Mario Batali, the famed ex-“Iron Chef” and restaurateur, has turned his coat and joined up with the radical environmental fringe. Batali now publicly endorses the Meatless Monday campaign and applies this philosophy to his restaurants.


What’s wrong with going meatless once a week? It sounds like eating in moderation. But the backers of the Meatless Monday campaign have a broader agenda behind the façade of health. 


Back in 2003 my staff discovered that the Meatless Monday campaign has its origins with Helaine Lerner, a New York socialite who has ties to plenty of animal-rights, anti-meat and “sustainable” agriculture propaganda.


In 2000 a Lerner fund gave $546,000 to Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future, a program that targets modern farming methods in the name of the environment. 


Lerner, her fund and a foundation she backs have also given millions to a group called Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, whose website now redirects to Food & Water Watch, which, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is yet another group attacking modern livestock farming, biotechnology and energy projects. 


It should be obvious that with money and a little media savvy, a Trojan-horse campaign with its basis in the fringe can transform a loony idea into one that infiltrates mainstream thought.


It’s no surprise the people behind eliminating meat consumption one day a week are the same folks who want to eliminate meat seven days a week. But the Meatless Monday campaign also has attracted chefs like Batali, celebrities like Jessica Simpson, organizations like AARP and companies like Toyota. 


The biggest problem with a campaign like this is that it legitimizes activist propaganda that people might otherwise reject. In the case of Meatless Monday, the underlying assumption is that meat is bad for your health and the environment.


That’s not to say it’s any more factual or credible. According to Environmental Protection Agency data, animal agriculture is responsible for less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Livestock farming in the United States is more efficient than elsewhere around the globe. A University of California-Davis expert has determined that America’s beef production in 2008 needed 37 million fewer cattle to produce the same amount of meat as in 1975 — meaning less waste is produced and less feed is needed.


Additionally, there’s no credible scientific evidence that meat causes cancer — the wealth of research examining the link is contradictory and frequently finds insignificant effects, if any. 


But the campaign has the shiny veneer of a trend, which gets moderate folks onboard when they would probably never otherwise team up with PETA, the Humane Society of the United States or other fringe groups.


The larger problem here is that you never know when one of these campaigns will take off. Tracking new activist-driven campaigns is akin to watching an arsonist with a tank full of gas and a book of wet matches. Do you want to wait around to see if they’re all too damp to light? Or do you want to remove the threat before it can become a reality? 


The ActivistCash.com project, which my organization created, helps expose radical activist groups in the food and beverage area. Our HumaneWatch.org project keeps tabs on the Humane Society of the United States, a PETA-like group posing as a mainstream animal-welfare group.


Educate yourself. All it takes is one dry match to start the fire. 

Editor's note: The following column is from Richard Berman, president of Berman & Co., a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Nation's Restaurant News.