It’s Time To Accept That There Is No Such Thing As Climate Smart Beef – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

Tyson Foods — that enormous industrial beef consortium — has found itself the object of a consumer-protection lawsuit that alleges the company was disingenuous in its communication to consumers about its efforts and progress to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. What’s at issue are claims in marketing materials like suggesting their goal of “net zero” emissions GHGs by 2050 was on target and their advertising a future where “climate smart” beef will be the norm.

What’s really clear is that there is not now and never will be climate smart beef.

While most media articles focus on the Carbon Majors and their role in driving the climate crisis, they are not the only central actors who need to be held responsible. Other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide, have shorter atmospheric lifespans than CO2 but significantly stronger warming effects. Reducing fossil fuel use without addressing other major sources of these largely neglected GHGs will not achieve necessary reductions of either near-term or long-term climate warming.

The world is in the midst of many races to avert climate catastrophe, and animal agriculture is one of the central actors. Despite its outsized emissions, animal agriculture has long escaped most litigants’ notice. But in jurisdictions around the world, the industry has begun to face serious legal challenges premised on its significant role in driving climate change.

Why are meat producers like Tyson under such scrutiny recently? The scale of humanity’s meat consumption is enormous: 360 million tons of meat every year. Researchers have found that the global livestock industry uses dwindling supplies of freshwater, destroys forests and grasslands, and causes soil erosion, while pollution and the runoff of fertilizer and animal waste create dead zones in coastal areas and smother coral reefs. There also is concern over increased antibiotic resistance, since livestock accounts for 50% of antibiotic use globally.

What does it mean to have climate smart agriculture? The World Bank defines climate smart as a “set of agricultural practices and technologies which simultaneously boost productivity, enhance resilience and reduce GHG emissions.” It:

Why can’t industrialized beef agriculture achieve climate smart status? Raising cattle produces climate-warming emissions in several ways, according to the MIT Climate Portal.

• Cattle release methane, a potent GHG, as they digest their food.
• Many farms also dispose of cow manure in large, open lagoons. As the manure breaks down, the liquid in these lagoons releases more methane.
• Beef production is a big driver of deforestation, as when forests are cut down, they release the GHG carbon dioxide (CO2).

How dominant is Tyson in the US meat marketplace? According to its website, Tyson produces about 20% of the beef, pork, and chicken in the US, as well as other foods under brands like Jimmy Dean and Hillshire Farm.

What does Tyson’s net zero emissions plan look like? The company detailed its plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 in a 2022 sustainability report. In summary, they claim they will:

• submit Science Based Target (SBT) for revalidation, including setting a Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) target for land-based emissions reductions and removals;
• establish a pathway to using 50% renewable electricity (purchased and self-generated) across domestic operations by 2030;
• reduce carbon emissions in their protein value chain by verifying sustainable beef production practices on >5 million acres of US cattle-grazing land by 2025 and conduct an updated, enterprise-wide Forest Risk Assessment;
• expand Climate-Smart Row Crop Practices, which means supporting climate smart practices on 25% of acres needed to raise grains to feed birds by 2025—with efforts to purchase 100% of feed ingredients from suppliers engaged in climate smart practices by 2030; and,
• develop Contextual Water Plans at 11 of their high-risk locations in the US by 2025, which means re-evaluating the process for managing water-related risks.

Why does the lawsuit argue that the Tyson climate smart goals are beyond reach? The lawsuit charges that the offsets to bring Tyson’s emissions to zero would be “both unfathomable and unavailable” and asks the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to bar the company from making “false or misleading marketing claims.”

What is greenwashing? As the NDRC outlines, greenwashing is the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a product or practice. It can be a way for companies to continue or expand their polluting as well as related harmful behaviors, “all while gaming the system or profiting off well-intentioned, sustainably minded consumers.”

What is an example of the alleged Tyson greenwashing? Among the examples of misleading advertising cited in the lawsuit were the launch of a Tyson brand called Brazen Beef, which was touted as creating fewer emissions.

Is Tyson under other investigations? The company has also been under investigation by the federal Labor Department, according to the New York Times, along with Perdue Farms. The allegations relate to a possible reliance on migrant children to clean slaughterhouses.

Has animal agriculture been taken to US courts in the past? Even as such litigation has moved forward in foreign courts, it has remained largely—although not entirely—untried in the US. That may now be changing, as evidenced by the New York Attorney General’s prominent consumer protection lawsuit filed against the meat giant JBS in early 2024. Emerging US climate change and animal agriculture litigation is increasing its momentum in the future.

Why has animal agriculture flown under climate litigation radars so frequently? Given the magnitude of US animal agriculture’s externalized harms, it seems a bit off that animal agriculture hasn’t received the notoriety that the fossil fuel industry has. Bray and Poston in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law explain that, even though the mechanisms by which animal agriculture emits GHGs have long been understood, some lawyers may perceive those pathways as more difficult to explain as factual than those of fossil fuels. At the same time, the cultural meaning ascribed to animal agriculture and its products makes challenges to the industry fraught. Add to that some environmental groups may be wary of alienating either courts or the public with what might be seen as a too-close-to-home condemnation of personal dietary choices.