In one of the most direct public challenges to food industry sustainability claims yet, the New York Attorney General has announced she is suing a major global meat processor for committing to a carbon neutrality goal by 2040 that she alleges cannot be met because of its plans for growth, and therefore amounts to greenwashing and false advertising.

At the same time the “binary” nature of associated public commentary on red meat industry enviromental impacts while not recognising science supporting the sector’s ability to contribute to both adaptation and mitigation of climate change is being questioned by industry sustainability leaders (more below).

The New York Attorney General, Letitia James (left), has this week filed a lawsuit against JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA), the American subsidiary of the world’s largest producer of beef products, alleging the companies have “misled the public about its environmental impact”.

The lawsuit comes as the Brazil-headquartered JBS is seeking to list its shares in the United States.

Attorney General James claims that by stating it will achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, and by pledging to curb deforestation and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, JBS USA has made misleading statements, because it also has documented plans to increase production over that time and will therefore increase its carbon footprint.

In a media release announcing the lawsuit, the NY AG’s office states that beef production emits the most greenhouse gasses of any major food commodity, and animal agriculture accounts for 14.5 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.

The release further states that beef production contributes significantly to global climate change through its methane emissions and as the “top driver of deforestation” in the world’s tropical forests, “more than double that of soy, palm oil, and wood production combined”.

Attorney General James is asking the court to require JBS USA to cease its “Net Zero by 2040” advertising campaign, conduct a third-party audit of its compliance with New York’s consumer protection statutes, and pay “disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains earned by misleading the public about their business practices as well as penalties of at least $5000 per violation”.

Beef Central has contacted JBS USA for a response to the lawsuit but did not receive a reply before our publishing deadline today.

In a statement published by news agency Reuters, JBS said it disagreed with the lawsuit. It also pledged to continue partnering with farmers, ranchers and others toward a “more sustainable future for agriculture” that uses fewer resources and reduces its environmental impact.

Public commentary ignores science supporting beef sustainability

While drawing attention to statistics highlighting emissions data averaged across the the global beef  industry, the NYAG media release does not point to the scientific evidence supporting the role  of livestock in sustainable production systems.

For additional context on this issue Beef Central contacted Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef executive director Ruaraidh Petre.

Mr Petre said the global food system is facing increasing challenges from the need to reduce impacts while feeding a growing population.

At the same time food production is also itself affected by climate change.

Uniquely amongst industries, food production also had the ability to contribute to both adaptation and mitigation of climate change, Mr Petre said.

“Livestock are very much part of that,” he said.

“As time goes on, we will find increasing areas that were capable of producing crops being unable to do so due to climate change.

“As it is, the majority of land we have already cannot grow human edible crops, but ruminants can upcycle roughage that we can’t eat into highly nutrient dense meat.

“All industries need to be working on reducing emissions, and the livestock industry is not only doing so now, but has been on a decreasing emissions trajectory per pound of beef for decades, both in high income countries, but also in countries such as Brazil.”

Mr Petre said there were numerous ways in which emissions associated with beef production can be reduced, not just in intensity, but if adopted widely enough, in absolute terms.

“Despite widespread public commentary, the details of how beef supply chains can reduce emissions are still not well understood by policy-makers and law-makers,” Mr Petre said.

GRSB and its members had set an ambitious goal for greenhouse gas emissions – a reduction of 30% by 2030, on a pathway to net zero.

The short-lived nature of methane as a greenhouse gas mean that emissions do not have to cease entirely to stop warming.

“In fact any reduction in emissions from a given herd means that the herd is contributing to reduced temperature forcing,” he said.

This would not be easy to accomplish this on a global scale, primarily due to the fact that increases in demand in developing countries was stimulating increased supply through larger herds.

“We need to stimulate investment in those regions of the globe to ensure that the increasing demand from larger human populations is met in sustainable ways, ie by producing more efficiently rather than expanding the herd,” he said.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s report on Pathways Towards Lower Emissions released during COP28 outline how increased global demand for meat can be met without increasing the emissions, but in fact while decreasing them.

“GRSB set our goal to focus minds and investment on rising to this challenge, and we are bringing participants in the supply chain together to identify and address common barriers, while goals to reduce GHG emissions have also been set in many parts of the food system,” Mr Petre said.

“The FAO report gives us some confidence that emissions reductions are possible in the beef supply chain, while increasing food accessibility – key takeaways from that report are that productivity increases (per animal) and breeding (reducing calving interval and using better genetics) are the major contributors to reducing the overall footprint.

“Animal health, feed quality and reducing food waste are also important, while on the other side of the equation, increasing soil carbon sequestration can also play a part.

“On top of those more classic approaches, there is some promise in terms of rumen manipulation, feed additives or vaccines that can reduce production of enteric methane at source. In some intensive systems, manure management and biogas capture can turn emissions into an energy source.”

Mr Petre said more detail on the impact of animal health on emissions can be found in last years’ Health for Animals report.

A few key figures he highlighted from that report included:

• A 60 percent global vaccination rate for beef cattle correlates to a productivity rise of more than 50 percent.
• A fall in disease levels of 10 percentage points is associated with an 800 million tonne decrease in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• Every percentage point reduction in global beef cattle losses due to disease could provide enough additional production to meet the consumption needs of 317 million people.

“There is science to back up these FAO and Health for Animals figures,” Mr Petre said.

“The world needs to stop pointing fingers and realise that a sustainable future for all means investing in ensuring that developing countries have the means to develop on a more sustainable path than high income countries have over the last two centuries.

“Stopping climate change means stopping using fossil fuels, but after every COP that has taken place (28 so far), fossil fuel extraction has increased.

“Politicians and anti-livestock campaigners really need to recognise that while we as an industry are reducing emissions, livestock emissions are a shrinking percentage of the total per year primarily because of the annual increase in fossil fuel extraction.”