In previous editions…
#17 How a Single Post Transformed the Climate Debate
#16 The 6 gears of the new climate disinformation machine
I’m here to tell you about a carefully-packaged lie: a brand new type of disinformation disguised as academic research and funded by parts of Brazil’s agribusiness industry.
Before we go any further, two important clarifications:
This isn’t an argument against agribusiness. It’s an argument for information integrity. Sectors that are more essential to the economy and to food security should have an even greater commitment to transparent, evidence-based science. Producers who operate responsibly are harmed when disinformation becomes a business strategy.
Why did I refer to only part of the agribusiness sector? Because sweeping generalizations made without evidence are misleading. Not all agribusiness is Agrodemia.
Brazil is world-famous as the leading global exporter of beef and the largest producer and supplier of soybeans. What is less widely understood, however, is that our supply chain of lies has manufactured a brand new, highly profitable, university-approved product.
Food security cannot be built on scientific insecurity. There is a significant difference between defending Brazilian agriculture and defending coordinated efforts which distort scientific evidence. Conflating the two serves only those who want to shield questionable practices. Science should be able to celebrate progress, expose problems, and help set a better course for society without becoming another marketing strategy.
This is what I mean by Agrodemia - the fusion of agribusiness interests with the appearance of academia. In a country where cattle outnumber people, the future of agribusiness will be shaped by more than what happens in the fields. The integrity of climate information is a cornerstone of economic growth, international competitiveness, and food security. The sector cannot allow disinformation to become a liability.
In her most recent report, released in May, the UN Special Rapporteur on climate change, Elisa Morgera, was unequivocal: large food corporations are following the same disinformation and obstruction playbook pioneered by the fossil fuel industry. They are co-opting science to deny reality.
The global food system accounts for 15% of fossil energy consumption and 40% of the fossil-based raw materials used in pesticides and fertilizers.
And what about emissions? Just 15 global meat and dairy companies emit as much greenhouse gas as the whole of Germany..In Brazil, agribusiness is responsible for 74% of the country’s climate emissions.
If Brazilian beef were a country, it would rank as the world’s seventh-largest emitter, ahead of Japan, according to a study by the Climate Observatory.
The UN estimates that governments worldwide provide US$670 billion annually in subsidies to industrial agriculture and fisheries. In Brazil, tax breaks for agribusiness cost the public treasury R$158 billion. JBS led the ranking of companies avoiding taxes, with R$6.4 billion left unpaid.
The future of agriculture will be decided in both the fields of production and the field of information.
The “Cattle University” and the Magic of Methane
If the sector is responsible for so much pollution, why haven’t we heard about it?
Let’s start to ground this concept with a real-world example. The Meat Agenda, a report published by the Changing Markets Foundation, exposed Agrodemia’s strategy: combine Brazilian interests with an American stamp of approval. It’s a match made in heaven.
AGRODEMIA
Greenwashing in a lab coat. A corporate strategy of funding research centres, university partnerships, and influential academics to produce tailor-made science designed to delay environmental regulation and push legislation through Congress.
One example is the partnership between a major livestock company and the University of Kansas in the United States around GWP*, a controversial metric used to calculate methane’s climate impact. Critics say that, depending on how the metric is applied and presented, it can make livestock’s contribution to climate change appear smaller than it really is, paving the way for claims that cattle production is carbon neutral—or even beneficial for the climate.
One of the leading advocates of this metric, scientist Frank Mitloehner, received nearly US$3 million from a foundation linked to JBS, Cargill, and Tyson Foods to support his research centre. According to the report, Brazil’s Parliamentary Front for Agriculture (FPA) also funded research by the Brazilian Observatory for Research and Innovation in Bioeconomy, an institute sponsored by the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock, to support the industry’s presentation of biogenic methane emissions as “carbon neutral.”
We’ve written about this before in Oii, but it’s worth repeating: the climate disinformation campaign led by the NGO De Olho no Material Escolar has now made its way into the school textbook industry.
Donme’s activities raise an additional concern: its effort to lend scientific legitimacy to content that contradicts the academic consensus on climate change. According to a report by Aos Fatos, the association runs Agroteca, a platform that brings together materials aimed at teachers and students, including one claiming that “methane emitted by cattle would have no connection to climate change.”
These materials are presented as the result of a curated selection carried out in partnership with the Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (Esalq/USP), a detail highlighted on the website, which may give them the appearance of scientific validation in the eyes of educators and students. When questioned by the outlet, Esalq provided little clarification.
The Ballot Box, the Dinner Plate, the Hijacked Debate
Why is it so important for this false science, this new commodity of Agrodemia, to be produced? Because it provides the political legitimacy and ammunition necessary for elections and Congress. Disinformation becomes campaign messaging, which eventually becomes public policy.
AGRICULTURAL EXCEPTIONALISM
The tendency to exempt agriculture from environmental and climate regulations applied to other sectors by using the fear of hunger as justification. In plain English: “If you regulate us, you won’t eat.”
One of the biggest disinformation tactics is the claim that agribusiness cannot be regulated, or the world will go hungry. Let’s look at the numbers:
The largest 1% of food companies control more than 70% of the world’s agricultural land.
Small farms, which occupy just 12% of agricultural land, produce 36% of the world’s food.
In Brazil, family farming is the main source of the food that reaches our tables.
A study conducted by NetLab at UFRJ in collaboration with the University of Cambridge analyzed the data transparency of 15 platforms in Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The results are neither good nor surprising: access to data on content and advertising remains limited, inconsistent, and insufficient to allow for independent oversight. In Brazil, the situation is even more critical.
An investigation by ProPublica and Drilled revealed how BP helped shape and promote one of the most influential climate studies of recent decades: Princeton’s “Wedges” study. This case study shows that fossil fuel companies do not need to deny global warming to influence the climate debate. They can also promote solutions such as carbon capture that promise to address the problem without disrupting the core of their business.
Disinformation is organized, and so is the response
Follow Mentira Tem Preço on Instagram.
Buy our Information Integrity Dossier. [English and Spanish]
Book a keynote or workshop (events and teams).
Advertise with us. More information at: producao@fala.art.br
Subscribe to this newsletter if you didn’t receive it by email:
Hi! I’m Thais Lazzeri, founder and director of FALA, a Brazilian impact studio that drives social change through storytelling, communication, and strategy. I’m also the creator of Lies Have a Price (Mentira Tem Preço) and the Observatory for Information Integrity.
And I’m Rafael de Pino, Operations Manager at FALA and Coordinator of both Lies Have a Price and the Observatory for Information Integrity.
