Original article (in Croatian) was published on 16/4/2025; Author: Patris Pustina
A disinformation campaign has spread online claiming that there is a supposed ban on growing your own food and consuming meat as part of the fight against climate change. This is actually a compilation of various false claims that have been circulating on social media for years.
A Facebook post (archived here), published on the page “Hrvatski krski pasnjaci”, claims that “the WEF is calling for a ban on homegrown food due to ‘climate change’”.
A screenshot of the post, which at the time of writing had gathered 597 reactions, 189 comments, and 400 shares, is shown below.
The post is actually taken from an article on the web portal Epoha (archived here), and it has spread among other Facebook users (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Although Epoha has already written about these topics, and Faktograf has checked them, they have once again published an article with similar claims. This time, the content was taken from the web portal Slay News, which published three similar articles on the topic (1, 2, 3). Slay News describes itself as an “alternative” and independent media outlet focused on truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas. A significant part of their content consists of disinformation taken from social networks, just like on the web portal Epoha.
The article and post present three older claims that Epoha has previously published, relating to food and meat production, growing food for personal use, and restricting meat consumption.
We will address each of them, with an emphasis on food consumption and production.
First claim: The WEF wants to ban growing your own food due to alleged climate impact
In the article found on the web portal Epoha, from which the Facebook posts originated, it is stated that the World Economic Forum (WEF) “is increasingly aiming to ban the general public from growing their own food at home, claiming that this causes ‘climate change’”.
The basis for this claim is a study that Epoha claims was funded by the WEF, in which “researchers allegedly discovered that the ‘carbon footprint’ of homegrown food ‘is destroying the planet’”.
We have already written about this topic on Faktograf, and other fact-checking web portals have also covered it (Snopes, Logically Facts, AFP Fact Check).
An international study conducted by the University of Michigan, which compares the carbon footprint of urban and traditional agriculture, was indeed carried out. The results of the study show that fruits and vegetables grown on urban farms and in gardens emit, on average, a carbon footprint six times greater than conventionally grown products.
However, it should also be emphasized that the research found that using certain techniques can result in crops grown in cities having the same or even lower carbon footprint than conventional farming practices. For illustration, tomatoes grown in open urban soil plots had a lower carbon footprint compared to those grown in traditional greenhouses. On the other hand, the contrast in carbon emissions between conventional and urban agriculture did not exist for crops transported by air, such as asparagus.
“The exceptions identified by our study suggest that those practicing urban agriculture can reduce their climate impact by growing crops that are typically grown in greenhouses or transported by air, with changes in site design and management”, said study co-author Jason Hawes.
How to ensure urban agriculture benefits the climate
As Hawes emphasizes, the researchers focused their work on ways to ensure that urban agriculture benefits the climate, as well as the people and places where it occurs.
Despite strong evidence of the social and nutritional benefits of urban agriculture, its carbon footprint is still under-researched, which was the intention behind the study conducted at the University of Michigan. The researchers used data from 73 urban farms and gardens in five countries. It is the largest published study comparing the carbon footprint of urban and conventional agriculture.
It is important to note that the authors of the study, in no part of it, advocate for banning the production of homegrown food due to global warming. On the contrary, much of the research explains how to reduce the carbon footprint of such food production and highlights the other benefits these practices bring to the population.
Also, the study was not funded by the WEF. The World Economic Forum spokesperson Yann Zopf confirmed to the fact-checking web portal Factly that this non-governmental organization has never advocated banning the production of homegrown food, nor did it fund the study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan.
This was also confirmed this year when the WEF was contacted by fact-checkers writing about the topic in March. The WEF told AFP that they had no involvement in the research and have never encouraged countries to ban growing their own food.
Second claim: 14 major U.S. cities will ban meat and dairy products by 2030
The second claim presented in Epoha’s article is that 14 U.S. cities, which formed a coalition called the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group” (C40), have set as one of their goals the banning of meat and dairy products by 2030.
“American cities have formed a coalition called the ‘C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group’ (C40), which has set an ‘ambitious goal’ to achieve the WEF’s targets by 2030. To meet the ‘goal,’ C40 cities have committed that their residents will follow this list of mandatory rules:
0 kg [consumption of] meat
0 kg [consumption of] dairy products
3 new clothing items per person per year
0 private vehicles owned
1 short round-trip flight (less than 1,500 km) every 3 years per person”, writes Epoha.
This is an old piece of disinformation that has been circulating the internet since 2023, which we have written about, as have other web portals (Reuters, DW, AFP).
As we have already written, the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group was founded in 2005 when then-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone brought together representatives from 18 cities to agree on a joint effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the years, the initiative has grown and now includes nearly 100 cities, and the list of participating cities can be found on the organization’s website. C40 supports mayors in raising their climate ambitions, encouraging innovation, implementing climate policies, sharing best practices, and advocating for funding for green jobs and projects that improve cities’ resilience to climate change.
