Rebuttals to criticism
Hereafter, an overview is provided of the criticisms directed at the Dublin Declaration, accompanied by the corresponding rebuttals. Because this is an evolving process, both in terms of incoming arguments and the formulation of responses, the content of this webpage may change over time.
Purpose of this Declaration
Quote
"Livestock systems must progress on the basis of the highest scientific standards. They are too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry. These systems must continue to be embedded in and have broad approval of society. For that, scientists are asked to provide reliable evidence of their nutrition and health benefits, environmental sustainability, socio-cultural and economic values, as well as for solutions for the many improvements that are needed. This declaration aims to give voice to the many scientists around the world who research diligently, honestly and successfully in the various disciplines in order to achieve a balanced view of the future of animal agriculture."
Criticism
Krattenmacher et al. (2024) claim that “zealotry”, “victim”, “wisdom” and “precious” are emotionally charged terms that add to “an ‘us-vs-them’ divide”. It would try to undermine actors who “more accurately report on the current state of science, including scientific institutions such as the IPCC” and have a “chilling effect” on dissenting scientists “for fear of being labeled or perceived as zealots”.
Rebuttal
Quoting from our Letter to Environmental Science and Policy (submitted), in response to Krattenmacher et al.: “We remain unapologetic about this sentence. We consider zealots to be persons who are fanatical about a position and unwilling to consider other evidence that might make them change their minds. There is plenty of scientific research on how zealotry hurts social discourse and opinion dynamics (e.g., Verma 2014; Vendeville 2022). We see no potential positive in zealotry, simplification or reductionism to identifying solutions for a system as complex as the global livestock sector."
To be clear, the use of the word 'zealotry' is in no way referring to scientists holding differing opinions. On the contrary, disagreement is valuable because it stimulates epistemological breakthroughs. The Declaration consciously maintains an open stance on numerous critical issues, specifically to allow for a diverse array of interpretations and solutions. Among the signatories of the Declaration, there are indeed vast differences in approach and vision. Every scientist is welcome to sign and discuss within the boundaries of the Declaration's opening and closing statements, namely 'Livestock systems must progress on the basis of the highest scientific standards' and 'Sustainable livestock will also provide solutions for the additional challenge of today, to stay within the safe operating zone of planet Earth’s boundaries, the only Earth we have'.
We would welcome if Krattenmacher and his co-authors would sign the Dublin Declaration and engage in a sincere discussion on the basis of evaluating the entire balance of scientific evidence of how to overcome the manifold challenges which the global livestock sector is facing. There is no ‘us-vs-them’, unless they make it so.
Quote
"Livestock systems must progress on the basis of the highest scientific standards. They are too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry. These systems must continue to be embedded in and have broad approval of society. For that, scientists are asked to provide reliable evidence of their nutrition and health benefits, environmental sustainability, socio-cultural and economic values, as well as for solutions for the many improvements that are needed. This declaration aims to give voice to the many scientists around the world who research diligently, honestly and successfully in the various disciplines in order to achieve a balanced view of the future of animal agriculture."
Criticism
Herzon 2024 argues that “the authorship of both the Declaration and the journal issue reveals a remarkable lack of disciplinary diversity. Of the 36 co-authors, almost all are experts in meat sciences and technology, and animal husbandry, and many are tied to the livestock industry, while such highly relevant disciplines as, for example, agroecology, soil and environmental sciences, conservation biology, rural sociology, and animal welfare and ethics, are not represented.”
