EWF alleged that Tyson’s promise to reach “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and its sale of “climate-smart” beef, could not be credibly substantiated. Before pulling its Brazen Beef line in 2024, Tyson had marketed the product as “the first climate friendly beef with 10% greenhouse gas reduction,” a claim that Matthew Hayek, an environmental scientist at New York University, says he never believed. Echoing what he told Corporate Knights in 2024, Hayek reiterates that “10% just seemed like such a fine-grained amount of emissions reduction that was well within the margin of error.” He is “skeptical that anyone had the information that could ‘prove’ that when that consumer went to the grocery store, they were actually getting 10% fewer emissions than the steak right next to it.”

“The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods,” a company spokesperson told Reuters.

EWG claims that Tyson spent less than 0.1% of annual revenue on actual emission-reduction efforts, and that was “mostly on research – $50 million out of a total annual revenue of roughly $53 billion.” It adds that Tyson spends about “three times as much on advertising as it does on research.”

All the while, according to EWG, Tyson is producing greenhouse gas emissions that “exceed those of Austria or Greece,” with its beef production responsible for 85% of those emissions.

A particularly polluting food

One third of global greenhouse gases are linked to agriculture, with beef remaining disproportionately responsible. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “the global livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for between 12% and 19% of total human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making it one of the world’s highest emitting sectors.” This has led some major meat-industry players to invest heavily in climate-friendly marketing campaigns and carbon offsets – not in reducing production.

For example, Canada’s Maple Leaf Foods, which produces pork and poultry, has claimed since 2019 to be “the world’s first carbon neutral food company.” It relies in part on offsets, according to its website, “that help us neutralize our remaining, unavoidable emissions.” The company has also pledged to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 emissions “by 30% by 2030 against a 2018 base year” and the “intensity [per tonne of product produced] of our Scope 3 GHG emissions by 30% by 2030 against a 2018 base year.” Scope 3 emissions account for roughly 90% of Maple Leaf’s total reported footprint, with third-party pork and poultry suppliers responsible for the majority, more than 30%, of those emissions.

Fellow meat giant JBS USA had also made similar promises, to “reach net zero by 2040.” But in early November, New York State’s attorney general found the company lacked any credible plan to meet that promise. As a result, JBS agreed to remove or revise its “Net Zero by 2040” statements on U.S. consumer-facing websites so that the target is presented as a “goal,” not a firm pledge or commitment. The company’s website now describes it as an “ambition.” It will also pay US$1.1 million to support climate-smart agriculture programs.

Hayek, who has long been vocal about so-called climate-friendly meat claims, says that while “greenwashing is not going away anytime soon,” he hopes these cases “bring a little bit more attention to the fact that meat is a particularly polluting food.” Hopefully, he adds, this “discourages unfounded climate marketing, and not the important work of climate-target setting and value-chain decarbonization.” What is ultimately required, he says, is to “make animal production less polluting and to shift away from animal production.”

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer covering animal rights and welfare and plant-based food topics. She is also the culture and disinformation correspondent for Sentient. 

The post Global meat giants Tyson Foods and JBS are being held to account for greenwashing appeared first on Corporate Knights.

With its rebranding as Beyond, the company’s strategic pivot is meant to underscore its clean plant protein bonafides, and to get investors and consumers back on board, after meat-lobby advocacy and disinformation campaigns painted the sector as ultra-processed and unhealthy. Last week, rumours surfaced in the media that Beyond was heading for bankruptcy, something the company vehemently denied. “We have not filed nor are we planning to file for bankruptcy. Go Beyond,” it said in a statement on X.

Alongside the name change, the company is also launching Beyond Ground, a simpler product made with four ingredients. It has also reformulated its flagship Beyond IV burger to cut saturated fat by 60% and sodium by 20%. “Our second quarter of 2025 required a deeper and fundamental reset of our company,” Beyond CEO Ethan Brown said in a May 2025 earnings call. “The necessity of this reset, however, does not reduce or diminish our commitment of enthusiasm for the future that awaits.”

Revenue down, misinformation up

The rebrand of Beyond Meat, once lauded as the vanguard of plant‑based innovation, comes as our food consumption culture and the market shift, making the once-promising investment a tougher pea to swallow. After its eye‑watering 2019 initial public offering and subsequent rise, the company now faces a 19.6% year‑over‑year drop in revenues. Its 2025 second-quarter net revenues were US$75 million,  well below the approximately US$82 million analysts had expected. With retail demand down – refrigerated sales by 17.2% and frozen by 8.1% – and investors responding with a stock price at a multiyear low, it’s clear the category is in need of a refresh. At the same time, the company also secured US$100 million in debt financing from Unprocessed Foods, a subsidiary of the Ahimsa Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to promoting plant-based eating. This funding is part of a broader investment push by Ahimsa and its affiliates, which have recently backed companies such as Simulate, Eat Just, Blackbird Foods and Wicked Kitchen.

According to Brown, misinformation has been a major driver in consumers’ move away from the company’s offerings. “While Beyond Meat can always and will always seek to improve our products, we believe the central issue impeding our return to sustained growth is perception. Or more accurately, misperception,” he said during the call. A meat-industry-backed public relations group called the Center for Consumer Freedom has been painting plant-based meats as ultra-processed, unhealthy and even scary, focusing on long ingredient lists and unfamiliar ingredient names. This messaging was then amplified by veterinary pharmaceutical giant Elanco. The rise of the carnivore movement, along with other politically charged trends toward more seemingly “natural” proteins and ongoing meat industry advocacy and disinformation campaigns, have all helped paint plant-based meat alternatives into a difficult corner.

