Tyson Foods Agrees to Stop Making ‘Net-zero’ and ‘Climate-smart Beef’ Claims

Washington, D.C. —

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has settled its greenwashing lawsuit against Tyson Foods filed in September 2024. The suit alleged that Tyson Foods’ claims about reaching “net-zero by 2050″ or selling “climate-smart” beef were not supported by sufficient action to achieve these virtually impossible goals. The settlement provides that Tyson will stop making these environmental claims and cannot make new related claims for a period of five years from the date of the settlement unless an expert concludes they are sufficiently supported.

This settlement comes on top of the recent settlement reached between the New York Attorney General’s office and JBS USA, which also agreed to stop making unsubstantiated claims about reaching net zero. With JBS and Tyson together producing about 50% of the beef consumed in the United States, these outcomes represent a major step in efforts to protect consumers from false and misleading statements made by the largest beef corporations.

EWG is represented by Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Earthjustice, Edelson PC, and FarmSTAND in the suit filed under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) in D.C. Superior Court.

“This settlement reinforces the principle that consumers deserve honesty and accountability from the corporations shaping our food system,” said Caroline Leary, General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer at EWG. “The outcome makes clear that corporate climate pledges must be transparent, verifiable, and rooted in real change.”

“This settlement should be a clear signal to consumers to be cautious of major beef producers’ marketing their products as ‘climate-smart,’” said Carrie Apfel, Deputy Managing Attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. “Industrial beef production emits vast amounts of greenhouse gases from every stage of the operation. Achieving meaningful emission reductions at this industrial scale would require corporations to make transparent, transformative changes—which we allege Tyson hasn’t shown.”

“This settlement is a significant milestone for advocates and consumers who demand honesty in climate-related marketing,” said Amanda Howell, Managing Attorney at ALDF. “Tyson Foods, the second largest meat company in the world, has agreed to stop making climate and emissions claims unless those claims are substantiated by a third-party expert using credible science and an actual, achievable plan. ALDF will continue working to ensure that consumers who care about the climate crisis, sustainability, and the harmful environmental impacts of animal agriculture have access to truthful and non-misleading information.”

“Today’s resolution marks a crucial turning point in the fight against climate greenwashing,” said Kelsey Eberly, Senior Staff Attorney at FarmSTAND. “Tyson Foods is the second-largest meat and poultry producer in the world, controls a fifth of the country’s beef, pork, and chicken—and has been estimated to produce nearly as much methane pollution as major oil companies. And now, it’s pulling down its climate claims. With climate-forward policies weathering existential attacks, legal actions like this are increasingly critical to raise consumer awareness about the outsized impact conglomerates like Tyson have on our climate.”

Reality of Industrial Beef Production

Industrialized meat production generates tremendous volumes of climate-warming emissions at every stage of the process. Tyson Foods alone has greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that exceed those of Austria or Greece. Its beef production is responsible for 85% of the company’s emissions.

In its complaint, EWG alleged that studies show that methane and nitrous oxide emitted by Tyson’s intensive beef production cannot be eliminated with existing or anticipated technology. EWG’s complaint alleged that it is currently impossible for Tyson to eliminate enteric emissions without eliminating the cattle themselves, making the “net zero” or “climate smart” claims misleading.

Because of their ruminant guts, cattle exhale large amounts of methane, a GHG over 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years, with every breath. In 2022, bovine enteric fermentation accounted for about 18% of total U.S. methane emissions. Cattle also produce large amounts of waste and manure management releases both methane and nitrous oxide, a GHG nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In addition, feed production – usually heavily fertilized monoculture crops — releases significant nitrous oxide. Finally, deforestation and degradation of land for grazing and feed production release the carbon stored in native soils and prevent the land from sequestering additional carbon (called the carbon opportunity cost).

Consumers have increasingly sought to purchase products that are better for the planet. Indeed, the complaint notes that Tyson itself recognized that “a growing number of consumers are willing to pay a premium to eat beef and other foods with lower GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions,” that “[c]onsumers would be willing to pay at least 24% more for environmentally friendly sustainable options in retail,” and that “[i]ncreasing concern over climate change also may adversely impact demand for our products due to changes in consumer preferences.”

In an effort to knowingly capitalize on consumer preferences for sustainable options, Tyson repeatedly told consumers on its website and in news releases over nearly four and a half years that it was committing to achieving “net zero” emissions by 2050, and that it “sells climate-smart beef.” As the lawsuit alleges, despite the enormous scale of Tyson’s industrial production and its GHG emissions, Tyson has taken very little action towards achieving these commitments and has fallen far short of offering anything close to substantiation for these claims.

Rather, the complaint maintains that Tyson has spent less than 0.1% of its revenue on efforts to reduce its climate impact (mostly on research) – $50 million dollars out of a total annual revenue of roughly $53 billion. Tyson spends about three times as much on advertising as it does on research.