Most people want to eat food that is good for them and the planet. As awareness of the climate crisis grows, eaters have become more concerned with making sustainable food choices. But many consumers don\u2019t fully grasp how damaging industrial meat production in particular is for the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Climate-conscious consumers want to buy foods that are better for the planet. They are even willing to pay more for foods that match their values. But actually knowing which foods are better is no easy task. Many eaters rely on labels and information on food packaging, like claims that a product creates fewer greenhouse gas emissions, to judge if a food is climate-friendly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Tyson Foods produces more than 20% of beef, pork, and chicken in the United States. According to external estimates, its climate emissions are greater than those of entire countries, like Austria and Greece. But Tyson knew about consumer preferences for sustainable foods and looked to take advantage. Tyson started misleadingly marketing \u201cclimate-smart beef\u201d and claiming it could reach \u201cnet-zero\u201d emissions by 2050. At FarmSTAND, our greenwashing alarm bells started ringing. Our team pored over Tyson\u2019s public documents and disclosures to find out the truth. When we looked behind the curtain, we found evidence that Tyson wasn\u2019t overhauling its practices to solve climate change \u2014 it was greenwashing its image to pad its profits.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We found evidence in Tyson\u2019s public disclosures that Tyson knew climate-conscious eaters would pay more for beef that they believed was better for the environment. It also knew that consumers would be wary of the climate impacts of its industrial meat products. If Tyson failed to cut its huge emissions, or failed to convince consumers it was, that could hurt the company\u2019s sales. Tyson can\u2019t afford for well-informed eaters to see the company for the climate villain it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grocery shoppers who want to make sustainable choices are vulnerable to misleading claims by the likes of Tyson. This is because the climate impacts of industrially raised meat are not well understood by the public. Big meat companies would like to keep it that way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At FarmSTAND, we took action to stop Tyson from exploiting well-meaning consumers. Together with our allies at Fondo de Defensa Legal de los Animales<\/a>, Earthjustice<\/a>, y Edelson PC<\/a>, we represented the Environmental Working Group<\/a> to sue Tyson for its misleading claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To bring our landmark suit against Tyson, we analyzed their advertising and held it up to the facts. We built a case to show that it was all too good to be true. In the end, we secured a landmark settlement through which Tyson promised not to make these claims unless they can back them up with expert science.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, we\u2019re publishing this latest installment of our Deep Dive series so that everyone can see how Tyson\u2019s claims stack up to reality. Click on the sections below to learn more.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n