Thus the stage is set for a dramatic overhaul, and Beyond Meat knows it. “If we look inward, our highest priority is driving operating and margin improvements. Externally, our highest priority is on dispelling misinformation and empowering the consumer to make informed decisions around our products,” Brown said.

Daring moves

Daring product shifts are often accompanied by daring company rebranding. In this case, Beyond’s branding reset and product strategy are not just survival tactics, but calculated attempts to redefine the company’s identity. “Going forward, we intend to increasingly use Beyond as the primary brand identifier,” Brown said, adding that the emphasis will instead be on providing high-quality plant protein rather than replicating animal meat. In addition to the name shift, Beyond is also planning to release a new simplified ground-protein product made from water, fava bean protein, potato protein and psyllium husk. The company also noted via social media that it will offer three pre-seasoned varieties, including Tuscan Tomato.

“Our limited test offering of Beyond Ground on our social channels last week represents an early foray beyond beef, pork and poultry replication and has been met with considerable enthusiasm, albeit within a very narrow consumer set,” Brown said. “In the coming months, we will provide additional details on our increased use of the brand mark Beyond, which will be implemented on a rolling basis.”

In July, Fast Company reported that the new ground-protein product would be available on Beyond’s website in August. As of publication of this article, it is not yet for sale.

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer covering animal rights and welfare and plant-based food topics. She is also the culture and disinformation correspondent for Sentient. 

The post Beyond Meat drops ‘meat’ in rebrand that shifts focus to plant protein appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In 2016, New York’s Elmhurst Dairy closed its doors as the last remaining fluid-milk plant in the city. The following year, under the continued leadership of second-generation owner Henry Schwartz, the company rebranded as Elmhurst 1925, shifting its focus to plant-based milks. “Established 1925. Founded 2017” is now the proud tagline of the reinvented company, which has since experienced significant growth. 

“After 92 years in business, it was time to embrace a new model and look towards the future,” Schwartz said in a press release at the time, “to lead the plant-based revolution, and create clean label products that are just as delicious and nutritionally robust as dairy milk.”

Between 2010 and 2015, the U.S. dairy-milk market experienced a notable decline, with consumers quitting milk faster than in each of the previous six decades. Public awareness of the environmental impacts and animal welfare concerns associated with traditional dairy production, as well as health risks linked to dairy consumption, helped feed a burgeoning demand for plant-based milk alternatives. This market is projected to continue on a strong upward path, with an estimated compound annual growth rate of between 7.6% to 8.9% reaching more than US$40 billion by 2033/2034. 

 The company uses a proprietary process known as HydroRelease, developed over five years by food scientist Cheryl Mitchell. HydroRelease begins with whole nuts or grains and uses water to separate the nutritional components. These components are then recombined to form a milk-like liquid that retains the original nutritional profile of the source ingredient, without the need for the gums, stabilizers or emulsifiers commonly used in other plant-based milk products on the market. The process results in products with higher protein content and cleaner labels than many of their competitors.

Additionally, all Elmhurst 1925 products are non-GMO, gluten-free, vegan, dairy-free and kosher. “We do it naturally,” Mitchell says on the company’s website, “without adding junk.”

The move has paid off. Elmhurst 1925 has since experienced strong growth and within a few years of making the transition had more than tripled the number of stores where its products are sold. In January 2025, Elmhurst recorded US$35 million in annual revenue, up from $11 million in 2023.

Masters of Metamorphosis

How some companies are embracing radical change to succeed in the green economy

Italy’s ERG proves you can trade oil for renewables and win

How Orsted ditched coal and became a titan of offshore wind

After Elmhurst made the switch from cows to nuts, the company rapidly diversified its offerings, creating milks from almonds, cashews, hazelnuts and walnuts. It continued to expand its range, launching milks and creamers made from oats, coconuts and pistachios.

Not all these experiments were successful – peanut milk and hemp creamer were trialled and discontinued – but the spirit of trying new things persisted, evolving beyond beverages into plant-based foods. In 2024, it launched a new oat- and hemp-based sour cream and a plant-based “chick’n” kit that allows consumers to create their own hemp-protein-based meat alternative at home. 

Elmhurst’s successful shift from dairy milk to plant-based foods reflects a significant pivot in an evolving marketplace. As consumer appetite for plant-based alternatives continues to rise, companies that meet that demand and demonstrate authentic commitment to the environment are likely to thrive. As Schwartz has said, “It’s about transforming with the times.”

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance journalist covering food, farming, animal and environmental topics for Canadian media. She is also a correspondent for Sentient, covering culture and misinformation.

The post Why New York City’s last dairy switched from cows to nuts appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Government agencies in charge of food labelling in both Canada and the United States have not legally defined the term “humane,” instead leaving it up to producers or third-party non-government bodies to decide. And in some cases, no one is checking on-site to ensure compliance anyway.

In Canada, claims made on meat labels are overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). They are known as “method of production” claims, the agency tells Corporate Knights, and depend on a party’s ability to show that the labels are “complete, truthful, and not misleading.” To substantiate these method-of-production claims on meat, though, producers need only to provide “valid documentation,” which according to CFIA means “anything on which information that is capable of being understood by a person, or read by a computer or other device, is recorded or marked.” Verifying compliance with labelling claims, the agency states, “would not typically be at the farm level but rather through documentation.”

