iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A study published October 7, 2026, in PLOS Climate finds that the National Cattlemen’s Association, the U.S. beef industry’s trade group, responded to early climate science between 1986 and 1996 mainly by trying to shape what the public heard about beef and global warming. The authors, Jennifer Jacquet and Loredana Loy, found no evidence in the association’s own materials that it researched or promoted practices to reduce cattle emissions. The findings rest on internal organizational records, so they describe what the association documented and planned, not what every producer or company did.
What the study examined
The study is historical archival work. The authors analyzed 154 internal organizational documents, 123 of them dated from 1986 to 1996, and supplemented them with news coverage, government reports, and other published material. The records were reportedly drawn from the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming.
The time window matters. The organization was called the National Cattlemen’s Association for the whole period under study. It became the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in 1996, so the older name appears throughout the records and in the coverage of them.
The study is not a survey of consumers and does not measure whether the association’s communications changed opinion or policy.
#1 Best Overall
How the association responded
The study describes a communications strategy with four main parts. Each is documented in the materials the authors reviewed.
Monitoring critics and news coverage
The association tracked environmental groups and news coverage on climate and cattle. The purpose was to see who was making claims about beef and emissions and how those claims were being reported.
Rank #2
- non-fiction african american book set
- non-fiction black book set
- non-fiction african american children's book set
- non-fiction black children's book set
Commissioning experts to write and speak
The association hired academic experts to prepare reports and to act as spokespeople. Its 1989 environmental plan called for countering criticism, commissioning scientific and technical position papers, and promoting a positive environmental image. The plan is the clearest single statement of intent in the records.
Recommended Free Tools
Distributing talking points
The study describes talking points that played down cattle’s contribution to global warming. The same materials challenged advocates who encouraged people to eat less beef. Jacquet, a professor at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School, said the association’s main concern was that consumers would change what they ate, and that this helps explain why its response centered on public messaging.
Paid advertising
The records reviewed show $100,000 spent on full-page newspaper advertisements for Earth Day in 1990, with an estimated reach of 20 million people. The reach figure is the association’s own estimate as recorded in the materials; the study does not independently verify it.
The 1989 EPA workshop and methane options
In February 1989, a representative of the association attended a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency workshop on methane from livestock and possible ways to reduce it. The workshop report discussed changes to feeding, feed additives, and manure management.
In the association materials the authors examined, they found no evidence that the association researched or promoted those practices. Some commissioned reports did mention methane-reduction approaches. Jacquet said the records show the association understood the issue and knew that options to reduce methane existed, and that its response focused on messaging instead.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The 0.5% figure and why its denominator matters
The study discusses an industry-sponsored estimate that U.S. beef cattle account for 0.5% of global methane emissions. The researchers said they had difficulty reproducing the figure. They also noted that its denominator includes worldwide emissions from both human activities and natural sources.
That denominator makes the number a different question from one that counts only human-caused emissions. Readers comparing it with other cattle or agriculture figures should check which total each one uses. The study presents the 0.5% figure as an estimate under dispute, not as a validated measurement.
Best Value
Keeping three related works separate
Several figures in coverage of this topic come from different papers with different scopes. The table below separates them.
| Work | Date | Evidence | Time window | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacquet and Loy, PLOS Climate study | Published October 7, 2026 | 154 internal organizational documents (123 dated 1986–1996), plus news coverage and government reports | 1986–1996 | The association’s documented communications and planning response; the 1989 plan, Earth Day advertising, and talking points |
| Jacquet, Morris, Loy and Eshel, Environmental Research Letters paper | Published February 17, 2025 | Counterfactual model drawing on contemporary sources | Model covers 1992–2023; campaign spending covers May 1992–September 1993 | A modeled 4–13 gigatonnes CO2-equivalent of avoided cumulative emissions under a 50% cut in U.S. beef and veal consumption; $42 million spent over 17 months on the “Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner” campaign |
| Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt | First published 2010 | Book-length examination of corporate climate-denial strategies | Not limited to this period | Background on the wider playbook. It is not the featured study. Dr. John Kerr of the University of Otago, Wellington, called it one of the most well-researched examinations of that playbook, a comment, not a finding of the 2026 study |
The 2025 paper’s modeled avoided emissions are hypothetical. They describe what a different consumption pattern could have produced, not what happened.
What the records do not show
The archive has clear limits. It does not show how much the association’s messaging changed public opinion or policy. It does not show what individual cattle producers, feedlots, or companies did on their own. Other producers may have acted differently, and the study does not say they did not. Absence of a record in this archive is not proof that no one took action.
Where these details come from
The account of the 2026 study here draws on a University of Miami release, republished by Mirage News, and on an expert reaction from the Science Media Centre. The journal article itself, published in PLOS Climate, contains the full methods and source list, and readers who need exact wording or document-level detail should consult it directly.
Because the 1986–1996 materials are historical, later sources may describe the same events in different terms. The study’s own time window and evidence type are the most reliable guide to what it covers.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