Rebuttal
This is factually wrong. The supposedly missing relevant disciplines can easily be identified within the biographies of the group of authors of the scientific material produced during the Dublin and Denver Summits (cf. both special issues of Animal Frontiers). Here follows a non-exhaustive overview of those who clearly state it as their main area of research, although many other co-authors and, especially, signatories of the Declaration also touch upon these issues:
- Agroecology
- Logan Thompson (researching impact of grazing management on ecosystem functions)
- Jason Rowntree (researching metrics and management options that reflect ecological improvement in grazing land systems)
- Pablo Manzano (rangeland ecologist, international development cooperation)
- Soil and environmental sciences:
- Logan Thompson (researching the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions in grazing systems and impact of grazing management on ecosystem functions)
- Jason Rowntree (researching metrics and management options that reflect ecological improvement in grazing land systems)
- Laurence Shalloo (researching sustainable livestock production systems)
- Michael Lee (researching sustainable livestock systems, and their role in securing global food security while protecting environmental health)
- Pablo Manzano (rangeland ecologist, international development cooperation)
- Agustín del Prado (IPCC lead author; researching mitigation options to reduce impact of ruminant farming on climate change)
- Conservation biology
- Pablo Manzano (rangeland ecologist, research experience at the University of Helsinki, Finland [at the Global Change and Conservation research group, whose work on conservation is well known to Dr. Herzon])
- Rural sociology
- Pablo Manzano (international development cooperation; transdisciplinary research on livestock-based socio-ecosystems)
- Animal welfare and ethics
- Candace Croney (Director of Purdue University’s Center for Animal Welfare Science, researching animal behavior and well-being, bioethical considerations relating to animal care and use, their socio-political and practical implications, and the formulation of welfare standards and guidelines)
- Janice Swanson (researching social responsibility in food systems as it relates to farm animal welfare; development of evidence-based food industry and commodity level animal welfare policies, standards, and guidelines)
Quote
"Livestock systems must progress on the basis of the highest scientific standards. They are too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry. These systems must continue to be embedded in and have broad approval of society. For that, scientists are asked to provide reliable evidence of their nutrition and health benefits, environmental sustainability, socio-cultural and economic values, as well as for solutions for the many improvements that are needed. This declaration aims to give voice to the many scientists around the world who research diligently, honestly and successfully in the various disciplines in order to achieve a balanced view of the future of animal agriculture."
Criticism
Herzon 2024 argues that there is a “national bias in the Declaration's authorship” as most co-authors and half of the 1,223 signatories come from the United States, Spain, Italy, France, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, and Ireland. These countries have large livestock industries, significant export markets, and high levels of meat consumption. Together, the first six countries produce 35% of global beef and buffalo output, with France alone accounting for 24% of the EU’s bovine production, and Spain and Ireland contributing 9% each. Their livestock production is highly specialised and mostly highly intensive, contrasting with the agro-ecological principles the Declaration seeks to defend. Thus, while making a global statement and focusing on the global south, the Declaration's authorship and signatory base draw on expertise from a narrower range.”
Rebuttal
The Dublin Declaration makes a global statement, it does not focus on the Global South. It is open to signature for any scientist anywhere in the world. They do not need to be engaged in animal-related sciences, and not even in agricultural or food sciences. The appeal to basing progress on the basis of the highest scientific standards, is universal. The initiators are glad to know that signatories from all continents of the world expressed their commitment to this principle.
With respect to the production setups of meat-oriented bovine production in the EU and the US, it needs to be pointed out that they have a very substantial contribution of mixed systems sensu Steinfeld & Mäki-Hokkonen 1995. Yet, most of these systems have a significant portion of their life cycle on rangelands with reduced external inputs ('extensive grazing' type). Therefore, this type of livestock production is not highly-intensive. Most of such systems have a very significant phase wherein animals can be raised according agroecological conditions, even if these animals are mostly finished in feedlots.
Criticism
Herzon 2024 adds that even if they “may not receive a direct financial incentive, many authors and signatories work with industry, and this may inflate the perceived value of livestock relative to its societal costs.”
Rebuttal
The Dublin Declaration initiators never made a secret out of the circumstances in which they maintain multiple connections with the policy, industry, and farming spheres of the global livestock sector. In some cases, these connections may take the form of payments for research support, consultancy services, (non-)remunerated positions, or employment. That said, the initiators think that it can be beneficial to have such connections. Not only to better understand the sector and identify the most pertinent research opportunities and challenges, but also to carry the research insights into the sector and help it improve.