“Nobody inspects farms,” says Camille Labchuk, lawyer and executive director of Canadian animal law organization Animal Justice. In fact, the treatment of animals on farms is not under the jurisdiction of the CFIA, which only oversees transport and slaughter.

In the United States, the process and standards for claims regarding animal handling on meat products is much the same. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) oversees meat labelling. To apply terms such as “humanely raised” on a product, a company must submit documentation to the FSIS. However, the process remains similarly hands-off, with companies needing only to submit a form, a label sketch and written proof of practices. Again, there are no on-site inspections to verify the truth behind the claims.

Non-binding (or non-existent) audits

“The only thing that the guidelines require is that the company include how it chooses to define humanely raised, either on the package itself or links to where a consumer can find that definition on the company’s website,” Zack Strong, senior attorney and acting director with the Animal Welfare Institute’s farmed animal program, told Sentient in 2024. In some cases, he adds, “humanely raised” can mean that an animal is not caged, or is fed a vegetarian diet, or that producers are simply meeting standard industry conditions.

In August 2024, the USDA updated its guidelines for meat labelling, encouraging third-party auditing.

In Canada, third-party auditing or non-government certification programs are also considered “acceptable manners to substantiate a method of production claim,” according to CFIA.

RELATED

How expensive eggs and dead chickens show the major problems in poultry production

Canada’s plan to phase out animal testing suffers a setback

Cooking the books: The magical math of ‘climate-friendly’ meat

Third-party certifications (which are used for some JBS, Tyson and Maple Leaf products) offer varying degrees of animal welfare standards, with some requiring different levels of on-site auditing. However, these programs – such as American Humane, Certified Humane, GreenCircle – are not legally enforced.

For example, GreenCircle’s standards state that sows be raised without gestation crates, which currently is above industry standard, while at the same time allowing for “market pigs [to be] raised in open pens,” which it notes in finer print is “like most pigs in North America.” Ironically, Maple Leaf’s Greenfield meat – certified by GreenCircle – doesn’t come from animals raised on fields at all.

In a statement to Corporate Knights, a spokesperson for Maple Leaf Foods says the company’s auditing programs for chickens and pigs labelled humanely raised “exceed the requirements” for the national voluntary codes of practice “and related Canadian Pork Excellence PigCARE and Chicken Farmers of Canada Animal Care programs.”

But the reality is that without clear, enforced standards and proper farm inspections, shoppers are left to decipher the true meaning behind these claims, making it difficult or nearly impossible to make informed choices about animal welfare before paying the premium price.

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance journalist covering food, farming, animal and environmental topics for Canadian media. She is also a correspondent for Sentient, covering culture and misinformation.

The post ‘Humanely raised’ meat claims often don’t mean much appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Animal Methods (CCAAM) in Windsor quietly closed its doors in May and officially shuttered operations in October. Now Canada risks falling short on its ambitious goals.

More than 3.5 million animals were reportedly used in research, teaching and testing in Canada in 2022. And that number represents only federally funded facilities, since private laboratories are not required to report.  

By passing Bill S5, the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, albeit eight years after the United States passed similar legislation, Canada appeared to be working toward what are known as the three Rs: to reduce, refine and replace the use of animals in toxicity testing.

In addition to phasing out chemical toxicity testing of substances such as, say, new flame retardants or pesticides, on animals, Canada would become the 44th country to pass laws to end cosmetic animal testing and sales of cosmetics tested on animals, joining several U.S. states and the entire European Union. And according to the federal budget released in April, the government was poised to allocate tens of millions in funding to “protect Canadians from being exposed to some 30,000 chemicals, including by advancing scientific research to phase out animal toxicity testing.”  

In addition to providing humane alternatives for animal toxicity testing, CCAAM’s work also has great potential to benefit the millions of other animals undergoing other types of agonizing experiments every year in Canadian labs.

– Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice

For Dr. Charu Chandrasekera, founder and executive director of CCAAM, this was the hope she needed to keep CCAAM’s underfunded work alive. Until she realized her centre was not included in the plan.  

CCAAM opened in 2019, at the University of Windsor. Chandrasekera, a former animal researcher, worked for years in biomedical research with mouse models of heart disease and diabetes. “It became very obvious that the work I was doing was not translatable [to humans],” she told Maclean’s magazine at the time. “Nothing was really reproducible; there were so many discrepancies and contradictions, even among the top-notch researchers.” 

The use of animal models has long been considered necessary in biomedical research and toxicity testing. Yet more than 90% of drugs deemed safe and effective in animal models go on to fail in human clinical trials. Similarly, relying on animal models in toxicity testing – to assess the potential risks of substances such as pesticides, cleaning agents, drugs, et cetera – has also proven to be problematic in terms of assessing real-world effects. These stark statistics highlight a fundamental flaw in traditional testing methods, where results in animals often do not translate to human outcomes.  

With this knowledge, Chandrasekera and her team went to work on developing and promoting cutting-edge, human-based methods that not only reduce animal suffering but promise precise, cost-effective and faster results.

“At CCAAM, we led pioneering interdisciplinary programs to transform the Canadian animal-testing landscape,” Chandrasekera tells Corporate Knights. “Through collaborations with academia, industry, government and NGOs, we advanced various technologies to emulate human biology in a petri dish, such as 3D-bioprinted human tissues.”  

Innovative alternative methods are being developed at centres around the world – in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Brazil and South Korea – to mimic human biology (rather than mouse biology), allowing researchers to replicate complex biological processes in a petri dish or virtual environment, without the need for animal testing. The only difference is that those centres receive millions in federal funds. CCAAM subsisted on private gifts and modest grants. Until it didn’t.  

