Campaigners are urging the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) to reconsider its taxpayer-funded “Eat Balanced” campaign, which promotes the inclusion of meat and dairy in diets. Critics argue that the campaign offers a narrow and potentially misleading narrative about healthy eating, raising questions about whether public funds should be used to back such industry-specific messaging.

The “Eat Balanced” initiative, launched by the AHDB, aims to reassure consumers about the nutritional benefits of meat and dairy, claiming that these products are essential parts of a healthy diet. But this message is facing mounting criticism from food system advocates who argue it disregards mounting evidence about the health and environmental impacts of these industries.

Who’s Behind the Campaign?

The AHDB is a government body funded by a levy on UK farmers, growers, and processors in the agriculture industry. While this means its purpose is to promote the interests of the industry, critics say its campaigns should not be framed as public health initiatives. Campaigners are concerned that public money is being used to promote industries that contribute significantly to climate change, biodiversity loss, and rising rates of chronic disease.

According to the AHDB, the “Eat Balanced” campaign was developed to combat misinformation about meat and dairy in the media. The ads emphasize the role of red meat as a source of iron and dairy as a source of calcium, nutrients that are important for health. But these messages are seen as oversimplifications by critics who point to evidence that plant-based foods can provide these same nutrients without the associated health risks, such as saturated fat intake or links to certain chronic diseases.

What’s the Problem?

1. Health Concerns:

While meat and dairy do provide nutrients like protein, calcium, and iron, many health experts argue that they also come with risks. Research from organizations like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and NutritionFacts.org highlights that excessive consumption of animal products is associated with increased risks of heart disease, certain cancers, and type 2 diabetes. For instance, studies have shown that plant-based sources of iron (like beans, lentils, and leafy greens) and calcium (like fortified plant milks and tofu) can meet nutritional needs without these risks.

2. Environmental Costs:

The livestock sector is a leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for an estimated 14.5% of global emissions, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Campaigners argue that promoting meat and dairy consumption undermines efforts to encourage dietary shifts that reduce climate impacts. A recent study published in The Lancet Planetary Health highlighted that diets lower in animal products are associated with significantly lower carbon footprints.

3. Use of Public Funds:

A key point of contention is the use of taxpayer money to promote an industry that critics say should instead be addressing its environmental and health impacts. Campaigners argue that instead of promoting meat and dairy consumption, these funds could be used to support sustainable farming practices or to raise awareness about climate-friendly, plant-based dietary options.

What Campaigners Are Saying

Groups like the Plant-Based Food Alliance and food system advocates have expressed concerns about the AHDB’s messaging. They argue that “Eat Balanced” fails to reflect the growing consensus among scientists and public health experts that reducing meat and dairy consumption is better for both human health and the planet.

In a statement to The Grocer, campaigners suggested the AHDB shift its focus toward supporting farmers in transitioning to more sustainable agricultural practices and diversify its messaging to include plant-based foods. They emphasize that such a move would align better with the UK’s net-zero commitments and the need for more sustainable food systems.

What’s Next?

The debate over the “Eat Balanced” campaign comes at a critical time, as governments worldwide face mounting pressure to address the interconnected crises of climate change, public health, and food security. Critics believe this moment offers an opportunity to reimagine how public funds are used to support dietary education and agricultural policy.

Campaigners are calling on the UK government and the AHDB to:

  • Reallocate taxpayer money to promote dietary diversity, including more plant-based foods.
  • Support farmers in transitioning to sustainable, climate-resilient agricultural practices.
  • Align public health campaigns with evidence-based dietary guidelines that address health, environmental, and ethical concerns.

The Bottom Line

As the discussion around the AHDB’s “Eat Balanced” campaign continues, it raises important questions about the role of publicly funded organizations in shaping consumer behavior. Should government-backed bodies promote industries with known environmental and health impacts? Or should public funds be used to encourage dietary habits that prioritize the well-being of both people and the planet?

The conversation isn’t just about this one campaign—it’s about the bigger picture of how we, as a society, invest in our food systems. One thing is clear: the choices we make today will shape the future of food for generations to come.

‍