ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

On 18 September 2024, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods Inc (Tyson), the second-largest meat company in the world, accusing it of misleading consumers about the environmental impact of its industrial beef production. EWG alleges that representations concerning Tyson’s net zero greenhouse gas emissions target, and its production of “climate-smart” beef, are false and misleading under the CPPA.

Net Zero
The lawsuit highlights Tyson’s pledge to achieve “net zero greenhouse gas emissions across its global operations and supply chain” by 2050. This commitment includes ‘scope 3’ emissions, which comprise the majority of Tyson’s emissions, and result from the animals used for slaughter, the production of their feed, and the land used for grazing. EWG claims that this creates the impression that Tyson has an achievable net zero plan in place, which it argues is false and misleading for several reasons:

1. Tyson does not have complete information concerning its own emissions. Its calculations exclude land use change (such as clearing land for crops), which is a major source of its scope 3 emissions. Moreover, Tyson has stated that its net zero target is not “science-based”, and that it only anticipates setting a science-based target in the next two years.
2. Tyson does not have an actionable plan to achieve net zero by 2050. The available information suggested that at most, Tyson was operating a small number of voluntary pilot programs aimed at adopting “climate-smart practices” for farmers. This was juxtaposed by the fact that Tyson does not plan to rid its supply chain of deforestation before 2030.
3. Tyson spends only a small fraction of its revenue on emissions reductions, and that given the scale of its emissions, Tyson cannot hope to reach its net zero target by purchasing carbon offsets.

“Climate-smart” beef
In March 2023, Tyson unveiled its “climate-smart” beef program, aimed at achieving a 30 percent reduction of “cradle-to-gate” greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Tyson represented that the program “combines tried-and-true rancher ingenuity with the latest data and technology”, and that cattle used for its Brazen Beef brand are “raised with emissions reduction practices in mind”, meaning that “the emissions of each animal are evaluated to ensure they meet the base emissions and program qualifications”.

According to EWG, despite these representations, Tyson nowhere defines what “climate-smart” beef is, what baseline is used for comparison, nor how any emissions reductions are measured. EWG emphasises a lack of data showing that particular products are “climate-smart”, or that any practices adopted by ranchers or feedlot owners in the program have reduced emissions from Tyson’s supply chain. For example, an industrial feedlot, said to be the source of some of Tyson’s “climate-smart” beef, appears capable of holding tens of thousands of cattle which, EWG argues, no reasonable consumer would view as climate-smart.

EWG ultimately argues that even if Tyson were to reduce emissions from its beef products by 10-30%, it would still not be a “climate-smart” choice for consumers given the significant overall climate footprint of Tyson’s beef. Accordingly, EWG alleges that Tyson’s “climate-smart” beef claim misleads consumers, and EWG seeks to compel Tyson under the CPPA to redress consumer misunderstanding about the climate impact of its industrial beef production.