Animal welfare advocates cry foul over lack of funding

Today, Chandrasekera’s equipment sits boxed up in a storage facility in Ottawa, the doors to her University of Windsor laboratory closed.  

​​And with the comment period on the draft strategy to replace, reduce or refine vertebrate animal testing under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act closing today, November 13, animal advocates are hoping the public and other stakeholders will speak up in defence of Chandrasekera’s work.​ 

Corporate Knights contacted Health Canada to find out why the government isn’t funding CCAAM. Although the department didn’t provide a direct answer, spokesperson Marie-Pier Burelle stated that it and Environment and Climate Change Canada “are leading and collaborating on a range of scientific and research activities related to animal testing alternatives.” This includes “various scientific and research activities led by Health Canada scientists to support key focus areas for ongoing and future research, as well as contributions to initiatives with intergovernmental and multistakeholder organizations.”  

Health Canada adds that efforts to reduce reliance on vertebrate animal testing extend beyond any single organization. Though it would appear it doesn’t include CCAAM at all. Burelle says that, despite the centre’s closure, the department’s “aim to reduce reliance on animal testing remains unchanged.” She also points to “several funding sources to support academic research,” including grants.  

Liberal Member of Parliament Nathaniel Erskine-Smith says that while the government has committed legislatively to phasing out toxicity testing on animals, “it’s completely failed to take commensurate action to fund these efforts, and it’s inexplicably stood on the sidelines while CCAAM closed its doors.” He says that a number of caucus members “have spent years trying to secure a funding commitment to match the government’s stated promises, and it’s frankly embarrassing that the government has been unable to deliver nominal funding to support.”  

Related

Of mice and men: Could COVID spell the end of animal testing?

Empty animal welfare promises a bad look for the food industry

Is your pension invested in animal cruelty?

He’s not the only one calling foul. Lawyer Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, says in a statement that the indefinite closure of CCAAM “would represent a major setback not only for animals but for Canadian science.” She says that “in addition to providing humane alternatives for animal toxicity testing, CCAAM’s work also has great potential to benefit the millions of other animals undergoing other types of agonizing experiments every year in Canadian labs.” Federal support is needed, she says, “to ensure Canada can stay on track with its goal to end animal toxicity testing and become a leader in cruelty-free research.” 

Health Canada says revisions to the government’s draft strategy will be made “based on input received from the public and stakeholders, with a final strategy expected to be published by June 2025.” That input can be relayed via the Government of Canada website through November 13.  

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated that university labs in Canada are not required to report their use of animals in research. They are accredited by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) and their data is included in the report linked above. 

Jessica Scott-Reid is a freelance writer covering animal rights and welfare and plant-based food topics. She is also a co-host of the Canadian animal law podcast Paw & Order.

The post Canada’s plan to phase out animal testing suffers a setback appeared first on Corporate Knights.

That’s where Huron University’s Animal Ethics and Sustainability Leadership (AESL) program comes in. Western University’s Huron University College may be one of Canada’s oldest universities, founded in 1863, but this year the London, Ontario, institution is offering up a very new degree. The AESL program is said to be the first of its kind in the world, aiming to arm students with a fundamental understanding of crucial issues relating to animal welfare and the environment, as well as giving them practical leadership skills to be able to put that understanding into action.  

“It is for economic, ethical and environmental reasons that there’s such a significant need for this program,” says Kendra Coulter, the program’s coordinator and a fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. It’s a degree she says she “dreamed of” when she was a student. The professor of management and organizational studies is a globally recognized expert in animal protection and the author of the recently published book Defending Animals: Finding Hope on the Front Lines of Animal Protection. “I think the primary purpose of my life is to improve and save animals’ lives,” she says.  

Coulter developed the AESL program to offer a unique mix of knowledge and skills that she says will turn out graduates able to take on roles in animal welfare in the private, public and non-profit sectors. “The goal is for graduates to be effective in a range of different roles with an ability to really hit the ground running in organizations and companies of different kinds.”  

Required classes for the program include Animal Welfare and Sustainability Leadership, Nature and Technology, Animals in Law and Policy, and Animal Ethics. Electives include management and organizational studies, social sciences and arts. “It’s a distinct combination of social science, arts and business education,” Coulter explains.  

It’s also a launch pad for budding plant-based entrepreneurs, those students interested in creating their own ventures in the plant-based economy – say, in the fashion and beauty sectors.  

Huron’s AESL degree has come along at a crucial time, with billions of animals being exploited by the meat and dairy industry every year. Labels like Tyson Foods’s “climate-smart” beef – which is now at the centre of a lawsuit over misleading marketing claims in the United States – make it all the more confusing for consumers. “Business is very much a cause of key animal and environmental damage,” Coulter says. “At the same time, businesses can be drivers of solutions, and that’s what this degree is intended to do.”  

The program welcomed its first round of students this fall. Animal rights advocate Cogie Cogan, founder of the Western Environmental Business club, is part of the program’s first cohort. “It perfectly merges my passion for animal protection with the law and business skills needed to make a difference for animals,” Cogan says. Upon graduation, the honours student hopes to either work for a plant-based food start-up or start their own business in this sector. “I believe AESL [is equipping] me with the skills and knowledge to make a meaningful impact for animals in various ways.” 

