Matthew Hayek

@matthewhayek.bsky.social

NYU Associate Professor of Environmental Studies. Climate, animals, land use, and food systems. MatthewHayek.com

I've both called out industry influence in science (with receipts) and been accused of it (without receipts). Industry influence in science is an issue. But this bad-faith finger pointing is why you have to prove that it's happening *and* show how arguments themselves are unscientific.

Emily Atkin@emorwee.bsky.social · 6d ago

When scientists dispute Fasulo's claims about solar, she dismisses them as bought. “Every single scientist is bought in this country,” she told HEATED. It’s a self-sealing argument: No evidence can disprove her claims, because anyone presenting it can simply be declared corrupt.

Fish farming is rising even further. While the industry projects further efficiency improvements, there is no way to meet further growth without harvesting even more forage fish from the ocean, to serve as feed ingredients - fishmeal and fish oil sentientmedia.org/fishmeal-fee...

Fishmeal Feeds Livestock Farming — Sometimes at the Expense of Marine Ecosystems

Some pig and poultry farmers incorporate tiny fish into feed because of the nutritional benefits, but critics warn that overextraction of these fish could disrupt the marine food web.

sentientmedia.org

🧵The first peer-reviewed meta-analysis of leather's carbon footprint, by Mikaila Roncevich & @matthewhayek.bsky.social, finds that leather's emissions are about 70% higher than previously thought & WAYY higher than vegan leather (both synthetic & bio-based). Gift link: www.vox.com/future-perfe...

Leather is not an innocent byproduct of the meat industry

Your leather purse might put out as much carbon as 35 hamburgers. But the alternative doesn’t have to be junky pleather!

vox.com

Hey food & environment Bluesky: ever wonder why GHG emissions from dairy sometimes look *much* lower than beef, but other times, dairy looks nearly as high-emitting as beef? I explain why on Rhode Island PBS public radio! And the hosts clarify better than I do ;) thepublicsradio.org/possibly-pod...

What creates more carbon pollution: beef or dairy? - TPR: The Public's Radio

We talk a lot about the carbon pollution that comes along with eating beef, but this week on Possibly we’re asking: what about eating dairy? How do they compare?

thepublicsradio.org

Our new statement urges countries not to weaken ambition w/ revised "temperature neutrality" goals & metrics that justify them. Methane is a powerful lever, and high-emitting countries can do more than simply keep emissions stable. We have the tech & knowledge insideclimatenews.org/news/2005202...

Top Climate Scientists Accuse the Livestock Industry of Pushing Fuzzy Math to Downplay Its Climate Warming Emissions - Inside Climate News

An alternative emissions-calculating methodology underpins revised, less ambitious methane-reduction targets.

insideclimatenews.org

Meat and dairy producers haven't been serious about climate change. Yet high-profile climate event planners regularly invite them to speak. Chances are extraordinarily high that, while they will posture as responsible, they will exaggerate & lie. www.newscientist.com/article/2523...

98 per cent of meat and dairy sustainability pledges are greenwashing

The food industry has made big promises to reduce emissions and become more sustainable, but a review concludes that many of the pledges are not backed up by evidence

newscientist.com

I don't see manure pollution covered by enough scientists Industrial livestock reduces climate emissions per weight of meat, milk... But it massively increases the concentration of manure seeping into nearby groundwater, rivers, reservoirs. What are the costs of damages here? How do they compare?

Julian A Nowogrodzki@plantnerd.bsky.social · 5mo ago

In California: 10 million tons of manure unaccounted for - One farm reported producing <1% the manure expected given how many cows it has - One in Santa Ana has 570 dairy cows and reported -- wait for it -- no manure at all @sentientmedia.org sentientmedia.org/ten-million-...

Nice to see some higher-profile coverage of what entomologists have been saying for years: if you're keeping honeybees, esp without sufficient plantings, you're outcompeting native bees, who are the pollinators that really need saving. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...

Column | Good news: We saved the bees. Bad news: We saved the wrong ones.

Honeybees have never been in danger of extinction. But scientists are finding that they can accelerate the demise of native bee populations.

washingtonpost.com

I have many thoughts on this paper but for starters, these proponents of the UPF concept have a lot of nerve basically arguing "it is the empirical evidence that's wrong for contradicting our theory," as though they have some long-accepted theory about the world like gravity or natural selection

Jan Dutkiewicz@jandutkiewicz.bsky.social · 6mo ago

The ultraprocessed food conversation has well and truly jumped the shark. Now its proponents are opposing fortification, urging us to ignore the nutritional properties of foods, & conflating the extent and purpose of processing. Put this schema out of its misery already. www.bmj.com/content/392/...

The ultraprocessed food conversation has well and truly jumped the shark. Now its proponents are opposing fortification, urging us to ignore the nutritional properties of foods, & conflating the extent and purpose of processing. Put this schema out of its misery already. www.bmj.com/content/392/...

Misleading narrative of “healthy” ultraprocessed foods

A focus on “healthy” ultraprocessed foods is overstating benefits, legitimising industry narratives, and obscuring the priority of reducing overall consumption, argue Leandro Rezende and colleagues ...

bmj.com

This paper, brought to you by the nutrition team who created the NOVA system & "ultraprocessed" foods, argues "don't worry about nutrients, bc even the idea of healthy processing food contradicts our narrative; any evidence that says otherwise is wrong". 1/ www.bmj.com/content/392/...

Misleading narrative of “healthy” ultraprocessed foods

A focus on “healthy” ultraprocessed foods is overstating benefits, legitimising industry narratives, and obscuring the priority of reducing overall consumption, argue Leandro Rezende and colleagues ...

bmj.com

The "Clean Food Facts" campaign of the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is funded by the meat industry, is an #astroturfing effort targeting #plantbased meat alternatives thru manipulative strategies: the illusion of credibility, emotional #manipulation and… (1/2) doi.org/10.1108/978-...

Savouring Truth: Exposing Disinformation in the World of Alternative Meats

This chapter analyses the deceptive tactics employed by the Center for Consumer Freedom’s (CCF) Clean Food Facts campaign, an astroturfing effort targeting

doi.org

"To the extent the guidelines ... represent an agenda, it is not simply to facilitate a particular outcome favored by meat corporations but also to invert good governance liberalism." @gnrosenberg.bsky.social & I on the new food pyramid for @newrepublic.com. newrepublic.com/article/2051...

How the New Food Pyramid Fits Into the Broader Conservative Project

Trump and MAHA have found a way to shrink government that Reagan never thought of: discredit it entirely.

newrepublic.com