FDA, are ignoring the term and everybody uses it and everybody thinks it means something and it doesn't mean anything. And, and, uh, and you know, there were some people who tried to, to work this out at the heavy use of the term at Climate Week, but, but I don't think they, they really, um, they really got anywhere.

Uh, people just use it. And, you know, as I say, as I said two and a half minutes ago, people like to hear things that they like to hear and then they believe them. Um, and, and you know, if they use other terms like organic, I mean organic is defined. Uh, if they, if they use, um, climate smart, that can be con, they can be sued for that.

If it's really, uh, if it's really, uh, for Environmental Working Group sued Tyson for, for marketing, its beef as Climate Smart. And though that lawsuit was never resolved, they're not using that term anymore. So yeah, that means that means something. But regener like, what does regenerative mean? So they like it because it doesn't mean anything.

So that's how that works. All right. There's a lot of information, and it's true of all of the articles that I kind of talk about here. There's a lot of information here that you might wanna know, and I highly recommend it because that term is gonna come up a lot because they're in love with it. All right.

This is a disgrace I, the Environmental Defense Fund. I don't know the difference between all the different environmental groups, so I don't really know who's who and who's good and who's bad. I mean, I know a little bit, but you know. But I don't know anything about the Environmental Defense Fund. But this was pointed out by Kenny Torrella.

I don't know what this podcast would do without Kenny Torrella telling us stuff, but he just posted this on Blue Sky, that there's this article that the Environmental Defense Fund has put up on their website. I guess it's a blog. Um, without financing solutions, farmers have to leave money and environmental benefits on the table.

And where they got this article was they copied it with an attribution from Hoard's Dairyman, which is an industry site promoting dairy. And that's where they're getting their information at the Environmental Defense Fund? Um, and they introduce the article by saying this, dairy farmers are already part of a high risk industry.

The experience shared below shows how difficult it can be to align funding opportunities with farms financial needs. Now farmers are being left to absorb that risk with less support. To continue producing food for their communities and responsibly stewarding natural resources, farmers will need more flexibility from financial institutions and greater investments from stakeholders advancing sustainable agriculture.

And I bet they want some money from the taxpayers too. Uh, that's my opinion. Dairy farmers. From an environmental group. All right, this is, the article itself is written by somebody named Alice Cruthers, who has a, um, dairy farm that's been in either her or her husband's family for eight generations.

So, you know, they're into it. Um, and, and she points out that farmers want to adopt pro-environment farm management, but can't secure accessible financing. I mentioned, did I mention that they have a dairy farm? Um, so they, they've gotten money from, uh, they're on the Chesapeake Bay or a di, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay.

So they're among the people polluting the Chesapeake Bay, no doubt. And so they, they, um, got money from Appalachian Stream Restoration Wetland studies, the Alliance of the Chesapeake Bay to do stream restoration. Uh, so this is where, you know, your donated money is going to. Um, they, they've gotten loans from Maryland agriculture and Resource based Industry Development Corporation for, for, for, for their digester.

Their methane digester have, have you heard me talk about meth? So they produce the methane and then this helps them use it. So this is apparently what Maryland's tax FA tax money is going for. Um, we were excited to be awarded an animal waste technology grant through the Maryland Department of Agriculture, but uh, you know, it's just not enough.

I mean, that's her point. It's just not enough. They can't keep doing these environmental things. You know, when I talk to other farmers about my experience, it's clear I'm not alone. Most farmers are proposing sustainability projects and being awarded funds, but have to drop them because the economics don't work.

Well, then go out of business, find something else to do for a living.

The US dairy sector has ambitious environmental goals to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality. Oh, bullshit. Optimize water use and improve water quality. Yeah. They're, they're the biggest water guzzlers on the planet. If we are to, if. Well, I don't know whether they are, but you know, if we are re if we are to realize them, we must overcome these financing barriers.

Just go into a business that actually pays you, follow the laws that tell you not to pollute, just like everybody else does. And if you can't follow them and make money, do something else. My hu, this is my final quote, My husband and I view ourselves as stewards of the land. Do you? Well, I don't care how you view yourself, like you can view yourself however you want.