For her part, Coulter says it’s an honour to see “what these extraordinary young leaders are going to be able to accomplish for our shared planet, and the creation of a more humane and sustainable future.”  

The post New degree is training the next generation of leaders in animal ethics and sustainability appeared first on Corporate Knights.

While environmental groups zero in on animal agriculture as a top driver of climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss and ocean degradation, a growing number of consumers and governments have been demanding more from the sector to cut its carbon footprint.

However, most of the industry’s efforts so far appear to be focused on shifting messaging and undercutting climate policies rather than shifting practices.

Recent analysis by UK-based think tank InfluenceMap shows that the meat and dairy sector in the European Union is using much the same playbook used by Big Oil to chip away at climate policies. “The findings highlight that backsliding on climate and environmental policy in Europe cannot be explained solely by pressure from the farmers protests seen in recent months,” says the report, released in May. “In fact, years of the corporate meat and dairy sector’s strategic narrative building along with detailed policy engagement, both of which mirror fossil fuel industry tactics, have played a pivotal role.”

Researchers at InfluenceMap set out to understand the meat and dairy industry’s influence on the EU’s climate-related goals. They looked at 10 major corporations and five industry associations and how their advocacy affected six key EU policies aimed at tackling agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. The policies include a framework to transition Europeans to more sustainable diets and new rules around pollutants such as methane on European farms.

What they found was a concerted three-year campaign by the sector, aimed at subverting the EU’s efforts to reduce its environmental footprint and meet its net-zero targets. The strategic advocacy significantly influenced the trajectory of European policy-making around both the production and consumption of meat and dairy in the region, the authors found.

For example, the report notes, industry associations including the European Dairy Association, the European Livestock and Meat Trades Union, European Livestock Voice and others, were largely unsupportive of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy. The Farm to Fork strategy “should facilitate the shift towards sustainable diets, combining regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives necessary to secure a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system,” according to the report.

In fact, none of the industry associations analyzed for the report were shown to have engaged “positively” with those EU policies intended to help transition diets or reduce livestock emissions.

Industry associations also vigorously opposed these policies by using tactics reminiscent of fossil fuel lobbying, the report notes. “Both sectors employ similar misleading narratives through strategic public messaging to sow doubt and undermine the need to tackle GHG emissions from the meat and dairy sector.”

In particular, researchers highlighted two narratives: “emphasizing the importance of livestock for society; and distancing livestock from being viewed as a driver of climate change.” And it worked, according to the report, thanks to intense corporate lobbying from 2020 to 2023, with one-third of the examined policies significantly weakened and half of them stalled. Some of the key initiatives affected by these efforts include the Sustainable Food Systems Framework and revisions to the Industrial Emissions Directive, which regulates farm pollutants.

There was, however, a clear divide among companies (as opposed to industry associations). Consumer goods giants like Unilever and Nestlé showed more cooperative stances on the policies compared to meat and dairy producers such as Arla and Danish Crown. On Arla’s corporate website in May 2023, for example, “the company seemed to oppose the need for the transition of diets recommended by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], suggesting that consumers become ‘confused’ regarding sustainable diets which leads them to deselect dairy products.”

Moreover, the meat and dairy industry’s advocacy also influenced political discourse, notably within the centre-right European People’s Party (the EPP, the largest party in the European Parliament, is European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s party), shaping its opposition to policies affecting dietary transitions and agricultural emissions reduction. By aligning with industry narratives, the EPP’s stance during 2022 and 2023 mirrored the interests of meat and dairy producers and their lobbying bodies, setting a tone for potential shifts in policy ahead of the 2024 EU elections.

InfluenceMap’s findings expose a sophisticated campaign by the meat and dairy sector to weaken EU climate policies.

“Following obstructive behavior from the industry, and the infiltration of industry narratives in the EU Parliament and EU Commission, policies that are fundamental to reducing GHG emissions in line with scientific advice have been significantly weakened or have stalled,” Venetia Roxburgh, EU program lead at InfluenceMap, said in a statement. “Without science-based policies tackling the sector, it does not seem likely that European agricultural GHG emissions will reduce in line with 1.5°C.”

Much like similar efforts made by these industries in North America, these tactics have reshaped the landscape of European environmental regulation, delaying and diluting crucial measures meant to help mitigate animal agriculture’s well-documented impact on climate and the environment.

The post Here’s how the meat and dairy lobby is watering down climate policy in Europe appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The online reaction was swift, with stats, charts, links and memes filling replies from all sides. While overwhelming scientific findings consider agriculture, particularly livestock farming, a significant source of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, conflicting measurements, marketing and misinformation have been making the facts more difficult to decipher. And it appears the meat industry has been capitalizing on all the confusion.

Ever since the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) first dropped a bombshell report on the “enormous” ecological impact of livestock farming back in 2006, the trillion-dollar global meat industry has been on the defensive. The report concluded that cars and coal plants weren’t the only ones spewing out planet-warming greenhouse gases: cattle-rearing was also a top contributor to the climate crisis. The backlash was intense, with FAO staffers recently revealing that pressure from Big Ag led to their work being censored and undermined. 

Two decades later, the meat and dairy industries have spent millions on counter-research and marketing, including creating an “MBA” for beef industry advocates. The world’s biggest meat-packers have announced net-zero targets, as the industry tries to reassure the public that despite the urgency of the climate emergency, there’s no need to cut back on our burgers and steaks. Even beef can be part of a balanced planet-friendly diet, they claim. 

