Written to highlight bias in a report with a covert agenda, plus to defend Prof Noakes’ online reputation from yet another Big Food-funded smear.

Published in September 2025, The Changing Markets Foundation’s Meat vs EAT LANCET publication positions itself as a credible, investigative report. By contrast, I argue that it should rather be understood as a covert 'smear' communication event. In simple terms, a smear is 'an effort to manipulate opinion by promulgating an overblown, scandalous and damaging narrative' (Attkisson, 2017). The goal is often 'to destroy ideas by ruining the people who are most effective at communicating them' (p.3). The ‘Meat vs EAT-LANCET’ report fulfils a smear's criteria; its investigation uses inconclusive evidence to defame critics of the original “planetary health” diet (Willett et al, 2019) as shills for the meat industry.

As a communication event, ‘Meat vs EAT-LANCET’ is located within a long-running scientific argument and diet controversy. This concerns; what constitutes a healthy diet for individuals, the best food systems to support this, who gets to decide, and what research merits funding. In the Health Sciences and related fields, this rivalry pits two sides against each other. The dominant orthodoxy promotes high carbohydrate diets that suit the interests of the plant-based and processed food industry. In contrast, dissenting experts advocate for low carb lifestyles, plus real foods from the farming of livestock and regenerative agriculture (Teicholz, 2014). It is not co-incidental that the Meat vs EAT-LANCET report's release occurred shortly before the next communication from the orthodoxy- the EAT-Lancet Commission report (2025). The former's release was planned to pre-empt criticism of 2025's report by smearing the most influential critics of its 2019 pre-cursor. Such blowback seems motivated by the low-carb critics' initial successes- for example, a flagship launch event was planned at the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland, but  the WHO pulled out. Its withdrawal ‘followed a massive online backlash, which had concentrated on one of the report’s recommendations: to cut global red meat consumption by 50 percent’ (Carlile, 2025).

As described in Lars Magne Sunnanå’s Substack post (‘A diet to save the planet - brought to you by a Wall Street bet on margarine’), the supporters of Environment, Agriculture, and Transformation (EAT)'s Commission learnt from this failure. The EAT-Lancet Commission 2025 report's release will be better co-ordinated- with 70 scientists, new safeguards against "misinformation", plus many more partners and allies ready to defend the research. Other plans include involving scientific institutions like Harvard and Cornel to produce and publish a range of translation articles, alongside a campaign with a “celebrity influencer group”. Funders that include the Rockefeller Foundation and Gates Foundation, plus sponsors such as the Flora Food Group are providing additional support. Widespread coverage can be expected in scientific publications and key media to promote the revised diet. It merits consideration why the steep fees of a large PR campaign were supported by the report's funders to make this the report 'du jour', versus funding other forms of outreach (such as open debates on its merits?).

Published on the 3rd of October, The EAT-Lancet Commission 2025 report is part of a broader campaign for EAT and its collaborators to establish themselves as an “independent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for food systems. Should they succeed, their IPCC will likely be able to increase its sponsorship and attract more funders. At the same time, the proposed IPCC for Food is part of an agenda to "streamline" decisions on food systems. Driven by an few highly influential actors, this initiative has the risk of imposing a narrow view of science by excluding many voices on food systems (IPES, 2021).

From a PR perspective, the Meat vs EAT-LANCET communication event is part of a pre-emptive campaign. Its funders hope that by framing the most influential critics of the “planetary health” diet (PHD 🙄) as surrogates for the meat industry, the content of their arguments can be ignored. The report frames critics of the 2019 report as: (i) being funded by an “evil” meat industry; (ii) taking funds from its PR agencies; and (iii) being co-ordinated by them in an attempt to discredit “the science”. This frame suggests that influential individuals' criticism of the “planetary health” diet is commercially-driven, anti-science heresy. Such framing illustrates Wolpe's (1994) insight that "heresy" is socially constructed by orthodoxy. Its defenders have the power to define which views are unacceptable and will face marginalisation. Here the orthodoxy presents critics of the EAT-LANCET commission to be an amoral group of duplicitous outsiders. They are “attacking” a virtuous group of meat-industry-fighting truth seekers, whose noble role is to “defend the science”. In stark contrast, critics of the PHD are presented as basely-motivated. They are defamed as reliant on the meat industry’s financing and planning for launching a significant online “backlash”.