In line with what prof. Frank Mitloehner (2022) responded to activists accusing him of being industry-biased: 'Animal scientists work with animal agriculture. That’s it. That’s the exposé, the conspiracy that so many activists and journalists want to share with you.' He added: 'I am transparent about my collaboration with the livestock industry. My research lab receives grants to conduct research for the agricultural sector, as well as the public sector' and 'my job as a professor and cooperative extension air quality specialist is to work with members of the industry to improve the environmental performance of the food they grow. I don’t mean that figuratively; it’s written in my job description'.
Criticism
Krattenmacher et al. (2024) argue that the Declaration “is associated with excessive self-citation and large conflicts of interest”, for instance referring to the role of the Irish semi-state authority Teagasc, which hosted the Dublin summit, claiming to have exposed “the influence of the meat industry on science and its representation in public discourse” in their article.
Rebuttal
Krattenmacher et al. entirely fail to acknowledge the difference between “large conflicts of interest” and “potential conflict of interest”. In their analysis, any distant or close connection to industry is already a constituted conflict of interest. That is not even remotely in accordance with the scientific literature on this subject. The authors are not even deploying a valid paradigmatic framework for their conflict-of-interest analysis. They are so focused on finding any remote angle of industry association to the initiators and authors, that they overlook that there is a whole science itself on characterizing what constitutes conflict of interest.
An applicable framework could for instance have been based on Bero and Grundy (2018), who show that conflicts of interest can take many different forms, not just financial. There can also be career-interests, network-based conflicts, and ideological conflicts. Ederer (2024) outlined a framework of different grades of bias, from mere scientific sloppiness towards agenda-driven science (referring to Richard Feynman's 'Cargo-cult scientists').
Moreover, Ioannidis and Trepanowski (2018) have rightfully argued that “advocacy and activism have become larger aspects of the work done by many nutrition researchers, and also should be viewed as conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed”, because they may lead to white-hat bias and are “orthogonal to a key aspect of the scientific method, which is to not take sides preemptively or based on belief or partisanship”. They suggested that it may be good practice for researchers to “disclose their advocacy or activist work as well as their dietary preferences if any are relevant to what is presented and discussed in their articles”. In this connection, we would note that each of the co-authors of the Krattenmacher et al. article are advocates of a vegan lifestyle, with a multitude of connections and roles in the animal rights eco-system. It would deserve proper disclosure and analysis whether and how these eco-systems are influencing the scientific results of their own work.
Challenges for Livestock
Quote
"Today’s food systems face an unprecedented double challenge. There is a call to increase the availability of livestock-derived foods (meat, dairy, eggs) to help satisfy the unmet nutritional needs of an estimated three billion people, for whom nutrient deficiencies contribute to stunting, wasting, anaemia, and other forms of malnutrition. At the same time, some methods and scale of animal production systems present challenges with regards to biodiversity, climate change and nutrient flows, as well as animal health and welfare within a broad One Health approach. With strong population growth concentrated largely among socioeconomically vulnerable and urban populations in the world, and where much of the populace depends on livestock for livelihoods, supply and sustainability challenges grow exponentially and advancing evidence-based solutions becomes ever more urgent."
Criticism
Herzon 2024 classified this as misleading, arguing that “such deficiencies are not necessarily because of the unavailability of such nutrients from livestock on local or global markets. The unbalanced distribution of food among and within countries, and access to sufficient food are the key reasons for malnourishment in the Global South. Adequate food cannot be achieved without lowering consumption in other regions, reducing waste of food, including that from animals, and better use of critical resources for food production in Global North societies (e.g. Gerten, D. et al. 2020).”