In one of the latest attempts to quell consumer demand for more sustainable protein, Tyson Foods, America’s largest beef exporter, launched a “climate-friendly” product line, Brazen Beef, under the slogan “Better beef, better planet.” With the help of US$61 million in grants from the US Department of Agriculture, cattle are enrolled in Tyson Foods’ “Climate-Smart Beef Program,” according to the product website, “for emission reduction from pasture to production.” As Tyson’s VP of fresh meats marketing told Progressive Grocer magazine, “We are trying to be upbeat and different, with something that speaks definitively to [millennial and Gen Z consumers].”

And Tyson isn’t the only one banking on planet-friendly meat to keep consumers coming back to the butcher. Walmart Canada stocks 2.5 million pounds of beef patties certified by the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. Nestlé is paying ranchers for regenerative grazing practices that get sold as carbon credits. General Mills makes a regenerative-beef protein bar that it claims offsets 80% of its greenhouse gas emissions through regenerating soil practices.”

The practice of branding meat as climate-friendly isn’t new. Many of Canadian meat giant Maple Leaf Foods’ products have carried a “carbon zero” label since 2019, when it declared itself to be the “world’s first major carbon neutral food company.” Its Greenfield Natural Meat pork products are cleverly marketed as part of a “low carb(on) diet,” including “planet-based” bacon.

But while these multinationals have made apparent efforts to reduce their environmental impact – from limiting deforestation in their tropical supply chains to retrofitting plants with LED lighting, and even restoring a few thousand acres of grasslands – there is no indication they have reduced production of the products at the heart of the climate quagmire. And as emissions from the world’s 20 largest publicly listed meat and dairy companies keep ticking upwards while global meat consumption swells, some major meat producers and retailers are playing with the metrics that measure them – and lobbying governments to help them make climate-friendly claims that have the appearance of adding up. 

Skewering the stats 

In the air-conditioned corridors of Dubai’s COP28 climate summit in December, a record-breaking number of meat and dairy delegates descended to soft-sell a new way of measuring their sector’s contribution to the climate crisis. The livestock industry is responsible for nearly a third of heat-trapping methane (the world’s second-biggest driver of climate change). To date, the UN and global governments have been measuring “global warming potential” (GWP) over a 100-year time frame using a metric called GWP100. Since methane breaks down in the atmosphere much sooner than carbon dioxide, which will warm the planet for centuries, an additional metric known as GWP* was proposed by Oxford University scientists in 2016 that factors in methane’s potent short-term impacts, taking 2016 methane emissions as baseline. With one caveat: it was never intended to be used as the sole way to measure animal emissions. But the meat and dairy industry is eating it up. 

“Imagine a house is on fire, and someone is actively pouring gas on the fire. They then pour a little less gas and want credit for doing so, despite still feeding the fire. Perhaps they claim they are now ‘fire neutral,’” writes University of California, Davis, researcher Caspar Donnison, co-author of a study published in Environmental Research Letters in December on the use of GWP* in climate-neutral livestock research. “That is more or less what some influential supporters of the livestock industry have done.”

A report by Changing Markets, a U.K.-based foundation, found that, using 2021 as the baseline, Tyson could “use GWP* to claim that a 30% reduction in emissions by 2030 means it is removing 82.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from the atmosphere a year, yet calculations using GWP100 suggest it would still be emitting 58.5 million tonnes annually – similar to the annual emissions of Peru.”

Nusa Urbancic, director of the Changing Markets Foundation, said that using 2021 as the baseline means “GWP* will penalise poor countries that are expanding livestock production from a low base while rewarding the world’s biggest industrial livestock producers with millions of heads of cattle.” 

In the case of Tyson’s Brazen Beef, the metrics have yet to be made public. How Tyson got to the claim of “the first climate friendly beef with 10% greenhouse gas reduction” – becoming the first meat company to use the USDA-backed climate-friendly label – remains unclear. “In order to claim a 10% reduction, you need to establish scientifically a baseline that everyone agrees is the common amount that beef produces,” New York University environmental scientist Matthew Hayek explains. “There doesn’t seem to be any data that the company itself, or the government who it created that certification in conjunction with, is able to provide.” 

Corporate Knights reached out to the USDA and Brazen’s certifier, Where Food Comes From, but reps directed us back to Brazen Beef to elaborate “if they choose.” Tyson Foods did not respond. 

Either way, Brazen has critics raising the question: should a burger that still generates 90% of the emissions of a regular burger be allowed to call itself climate-friendly? 

Regenerative reset

In the face of mounting pressure to get a handle on food systems’ enormous emissions, Big Ag, Big Food and Big Meat have all been leaning into climate-smart agriculture, aka regenerative agriculture or carbon farming, to save the day. Big Meat, in particular, has a hefty amount of emissions to draw down, and they’re hoping to sequester as much as they can into the soil, particularly the rich soil under ranch grasslands. Whether it’s Burger King investing in grassland projects or Maple Leaf, Nestlé and Brazil’s JBS (the world’s biggest meat-packer) buying carbon offsets from farmers that are paid to shift to regenerative practices, bucolic images of animals grazing in the open air are being used to lull conscious consumers into believing that buying meat can be beneficial for the planet.

But quantifying just how much carbon is drawn into the soil when every company uses different definitions of “regenerative” has been messy and the subject of heated debate, with some meat advocates claiming that grass-fed beef, in particular, has little to no effect on climate change. 