A biased “research” report with a covert agenda

As a communication event, the report is a patently transparent smear tool which seeks to create a digital pillory for the critics of the original EAT-Lancet 1999 reports’ many flaws (Hirvonen et al., 2020, Zagmutt et al. 2019, 2020). The Meat vs EAT-LANCET report is biased, its authorship is opaque, and its funding sources are hidden:

The obfuscation of funding sources is typical for the network funding man-made climate change research (Nordangård, 2024A), plus other projects that support of Agenda 2030 (Nordangård, 2024B). The Meat vs EAT-LANCET report does not disclose who its funders are, nor does it make an ethical acknowledgment for how that funding shapes its choice of subject and potential biases. The report is a co-production of two non-profits embedded within the Davocracy (Camus, 2022). Renaud Camus' neologism blends "Davos" (referring to the World Economic Forum and its global elites) with "-cracy," describing a managerial, cybernetic regime. Its financial powers—such as banks, multinational corporations and Big Tech - strive to exert sovereign control over human populations. This is facilitated via Global Public-Private Partnerships (GPPP) that stoke exaggerated fears, such as climate change catastrophism (West, 2023), that the GPPP's Social Development Goals (SDG) grant it the mandate to address. Dovetailing with this ideology, The Changing Markets Foundation strives to ‘shift market share away from unsustainable products and companies, and onto environmentally and socially beneficial solutions’.

Changing Market’s analysis in the Meat vs EAT-LANCET report was built off original research done by Ripple Research an “AI-for-Good advisory firm”, owned by the NPO Śrāvaṇa in Switzerland. Ripple is committed to ‘designing solutions for the most pressing global challenges and to effectuate enduring large-scale social impact through our unique Human+AI approach.’ Both non-profits are are bedfellows in having GPPP stakeholder clients who benefit directly from scientific dissent to their industries being miscast as “misinformation”. As part of an "Infodemic", all dissent versus climate change, mRNA vaccines and the WHO’s COVID-19 policies can be simplistically grouped. All such content becomes labelled as "misinformation" from amoral “misinfluencers", even when produced by eminent experts with decades of scholarship in their field! The infodemic's simplistic analysis ignores the fact that disinformation, misinformation and malinformation (MDM) from authorities can have far worse impacts than voices raising dissent, as evident during COVID-19 (Noakes, Bell, & Noakes, 2022).

It the Meat vs EAT-LANCET report was ethical, it would disclose that its creation is riddled with conflicts of interest. Even with such disclosure, this negative PR exercise would not warrant being placed in the ‘research report’ genre. As an academic report, it would be desk-rejected as unworthy of peer review; it is not a fair-minded exploration of evidence, but merely serves to support a witch-hunt based on tendentious allegations stretched to seem credible. This is another hallmark of the smear, it salaciously works to confirm what a lot of people (e.g. vegetarians, vegans and processed food addicts) want to believe. A smear works by confirming its audiences' pre-existing suspicions (Attkisson, 2017, p.4). As Goebbels observed in his dairy, propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident that they acting in their own free will. In this case, sympathetic readers are primed to ignore that it was not poor science that motivated the independent experts' critique. Instead they are asked to believe the Meat vs EAT-LANCET report's claim that the "potential of the report to lead to regulation and societal change" posed a serious threat to the interests of Big Meat and Dairy. In response it co-ordinated a 'significant online backlash – against the report’s findings and the Commission itself' (p.5).