Rebuttal
This argument betrays classic utopian redistribution-economics thinking, ignoring economic realities. Taking goods away from high-income populations does not make them more available to low-income populations. A steak that is not eaten in the Global North does not turn into eggs that are therefore more available to stunted children in Africa. Food affordability for the entire global population is a function of purchasing power and innovation to make these foods relatively cheaper versus disposable income.
Criticism
Krattenmacher et al. (2024) argues that this is industry talk (“we should eat some meat”) as a part of the frame: “keep eating meat to be healthy”.
Rebuttal
Krattenmacher et al use four „Frames“ as a tool which are supposedly “highly industry-friendly” and which somehow they identified as the underlying structure of the Dublin Declaration. However, they provide no analytical framework of how they came to this conclusion. The Declaration nowhere makes or even implies the statement that one should specifically keep eating meat to be healthy. This is not what the above mentioned sentence says. The same can be said for the other three frames (“No need to cut down to be green”, “Animal Farming is what humans do”, and “Still open for debate”). As initiators and co-authors we can categorically deny that such frames guided the drafting of the Declaration – and moreover – we see no evidence that they are represented in the Declaration either. Nor does Krattenmacher et al. provide such evidence, beyond just claiming that statement.
What is worse, is that these frames have very shallow scientific credentials. The only source for these discursive frames is a reference to Clare et al. (2022), entitled “Meat, money and messaging: How the environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption are framed by the meat industry”. The research methodology of this article was to query 26 documents published by six UK-based associations between 2016 and 2019 (including the National Farmers Union and Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board). The query consisted of a “Thematic content analysis performed by the lead researcher in an inductive approach, deriving the codes from the data, considered as the most appropriate given the lack of pre-existing theory specific to this research question”. Unexplainedly, this then yielded 76 codes and four over-arching “Frames”. Quoting from our Letter to Environmental Science and Policy in response to Krattenmacher et al.: "A three-year data slice of only 26 publications from just six UK-based associations, can hardly qualify as being representative of the global meat industry. This dataset is far too under-powered to make such wide-ranging claim. Moreover, such a weak methodology of inductively discovering vocabulary “codes” in publications which are then subjectively evaluated in the absence of a pre-existing theory to represent discursive frames – can at best serve as the starting point for a hypothesis formation. Relying on Clare et al. (2022) as a foundation for their work essentially incapacitates the entire effort by [Krattenmacher et al.] to generate the evidence required for denigrating a collective statement of 1,200+ scientists.”
Livestock and Human Health
Quote
"Livestock-derived foods provide a variety of essential nutrients and other health-promoting compounds, many of which are lacking in diets globally, even among those populations with higher incomes. Well-resourced individuals may be able to achieve adequate diets while heavily restricting meat, dairy and eggs. However, this approach should not be recommended for general populations, particularly not those with elevated needs, such as young children and adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, women of reproductive age, older adults, and the chronically ill. The highest standards of bio-evolutionary, anthropological, physiological, and epidemiological evidence underscore that the regular consumption of meat, dairy and eggs, as part of a well-balanced diet is advantageous for human beings."
Criticism
Herzon 2024 confirms that this is true but also argues that the statement is misleading as “in many regions these [essential nutrients] can be provided by other sources such as plants (in right combination), fungi, harvested wild animals and (in some cultures) insects. The fact that some animal-derived products are also the cause of considerable health damage in many regions is an important - and absent - complement to this statement.“
Rebuttal
This is true, but the scale of practical availability of these alternatives to livestock-derived foods are minimal relative to the quantities of nutrients needed. For the time being, livestock is the most scalable method to provide these quantities in most cases. However, the spirit of the Dublin Declaration would not reject any innovative solution that can provide nutrients from other sources, provided this is done at affordable prices, in sufficient quantities, and with respect for cultural sensitivities, while guaranteeing sufficient nutrient bioavailibility and (bio)safety to meet the needs of global populations, including those with elevated needs.
