Why What’s on Our Plate Matters Most

As the world races to decarbonise its energy systems, one uncomfortable truth continues to slip through the cracks: even if we eliminated fossil fuel use entirely, our current food systems alone would still push global temperatures past the critical 1.5°C threshold set by the Paris Agreement.

That’s the stark reality laid out in The Climate Movement’s Biggest Weakness, a recent and sobering piece by journalist Kenny Torrella, published by Vox October 2025. Drawing on the latest research from the EAT-Lancet Commission, a consortium of global experts in climate, agriculture, health, and economics, Torrella reveals what many environmental groups still won’t say out loud: we cannot meet our climate targets without dramatically changing how we farm and eat.

Food Systems: The Overlooked Climate Culprit

Agriculture is responsible for about 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This includes methane from cattle, emissions from fertiliser production, fossil fuels powering farm machinery and supply chains, and vast land use changes like deforestation to clear space for grazing and feed crops. But as Torrella notes, the burden is not shared equally. Diets in wealthy nations, especially high in red meat and dairy, drive over 70% of environmental pressures from food systems.

These are uncomfortable facts, particularly for affluent countries where meat and dairy are dietary staples. But ignoring them doesn’t make them go away.

The Planetary Health Diet: A Science-Based Solution

The EAT-Lancet Commission proposes a global shift toward what they call the Planetary Health Diet, a predominantly plant-based eating pattern rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts. For low-income regions, it also includes moderate increases in animal-source foods to address undernutrition. If adopted worldwide, this shift could:

• Prevent up to 15 million premature deaths annually

• Reduce food-related emissions by more than 50%

• Dramatically cut back the number of land animals raised for food

• Lower deforestation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss

Crucially, the Commission makes clear that dietary change is three times more effective at cutting agricultural emissions than any other solution, including food waste reduction and productivity improvements.

The Meat Industry’s Multi-Year Pushback

Despite the overwhelming science, this message has largely failed to take hold, not just in public discourse, but even within the environmental movement itself. Why?

Torrella explains that part of the answer lies in coordinated resistance from the meat industry. Following the release of the original EAT-Lancet report in 2019, a backlash campaign, fueled by meat lobbyists, industry-aligned academics, and social media influencers, effectively derailed public support. Since then, the sector has only intensified its efforts, lobbying against emissions targets, framing plant-based diets as elitist, and co-opting green messaging through “regenerative” or “sustainable” branding.

For example:

• Between 2022 and 2023, the number of meat industry delegates at the UN climate conference tripled

• A 2023 UN report on food system emissions omitted any mention of meat reduction, which many scientists found “bewildering”

• At 2025’s Climate Week NYC, despite 1,000+ events, just five focused on plant-based food, while meat industry groups sponsored entire panels and venues

This is, in Torrella’s words, “reputation laundering”, and the climate movement is letting it happen.

Climate Week and the Messaging Failure

Torrella’s coverage of Climate Week NYC illustrates just how deep the denial runs. Even at one of the world’s largest climate gatherings, plant-based diets, the most effective single lever to reduce food-related emissions, were barely on the agenda.

Meanwhile, industry groups like The Protein Pact and The Meat Institute not only secured sponsorships and speaking slots but were positioned as climate experts. Their narratives downplayed the sector’s emissions and framed dietary change as unnecessary, reinforcing public complacency.

According to new analysis by environmental nonprofit Madre Brava, meat and livestock are mentioned in just 0.4% of climate reporting across US, UK, and European news outlets. Most people in the US and UK severely underestimate the environmental impact of animal agriculture.

Reasons for Hope (and Action)

Still, there are glimmers of progress. At Climate Week’s Food Day, organised by Tilt Collective, a fresh wave of faces from government, academia, philanthropy, and environmental NGOs showed real enthusiasm for tackling the food-climate connection. Events hosted by Sentient Media brought in journalists new to covering meat’s impact, eager to understand the issue.

As Torrella writes, “That’s not enough, but it’s better than nothing.”

It’s Time to Talk About Food

For decades, the climate movement has demanded bold action on fossil fuels. That same urgency must now be extended to food systems. Not because it’s trendy, but because the science is clear: we will not meet our climate goals without reducing meat and dairy consumption, especially in wealthier countries.

Environmental groups, policymakers, and media must stop tiptoeing around this reality. Silence on diet change is not neutrality, it’s complicity.

As the EAT-Lancet report makes abundantly clear, our plates are political. What we eat isn’t just a personal choice, it’s a planetary one.

This blog was informed by Kenny Torrella’s article “The climate movement’s biggest weakness” published by Vox on October 4, 2025. We recommend reading the full piece for further context and insight.