Everyone's talking about methane-cutting cow feed (again) – what's going on?

Global efforts to reduce or mitigate the impact of man-made climate change have been regularly challenged by reactionaries and conspiracists who see shadowy forces at work wherever they look. But in the past weeks an unexpected controversy has blown up over, of all things, the bodily emissions of cows.

As Impact Loop's Christian von Essen reported on Monday (article in Swedish), big changes in agricultural regulations in Denmark will kick in this coming year, enforcing a broad swathe of measures to make Danish farms greener. It’s the “biggest change to the Danish landscape in 100 years," according to the article.

Required to use methane-reducing feed

Of particular note is that from January 2025, Danish dairy farmers with more than 50 cows will be required to feed their stock with methane-reducing feed additives. This measure aims to reduce the methane emissions of cows, which contribute a huge chunk of global GHG emissions overall, methane being an even more potent warmer than C02.

This is big news of course for Danish farmers, but also for startups like Swedish Agteria Biotech, who make methane-reducing additives. "Our goal is to reduce the world's greenhouse gas emissions by one percent by 2035. Right now, we're obsessed with scale and speed,” CEO Martin Blomberg told Impact Loop. "It only takes 0.5 grams of our solution every day to reduce up to 70 percent of the cow's methane gas production.”

Agteria and companies like them – Gothenburg-based Volta Greentech being another one – are looking to expand across Europe, pending regulatory approval of course.

Can expect resistance

But it appears, if current social media debates are anything to go by, that they can expect a lot of resistance.

Agriculture has a lot of symbolic power in the politics of Western Europe, often representing ideals of tradition and earthy self-reliance, in contrast to the perceived disconnectedness of technocratic ‘elites’ in London, Paris or Brussels.

Add to that a decent amount of suspicion about anything that sounds like GMO or Big Pharma, as well as long-standing denials of climate change, and the ground is already well laid for scaremongering over emissions-reducing feed additives.

Social media blow-up

And indeed, that’s exactly what has happened. In the UK parts of social media have blown up in recent weeks, over a trial run by Danish-Swedish Arla Foods to introduce Bovaer – an additive made by chemicals conglomerate DSM Firmenich – with around 30 of their UK farm operators.

Bovaer has been approved by the UK’s Food Standards Agency and the National Farmers Union (the main body for agriculture in the UK) has released a statement emphasising that Bovaer "does not pose a risk to health for consumers or animals."

Still, many Brits have taken to social media showing themselves throwing out their Arla-made milk and pledging to boycott the company. One user on X (formerly Twitter) claims their local supermarket is hiding non-Bovaer milk from customers, and said they yelled out in the store "where is the healthy non Bovare (sic) additive milk please!"

Several well-known conspiracy theorists have jumped onboard as well. Gareth Icke, the son of David Icke, Britain’s most famous conspiracy theorist, claimed Bovaer is linked to male infertility. Others have pointed out that Bill Gates – long the bête noire of conspiracy theorists – is invested in a similar startup.

Similar reactions can be found on French, German and Dutch language threads on X. One French conspiracy theory-minded account with nearly 30,000 followers calls the Bovaer trial a project of "woke science" and cites Elon Musk as a source denying cattle contribute significantly to global methane emissions. (For context, the US Environmental Protection Agency cites research showing 37 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock and agriculture.)

"Your milk is now being poisoned in the name of fighting climate change," declared a German account with around 25k followers.

Critique from farming communities

Farming communities appear split as well, with forums divided between farmers who are, quite understandably, a little confused and apprehensive about potential changes to their livelihoods, while others dispute the impact of methane itself.

"Panic around the prospect of things being added to our food and drink is nothing new," explains Rachel Schraer, senior global health reporter for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. "There is a well-documented bias that ‘natural’ things are better and chemicals are innately bad."

However Schraer suggests the latest debates reflect a "new energy" in discussions in recent years. She tells Impact Loop this has emerged against a backdrop of declining trust in authorities, which has seen people "increasingly reject safe interventions like vaccines while embracing riskier trends such as raw milk."

Meanwhile the current row has been fuelled by a range of other factors, argues Schraer.

"Add into the mix a cameo by Bill Gates, legitimate public concern about additives in ultra processed foods and the fact this chemical is being given to cows that produce milk – a product associated with purity and naturalness – and you have the perfect vessel for misinformation to take off."