Tyson Sued Over Climate-Smart Beef

OMAHA (DTN) -- Environmental Working Group is challenging claims by Tyson Foods that certain beef products have climate-smart benefits, accusing Tyson of "greenwashing" its environmental claims.

EWG filed a civil lawsuit Wednesday against Tyson in the District of Columbia, alleging "on behalf of consumers in the District of Columbia," that Tyson is making false claims under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

Citing that consumers want to buy food that is more environmentally friendly, EWG stated Tyson is taking advantage of these preferences. "Tyson knowingly capitalizes on these well-intentioned preferences in advertising in numerous outlets a pledge to achieve 'net-zero' climate emissions by 2050 and marketing 'climate-smart' beef," the lawsuit alleged.

EWG contended that Tyson "produces tremendous volumes of climate-warming emissions at every state of its industrial meat production process." Despite Tyson's claims of lowering its carbon footprint, EWG stated Tyson "has no plans to achieve these goals and is taking no meaningful steps to do so."

Tyson Foods declined to comment on specific litigation, but a spokesperson sent a statement to DTN defending the company's environmental practices. "Tyson Foods has a long history of sustainable practices that embrace good stewardship of our environmental resources. We will continue to support agricultural practices that further these efforts and work to strengthen the overall resiliency of the U.S. agriculture system."

EWG's suit is backed by other environmental and animal-rights groups -- Animal Legal Defense Fund, Earthjustice, FarmSTAND and Edelson PC. The groups issued a joint statement, "Our lawsuit aims to hold Tyson accountable for misleading consumers about the true nature of its products and their environmental costs. A court order stopping Tyson's harmful conduct would represent a turning point in the fight to hold the biggest, most powerful contributors to the climate crisis -- across industries -- accountable for greenwashing."

While suing Tyson, the lawsuit also takes a jab at USDA's efforts to require companies to require more evidence to back up their environmental claims. The Food Safety and Inspection Service issued new guidance last month to companies to provide more evidence about claims such as "climate-friendly" as well as labels such raised without antibiotics. Environmental groups criticized USDA for allowing meatpackers to use labels suggesting beef products were "climate smart" or "climate friendly."

On a call with reporters, Caroline Leary, general counsel at EWG, said the group doesn't have plans to sue USDA, "However, it's something that will continue to remain on the table as we try to make sure that the claims these companies are used on their meat are responsible, accurate and truthful." Leary also added EWG is waiting for USDA to respond to a records request over documentation about climate-smart claims, including Tyson's.

USDA used $3.1 billion from the Commodity Credit Corp. (CCC) for the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities that is focused on investing in on-farm practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon. The argument behind the grants is that producers and companies would then gain premiums or markets by promoting that their products come from farms using climate-smart practices.

Tyson Foods was part of a $62 million grant two years ago under the USDA program along with 22 other business partners to provide incentive payments and technical assistance to help livestock producers to lower their emissions along with invest funds to measure, monitor, report and validate emission goals. Tyson contributed $42 million to the effort and the entire project was projected at $152 million. The grant had a five-year mission to reduce 1.9 million metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions over 6 million acres.

When the grant was announced, John R. Tyson, the company's chief sustainability officer, stated, "We expect through the effort to put nearly $100 million back into the pockets of the farmers and ranchers within Tyson's value chain. The program as planned will also introduce an innovative platform to enhance transparency of sustainability data and greenhouse gas emissions across the beef value chain -- critical to ensure the credibility of the outcomes being generated by the program participants."

EWG stated in its lawsuit that Tyson producers 20% of the country's beef, chicken and pork, and the company's greenhouse gas emissions are more than the entire emissions of countries such as Austria or Belgium. And EWG stated 85% of the companies emissions come from beef, citing a study from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in 2022.

With such high emissions, EWG said in its complaint Tyson has increasingly focused on promoting that the company will achieve "net-zero emissions" by 2050. Citing advertisements and statements, EWG stated Tyson doesn't know the full extent of its emissions and has never quantified them to the public. Tyson also has not provided details or actions to reduce emissions.
"Tyson's net zero by 2050 claims are thus deceptive," the EWG complaint stated.

Tyson began promoting the Brazen Beef brand more than a year ago. To qualify, cattle must have "documented 10% reduced greenhouse gases from pasture to production compares with cattle produced through conventional methods."

On its website, Tyson stated, "We're committed to tracking and addressing cradle-to-gate GHG emission to reach a 30% reduction goal by 2030."

But EWG argues that with no program to aggressively lower emissions, Tyson is using unsubstantiated claims in its marketing.

The lawsuit against Tyson follows a similar lawsuit brought by New York officials against JBS about its greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2024 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.