“Climate-smart” beef? After a trial, Tyson agreed to drop the label.

Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket – and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of agricultural emissions come from raising cows on factory farms to sell burgers, steaks and other beef products. Beef production generates two and a half times more greenhouse gas like lamb, and almost nine times more than chicken or fish; its carbon footprint compared to other protein sources, like cheese, eggs and tofu, is even higher.

If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you can try eating less beef. (Try it!) Alternatively, a series of recent lawsuits aim to make it easier for consumers to discern what is sustainable and what is greenwashing by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messages.

Tyson, which produces 20% of U.S. beef, chicken and pork, agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to reach “net zero emissions” by 2050 and stop calling beef products “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.

Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit organization dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (The nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the lawsuit.

“We landed in a place that seems satisfactory in terms of what we were able to get out of the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, an assistant attorney with Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Agriculture Program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case.

According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, for the next five years, Tyson will not be able to repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 or develop new ones, unless they are verified by a third-party source. Likewise, Tyson also cannot market or sell beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States.

“We believe this provides consumers with the protection that we were seeking in the lawsuit,” Apfel said.

The settlement is “a crucial victory in the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, a climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.

In the initial complaint filed in Washington Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson never even defined “climate-smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Tyson and EWG must now come together to agree on a third-party expert who would independently verify any future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims from the meat processor.

After the settlement, Apfel went further in a conversation with Grist, saying the term “climate smart” has nothing to do with describing beef from an industrial food system.

“In the context of industrial beef production, this is an oxymoron,” the lawyer said. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the most emitting type of food there is. Even if you reduced its emissions by 10 percent, or even 30 percent, it still won’t be a climate-smart choice.”

A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-standing core value of serving as stewards of the land, animals and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing on the part of Tyson Foods. »

The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint – this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers by claiming it would reach net zero emissions by 2040.

James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef giant earlier this month. As a result of the agreement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe achieving net zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or goal than a concrete plan or commitment by the company.

Both deals highlight how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.

“Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely managed to fly under the radar in the face of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agri-food companies share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impacts are not standardized.

This leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” Yow said. She recently authored a report ranking the world’s 14 largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments, including their efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score among the 14 companies.

Factory farming “has built its business model on secrecy,” Valerie Baron, director of national policy and senior counsel at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron stressed that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step in holding them accountable.

You accepted. She argued that upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union could pave the way for policy efforts to measure and control emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision-making with policymakers,” she said.

But she added: “We actually have to know what we’re talking about before we can address some of these things. »

Editor’s note: Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council are Grist advertisers. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.