Then scientists in the Netherlands, the U.K. and Sweden began looking into it. In a mic-dropping study released in November, the researchers concluded that there is no plausible way for the global livestock industry to ever sequester enough carbon to offset its planet-warming emissions. In order to counter annual methane emissions from ruminants such as cattle, the authors explain, 135 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of carbon would have to be returned to soils – a colossal challenge, equivalent to all the carbon lost as a result of agriculture over the last 12,000 years. Their conclusion: “The claim that ruminant systems can have a negative annual GHG balance via soil C-sequestration is overly optimistic and could be misleading.” 

Don’t have a cow offset

Grasslands aside, for most meat and dairy companies, claiming carbon neutrality and getting to net-zero is still largely a matter of basic omission. To call itself carbon neutral, including its Greenfield Natural Meat line, Maple Leaf (which does not sell beef) says it “eliminated, reduced and neutralized” its Scope 1, 2 and a portion of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that Scope 3 emissions (those from raw materials, feed and ingredients it buys and emissions associated with packaging and distribution) account for about 88% of Maple Leaf’s total emissions, according to the company. That includes emissions from animals and meat purchased from suppliers. “In 2023, we purchased carbon offset credits from 16 projects that neutralized approximately 7% of our Scope 3 emissions,” Maple Leaf spokespeople tell Corporate Knights – specifically for products that carry the “carbon zero” marketing label. As NYU’s Hayek points out, the Scope 3 emissions that Maple Leaf doesn’t include are “the largest slice of their supply chain.”

According to a report by the Freedom Food Alliance (FFA) released this winter, Maple Leaf isn’t alone. “Over 90% of most major meat and dairy companies’ emissions – representing Scope 3 third party supply chain emissions – are mostly omitted from their climate goals.” That includes those of meatpacking giant JBS, who, according to the report, “continues to make ‘net zero by 2040’ statements despite the National Advertising Review Board advising to discontinue this misleading claim,” along with marketing phrases like “Bacon, chicken wings and steak with net zero emissions. It’s possible.” In February, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging that the company made deceptive statements in presentations, ads and on its website regarding its climate commitments. JBS denied the allegations.

The smoke and mirrors use of “net-zero” is just one of the tactics Big Meat uses to “deny, derail, delay, deflect and distract” meaningful discussion, as the FFA lays out. Meanwhile, the meat industry’s efforts have been focused not only on boosting their own products, but also on turning consumers away from plant-based meat alternatives. During the pandemic, brands like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods surged in popularity. Touted as more sustainable and ethical, their sales soared. But by 2022 the narrative had shifted. Skepticism grew as critiques around the “ultra-processed” ingredients in plant-based options gained traction. 

Full-page ads were taken out in major newspapers by a PR company working for the meat industry, which also ran Super Bowl spots in select markets, all to turn people off foreign-sounding ingredients in “synthetic” meat. The tactics used to dissuade consumers from turning to alternatives worked to complement the meat industry’s move to market its products as climate-friendly. 

Rhetoric and marketing play a major role in the rebranding of meat as climate-friendly, explains Jason Hannan, editor of the book Meatsplaining: The Animal Agriculture Industry and the Rhetoric of Denial. “One of the most important contributions of environmental scientists and activists has been to introduce critical terms like ‘global warming,’ ‘climate change,’ ‘sustainability,’ ‘tipping points’ and ‘net-zero’ into our public vocabulary,” he says. “These terms have shaped how we assess governments and industries for their responsibility in our environmental and climate crises.” He notes that “carbon-neutral meat” has become a key term that the industry has appropriated to provide the veneer of environmental responsibility: “It’s like painting a gas station green and claiming it’s environmentally friendly.”

Over in Europe, lawmakers voted in January to outlaw the use of terms such as “climate neutral” for products that use carbon offsets, like, say, Maple Leaf’s bacon (which is not available in Europe). A few weeks later, the European Commission recommended ambitious new greenhouse gas emissions cuts. It had, however, quietly dropped a call for agriculture to curb non-CO2 emissions by at least 30%, compared to 2015, by 2040. All references to livestock farming, methane and a recommendation that Europeans eat less meat had also been taken off the table as a concession to protesting farmers. 

It’s another indication that the meat industry has turned climate change into red-meat politics.

Adria Vasil is the managing editor of Corporate Knights. 

Jessica Scott-Reid writes about animal welfare and plant-based food. 

This story is part of our Spring 2024 Plant Power package.

The post Cooking the books: The magical math of ‘climate-friendly’ meat appeared first on Corporate Knights.

But Cult is not only focused on food for people; if all goes according to plan, the Canadian company will take the first cell-based cat treat to market. “Fish without fishing,” reads the label of Marina Cat, slated for release next year.

While it may seem unconventional to focus on pet food as a means to improve human food systems, Cult believes the pet food industry is a crucial cog in the broader animal agricultural wheel. “Dogs and humans don’t have separate food systems,” explains Joshua Errett, the company’s vice-president of product development.

In fact, today’s mainstream pet food is produced primarily with animal by-products, the leftovers deemed unsuitable for human consumption, which Errett notes is about 30% of what can’t be used from an animal.

The industry’s ability to sell off the unusable product to pet food companies is an economic driver that would otherwise become a major cost. “If we took out that revenue stream, the leg of that table would sort of collapse,” Errett says, “because factory farms operate on razor-thin margins as it is, and if they can’t sell all the offcuts or B-meat into pet food, it becomes biohazardous waste, and they would have to pay to have it removed.”

Errett believes that the best way to reduce society’s reliance on industrial agriculture and meat is through pet food.