Criticism
Krattenmacher et al. (2024) argues that this is industry talk (“meat is healthy”) as part of the frame: “keep eating meat to be healthy”. It is claimed that “the scientific community calls for a significant decrease in meat consumption when it comes to health” based on a series of references (Springmann et al., 2020; Clark et al., 2019; Farvid et al., 2021; Grosso et al., 2022). Their contention is that “the most prevalent and globally harmful nutrient deficiencies are not due to animal product underconsumption, but due to the underconsumption of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes” (referring to Afshin et al., 2019, Springmann et al., 2020; Romanello et al., 2023) and that there are “positive effects of substitution of animal-based with plant-based foods on cardiometabolic health and total mortality” (referring to Neuenschwander et al. 2023). Even if they admit that “(predominantly) plant-based diets can lack certain nutrients”, the authors claim that this can be dealt with via adequate planning, fortification and supplementation (Koeder and Perez-Cueto, 2024).
Rebuttal
Krattenmacher et al. find it “well-established that scientific evidence is pointing toward a need to significantly reduce meat production and consumption in high-income countries”. Such a body of scientific literature indeed exists, and it does point to said 'significant reduction'. However, we strongly contest that this science is “well-established” and therefore “more accurate”, and that it would, moreover, invalidate the Declaration.
The Declaration is agnostic about future sizes of animal herds or production systems. It is also likewise agnostic about which diets humans should generally eat to stay healthy, given that there are multiple manners to achieve nourishing diets (Leroy et al. 2025) and given the fact that nutritional studies are typically of (very) low certainty (e.g., Johnston et al. 2023). Where we do believe ourselves, as the initiators of the Dublin Declaration, to be on solid ground is regarding the statement that it would be unwise to heavily restrict access to animal-sourced foods for special sociodemographic groups with elevated needs, such as children and others (Leroy et al. 2023; see also here).
The reason why the Declaration is agnostic about future sizes of the global livestock herd or ideal consumption levels of animal-sourced foods, is precisely because we as co-authors do not find the scientific debate to be settled and "well-established". For instance, when dealing with the topic of nutrition and health, in their section 1.2, Krattenmacher et al. fully ignore references to inconvenient (from their stance), yet respectable evidence, such as the results obtained from the investigation of the worldwide PURE cohort (Iqbal et al., 2021; Mente et al. 2023) or the rigorous analysis by NutriRECS, applying the gold standard for evidence-based health recommendations (GRADE) to the topic of red meat consumption (Johnston et al. 2019).
Moreover, the studies they present in support of their case are claimed to represent consensus, which is far from being the case. As an example, the EAT-Lancet report (Willet et al. 2019) has been criticized based on the fact that the nutritional composition of the proposed Planetary Health Diet is deficient in micronutrients (Young 2020; Beal et al. 2023; Nicol et al. 2023) and for not being able to deliver its promise of being protective at the level of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality compared to other diets (Zagmutt et al. 2019, 2020; Mente et al. 2023; Stanton, 2024). Many other studies have criticized the EAT-Lancet report for a variety of reasons (e.g., Burnett et al. 2019; Vanham et al. 2020; Kaiser 2021), but this is not the place to comprehensively address this problem.
We assume that Krattenmacher et al. have a different view of this – which is their right to have, but should still not detract from their scientific obligation to represent the full range of evidence. The least that can be said is, that the debate on what constitutes an optimally nourishing diet for humans and the environment is far from being settled. Moreover, it is highly problematic to create a misleading impression of a settled consensus on an issue that evidence suggests is far more complex.
Livestock and the Environment
Quote
"Farmed and herded animals are irreplaceable for maintaining a circular flow of materials in agriculture, by recycling in various ways the large amounts of inedible biomass that are generated as by-products during the production of foods for the human diet. Livestock are optimally positioned to convert these materials back into the natural cycle and simultaneously produce high-quality food. Ruminants in particular are also capable of valorising marginal lands that are not suitable for direct human food production. Furthermore, well-managed livestock systems applying agro-ecological principles can generate many other benefits, including carbon sequestration, improved soil health, biodiversity, watershed protection and the provision of important ecosystem services. While the livestock sector faces several important challenges regarding natural resources utilization and climate change that require action, one-size-fits-all agendas, such as drastic reductions of livestock numbers, could actually incur environmental problems on a large scale."
