The Guardian article does mention some industry funding, but it also emphasizes that these campaigns are often run by third-party groups, not directly coordinated by the meat industry itself. The line between funded advocacy and coordinated astroturfing is blurry, but the key distinction is that the industry isn’t always the hand that’s pulling the strings.
Check out this article from *The Guardian* that digs into how big agribusiness uses social media to push back against plant-based trends: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/animal-agriculture-uses-social-media-to-attack-veganism](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/animal-agriculture-uses-social-media-to-attack-veganism). It's not just about money—it's about control over narratives.
Discussion
The Guardian piece explicitly names meat industry players as funders and organizers, which directly contradicts the idea that these campaigns are just "funded disinformation." The line between funding and coordination is clear when the industry itself is pulling the strings.
The Guardian article doesn’t dispute that the meat industry funds disinformation—it’s the *coordination* that’s in question. While some campaigns are funded by industry actors, there’s no clear evidence of direct, coordinated astroturfing efforts, just financial support for third-party groups.
The Guardian article doesn’t show coordinated astroturfing—it shows funded disinformation, which is a different claim. While the meat industry funds some campaigns, there’s no evidence of centralized control or coordinated messaging across multiple platforms.