It doesn't make it true. All right. I'm sorry. I know. I know. I know. Yeah. I get carried away. I get angry. All right. Bjorn Johansson. Bjorn Johan Olafson. Uh, who writes a great substack called More Than Meets the Eye, and he wrote a article on his substack and, and, uh, I thought it was kind of cheery and, and so I thought I would end with something.

It's not exactly cheery, but you know, a lot of times we really feel bad when some vegan celebrity stops being vegan, and he basically says. Well, you I'll, his actual title is Why You Probably Don't Need to Worry About Ex Vegan Celebrities, which is a relief because they all do it. It's annoying and it's, you know, you get excited about them and then they, um, they, they, uh, they just fall off the truck.

Alright. But his, his point is that just because a celebrity does something, doesn't mean people are going to do it. Particularly any kind of diet change and maybe even especially veganism and it, it has been identified... veganism changing from, and this is really important to note for vegan advocacy too.

Veganism is, is an example of complex social contagion. People need exposure to an idea multiple times from multiple sources before they will make a change. Uh, and that, you know, that certainly sounds true, but even more important, influencers and celebrities spread ideas via weak ties as opposed to strong ties you hold with your loved one, the, the strong ties that you hold with your loved ones and inner circle. And this is from Damon Centola's, um, book Change. You know, probably, probably some advocacy, uh, advice that you have heard before, but I really like it in this particular context. And he's talking about a 2024 experiment on influencers' effects on cultivated meat.

And this does show that influencers can have some effect, but it's actually smaller influencers. It is not big celebrities. Found that micro influencers, fewer than 100,000 followers, were more effective than mega influencers, over a million followers, in getting people to think about trying slaughter free meat.

I just think that's really interesting. I think people feel more intimately connected perhaps with people they follow who aren't big celebrities, who aren't just like, you know, somebody out there that everybody knows about. But you do feel if there's somebody you follow who, who's got a small following, I think you feel kind of close to them, though not nearly as important as the work that every single vegan advocate is doing out there in the world, talking to family, friends, acquaintances, whatever, school boards, whatever. Like people you have an actual connect connection with is the most likely thing to turn people vegan or have at least have an, have an effect on them.

Um, he does point out too that the type of celebrity, not just their following matters if we are gonna rely on celebrities at all. And this was from a Chinese study, but I think it makes sense for any culture, um, that they were more likely to say they wanted to eat plant-based foods if they saw an endorsement from an expert celebrity, like a scientist or a researcher compared to an athlete or an actor.

Like, we like to follow athletes and actors, but you know, do we really trust to know what to do? So I think this is very reassuring. Uh. And, you know, this isn't a complete study. There's no question that, that it is good to have celebrities on our side because even those weak ties can have some influence.

But it is reassuring that, that the work that we do is the most important. And every time when celebrities do fall up, fall off the vegan truck, eh, people don't take it that seriously. That's not why they're gonna change their life. So that is, um. I think counts as good news, I hope counts as good news. And that's it for this week's, um, rising Anxieties.

Thank you so much for joining me. Um, don't forget to turn into our other podcast, The Hen Report and the, Our Hen House interview. And this week, I am excited about this interview. I'm looking forward to interviewing Tracy Reiman and she's the new president over at PETA, uh, which is extraordinary. You know, Ingrid Newkirk has been heading up PETA for as long as I can remember, and I am really excited to find out what's gonna happening at PETA.

'Cause you know, some of you may like PETA, some of you may not. Some of you may have mixed feelings. I'm a fan myself, and regardless of how you feel about them, like it's easy. When, when you're involved in the animal rights movement and you look at your feed and you see all the different groups and, and you know, it's easy not to differentiate them, but there's big groups and there's, there's small groups, just like there's mega, uh, mega influencers and, and minor influencers and PETA's a mega.

They're big. They, they have enormous influence in spreading the word about animals. So looking forward to hearing what the plans are, and thanks for tuning in. Don't forget to subscribe either on your favorite pod catcher or, um, on YouTube and, and like once in a while, it really helps us out.