Criticism
Herzon 2024 states that this is false “because livestock is not irreplaceable to the circularity of materials: circularity in food production can be achieved and is also high in some arable or horticultural systems without livestock. In most modern agricultural systems with livestock, circularity is low due to considerable imports of feed and fertilisers at farm, country and continent levels, as well as leaching of nutrients from manure into water and air. Modelling of the circularity of production in selected EU countries confirms the necessity of reducing current levels of livestock (van Zanten et al. 2023).” While it is admitted that the argument is “true for ruminants”, Herzon 2024 adds that “for a large part of feed (around half) in the countries with modern dairy production comes from grain and concentrate. Dairy and other ruminants also utilise considerable land resources that cannot be called marginal”.
Herzon 2024 also classifies the part on ruminants as misleading because ‘marginal lands’ might “in some instances be suitable for livestock – in others there are many other uses to which it is put, and it is often such land that can be restored back to forest, wetland and other pre-agricultural land-cover.”
Rebuttal
The Dublin Declaration is not contradicting most of these statements by Herzon, while acknowledging the need for a much better integration of livestock management into circular ecosystem functioning. Significant portions of today’s agricultural practices, including livestock, are indeed not circulatory. They need to become so. On a small scale, some horticultural practices are able to achieve local circulation through methods of composting or energy recycling. However, these do not scale up significantly enough and least of all affordably. On a global scale, the currently only available proven method to close the loop is via animals.
Converting 'marginal land' to forest or other uses is often assumed as a straightforward implementation strategy in transition scenarios but proves to be much more complex in real-world settings. For a discussion on the intracacies of land use and land-use change see elsewhere.
Livestock and Socio-Economics
Quote
"For millennia, livestock farming has provided humankind with food, clothing, power, manure, employment and income as well as assets, collateral, insurance and social status. Livestock-derived foods are the most readily available source of high quality proteins and several essential nutrients for the global consumer. Livestock ownership is also the most frequent form of private ownership of assets in the world and forms the basis of rural community financial capital. In some communities, livestock is one of the few assets that women can own, and is an entry point towards gender equality. Advances in animal sciences and related technologies are currently improving livestock performance along all above mentioned dimensions of health, environment and socio-economics faster than at any time in history."
Criticism
Krattenmacher et al. (2024) argues that this is industry talk (“animal farming is tried and true”) as part of the frame: “animal farming is what humans do”.
Rebuttal
Just because Krattenmacher et al. do not seem to like what most humans do and are, it does not change the historical evidence. In a recent seminar at the University College Dublin on 27 November 2024, Richard Twine as one of the co-authors of Krattenmacher et al and as a Reader in Sociology, provided a guest lecture with the title “Crafting an Alternative Dublin Declaration”. In this lecture he makes the following revealing statement: “not surprisingly, the field [co-authors of the Dublin Declaration] pursues anthropocentric social norms".
We acknowledge that there is a large scientific area of investigation which paradigmatically rejects that the human species has primary ethical rights over nature on Planet Earth. It is probably true that most initiators, co-authors and signatories of the Dublin Declaration would not agree with this rejection – even though it is not explicitly mentioned as such in the Declaration. We find this an extraordinarily important topic, and have therefore committed several articles on ethical considerations in both Animal Frontiers special issues (2023 and 2025; e.g., Croney & Swanson 2023). Similar to other questions around livestock, we do not consider the scientific debate on this discussion to be closed.
However, we strongly reject Twine’s and Krattenmacher et al.'s suggestion that we are insensitive to the sustainability and survivability of nature on planet Earth. The last sentence of the Dublin Declaration reads that we need "to stay within the safe operating zone of planet Earth’s boundaries, the only Earth we have", and is there for good reason.
