The record temperatures during this summer’s heatwave, which have caused drought across the UK, are a stark reminder of how climate change threatens food security.
The agriculture industry has jumped on “regenerative farming” — a term with its roots in the organic movement — as a way to make the sector more climate-friendly. But does it actually curb the industry’s huge planet-warming emissions, or are companies using it to greenwash their polluting business models? And should we be eating less meat and dairy?
Background: What is ‘regenerative farming’?
The term “regenerative agriculture” refers to a range of environment-friendly farming practices, such as protecting soil from tillage, which can help store carbon in the ground and support biodiversity.
Experts tend to agree that these methods can have environmental benefits, and many farmers are using them to improve how they produce food.
But the lack of an agreed upon definition means companies can use “regenerative” for small changes which don’t begin to address the sector’s massive effects on the climate.
Agriculture is responsible for 25-30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 12 percent of all UK greenhouse gas emissions. It is a major source of methane, which is responsible for one third of all human-caused global warming to date. The methane is produced after livestock digest food, and mostly from cow belches.
Methane warms the planet 27 times faster than CO2, but it breaks down more quickly. For this reason, scientists say cutting methane is the fastest way to curb global heating, which is why agriculture emissions are so important.
Agricultural production is the cause of 80 percent of deforestation, according to Greenpeace, with carbon-hungry trees being cut down to make way for cattle ranches.
For a sense of scale, emissions from a single company, industry giant Nestlé, are three times the size of that of its home country Switzerland. The beef industry’s emissions are roughly equivalent to all emissions produced by India, one of the world’s most populous countries.
Despite the size of its emissions, the evidence for agriculture’s power to cut them by regenerative practices is less than compelling. For example, one major industry argument is that agriculture’s methane emissions from livestock can be balanced by carbon sequestration – storing carbon in soil and plant material. However, a 2024 study in the journal Nature Communications found that it was “not feasible” that you could store enough carbon to cancel out these huge emissions.
It is also sometimes claimed that regenerative agriculture can protect small farms from the burden of changes to curb emissions. But a look at the damage from heatwaves and droughts to crops makes it clear that the main threat to farms is not climate action, but climate change and the failure to slow rising temperatures.
There is a simple answer to the question of how to cut emissions from livestock – and it’s the one the industry is actively opposing.
So, do we need to eat less meat?
The main driver of agriculture’s climate impact is methane from livestock, and scientists are clear that the only way to tackle this is by reducing demand.
A 2024 survey of 200 experts found 85 percent agreed that rich and middle income nations would need to eat fewer “animal-sourced” foods to halve livestock’s emissions by 2030 if the world was to meet the Paris climate goals.
The UK’s independent Climate Change Committee has recommended a 20 percent reduction in meat and dairy consumption by 2030, and 25 percent for meat by 2050. There are signs this trend is slowly happening, partly due to high prices.
Household purchases of beef and lamb fell five percent between 2024 and 2025, and are down nine percent on 2021, as part of a 21 percent fall between 2002 and 2023. The public could be educated about the health and climate benefits of less meat and dairy, and of plant-based alternatives.
A landmark report in 2019 by EAT-Lancet said that global red meat consumption should be cut by 50 percent, which would not only cut emissions but be much better for people’s health.
Far from helping to make these reductions, the meat industry has worked hard to squash these proposals. As climate outlet DeSmog revealed, the EAT-Lancet report was attacked by PR firm Red Flag on behalf of Animal Agriculture Alliance, a meat and dairy industry group. Meanwhile, the industry has funded or backed studies which promote the health and nutrition benefits of meat – despite most independent research finding the opposite.
Despite its claims to be climate-friendly, the agribusiness industry has been lobbying against meaningful climate action more broadly. Agribusiness has spent a fortune on public relations agencies and celebrity influencers to convince the public that agribusiness is fighting climate change, and to encourage people to continue to buy lots of meat and dairy products.
Food and farming organisations including industry giants JBS, Bayer, and Nestle sent more than 300 lobbyists to the COP30 climate summit in Brazil last November, where deforestation was on the agenda. ■
About the author: Adam Barnett is UK News Reporter at DeSmog and a freelance journalist. He writes a politics column for the Big Issue and has reported for The Guardian and Private Eye
About The Lead Untangles: In an era where misinformation is actively and deliberately used by elected politicians and where advocates and opposers of beliefs state their point of view as fact, sometimes the most useful tool reporters have is to help readers make sense of the world. If there is something you’d like us to untangle, email ed@thelead.uk and you can see every edition of The Lead Untangles so far.
👫Found this edition of The Lead Untangles useful? Share this story with your friends, family and colleagues to help us reach more people with our independent journalism, always with a focus on people, policy and place. And catch up on the series so far where we looked at the human cost of extreme heatwaves and the pressure growing for North Sea drilling.
Get the next instalment of The Lead Untangles direct to your inbox as part of our focus on climate and environment and also get 30 per cent off an annual subscription (usually £49, use this link to get it for £34.30 instead) to help us combat misinformation.
