 Together with Lighthouse Reports, we've just analyzed the latest example of a curious document that claims to be signed by independent scientists from all over the world. Let's paint some context. Lobbying is that practice used by people or organizations that represent the interests of a particular group to try to influence those who have decision-making power. We know very well that lobbying has often succeeded in influencing public opinion and policy decisions. This is not news. It happens in all sectors, it is legitimate, it has always been done. In the European Union, this practice is regulated through a transparency register which every group wishing to lobby must sign up to. This register is used by European institutions to regulate the behavior of lobbyists. But some organizations, often not on this registry, use less honest techniques. There's one technique in particular that has undermined the reputation of the lobbying profession. Casting doubt on science. For example, the Sugar Lobby in the 1960s paid Harvard researchers to perform a study that would downplay the correlation between sugar consumption and heart disease, shifting the focus to fat. And still today, sugar lobbies try to deny that sugar has any impact on oral health. The Tobacco Lobby in the early 2000s paid the universities of Geneva and Zurich to publish research denying the harmful effects of tobacco on people's health. Fossil fuels, pharmaceutical and meat lobbies have also been found to use the same tools. Tensions have been rising in recent years between the meat industry and European institutions because intensive animal production has been negatively targeted by several policy proposals, such as the nature restoration law and animal welfare laws. These policies have been proposed because studies in the most authoritative scientific journals have concluded that cutting meat and dairy consumption in rich countries is the single best way to reduce a person's impact on the environment, and that the climate crisis cannot be beaten without such cuts. In October 2022, the Dublin Declaration made its way into the debate. The Declaration is a short document that argues for the nutritional, environmental and social benefits of meat eating. It claims to give a voice to the many scientists around the world who are researching diligently and honestly in various disciplines to reach a balanced vision of the future of agriculture and livestock. Nearly a thousand scientists who have signed, independent, nothing to do with the livestock industry, they have signed this declaration stating that the importance of livestock for society and for the environment. The Declaration admits that some methods and scale of animal production systems present challenges to biodiversity, climate change and nutrient flows, as well as animal health and welfare. Yet this document has been used by lobbyists to argue against policies that responded to the need to reduce meat consumption in richer countries. For example, an investigation that came out a month ago showed that meat lobbies fought the animal welfare package, arguing against the science used by EFSA. And this document has a number of problems. First, the many scientific studies published in recent years cannot be countered by a manifesto. The second problem with the Dublin Declaration is that despite explicit claims of no affiliation, the very authors of the Declaration have ties with the industry. Four out of the six authors work or have worked directly for the industry. The Guardian and Unearthed have already carried out an investigation on the author's backgrounds. And another interesting aspect is that none of them is an environmental or climate scientist. But more than 1,000 scientists have decided to sign this declaration. And so we thought it would be reasonable to ask how many of these scientists have affiliations with the meat industry and how many of them have the expertise for their signature to really carry some weight when it comes to the environment and human health. Lighthouse Reports and Food Unfolded analyze the backgrounds of the 1,000 scientists who signed the declaration, one by one. And the result is that about 60% of them have affiliations with the industry. With affiliations, we mean that their research has received any funding by industry over the past few years. Or that they held positions such as chair, advisor, consultant, or any other influential role within industry associations. At the same time, 30% of signatories have backgrounds other than relevant environmental science or public health science. It's as if a gastroenterologist gave you a diagnosis on your heart or brain instead of a cardiologist or a neurologist. Studies like these ones published in Nature and Science, which identify meat, one of the biggest contributors to climate change and environmental degradation, carry significantly more weight. But the Dublin Declaration is used by lobbyists to say, can't you see that the measures that you're taking are based on uncertain science? Not only that, they also serve those who represent the industry and say that they want to finally explain the truth about meat to citizens, such as the Meat the Facts website, run by the meat industry group European Livestock Voice. But the result is that those who adopt these tactics do a disservice to many, to more ethical lobbying, to policymakers, to those who have so far produced meat, but accept that the industry must change. But most of all to us citizens. Because as the British philosopher W.D. Ross said, without a commitment to telling the truth, societies cannot function. And to find the truth, we need to understand when our own experience and conflicts of interest make us biased. Bottom line, always be wary when a group with a specific interest, in this case, to sell meat, claims that they will finally tell you the truth about their sector.