1 day Ago
A consumer-protection lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges that Tyson Foods is misleading consumers with claims about its efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, accused the company of taking advantage of the “well-intentioned preferences” of shoppers by making false statements in marketing materials, like saying it was working toward “net-zero” emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and by advertising “climate-smart” beef. Industrialized beef production, the lawsuit contends, will never be “climate-smart” because of the sheer volume of emissions produced in the process of raising cows on an industrial scale.
It also argued that the company had shown no evidence of an effort to get to net-zero emissions, a term used by governments and companies to signal their climate goals. “We are taking a stand to protect consumers and to demand transparency in an industry that significantly affects climate change,” Caroline Leary of EWG said in a call with reporters Wednesday. Tyson, based in Springdale, Arkansas, declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit.
A company statement pointed to its “long history of sustainable practices that embrace good stewardship of our environmental resources.” According to its website, Tyson produces about 20% of the beef, pork and chicken in the United States, as well as other foods under brands like Jimmy Dean and Hillshire Farm, and is one of the world’s largest food companies. The company detailed its plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 in a 2022 sustainability report.
Being net-zero would mean not pumping any additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but that can get into complicated and often controversial accounting. For example, it sometimes involves “offsets” that are essentially subtracted from a company’s emissions. Offsets can include things like planting trees, using new carbon-removal technologies or getting “carbon credits” by investing in projects that reduce emissions elsewhere.
The lawsuit charges that the offsets to bring Tyson’s emissions to net-zero would be “both unfathomable and unavailable” and asked the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to bar the company from making “false or misleading marketing claims.” Environmentalists have increasing taken aim at what they call “greenwashing” efforts by corporations to give an eco-friendly sheen to their products by attaching vague descriptors or slogans to them. In New York this year, Attorney General Letitia James sued Brazilian beef giant JBS USA over its climate claims, calling them deceptive, as the company was pursuing a listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
In a statement at the time, JBS said it disagreed with the attorney general’s allegations and said it would continue to work with farmers and others “to help feed a growing population while using fewer resources and reducing agriculture’s environmental impact.” During the call Wednesday, Carrie Apfel of environmental law group Earthjustice, which is one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, pointed to the environmental toll that raising beef can take. Cows exhale methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, produce lots of waste and require room to graze, which has contributed to deforestation.
Among the examples of misleading advertising cited in the lawsuit were the launch of a Tyson brand called Brazen Beef, which was touted as creating fewer emissions. Tyson has faced several other challenges over the past year. A top executive who had served as chief sustainability officer, John Randal Tyson, was suspended from the company in June after he was charged with driving while intoxicated.
The company said in August that Tyson remained on health-related leave and was being replaced as chief financial officer by Curt Calaway. The company has also been under investigation by the federal Labor Department, along with Perdue Farms, into whether it relied on migrant children to clean slaughterhouses. The inquiry was spurred by a New York Times report on child labor in meatpacking plants.
On Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Labor Department confirmed that its Wage and Hour Division was investigating Tyson but did not provide details. Tyson declined to comment on the personnel changes or the investigation. This article originally appeared in The New York Times .
.
