Methane options on the table in 1989, beef ads in newspapers by 1990

The National Cattlemen's Association understood cattle's role in global warming by 1989 and focused on protecting beef demand through public messaging, according to a new peer-reviewed study. ^[2]

Researchers Jennifer Jacquet and Loredana Loy traced the US trade group's response through internal records covering 1986 to 1996. They found a strategy of commissioning experts, challenging advocates of dietary change and promoting beef's environmental image as scientific concern about methane grew. ^[2]

The records also show that the association had access to information about reducing livestock emissions. Yet the researchers found no evidence in its materials that it researched or promoted the methane-reduction practices described in some of the reports it commissioned. ^[1][2]

Published in PLOS Climate on October 7, 2026, the study documents how a major industry organisation treated climate change chiefly as a threat to consumer demand. Founded in 1898, the association represented more than 230,000 producers in 1990, according to the paper. ^[2]

Jacquet said the records showed that the group understood both the climate issue and the existence of options to reduce emissions. Its response, she said, concentrated on shaping what people heard about beef and countering the argument that eating less of it could help. ^[3]

The options were already on the table

The sequence began as scientists brought methane into climate discussions alongside carbon dioxide. By the mid-1980s, cattle were drawing attention because their digestion and manure management produce methane, a heat-trapping gas. The association's response developed against that growing body of research. ^[1][2]

In February 1989, an association representative attended a US Environmental Protection Agency workshop on livestock methane emissions. The workshop addressed ways to reduce them, and its resulting report discussed changes to feeding practices, feed additives and manure management. ^[1][3]

That meeting is a concrete marker of institutional knowledge. The association was represented at a discussion of both the emissions problem and possible production changes. The researchers therefore had evidence of more than a general awareness that environmental criticism existed. ^[1][3]

Later that year, the association developed an environmental strategic plan. Its objectives included countering criticism of the cattle industry, commissioning scientific and technical papers, and building a positive environmental image. ^[1][3]

Over the period examined, the researchers describe a communications operation that monitored environmental groups and news coverage, enlisted academic experts to write reports and serve as spokespeople, and circulated talking points minimizing cattle's contribution to global warming. The group also challenged advocates who promoted dietary change. ^[1][2][3]

Jacquet said the possibility that consumers would change what they ate was the association's main concern. That helps explain the emphasis on public messaging: the perceived commercial risk was that concern about emissions would turn into lower demand for beef. ^[1][3]

The records do not establish what every beef company or rancher knew or did. The authors warn that the archive is incomplete and cannot show whether individual producers pursued emissions reductions independently. The study also does not establish that these tactics continued unchanged after the association's 1996 transition, and no response from its successor is included in the sources for this article. ^[1][2][3]

A small number with a very large denominator

One industry-sponsored estimate that circulated widely put US beef cattle's contribution at 0.5% of global methane emissions. The researchers say the figure was difficult to reproduce. It also compared emissions from US beef cattle with worldwide methane emissions from both human activities and natural sources. ^[1][3]

That choice of comparison made the US cattle contribution appear small, according to the study's authors. A single country's beef cattle were being measured against the entire world's methane output, including natural emissions. ^[1][3]

The percentage could offer reassurance without answering the practical question raised at the EPA workshop: what could the industry do to reduce the emissions under its control? The workshop report had described possible changes to feeding and manure management. The association's surviving materials instead show extensive work on the public argument. ^[1][3]

The spending was tangible. For Earth Day in 1990, the association spent $100,000 on full-page newspaper advertisements. The researchers' account says the campaign reached an estimated 20 million people. ^[1][3]

Earth Day provided an occasion to promote the industry's environmental image to a large audience. Alongside commissioned reports and expert spokespeople, the advertising shows that the response went beyond internal discussion. The association was paying to put its case before the public. ^[1][3]

What the archive reveals

The researchers collected 154 internal organisational documents from the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming. Of those, 123 dated from 1986 through 1996. They supplemented that collection with another archival document and material including scientific studies, media interviews and government reports. ^[1][2][3]

The strength of that record is the sequence it allows readers to follow: scientific concern, attendance at a workshop on emissions and reductions, an environmental strategy, then reports, talking points and advertising. It makes the association's priorities visible through documented decisions rather than through a later account of its intentions. ^[1][2][3]

The study reports that beef is the most greenhouse-gas-intensive food. Its historical finding adds a separate point: when this trade group encountered evidence of the climate problem, its documented response centred on defending demand, while the researchers found no corresponding effort in its materials to pursue the reduction practices described to it. ^[2]

The next question is how the present-day National Cattlemen's Beef Association interprets that record. The earlier organisation became the current association in 1996 after a merger and agreements with other industry groups, the point at which this study's historical investigation ends. ^[2][3]