On the C40 initiative’s website, there is a post titled “Establishing sustainable diet by 2030 is key to addressing the climate crisis”, which states that in cities, food is among the largest sources of carbon emissions based on consumption. However, what is proposed in that post is not a ban on meat but the implementation of policies that will encourage citizens to consume less meat (and less food in general, given that obesity is also a major issue among modern urban populations). This also includes policies aimed at reducing the amount of food that ends up as waste.
It should also be emphasized that the recommendations of the C40 initiative carry no legal weight, so Epoha’s claim that cities plan to ban meat by 2030 is unfounded.
The future of urban consumption
A report titled “The Future of Urban Consumption in a 1.5°C World” was published in 2019. It is a document resulting from collaboration between C40, the University of Leeds, and the consulting firm Arup.
It outlines some of the options for reducing emissions in six key consumption categories: food, buildings and infrastructure, private vehicles, aviation, clothing and textiles, and electronics and household appliances. It also highlights the need to change production patterns and consumer habits.
The document includes both “progressive” and “ambitious” targets for 2030. It is true that as an “ambitious goal” for 2030, it lists annual meat consumption of 0 kg. The “progressive goal” lists a quantity of 16 kg.
“This report does not advocate comprehensive adoption of more ambitious targets in C40 cities; they are provided to offer a set of reference points for cities and other actors to consider when exploring various alternatives for reducing emissions and long-term urban visions”, the document states.
“No C40 mayor has agreed to force people to eliminate meat consumption”
A spokesperson for the C40 initiative also addressed the incorrect interpretations of this document. He told Lead Stories that the report is an analysis of consumption-based emissions in cities, not a plan that cities are required to adopt or a legally binding agreement.
“It is up to individuals to choose their lifestyle, including the type of food they eat and the kind of clothing they prefer. No C40 mayor has agreed to force people to eliminate the consumption of meat and dairy products or to otherwise severely restrict the consumption of these products”, he said.
Likewise, in March 2023, the initiative published a text on its website clearly stating that it is “an analysis, not a plan”. “To successfully transition to a lower-carbon economy, cities must balance their ambitions with what is financially, technologically, and culturally feasible. No city or nation will follow exactly the same path to emissions reduction”, the website states.
They also state that the analysis is “an invitation, not a prescription”. “We explored the factors that influence consumer choices and how cities and the business sector can help reduce emissions associated with the products and services we use. We concluded that mayors are in a position to bring together the business sector, civil society, national governments, and consumers to push for changes in urban consumption models that reduce emissions and improve quality of life”, the C40 website states.
Third claim: Lawsuit against the world’s largest beef producer
The third and final claim refers to a lawsuit that New York Attorney General Letitia James filed against meat producer JBS Group:
“New York Attorney General Letitia James advanced this agenda by filing a lawsuit against the world’s largest beef producer”, as reported by Slay News.
“NY AG James is suing JBS USA over claims that the company failed to deliver on its so-called ‘Net Zero’ promise. In her statement, James condemned the agriculture industry and claimed that beef production has the largest ‘greenhouse gas footprint’ of any major food commodity”, writes Epoha.
It is true that in April last year, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a lawsuit against JBS Group, the world’s largest meat producer, for misleading consumers about how committed they are to meeting their climate goals. This was also reported by numerous international media outlets (Guardian, NPR, Mongabay).
“JBS Group and JBS USA engaged in greenwashing and deceptive statements, profiting from the growing desire of consumers to make environmentally friendly choices”, the Attorney General’s office said in a statement.
The lawsuit mentions numerous instances where the group’s public statements did not match what was happening behind closed doors. On their website and in advertisements, the company boasted about reaching net-zero carbon emissions, while simultaneously planning to expand production.
They also promoted themselves as reducing carbon emissions and promised a 30% reduction by 2030.
“While many families face the impacts of the climate crisis every day, they are willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products that are better for the environment. When companies falsely advertise their sustainability commitments, they deceive consumers and endanger the planet”, James’ statement reveals.
So, it is true that the New York Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the world’s largest meat producer, but the lawsuit is about misleading claims regarding climate goals, not about banning beef production. The goal of the lawsuit is to penalize the company for deceiving consumers, not to prohibit the consumption of meat.
In conclusion, the web portal Epoha published a misleading article containing numerous claims related to food production and the reduction of meat consumption. These claims subsequently spread on the social media platform Facebook. It is not true that the WEF wants to ban the cultivation of one’s own food due to the alleged climate footprint. It is also not true that 14 major American cities will ban meat and dairy products by 2030. The lawsuit filed by the New York State Attorney General against the JBS group has nothing to do with banning the consumption of meat and dairy products but rather concerns misleading claims and greenwashing by JBS regarding the fulfillment of climate goals.