Misinformation in the report regarding @ProfTimNoakes

Despite being four years in the making, the Meat vs EAT-LANCET report is riddled with errors and falsehoods. This post focuses adds to examples from Dr George Ede (on X), by focusing on the errors in my father's example, Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes. Mentioned by name 18 times in the report, he is never referred to by his hard-earned academic titles, instead the report often uses “mis-influencer Tim Noakes”. This GPPP neologism describes ‘individuals or entities actively spreading or amplifying mis- or disinformation within digital spaces, to influence wider narratives and opinions'. (p.3) Presumably the report’s choice is done to hypnotise readers- hoping a lie repeated often enough becomes true. This may also be an attempt to tie mis-influencer to Tim Noakes’ results in search engines and AI answers that reference the open report. At the same time, smearing also demeans its target, following another tactic of Goebbels. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred. In this reports' case, all twenty mis-influencers are demeaned.

On page 14, the report shows that @ProfTimNoakes has not shared original tweets featuring the #ClimateFoodFacts or #Yes2Meat hashtags. The report asserts that the ClimateFoodFacts tag was co-ordinated via the Red Flag agency, “likely on behalf of” the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA). By its own criteria, this page suggests that Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes was NOT involved in the AAA influence campaign via Red Flag. He never posted any original (e.g. "sponsored") #Yes2Meat tweets.

Page 16’s two-sentence smear “biography” for the Doctor/health influencer Tim Noakes alleges he has a “Career built out of promotion of high meat diets. Red Flag consulting identifies his content in a report back about the success of its campaign to discredit EAT-Lancet. He is also likely one of the ‘experts’ Red Flag refers to having briefed." Firstly, Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes only endorsed the low-carb lifestyle from 2010, having taught a high-carb diet for the previous thirty years of his academic career. To claim that his career was “built out” of promoting red meat is defamatory and false. Secondly, neither Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes nor The Noakes Foundation even knew that Red Flag consulting existed before the report. Nor has either ever been approached by the Animal Agriculture Alliance or any other of its representatives. Just as it is defamatory and false to term Tim Noakes a “mis-influencer”, it is also patently false to claim that he and/or his foundation have been paid to critique a seriously flawed EAT-Lancet report. That said, the Meat vs EAT-LANCET report does use plenty of hedging expressions and false innuendo, instead of factual statements. A wise choice, as the use of insinuation, not stating facts, protects the Changing Markets Foundation from the risk of being sued for defamation by its twenty targets.

On page 22, the report continues its smear of red meat funding collusion by asserting that Tim Noakes and other experts were identified as “relevant” to Red Flag’s campaign in its leaked document. Given the high Twitter visibility of @ProfTimNoakes and the other 19 accounts, it is not surprising that they would be mentioned in any report on influential low-carb, keto and/or carnivore lifestyle accounts. However, this should not be conflated with them being social media “influencers”- individuals desirous of using their large audience reach to peddle marketing campaigns for advertisers. Based on the Changing Markets Foundation and Ripple’s analysis of the engagement levels of these accounts, “it is likely that these are the ‘experts’ Red Flag highlights as having briefed and who ‘substantively engaged’ with criticising EAT!Lancet.” Again, the analysts hedge their false claims with “it is likely”.

On page 29, "Tim Noakes" is described as a “Health influencer” here, rather than the doctor, scientist and academic (or Professor Emeritus) that he is. In contrast, page 36's section, Doctors, and health and wellness ‘experts’, acknowledges that “Tim Noakes” has medical training. But it claims that he, Shawn Baker and Gary Fettke have all had “issues with their medical licences because of the dietary advice they promote.” Again this is a false assertion, Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes has never had any concern with “issues” regarding his medical license. Any issues were in the minds of the diet dictators that tried, and failed, to end his academic career (Noakes and Sboros, 2022). Their attacks had no legitimate basis, or credible chance for success. Further, the claim that since Prof Noakes fell under the category of doctor mis-influencer that he “played a pivotal role in the pushback against EAT!Lancet, unleashing #Yes2Meat…” is false. As the report states on page 14, @ProfTimNoakes did not share original tweets featuring the #Yes2Meat hashtag.

