����TV

98% greenwashing: Big Meat follows in Big Oil’s footsteps

In 2024, two major meat companies, , faced unprecedented legal scrutiny over unsubstantiated claims each made about cutting their climate impacts — in other words, they were . JBS was sued by New York’s attorney general over deceptive marketing for its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2040. The company had only documented plans to increase production, which would increase its carbon footprint, not decrease it. The case resulted in a , and JBS had to revise language around its climate commitments — though the company did not admit any fault.

Similarly, Tyson was sued by the Environmental Working Group over its promise to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, in addition to its so-called . Tyson’s net-zero commitment and climate-friendly beef claims could not be substantiated. Without admitting fault, Tyson agreed to stop making such claims unless independently verified. Brazen Beef is currently unavailable for purchase.

But this issue is not exclusive to JBS and Tyson. Baseless sustainability claims are widespread among top meat and dairy producers worldwide, and according to , 98% of those claims made by 33 of the top meat and dairy companies could be classified as greenwashing.

Big Promises, Small Actions

Many have launched sustainability initiatives promising to cut climate emissions. This comes in response to growing environmental awareness, particularly among consumers and investors concerned about the industry’s disproportionately high contribution to compared with other food producers. According to the latest research, though, these companies “provide very little supporting evidence” of meaningful climate action.

Rather, the industry conveys an appeasing but misleading message to the public. “It has said, ‘We don’t need to worry about the present. We’re going to . This will all be cleaned up.’ And they’re not making actual progress,” Jennifer Jacquet, one of the study authors and professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, tells .

Evidence suggests that 98% (or 1,213 out of 1,233) environmental claims made by meat and dairy companies in public sustainability reports and on websites “could be classified as containing indicators of greenwashing,” according to the report. Greenwashing “involves policies or practices that appear environmentally friendly but have little meaningful impact.”

Greenwashing can include promises about the future, or future-washing, “particularly when there is no clear effort to achieve such a promise,” like in the 2024 cases against Tyson and JBS. Another example of greenwashing includes vague claims that may , making it difficult for researchers or consumers to tell if initiatives have any meaningful climate impact. Only 356 (29%) of the total environmental claims offered any supporting evidence, such as studies or internal pilot programs. “More than two-thirds of environmental claims lacked any evidence, making it difficult to assess their credibility,” according to the analysis.

Some of the global companies included in the analysis were Perdue, Smithfield, Cargill, Nestle, Danone, and Hormel. The majority of the claims (68%) were related to climate, and Danone had a particularly high number at 106.

The prevalent climate angle indicates that “climate change now functions as the primary lens through which meat and dairy companies present ‘sustainability,’” write the researchers, “and other environmental issues are relatively peripheral.”

Jacquet says that consumers are being told by meat and dairy companies they “don’t need to scrutinize what they’re eating because the companies are on it. And what we’re showing is, no, they’re just on the rhetoric. They’re not on the action.”

Some of the meat and dairy companies highlighted environmental improvements, such as replacing a boiler or adding solar panels, as evidence of climate action. The study states these minor changes can distract from the company’s largest sources of emissions — farming animals. The actions some companies took toward sustainability were often negligible compared to their sustainability goals. For example, U.K.-based Arla Foods launched a “regenerative agriculture pilot” on 24 farms. According to the report, Arla is the world’s fourth-largest dairy company and a cooperative of over 12,700 farmers. This means that the pilot represents only 0.0019% of its total operations. The company also reported installing solar panels on a single cheese packing facility. “Such a narrow, site-specific practice is small relative to the scale of its overall environmental footprint,” write the researchers.

A Page Out of Big Oil’s Book

The study also draws a direct parallel to the fossil fuel industry, noting that the meat and dairy sector may be employing similar tactics as Big Oil, which has used greenwashing over the last several decades to delay meaningful climate action.

A 2024 , a European research organization that focuses on exposing corporate greenwashing and environmental harm, found that the livestock sector has been adopting , including a strategy to slow climate action. It states that major meat and dairy companies use Big Oil tactics, such as greenwashing and selective science, to obscure emissions and avoid regulation. “Instead of investing in proper plans and trajectories to cut emissions, the report reveals that companies prefer to invest in the science that suits their agenda,” including downplaying the impact of methane emissions and leaning on narratives about regenerative agriculture.

The authors of the PLOS Climate study point out that, like the oil industry, many of the agricultural companies with net-zero commitments are also partially owned by , an American multinational investment company and the world’s largest asset manager. “In a sample of 69 U.S. oil companies, net-zero commitments were more common specifically in cases when BlackRock held some ownership,” the researchers observe. “Consistent with this pattern, BlackRock owns shares in nine of the 17 meat and dairy companies with net-zero commitments in our sample.”

Concern for Consumers

Greenwashing can shape how we view the livestock industry and its relationship to the environment. Creating a false sense of progress “can lead consumers and policymakers to believe these polluting industries are more environmentally friendly than they are,” while allowing the industry to continue practices that “undermine climate mitigation and sustainability goals,” warn the study authors. In turn, this perception can spread confidence across multiple audiences, and “translate to continued support by investors, consumers, governments, corporate customers, and the public,” even when meaningful environmental improvements aren’t really happening.

So what can be done? “There are all sorts of mechanisms for accountability here that aren’t being currently leveraged,” says Jacquet. “Litigation is one angle,” like in 2024 with . “But of course, there could be more shareholder accountability. There could be more consumer concern. And so we thought a study of this nature might bring other stakeholders.”

Ultimately, Jacquet says, if consumers have doubts about the authenticity of the actions that these companies are taking to address their environmental harms, they can choose to eat foods that are less greenhouse gas-intensive. “Consumers make the decision about what to eat three times a day at a minimum,” she says. And as the research confirms, .

was produced by and reviewed and distributed by ����TV.