Subliminal meat lobbying: A study of SORTEDfood

You might not have known, but I’m a fervent supporter of internet food channel, Sorted. They make quality, Top Gear-esque video recipes that are engaging and, perhaps most importantly, tasty. However, running a business to support four individuals and goodness knows how many more behind the scenes doesn’t come without some kind of necessary cash injections, the most obvious of which is a sponsorship deal. Sorted has taken multiple sponsorship deals in the past, most notably from Tesco and, more oddly, a car. These are both large corporates that people have heard of, meaning the effect is a tangible gain for Sorted and a largely intangible gain for the companies themselves. However, Sorted have also taken sponsorship from otherwise unheard of entities such as Lambsoc and Lovepork. What do these organisations do? What do they stand for? Most importantly, is it something worth complaining about? I would say so. Hit the jump to find out why.

The straightforward answer to the above question is that Lambsoc and Lovepork are shell companies for AHDB Beef & Lamb and AHDB Pork respectively: both subsidiaries of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. These shell companies give a friendly social media presence to companies that specialise in marketing and trading what is, effectively, the wholesale murder of animals. Now, as a considerate non-vegetarian, the degree to which I personally object to sustainable animal farming is quite low, but it’s the way that AHDB do it that bothers me. These are companies with shell consumer companies, and then another row of shell companies below that. AHDB Beef and Lamb runs a website for ‘Simply Beef and Lamb’, which then runs a website called Lambsoc. It is very hard to tie these websites together. They are designed to operate as though they were separate entities. As though they were simply run by enthusiasts.

Lambsoc’s website doesn’t even mention AHDB on any level; its Facebook claims it is an NGO. While it’s true that Lambsoc isn’t intimately linked with corporations, it is funded by them. In short, then, these youthful, friendly faces for cooking are cover-ups for agricultural giants and money-makers. While it’s hard to object to AHDB’s actions on a base level (they actually claim to support sustainable farming in tandem with economic growth), it’s their determination that consumer tendencies can be fundamentally altered that is most worrying.

The issue is thus: meat consumption is going down. That’s probably a good thing, because less consumption signals less production, and less meat production means less environmental harm, from the methane of cows, to the soil degradation of beef, to actually cows are really bad for the environment. AHDB, however, simply won’t accept this. It uses shell companies to attempt to reinvigorate a ‘love of meat’ into the younger generation, to get meat consumption back on the rise, and bring young people and beyond into a way of life that is not only less sustainable, but less healthy and more expensive. It is in the interests of everyone except meat farmers that we eat less meat, because, and it seems more clear the more you consider it – red meat is a negative externality in production, just so much as non-renewable energy or any other. It seems justified, then, that the meat industry shouldn’t act in the interests of encouraging us to eat more meat. We should be acting on the facts from health experts, rather than an echo chamber of fake ‘meat lovers’.
Sustainable levels of vegetarianism shouldn't be discouraged; meat farmers should accept a slow decline in sales. It's good for us, and ‘us’ isn’t just humanity.

On the subject - if we're looking for other cases where lobbyists act against the public interest for the sake of private benefit, one example immediately springs to mind. Much like AHDB Beef puts money where its mouth is in the context of a dying industry, the fossil fuel lobby across the world gives donations to leading right wing political parties to secure favourable policy in government, for the sake of their own survival in a world where sustainability is increasingly necessary. This acts in climate change's favour and secures little to no public gain.

I admit it would be wrong to impose a ban on the meat industry advertising; it just seems morally wrong to hide between shell companies, and then hide once more behind prominent Youtubers, in the interests of getting people to eat more meat. In the case of fossil fuels, however, it seems perfectly fair to ban corporations from lobbying and donating in a political capacity if they have a tangible negative impact on our environment, be it at a local level (air pollution, congestion, particulates, other types of contamination) or a national one (CO2 emissions, methane, and so on).

For those that argue this would create a black market in lobbying, it certainly would - but the response is twofold: firstly, a black market already exists. Tony Blair maintained oddly close relations with Rupert Murdoch during his tenure as Prime Minister, and both received invites to the other's personal functions. They were close, almost certainly for political reasons, and very few people knew or took account. Corporations and rich individuals can already find ways to get into politicians' heads without a direct donation. Secondly, if we encourage a more transparent politics, we can help make the black market disappear. We can. It's possible. Not in today’s day and age though. An issue for another time.