No, Joe Biden will not take away your hamburgers

“Why doesn’t Joe stay out of my kitchen?” asked Rep. Lauren Boebert from Colorado. For a week, conservative media outlets spread the lie that President Joe Biden wants to limit Americans to one hamburger a month as part of his climate agenda.

Charlie Neibergall/AP
President Joe Biden works the grill during the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry in Des Moines, Iowa, Sept. 21, 2019. Conservatives sought to undermine the president's ambitious environmental agenda by falsely claiming that he said Americans should cut down on red meat.

President Joe Biden spent only a weekend as the “Hamburglar” in the conservative media world.

But while the false story lasted, it moved with a damaging speed and breadth, another example of a closed ecosystem of information affecting public opinion.

An academic study published a year before Mr. Biden became president was used to speculate that he would place limits on how much red meat Americans can consume as part of his stated goal to sharply reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

It was a potentially potent, visceral argument with punchy cable TV octane, namely that Mr. Biden was trying to limit people to eating one hamburger a month – an allegation that could seriously undermine his climate change plan before he even announced it.

There was one main problem: He’s said no such thing.

Yet two days after the Daily Mail brought up the topic in a report last Thursday, Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, was tweeting, “Why doesn’t Joe stay out of my kitchen?”

The Mail’s story, by Emily Crane, was headlined “How Biden’s climate plan could limit you to eat just one burger a MONTH, cost $3.5K a year per person in taxes, force you to spend $55K on an electric car and ‘crush’ American jobs.”

Ms. Crane cited a January 2020 study by the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems, which discussed how a transition to a more plant-based diet by Americans could cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. The paper estimated the environmental impact of a 90% reduction in beef consumption.

Martin Heller, a research specialist at Michigan and one of the study’s authors, said there was no connection between the research and Mr. Biden’s plans.

“The conversation so quickly gets pushed to these extremes and I think that’s an effort at poking at people’s fears,” Mr. Heller said. “That’s the frustrating part to me – that we can’t have a conversation about how to get creative in this sort of middle space.”

The Britain-based Daily Mail defended its story while criticizing others in the media.

“President Biden has announced an extremely ambitious target for carbon emissions reduction that will have a massive effect on the American economy and way of life without giving a single detail of how he expects to achieve it,” a newspaper spokesperson said.

“Unlike the rest of the overwhelmingly White House-whipped American media, the Mail attempted to explore this gaping hole at the center of the president’s announcement,” the representative said.

In fact, Mr. Biden has discussed several initiatives to help reach his climate goals, including increasing the use of wind and solar power and slashing emissions from fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

The newspaper’s spokesperson said that “we made it very clear these were steps that MIGHT have to be taken.”

But as the story spread, the qualifiers were deemphasized or disappeared entirely.

The conservative website Gateway Pundit ran a story Friday with the headline “Biden’s climate requirements: cut 90 percent of red meat from diet; Americans can only eat one burger per month.”

The body of the story itself was less incendiary, quoting the Daily Mail and using the qualifier “could.”

While a graphic on Friday’s “Fox & Friends” talked about what will be required to meet Mr. Biden’s green targets, host Ainsley Earhardt said, “He wants to cut out 90% of the red meat that you all eat.”

Later, Fox News anchor John Roberts said: “Say goodbye to your burgers if you want to sign up for the Biden climate agenda. That’s the finding of one study.”

A graphic onscreen, with a picture of a cheeseburger, read: “Up in your grill. Biden’s climate requirements: cut 90 percent of red meat from diet, max 4 lbs. per year, one burger per month.”

The story spread rapidly on social media. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted Fox’s “Up in your grill” graphic, adding, “Not gonna happen in Texas!” Idaho Gov. Brad Little retweeted Mr. Abbott, adding, “Idahoans also have beef with this agenda and for dinner!”

It was Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene who dubbed Mr. Biden “The Hamburglar,” a reference to a character in McDonald’s commercials.

There were some 23,000 examples of terms like Mr. Biden’s climate plan, requirements, or mandates appearing together with “meat consumption” in the context of political conversations online between Thursday and Monday, according to the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs. “Red meat” also had some 59,000 mentions in political chatter.

“This is pure propaganda,” said Jennifer Grygiel, a Syracuse University communications professor who specializes in disinformation.

There is little incentive for politicians and others to check their facts before posting on popular social media platforms, and those platforms aren’t doing it for them, Ms. Grygiel said.

Once the false claim gets into people’s heads, it’s hard to dislodge. Many targets of the story are unlikely to see fact-checks, said John Cook, a research fellow at the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub.

Republicans have been frustrated in trying to find lines of attack that will stick against Mr. Biden in his first 100 days in office. Many in the conservative media world have also continued to spread lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Also this past weekend, the New York Post reported that migrant children entering the United States across the southern border were getting copies of a book from Vice President Kamala Harris in a welcome kit. The Post has since corrected the story to say there has been only one known time that a migrant child got Ms. Harris’ book.

The reporter who wrote the Post story, Laura Italiano, tweeted late Tuesday that she had resigned from the paper. She called the article “an incorrect story I was ordered to write and which I failed to push back hard against.”

On Sunday, Biden spokesman Mike Gwin posted on Twitter a photo of a smiling Mr. Biden grilling steaks at a campaign stop, and linked to a CNN fact-checker who called claims about the president proposing limits on meat consumption “completely imaginary.”

The Daily Mail on Monday updated its story on Mr. Biden’s climate control plans without saying what was done. The headline did not change, and a spokesperson said it was for “minor cosmetic reasons.”

On Fox, meanwhile, Mr. Roberts told viewers that while the network correctly presented data from the Michigan study, “a graphic and the script incorrectly implied it was part of Biden’s plan for dealing with climate change. That is not the case.”

A Fox spokeswoman on Tuesday would not discuss the network’s editorial decision-making, including whether a journalist checked with the Biden administration before reporting on the issue.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. Ali Swenson reported from Seattle. Associated Press writer Jill Colvin in Washington contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to No, Joe Biden will not take away your hamburgers
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today