Canceling unsubstantiated climate-smart claims should start with Tyson Foods

Tyson Foods’ claim that it could reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 through “climate-smart beef” is laughable. The brass at Tyson unveiled its magical greenhouse gas-canceling Brazen Beef at the 2023 Annual Meal Conference in Dallas. Tyson told anyone willing to listen that Brazen Beef produces 10% less greenhouse gas emissions from pasture to production when compared to traditionally produced cattle.

Which is a pretty neat trick. Tyson won’t disclose just exactly how that happens, citing a need to keep it a company secret from rivals.

Kent Harrison, Tyson vice president of fresh meat marketing and premium programs, says, “the science behind it is pretty complex and there are a number of ‘nodes’ that feed into the data, including cow/calf climate-friendly practices at the ranch, at the feedlot and at row crops we source for the feedlot and supplemental feed.”

Nodes? Well that’s a head scratcher. Livestock production is the world’s largest source of agricultural methane. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates just one cow emits as much as 264 pounds of methane a year. What in the world are nodes that feed into data?

HEATED, a climate accountability newsletter, tried to understand Tyson’s groundbreaking node process, but came away unimpressed.

You wouldn’t be wrong to conclude the words cattle and climate smart should never appear together in the same sentence.

The Environmental Working Group came to the same conclusion and took Tyson to court in 2024, suggesting Tyson’s goal is less about reducing its greenhouse gas footprint and more about deceiving consumers into believing the malarkey:

“Given the enormous scale of Tyson’s GHG emissions, achieving these net-zero emissions and ‘climate-smart’ beef commitments would require radical changes to the company’s production systems and products. Yet there is no credible evidence that Tyson intends to significantly innovate, alter, or diversify its current activities to achieve its ‘net zero’ goal or produce truly ‘climate-smart’ beef, even if such a radical shift in Tyson’s business model were possible.

There’s a name for that. Greenwashing.

Naturally Tyson tried to get the case tossed out of court. But in February of this year, Judge Julie H. Becker, of Superior Court of the District of Columbia Civil Division, found Tyson’s arguments non-persuasive.

Tyson argued that its aspirational goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 gives the company plenty of time to figure things out. The court begs to differ:

“In determining whether Tyson’s net-zero representations are misleading, the question is not how soon Tyson proposes to accomplish its goal, but whether the company is taking realistic steps to meet whatever benchmark — 2025, 2050, or some other date — it has advertised to consumers… Of course, it is possible that some unforeseeable technology will come about and enable Tyson to meet its stated goal. However, EWG has plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer, when ‘hearing a Net Zero by 2050 pledge’,[would] expect such a promise to be backed up by a realistic plan … with current technology.”

Tyson also claimed its use of climate-smart beef statements are nothing more than industry lingo “to describe agricultural and supply chain practices aimed at reducing — although not eliminating — climate impacts.”

Becker didn’t think much of that argument, ruling “…Tyson’s representations concerning its first-of-its-kind Climate Smart Beef Program suggest it is not referencing a generalized industry term, but rather, Tyson’s specific approach to producing beef in an environmentally friendly fashion.”

Tyson also tried to get the lawsuit dismissed on First Amendment grounds, saying its claims enjoy free speech protection. But Becker found Tyson’s net-zero and climate-smart beef statements clearly commercial speech, and as such, while protected, must not be misleading.

Becker cautioned that if EWG is successful in the case, her ruling will follow established Constitutional case law to protect Tyson’s First Amendment rights.

EWG claims that Tyson’s minimal steps to achieve its net-zero goal fall far short of what is necessary to reach the target by 2050. While a trial date has yet to be set, I imagine Tyson isn’t keen to proceed given that it has pulled Brazen Beef off its website,

The bottom line is if food companies are going to tell consumers their wares are better for the climate, they need to show us the proof. Should Tyson lose, hopefully it sends that message to other companies wishing to jump onto the climate-smart bandwagon.