�鶹Լ��

Accuracy

The claim that thousands of tonnes of Brazilian beef were exported to the UK gave a misleading impression of the extent to which the UK is implicated in the Brazilian farming practices shown in the programme.

According to Government estimates, the UK imported approximately 23,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef products in 2019, so the programme’s claim was not inaccurate.�� Though the programme did not specify that this represented only a small proportion of UK beef consumption, it did state that Brazil maintained a herd of 200 million cattle, so it would have been apparent to viewers that the UK was not a major consumer of Brazilian beef, and the ECU did not consider the claim to be misleading.

The statement that “Methane is an extremely potent��greenhouse gas,��almost 30 times more powerful��than carbon dioxide” should have been carefully explained to viewers, as it obscures the fact that methane in the atmosphere is believed to dissipate over about 12 years, whereas carbon dioxide continues to affect the climate for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Irrespective of its relative longevity, methane is classified as a greenhouse gas by the Independent Panel on Climate Change, is produced by cattle in large quantities, and is a significant cause of global warming, accounting for 20% of global emissions, much of that from livestock farming. ��The programme did not seek to evaluate methane’s relative contribution to global warming but it did show ways in which scientists were attempting to reduce the production of methane by cattle. ��In this context the ECU did not consider the information misleading to viewers.

The statement that UK meat farming was “the cause of serious��pollution incidents��on a weekly basis”, prefaced by the information that farmed animals around the world produce three billion tonnes of manure every year, gave an exaggerated impression of the environmental impact of effluent from UK meat farming.

According to the Environment Agency, in 2018 there were 77 serious incidents attributed to farming activities. ��65 incidents involved livestock farms, and 34 of those involved slurry, silage or manure. ��Figures for incidents involving slurry, silage or manure in the two preceding years were 44 for 2017, and 43 in 2016. ��Although that does not equate precisely to a figure of one per week, the ECU regarded the frequency of the incidents to be such that the reference to a “weekly basis” was a fair approximation.

The programme was misleading in failing to discuss the negative health effects of reducing meat consumption.

The programme considered the effects of reducing meat consumption on the global environment.�� A discussion of the health issues related to eating or abstaining from meat would not have been material to viewers’ understanding of the environmental issues, and its absence from the programme raised no issue of inaccuracy.

Editorial decisions and juxtaposition of narrative and images conveyed the impression that methods employed abroad which the programme criticised were either significant in the production of meat consumed in the UK or comparable to UK production.

The programme’s concentration on methods employed by much larger meat producers such as the USA and Brazil was in keeping with its global focus, and it made no statement to the effect that the UK was a major consumer of meat from either country or that its production practices were comparable to theirs.�� The ECU found no issue of inaccuracy in this area, although it had some bearing on the issues of impartiality considered below.

The suggestion that livestock globally produces more greenhouse gases than the running of transport was inaccurate in relation to the UK and had been shown to be exaggerated in relation to the global picture.

The suggestion relied on a 2013 paper by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, which attributed 14.5% of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, and the 2014 estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that direct emissions from transport accounted for 14%.�� The ECU therefore did not agree that the programme conveyed an exaggerated impression.�� And, as the impression was clearly presented as relating to the global picture, the ECU considered any disparity with the UK picture to be immaterial.

Impartiality

Given that the vast majority of beef on sale in Britain is from British farms, and not produced in ways shown on the programme there should have been a very clear distinction made in the farming systems. But there was not and the presenter spoke to a British audience when she spoke of her own intentions in relation to meat. The audience would have been left with the very clear view that British meat is produced in the same ways as the rest of the world.

And:

A single view was expressed with no range of views being acknowledged.

The �鶹Լ��’s Guidelines on Impartiality say “When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active”.�� The ECU agreed that the subject-matter of the programme was controversial in significant respects. ��While aspects of the environmental impact of global meat production may be matters of established fact or scientific consensus, there has been a continuing public debate about the sustainability of meat production, with the implied suggestion that reducing one’s personal meat consumption is ethically preferable. ��The presenter of the programme set out the issues in these terms:

"As demand increases, so do��greenhouse gas emissions,��so does pollution,��so does the destruction��of biodiversity,��which leads to one very��obvious question. ��Should we just stop eating meat?"

Early in the programme she said:

"I don't think the general public��has any idea about what's��going on to produce the bacon��they fry up for breakfast."

And she ended the programme by asking viewers to consider their own behaviour, in what was effectively a call to action:

"Amidst all the bad news about the��damage that our modern world��is causing to our planet,��this is one problem��we can all do something about.��We can each decide what kind��of relationship��we want to have��with the natural world.�� Every day, with every meal,��we can choose where our meat��comes from,��how much of it to eat and even��whether to eat it at all."

In this context the range of farming methods used to supply consumers and their relative environmental impact was of relevance to viewers.�� Traditional grass-based methods of livestock production, prevalent in some sectors of meat production in Britain and many other countries, account for a significant element of global output[1], but these were not discussed in the programme, beyond a reference to “Some farmers around the world…rearing livestock��in a way that takes better care��of the planet,��using farming methods��that support soil health��without the need for chemical��fertilisers and pesticides”, illustrated by the untypical example of a smallholder in Wales who raised chickens for his family’s consumption.�� As a result, viewers received a partial analysis of the impact of livestock farming on the global environment and biodiversity, based almost exclusively on intensive farming methods and of limited application to the choices open to UK consumers.�� In the judgement of the ECU, this fell below the �鶹Լ��’s standards of impartiality in relation to controversial subjects.

Accuracy: Not upheld
Impartiality: Upheld

��

[1] According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, intensive systems provide less than 15% of beef or milk production while accounting for about 60% of global pork or chicken meat.