Scientific rebuttals and responses are an important part of the research process. They provide corrections, clarifications, and critiques of contested claims. This category highlights rebuttals to non-scientific narratives and to research that has been misrepresented.
The Real Food Research Hub gathers peer-reviewed rebuttals and authoritative responses that strengthen the evidence base in food and agriculture debates.
Keywords: rebuttals, contested claims, corrections, food science, research integrity.
Economic importance of animal agriculture
Animal agriculture underpins economies at global, national, and local levels...
Cultural and community considerations
Livestock is embedded in culture, identity, and community life..
Global food security
Livestock contributes to global food security by providing nutrient-rich foods and supporting diverse farming systems...
Societal modelling and data
Modelling helps predict social, economic, and health impacts of food systems...
Animal ethics and welfare
Ethical considerations and welfare standards shape how societies view and manage livestock...
Conflicted parties
Food debates often involve groups with vested interests, from industry advocates to activist organisations...
Rebuttals
Scientific rebuttals and responses are an important part of the research process...
Emerging food technologies often bring with them networks of supporters — “satellites” — including companies, investors, and advocacy groups. Research explores how these parties influence narratives around synthetic, alternative, or disruptive foods.
Within the Real Food Research Hub, this category curates credible research and analyses of the players supporting disruptive food systems.
Not all sources cited in food debates are scientific. Some are opinion-based, advocacy-driven, or produced without peer review. This category highlights and contextualises such materials to show how they differ from peer-reviewed evidence.
The Real Food Research Hub presents credible evaluations and responses to non-scientific papers influencing food debates.
Keywords: non-scientific papers, advocacy, opinion, food debates, research quality.
In addition to peer-reviewed science, food and agriculture are often shaped by contested viewpoints, advocacy claims, and non-scientific narratives. This section highlights how these
perspectives emerge, who promotes them, and how they interact with public understanding of food systems.
The Real Food Research Hub curates credible analyses and responses that critically examine alternative narratives, providing context and clarity around competing claims.
Keywords: alternative narratives, food debates, misinformation, advocacy, contested science.
