{"id":25681,"date":"2025-04-22T10:42:00","date_gmt":"2025-04-22T08:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/?p=25681"},"modified":"2025-06-03T10:52:57","modified_gmt":"2025-06-03T08:52:57","slug":"defending-science-defending-complexity-the-response-to-the-criticisms-of-the-dublin-declaration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/en\/defending-science-defending-complexity-the-response-to-the-criticisms-of-the-dublin-declaration\/","title":{"rendered":"Defending science, defending complexity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Professor Pulina, one of the first signatories of the Dublin Declaration, responds to the criticisms and attacks suffered by the hundreds of scientists who, like him, signed the appeal.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am among the signatories of the<\/a> <\/a>Dublin Declaration on the Societal Role of Livestock<\/strong><\/a>, a document I signed with conviction, and which we also helped disseminate through the Carni Sostenibili<\/strong> website. The Declaration was born in 2022 from an international summit held in Dublin, and within a few months, it garnered the support of over 1,200 scientists from around the world<\/strong>. Its message, simple and precise, states that livestock animals are an integral and indispensable part of sustainable food systems<\/strong> and that farming methods must be evaluated with rigorous scientific criteria<\/strong>, not with slogans or ideologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Declaration does not promote specific production models or defend commercial interests<\/strong>. Still, it suggests that the future of livestock farming be guided by the best available experimental evidence,<\/strong> capable of valuing the contributions that animals make to humanity from nutritional, ecological, and socio-economic perspectives. The Charter also states that “livestock systems must progress based on the highest scientific standards<\/strong>” and that “sustainable livestock farming must operate within the limits of the planet, the only one we have<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently, however, the Declaration has been attacked in the pages of the journal Environmental Science and Policy by Krattenmacher et al. (2024)<\/a>, who dismissed it as an alleged tool at the service of the meat industry. A serious accusation based on “methodologically weak discursive analyses, based on a very limited number of documents and subjective codings without theoretical support.”<\/strong> This is the central thesis of the response article to the attack published by Belk et al. (2025)<\/strong><\/a>, which refutes the criticisms point by point<\/strong>, arguments with which, as a signatory of the Declaration, I completely agree, as I had the opportunity to communicate directly to the colleagues who drafted the paper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors, all signatories of the Declaration, highlight that the conclusions of Krattenmacher et al. are built on inconsistent foundations<\/strong> and denounce the risk that such an operation compromises trust in science<\/strong>, rendering it an ideological battleground. The article firmly defends the open and pluralistic approach<\/strong> of the Declaration, which embraces different scientific views and remains agnostic<\/strong> on issues such as the ideal numerical size of farms or the most appropriate model of animal production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, how alleged conflicts of interest<\/strong> are\u00a0handled is called into question, a serious accusation considering that it has been directed at over\u00a01,200 scientists<\/strong>\u00a0working in\u00a0universities and research institutions<\/strong>\u00a0worldwide<\/span>. On the one hand, Krattenmacher et al.\u00a0preface the documen<\/strong><\/span>t by emphasising the ties of the signatories with the livestock sector, all of which are in any case publicly declared (how could it be otherwise?\u00a0Those who study a productive sector must still be aware of the reference reality).<\/strong> On the other hand, they do not highlight the economic and ideological connections<\/strong> that link the main anti-farming campaigns to private foundations and well-organised pressure groups<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, Belk et al. assert the right to call things by their name<\/strong>: simplifications, reductionisms, and ideological fanaticisms<\/strong>, which unfortunately increasingly permeate public debate, represent serious and real obstacles<\/strong> to constructing sustainable solutions. And science cannot remain silent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[…]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":25679,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2558],"tags":[6580,4927,6581],"class_list":["post-25681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checking-en","tag-belk-2","tag-dublin-declaration","tag-krattenmacher-2"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t