The claim isn’t false, it is used to highlight the mess that is the conversation. It is very clear that the data used for LCAs is based on flawed input parameters. It is not our job to try and fix the mess it caused, it is our job to get people to question it. The EPA you quote relied on self-assessed data and that data made it into the LCA calculations, in most cases. Sadly, therefore, the status of cattle in the methane argument needs to be reassessed and the conversation itself needs to focus on all pillars of sustainability; such as biodiversity, food sovereignty, water, air quality and which food systems actually have the potential to heal our planet. We agree completely that there is confirmation bias in the conversation because people are looking at science to “prove them right.” We prefer science to be an informational tool or a validator but science is only as good as the data it relies on. I would hope you could agree when data is inaccurate the entire premise needs to be questioned.