How 'The Atlantic' Distorts Facts to Justify Rising Meat Consumption

And why it matters

Every now and then, an article comes along that is so misguided, so irresponsibly framed, that it demands a response. Yesterday, The Atlantic published a piece titled “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” featuring an image of a proud eagle holding a steak in its beak. At first glance, the article appears to offer a deep, reflective take on shifting dietary habits. However, on closer examination, it is one of the most misleading and contradictory pieces I’ve read in mainstream media in recent times.

Article written by: Yasmin Tayag, staff writer at The Atlantic (emoji added)

I believe it’s worth breaking down this article, as it highlights the staggering number of misconceptions and distorted logic people — even journalists — rely on to justify the alarming rise in meat consumption. Let’s dive in. 👇

One article, many flaws

Flaw 1: Misrepresentation of costs

The author cites affordability as a key reason for the shift toward higher meat consumption — ignoring that, in reality, plant-based diets are cheaper than omnivorous ones. Alternative products like meat substitutes can (as yet) be a bit more pricey, but they make up only a tiny fraction of what plant-based households spend on food and drink. Overall, living plant-based saves you money. Besides that, animal products have enormous hidden costs, which should be factored into any honest cost analysis.

Flaw 2: Meat consumption as an “inevitable” trend

The author repeatedly claims that “the goal of eating less meat has lost its appeal,” framing it as a universal truth rather than acknowledging millions of people who remain committed to ethical and environmental concerns. This sweeping generalization also disregards the influence of the meat industry’s massive propaganda and misinformation campaigns, falsely portraying the shift as an inevitable and completely natural development.

Flaw 3: Unwarranted doubts on health and ethics

The author claims that reducing meat consumption has been “idealized as a healthier, more ethical way to eat.” It hasn’t been idealized — it’s simply a fact. Research consistenly shows that balanced plant-based diets offer numerous health benefits. And when it comes to ethics, public reactions — like the recent global outrage over a stolen baby wombat — prove that people do care about animal welfare. That plant-based diets cause less animal suffering and are therefore the more ethical choice isn’t up for debate. It’s just a question of whether we choose to acknowledge it or look the other way.

Flaw 4: Dismissing accountability for meat consumption

The author asserts that a wide swath of the U.S. is “sending a clear message: Nobody should feel bad about eating meat.” While I agree that shaming is not a productive way to encourage reflection on consumption choices, her statement seems less about promoting understanding and more about dismissing those who raise awareness of the animal industry's horrors. In the context of her article, it reads as a call to avoid confronting the ethical and environmental consequences of meat consumption altogether.

Flaw 5: Ignoring the urgent need to reduce meat consumption

The author points out that from 2014 to 2024, annual per capita meat consumption in the U.S. increased by nearly 28 pounds, without acknowledging the cruel and troubling nature of this trend, particularly given the expert consensus that a rapid reduction in meat consumption — especially in wealthy countries — is crucial to avoiding climate breakdown.

Flaw 6: Discrediting plant-based diets through inconsistency claims

The author repeats a common anti-vegan talking point, claiming that people who follow a plant-based diet are often inconsistent and make exceptions, as if this somehow undermines the relevance and validity of reducing meat consumption. She supports this argument by referencing the results of a survey that was co-funded by the meat industry.

Flaw 7: Misunderstanding the value of 'plant-based' labeling

The author criticizes the use of “plant-based” labeling, complaining that it is now being used on all sorts of products, edible or not. This misses the point that labeling products outside the food industry as plant-based is entirely logical and justified, as it highlights their significant environmental and ethical benefits — and, by extension, their suitability for consumers who care about these values.

Flaw 8: Unfair representation of plant-based products

The author is very careful in her choice of adjectives and descriptions, clearly aiming to present plant-based products as less appealing than animal products, making her article sound like a marketing campaign for meat and fast food. In reality, those who have truly embraced a plant-based diet know that vegan foods can taste delicious when cooked correctly, and that there is an abundance of delicious recipes available.

Flaw 9: Overlooking the health risks of animal products

The author repeats vague concerns about the healthfulness of meat alternatives without addressing the significant and well-documented health risks associated with animal products — ranging from direct health consequences, such as chronic diseases, to broader issues like pandemic risks, antibiotic resistance, and health implications of the meat industry’s climate and environmental impacts.

Flaw 10: Unquestioned justifications for meat consumption

The author repeats justifications for meat consumption commonly used by right-wing advocates, failing to question using "tradition" to justify unnecessary violence, or the absurdity of viewing the exploitation of defenseless animals as a sign of “strength.” She also ignores that the myth of needing meat for protein has long been debunked.

Flaw 11: Overlooking the human cost of animal agriculture

Despite the author’s usual progressive stance on issues like racial inequality and capitalist exploitation, she completely fails to mention that the animal industry not only exploits billions of animals but also harms marginalized communities, severely exploits workers, contributes to global hunger, and disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable people who suffer directly from the environmental and climate consequences of this industry.

Flaw 12: Featuring Elon Musk's climate misinformation

The author uncritically repeats the outrageous lie from Elon Musk, who appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and claimed that the climate impacts of industrial meat are a hoax — a claim so shockingly false and irresponsible that I wrote an entire article addressing it. Yet, she cites Musk’s dishonest statement as if it was an ordinary comment.

Flaw 13: Contradicting themselves

Towards the end of the article, the author absurdly suggests — after previously (and falsely) claiming that meat-based diets are more affordable — that the true driving force behind the plant-based movement is not health or environmental concerns, but rather the rising cost of meat. This not only contradicts her earlier point, but it also seems as though she is attempting to unjustly discredit the values and motivations of the plant-based movement, making it sound as if most of its supporters are only in it for the money.

Flaw 14: Dismissing ethics for the sake of meat

The article ends with a quote from ethicist Peter Singer: “Most people can easily continue doing something they believe is wrong as long as they have plenty of company.” One might assume the author grasps the deeper meaning of Singer’s words: that social norms should never be used to justify needless violence. However, any hope of such awareness is shattered when, in the same passage, she declares her continued love for animal products and dismisses Singer’s quote with, “Now no one has to keep up the charade”. In other words: since we’re the majority, let’s stop pretending that the future of our planet, public health, and the well-being of billions of animals matter more to us than eating meat.

Conclusion

The irony of this article is that the author seems vaguely aware of the contradictions in her own arguments — yet instead of confronting them, she embraces them. She acknowledges the environmental destruction and ethical concerns tied to animal agriculture, only to dismiss them with empty justifications and social conformity. The underlying message is clear: yes, animal products are harmful, but since most people consume them, we can simply ignore that reality.

Worse still, this is not just her personal rationalization — it’s a message she actively spreads to a huge audience, as if relying on debunked myths, misinformation, and outdated traditions to justify needless violence is something worth amplifying. Instead of challenging these talking points, she gives them credibility. Instead of holding the meat industry accountable, she parrots its narratives. Instead of recognizing the urgency of reducing meat consumption, she celebrates its rise as if public opinion overrides scientific reality.

This is not critical journalism. It is a dangerously irresponsible endorsement of complacency at a time when the stakes — climate crisis, public health, and mass animal suffering — have never been higher. That The Atlantic would publish such a fundamentally flawed and misleading piece is deeply disappointing. In an era where misinformation is one of the greatest threats to humanity, we have to demand better.

Learn more:

Think You Have a Health Argument Against Veganism? Read This.

No Diet Uses Fewer Plants Than Eating Plant-Based — Here’s Why

Vegan Horizon is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 👇