So he developed a freeze-dried meat-free dog treat called Noochies! – Cult’s first product available in North America. The treats are made with E  formulation of cultured nutritional yeast called Bmmune, “specifically designed to be high in protein to meet our pets’ daily protein requirements,” according to a company statement, and “provide the animals with meaningful amounts of fiber, immune-boosting B vitamins and gut-pleasing fermented ingredients,” no dead animals required.

Divesting from industrial animal farming in the pet food sector would deliver significant environmental benefits. A 2017 study published by University of California Los Angeles professor Gregory Okin, entitled Environmental Impacts of Food Consumption by Dogs and Cats, found that meat consumed by cats and dogs in the U.S. alone accounts for roughly 64 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year – equal to driving 13 million cars for a year. The study calculated that pets are responsible for 25% to 30% of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the U.S. “If Americans’ 163 million Fidos and Felixes comprised a separate country, their fluffy nation would rank fifth in global meat consumption,” reads a UCLA press release, “behind only Russia, Brazil, the United States and China.”

Environmental and ethical concerns regarding pet food also extend to oceans. A 2008 study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics found, for example, that cats are a bigger threat to fish stocks than humans in Australia, where the research was conducted, consuming on average 13.7 kilograms of fish and seafood each year compared to humans’ 11 kilos. Errett also points to harmful industrial fishing practices, including trawling and its impact on accidently caught snapper. “That’s why we looked at snapper as the main protein in Marina Cat, because it’s a species constantly threatened by industrial fishing,” Errett says.

Marina Cat is made from a blend of ocean snapper, cultivated in a lab by Singapore biotech startup Umami Bioworks and enriched with Bmmune “to provide a high protein, low calorie snack with super savory umami flavors that cats enjoy,” according to a Cult press release. The treats are sold in packaging inspired by “blue zones,” says Errett, which are regions of the world where humans are thought to live the longest. Errett notes the treats are also marketed as beneficial to cat health (which, he adds, is the greatest sales driver in the space), specifically longevity. The company claims that this “first of its kind treat provides benefits to a cat’s cognitive function, based on its high levels of omega 3, 6 and 9 fatty acid chains.”

Though Marina Cat treats have yet to gain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration, Errett is confident. “The FDA has given us a clear roadmap of what we need to do to get to market, and the steps we need to take we are starting them already. So, I can foresee Marina Cat coming out in limited quantities in under a year,” he says. Ultimately, what Errett wants consumers to learn is that “pets can eat without factory farms, and without industrial fishing.”

The post Shrinking the pet food industry’s carbon footprint, one lab-grown cat treat at a time appeared first on Corporate Knights.

No longer are media, investors or flexitarians rallying behind the novel products quite so fervently. Did the products change? Did consumers suddenly quit caring about the eco and ethical impact of their food? Or, has there been a calculated effort at play to turn interest away from the new and improved meat? And what can be done to rally that interest once again? 

In 2019, Beyond Meat famously went public with an IPO that closed at US$65.75 per share, a 163% increase on its first day. That same year, Impossible Foods partnered with Burger King, introducing the Impossible Whopper and marking a major milestone in bringing plant-based meat to the mainstream. By 2020 though, marketing campaigns were already ramping up to pit those ingredient-heavy, plant-based meats against “all natural” animal meat. 

Full page ads in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal claimed that “fake meats” are full of “real chemicals.” A Super Bowl commercial featured a young girl in a spelling bee asked to spell scary-sounding “methylcellulose.” She was told it is a “chemical laxative” also used in “synthetic meat.” It’s actually a common binding agent used in many foods.  

Both the newspaper and TV ads were paid for by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a group headed by former tobacco lobbyist Richard Berman.  Forbes once described the CCF as “a front group that represents tobacco, alcohol and meat companies.” A spokesperson for Impossible Foods similarly called the group a “dark-money front group funded by Big Beef to mislead consumers and push propaganda.”   

There has since been much media commentary on the hows and whys of plant-based meats becoming, as Bloomberg described, “just a fad,” as sales at Beyond Meat fell by almost a third in the last quarter. Founder of the “Reducetarian Movement,” Brian Kateman, for example, responded optimistically in Fast Company, describing a newborn industry simply enduring the natural ebbs and flows of innovation. While Vox Kenny Torrella of Vox chalked it up in part to unrealistic expectations and products that remain too high on cost and too low on taste. But Torrella, too, still sees potential. Although, to meet that potential, the sector will need far more financial support. 

And relying on private investment alone will not get the plant-based sector to price and taste parity. Meat, dairy and egg industries across Canada and the U.S. receive billions in government propping each year, not only for production but also marketing and lobbying, which is spent in –part on turning consumers off plant-based products. This has been deemed by some commentators as an all-out culture war. Plant-based proteins must become a far greater government priority if these undoubtedly beneficial products are going to stand a chance in the battle against Big Meat. 

The fundamentals have not changed: We are still coping with climate chaos caused in part by animal agriculture, contributing at least 14.5% of all GHG emissions. And plant-based meats have not changed: They still require significantly less water, land and energy to be produced, and they emit notably fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Sure, Beyond and Impossible burgers may be considered processed foods, but they still contain all the protein of their animal-based competitors, without all the cholesterol and saturated animal fat and with the added benefit of fibre.

Plant-based meats may not save the planet, but they are a much-needed part of the solution. Governments need to pay closer attention to this and provide the support that this industry needs and deserves.  

The post Where’s the plant-based beef? appeared first on Corporate Knights.