Tyson and JBS Agree to Stop “Net-Zero” and “Climate-Smart” Greenwashing

 

Photo by iStock/RiverNorthPhotography

Dominant meat corporations Tyson Foods and JBS recently agreed to stop making misleading climate action claims after environmental organizations and the New York Attorney General sued them for false advertising. These legal victories protect consumers who are willing to pay more for sustainable products and level the playing field for competing meat producers with more genuine environmental claims. 

Industrial meat and dairy production produces dangerous levels of climate-warming gases and globally represents between 12% and 19% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation to create ranchland releases carbon, cattle belch methane as part of their digestion, and manure lagoons created by confined animal feed operations emit potent greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide.

By far the largest drivers of meat-related climate pollution are large corporations sourcing and processing meat, especially beef, for high-income countries. A recent paper estimated that 83% of global meat production and 77% of global meat consumption occur in high and upper-middle income countries, compared to just 2% of production and consumption in low-income countries. Another analysis of 45 global meat and dairy corporations found that the top five – JBS, Tyson, Cargill, Marfrig, and Minerva – were responsible for nearly half of the group’s greenhouse gas emissions. JBS’s estimated global greenhouse gas emissions exceed those of Colombia or Ukraine. JBS and Tyson alone process about half of the beef consumed in the United States.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and GRAIN estimate that if the meat and dairy industries continue to grow at their current rate, by 2050, large livestock companies will account for 81% of the maximum permitted global greenhouse gas emissions needed to stay under the UN’s recommended 1.5°C warming threshold.

Meat companies insist that they can address the significant greenhouse gas emissions in their supply chains while expanding meat production. The world’s largest meat company, JBS, promised to achieve a “net-zero” climate impact by 2040, and Tyson Foods committed to reach net-zero by 2050. Tyson also launched a line of “climate-smart” beef that claimed to generate 10% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than “conventional” beef.

Consumers might reasonably expect that Tyson and JBS put together a detailed plan on how they’d achieve their bold net-zero pledges before announcing them. But investigations revealed that JBS and Tyson widely publicized their net-zero commitments before either had even calculated their cumulative supply chain emissions.

Tyson and JBS eventually put out some details about their plans, but analyses of the proposals by environmental organizations questioned their ability to achieve a net-zero climate impact. Likewise, Tyson provided no public information on the baseline it used to make the 10% emissions reduction claim for its “climate-smart” products, and researchers doubt that Tyson could reliably measure an emissions change this small.

Many consumers care about climate change and are willing to pay more for products that claim to have a lower carbon footprint. When corporations like Tyson and JBS can make unsubstantiated claims that their products will have no climate impact, on net, in a few short decades, it gives skeptical consumers permission to keep buying their products in large volumes.

This not only delays climate action and dietary change in wealthy countries, it gives already dominant meat corporations another unfair advantage. There are some ways to raise livestock that generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions on net: managed grazing can sequester carbon in soils (though scientists aren’t sure how much), raising livestock among carbon-sequestering trees and shrubs is even better, and raising fewer animals on pasture as opposed to in confinement can avoid creating manure lagoons that release methane and nitrous oxide. It costs farmers more to raise animals this way and these practices take up more land.  

“Smaller operations can’t compete against these big giants who are putting out massive marketing and making these claims and stealing the consumers who care about these issues,” says Carrie Apfel, an attorney for Earthjustice, which brought the suit against Tyson.

To protect consumers and level the playing field, Earthjustice represented the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in bringing a complaint against JBS for misleading consumers to the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau. After an investigation, NAD determined that JBS’s net-zero by 2040 claim was indeed unsubstantiated and misleading and recommended that the company stop making that claim in 2023.

The New York Attorney General followed up with a lawsuit in February 2024 alleging that JBS failed to adequately respond to the NAD’s recommendations and further misled New Yorkers. In November 2025, JBS agreed to refer to its net-zero by 2040 claim as a “goal” and not a “pledge” or “commitment.” JBS will also pay the state of New York $1.1 million to fund science-based greenhouse gas reduction initiatives on New York farms. JBS asserts that it has taken significant steps towards reaching its net-zero goal.

Earthjustice, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Edelson PC, and FarmSTAND represented the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in bringing similar charges against Tyson Foods. EWG alleged that Tyson did not provide enough evidence to back up its net-zero pledge or claim that its products were “climate-smart.”

Roughly two weeks after JBS settled with New York, Tyson also settled with EWG. Tyson agreed to stop making “climate-smart” or “net-zero by 2050” claims about its beef products for five years, unless an independent expert concludes they are sufficiently supported. Tyson still denies any allegations that its climate claims are misleading and notes that it has invested over $65 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its beef supply chain.

 These settlements are an important step forward to hold meat corporations accountable and could mark a turn for other climate-related false advertising claims. Nonetheless, meat corporations still do not face any meaningful reporting requirements or binding limits on their greenhouse gas emissions.

What We’re Reading

  • In other legal settlement news, Tyson agreed to pay $82.5 million to settle another beef price-fixing lawsuit. Tyson paid out $55 million for a related charge late last year, as well as $85 million to settle allegations it colluded with competitors to raise pork prices. (Reuters)

 
Enforcement, Poultry & LivestockClaire KellowayPrimary Feature, JBS, Tyson, climate change