Authorship
Criticism
Krattenmacher et al (2024) argue that "the industry is institutionally involved in the DD, the Animal Frontiers Special Issue (AFSI), and the Dublin Summit. Most importantly via Animal Frontiers, the journal in which the AFSI was published, is a joint venture between four major animal production science associations, each of which is directly funded by corporations involved in animal production (Zinn, 2014; EAAP, 2023; ASAS, 2024; CSAS, 2024; AMSA, 2024). Animal Frontiers’ operations moreover are funded by sponsorship and paid advertising by the industry (Zinn, 2014). The AFSI in particular was given by the American Meat Science Association (AMSA), whose funders include meat corporations such as Cargill, JBS, and Tyson Foods (Ederer and Leroy, 2023; AMSA, 2024)."
Rebuttal
Krattenmacher et al. are spinning here a very long propagation chain of supposedly industrial institutionalized influence on the Dublin Declaration: meat production companies are sponsoring meat science associations, who are sponsoring an academic journal, in whose special issue independent scientists are authoring articles, and who then collaborate on also authoring the Declaration. And because of this long propagation chain, the Declaration would be “industry-adjacent”. Moreover – what should be wrong with industry-adjacency? Being close to the subject of study is a necessary element of scientific relevance. See rebuttal item #3.
The authors do not mention how meticulously the involved scientists are maintaining their independence. For instance, the International Summit in Dublin was hosted by the Irish State Authority Teagasc, which is the “national body providing integrated research, advisory and training services to the agriculture and food industry and rural communities”. Teagasc is a registered charity, and has the vision “to be a globally recognised leader in developing innovative science-based solutions for the sustainable transformation of our land resources into products and services for the benefit of society”.
The initiators of the 2022 Summit also organized the “International Summit on the Societal Role of Meat and Livestock – What the Scientific Evidence Says” in October 2024 in Denver, Colorado, USA. This second Summit was hosted by the Colorado State University in its CSU Spur research facilities. In both Summits, primarily globally recognized research scientists gave presentations on the scientific state-of-the-art of research on the role of livestock regarding human health and nutrition, ecology and the environment, and societal considerations. For both Summits, a corresponding special issue was published in the peer-reviewed journal Animal Frontiers (2023, 2025), with the equal aim to provide a review of the state-of-the-art of the sciences. As the Dublin Declaration followed the Dublin Summit, so was a Denver Call for Action developed by 45 leading senior scientists following the Denver Summit. Neither the Summits nor the publications in Animal Frontiers were intended as typical scientific conferences where the latest scientific research is presented within the scientific community. They were intended to present relevant, up-to-date and validated science to an invitation-only audience of practitioners from policy, industry, farming and associations in the global livestock industry.
For both Summits and both editions of Animal Frontiers, no speaker fees or publications were paid to the contributors. The members of the organization committees received no compensation for their work to make the Summits happen. Conference grants were received from Teagasc and from the US Department of Agriculture, respectively, to be able to reimburse the travel costs in economy class for international speakers, and to pay for the catering costs of the food provided during the events. For both Summits, no other sponsors were permitted to provide support, particularly not industry sponsors, despite the many offers, and no influence on the program or publications was exerted by commercial outsiders, industrial or otherwise. Invited participants paid for their own travel and accommodation costs but did not pay a participation fee to the organizers.
The organizing committee’s intention for the Summits, the Animal Frontiers issues, the Dublin Declaration and the Denver Call for Action was always declared to promote and uphold the scientific method that “Livestock systems must progress on the basis of the highest scientific standards” (first sentence of the Dublin Declaration). It was to safeguard the ability of globally renowned scientists to present their own and their peers' knowledge to practitioners without a risk to their reputation, that the organizing committee went to every conceivable length to prevent commercial or financial interference.