A longtime agriculture industry watchdog has sued Tyson Foods, alleging the company misleads consumers by marketing “climate friendly” beef and by promising to slash its climate-warming emissions.

Arkansas-based Tyson, the world’s second largest meat producer, sells its “Brazen Beef” with a “climate smart” label and has publicly stated it intends to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But environmental groups, supported by mounting scientific research, have underscored the near impossibility of mass-producing beef in ways that benefit the climate and have accused Tyson and other beef producers of greenwashing.

​​“People want their purchasing power to reflect their values,” said Caroline Leary, a lawyer for the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which filed the suit Wednesday. “This case is about protecting consumers from being misled. As more people seek out climate-friendly options, companies are taking advantage of this interest.”

Livestock, especially cattle, are the world’s biggest source of agricultural methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas. As of 2017, the world’s top five meat and dairy producers are responsible for more greenhouse gases than Shell, BP or Exxon. Tyson alone emits as much as whole industrialized countries—Belgium or Austria, for example.

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, accuses Tyson of deceiving consumers by failing to provide a realistic plan to reduce its emissions or even measure them.  

“They don’t appear to know the full scope of their greenhouse gas emissions,” said Kelsey Eberly, an attorney with FarmSTAND, one of the organizations representing EWG. “Tyson is taking very few steps that could actually achieve net zero.”

The suit also alleges that Tyson’s “climate smart” beef claims are false and misleading. Even if the company were to reduce its emissions slightly, the lawsuit notes, its beef products would still be more carbon intensive than most other foods.

Tyson responded to questions from Inside Climate News with a written statement. “While we do not comment on specific litigation, Tyson Foods has a long history of sustainable practices that embrace good stewardship of our environmental resources,” the company said. “We will continue to support agricultural practices that further these efforts and work to strengthen the overall resiliency of the U.S. agriculture system.”

The lawsuit comes as the beef industry faces more allegations of greenwashing and as lawsuits against it mount.

“This lawsuit is the latest development in an emerging litigation trend that seeks to address the climate harms of industrial animal agriculture,” said Daina Bray, a lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School who studies the industry. “The tactic of using consumer protection to confront deceptive and misleading claims by meat and dairy companies is a particularly active area of this larger litigation trend. My general thinking about this trend is that it’s arising because there’s a lack of adequate policy in this area.”

In a study she co-authored earlier this year, Bray noted that the Biden administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, imposes regulations on methane from oil and gas operations, but not animal agriculture facilities. That failure to regulate methane from agriculture continues a long pattern. The U.S. is one of the world’s biggest producers of livestock and dairy products, but the Environmental Protection Agency does not require permits or monitoring for methane under the Clean Air Act, and annual spending bills in Congress contain language that prevent any government funds from being used to require methane reporting or regulation. 

In February, the New York State Attorney General accused JBS, the world’s largest beef company, of misleading consumers about its plans to reach net-zero emissions by 2040. That suit was similar to one in Denmark in which the country’s high court ruled that Danish Crown, Europe’s biggest pork producer, misled consumers by calling its pork “climate controlled” and publicly claiming that eating pork was beneficial for the climate. A Swedish court similarly ruled earlier this year that dairy giant Arla could not continue to use its “net-zero” claim. 

The New York lawsuit was filed after the environmental law firm Earthjustice challenged JBS’ net-zero advertising claims with the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division. The division ruled that the company’s claims were, indeed, misleading consumers and called on JBS to stop making its net-zero claims. It did not—prompting the lawsuit. (JBS is attempting to have the suit dismissed, but the case is ongoing.)

“The accuracy of corporate claims about environmental impacts is critical,” Leary said.

“These claims shape consumer choices and affect the overall market.”

Like the challenge against JBS, the lawsuit against Tyson notes that achieving net-zero emissions does not comport with the companies’ intentions to profit from growing global demand for protein.  

“The plan that Tyson does seem to be actualizing is international growth,” the lawsuit says. “It is hard to square Tyson’s stated commitment to achieve net zero by 2050 with its statements that it intends to capitalize on an increase in ‘global demand’ for beef, pork, and chicken. This will necessitate increased production of beef, pork, and chicken, with increases in their attendant emissions, putting Tyson’s net zero claims even farther out of reach.”

“We’re seeking injunctive relief, not damages.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rubber stamped Tyson’s “climate smart” label after the company sought the agency’s approval in 2022, but immediately came under fire from environmental groups, including EWG, which sought details on the basis for the agency’s approval and petitioned it to stop allowing the claim. 

The USDA has repeatedly said it would not release the details, noting that Congress does not provide it with “on-farm oversight” authority. The agency said it bases its approvals on third-party certifying organizations that companies like Tyson hire to substantiate their claims. Earlier this year, the USDA said it would strengthen its guidelines around animal-raising claims, and in August released those guidelines, which are currently open for public comment. 

Wednesday’s lawsuit, which was filed for EWG by Earthjustice, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Edelson PC and farmSTAND does not address USDA’s approval, only Tyson’s marketing and public promises. 

It comes as consumers increasingly make choices in the marketplace based on companies’ sustainability or climate claims. 

A survey this year by PwC “found that 43 percent of respondents are trying to reduce their impact on climate change by buying what they perceive to be more sustainable food products, while 32 percent are eating different foods to reduce their climate impact,” the lawsuit says.

“We’re seeking injunctive relief, not damages,” said Carrie Apfel, an attorney with Earthjustice. “We want the court to tell them to stop misleading consumers.”