Tyson Foods to Halt ‘Net-Zero’ and ‘Climate-Smart Beef’ Claims: What This Means for Sustainability

Washington, D.C. — The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has settled its lawsuit against Tyson Foods, which alleged that the company falsely claimed it would achieve “net-zero by 2050” and offered “climate-smart” beef. As part of the settlement, Tyson must halt these unverified claims for five years unless they can be substantiated by an expert.

This settlement comes just after a similar agreement between the New York Attorney General’s office and JBS USA, underscoring a growing scrutiny on major beef producers. Together, Tyson and JBS account for about half of all beef consumed in the United States. These developments are crucial for consumer protection against misleading marketing by large corporations.

EWG is backed by several advocacy groups, including the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Earthjustice. “Consumers deserve transparency from corporations in our food system,” stated Caroline Leary, EWG’s General Counsel. “Corporate climate promises must be backed by real, measurable change.”

Carrie Apfel, Deputy Managing Attorney at Earthjustice, emphasized the environmental impact of industrial beef production, cautioning consumers to be wary of claims of “climate-smart” products. Large-scale beef production is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.

In fact, Tyson Foods generates greenhouse gas emissions exceeding those of entire countries like Austria or Greece. According to a recent report from the Environmental Protection Agency, methane emissions from cattle accounted for about 18% of total U.S. methane emissions in 2022. This makes combating emissions a substantial challenge.

Due to their unique digestive systems, cattle produce substantial methane with every breath. This gas is over 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. The report showed that farming practices, including fertilizer use and land development for grazing, also contribute to emissions and further environmental degradation.

Consumer demand for sustainable products is rising. The EWG lawsuit notes that many people are willing to pay extra for foods that generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions. This reflects a significant shift in consumer preferences towards more sustainable options.

Yet, Tyson’s actual investment in sustainable practices has been minimal—less than 0.1% of their annual revenue. For comparison, Tyson spends about three times more on advertising than on environmentally friendly initiatives.

In short, the settlement sends a clear message: corporations need to take genuine action to back their environmental claims. Consumers must stay informed to navigate the complexities of sustainability in the beef industry.

For more detailed information on greenhouse emissions from the livestock sector, you can refer to the United Nations report.

Source link