The Dublin Declaration: Gain for the Meat Industry, Loss for Science

Abstract

We critically analyzed the "Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock" (DD), a document promoting animal farming, and its implications for public discourse and policy. Our analysis reveals that the DD is scientifically problematic, particularly in its neglect of issues such as meat overconsumption in high-income countries and the dominance of industrial animal production, thereby downplaying associated risks and harms. We also show that the DD's authors essentially suggest that societies should simply rely on technological progress to fix any "challenges" associated with the sector, a suggestion that aligns with the authors' private interests. We identify several academically questionable practices, including denial of credentials to dissenting actors, omission of significant conflicts of interest, and excessive self-edition and self-citation, all while purporting to provide a scientific and balanced overview. Relatedly, we bring into view conflicts of interests of the Irish semi-state authority Teagasc, which hosted a DD-related summit, and of Animal Frontiers and the animal production science associations behind it, which published a special issue edited by the DD's authors containing the DD. We explore potential responsibilities by these organizations, the DD's authors, and Nature Food, which published a follow-up correspondence by two of the DD's authors. Our perspective contributes to the growing literature exposing the influence of the meat industry on science and its representation in public discourse. We discuss broader policy measures to mitigate and counteract this influence.

Keywords: Animal agriculture, Livestock production, Conflicts of interest, Corporate influence on science, Food policy, Meat lobby