Instead of focusing on Emeritus Professor Tim Noakes’ significant contribution to the academic literature on nutrition in page 37, the report’s profile for him one-sidedly focuses on controversies. This is a hallmark of authors more intent on writing a smear than preparing a balanced appraisal (Attkisson, 2017). For example, the Changing Markets Foundation writes: ‘Noakes was investigated by South African health authorities in 2014, after a dietician complained about a tweet in which he had told a mother she should wean her baby onto low-carbohydrate, high-fat foods. He was cleared of misconduct in April 2017.’ 

Another clear indicator of bias in the Changing Markets Foundation and Ripple Research’s research lies on page 63. None of Professor Tim Noakes’ books or seminal articles are referenced in this one-sided bibliography. Perhaps if Changing Markets and Ripple Research's "investigators" had read Challenging Beliefs, Waterlogged, Lore of Nutrition or Real Food on Trial, they would appreciate that Prof Noakes if highly critical of industry’s influence on science. A red flag (pun alert 😉!) that he is highly unlikely to be persuaded to participate in a paid-for campaign by Red Flag, or any other funder. Rather his participation in the debate is driven by a concern for the actual science that the EAT-LANCET Commission neglects. This is due to the false-beliefs associated with a plant-based, climate catastrophe ideology (well-described by West, 2023). It is therefor unsurprising that ‘Meat vs EAT-LANCET’ report is shockingly inaccurate, written to serve as the propaganda smear agenda of the EAT-LANCET Committee. As Dr Zoe Harcombe wisely stated, the report is “the very epitome of misinformation - disinformation indeed - of which it accuses others.”

A report mirroring the Davocracy groupthinkers' biases

The globalist group, EAT-Lancet, is a well-funded by NGOs and corporations. Like most GPPP linked charities, it is unaccountable to the public. Its funders are keen for a high -carbohydrate, mostly plant-based “planetary diet" to be prescribed everywhere, and for everyone. EAT-Lancet and its co-believers work primarily through cities to force/"nudge" reductions in red meat, aiming to drastically reduce livestock for reducing climate emissions. This planetary friendly diet is apparently intended to provide a scientific basis for a ’1.5 degree-aligned’ global food system. While beautifully designed by Pietro Bruni of www.toshi.ltd, this report’s tosh (pun #2 alert 😉!) conceals the funding money grabbing aims of researchers behind it. As too, the nefarious globalist agenda of GPPP stakeholders keen to sideline meat and dairy in favour of the industrial slop that its stakeholders would prefer we eat to “save the planet” (not incidentally reducing our health, boosting the wealth of billionaire "philanthropists", and aiding depopulation).

The GPPP has been criticised as being an unelected network of governments, corporations, and international organizations, that use manipulative control mechanisms to seize global resources and achieve economic dominance. Critics including civil society groups and organizations, such as Public Services International, have highlighted concerns with the GPPP. These include its lack of transparency, accountability, and undue private influence over public policy. The GPPP skirts these issues through deploying deceptive terminology. Terms like "inclusive," "sustainable," "equity," and "resilience" mask the GPPPs true intentions, promoting a false image of environmental care, whilst advancing a covert agenda. Notably, the GPPP has created an asset rating system tied to Sustainable Development Goals and Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, that serve to support technocratic economic and social control by redefining and commodifying the "global commons." Hubristic claims like the "planetary diet" are all part of a well-considered propaganda approach to shape and control media discourse via definitional pattern control. The authors of the ‘Meat vs EAT-LANCET’ report use of the neologism "mis-influencer" serves as an example of this in enabling them to determine who falls under this new category, rather than speak to earlier examples. In addition to such control, another aim of the report is to serve as a wrap-up smear that can be linked in results from Search Engines, Artificial Intelligence chats, plus on Wikipedia to the twenty "mis-influencers" profiles. This is a contemporary tactic through which high-profile dissidents are targeted by the playbook of 'Big Food'... who copied and built on the Tobacco industry’s original edition (Brownell et al., 2009).