暗黑爆料

Greeley-based meatpacking giant is being challenged by , a non-partisan arm of , over its greenhouse gas emissions reduction statements. JBS Foods is being accused of 鈥溾�� its operations by touting an ambitious climate goal that it has no viable plan to achieve. The company now finds itself facing off with NAD, a national truth-in-advertising group that considers itself a watchdog for consumers.

JBS went public with in 2021, including a commitment to hit net zero greenhouse gas emissions throughout global operations by 2040. The problem with that commitment, experts say, is that it is almost certainly unachievable for a company like JBS that traffics mainly in livestock and their products.

NAD was recently thrust into the role of arbiter on the question of JBS Food鈥檚 climate promises when questions were raised by the , a non-profit group supporting fair and sustainable food and farm systems.The Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy is challenging JBS Food鈥檚 climate claims and recommended the company for .

NAD Vice President Laura Brett said her group studied the advertising claims that JBS was making around its climate goals, as well as evidence JBS submitted to back up those claims. They concluded 鈥渢hat the evidence was not a good fit for the claim,鈥� Brett said.

The National Advertising Division ultimately that JBS 鈥渄iscontinue claims relating to its goal of achieving 鈥榥et zero鈥� emission by 2040."

鈥淲hat we saw were steps that it was taking to reduce its environmental emissions. However, not a plan that demonstrates it could achieve that goal by 2040,鈥� Brett said.

JBS is appealing the decision. In an email to KUNC, a company spokesperson said they 鈥渢ake their environmental sustainability initiatives seriously and are working to achieve their 2040 net zero goals.鈥�

Climate Goals and the Food System

Experts like Ben Lilliston, the director of Rural Strategies鈥痑nd Climate Change with the Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy,say the challenges JBS is facing when it comes to emissions reductions goals are common throughout the food manufacturing industry.

鈥淚t's challenging for food and agriculture companies, particularly if you are a meat company that is sourcing a lot of beef or dairy,鈥� Lilliston said. 鈥淏ecause if you look at greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, a lot of it's coming from cattle. And JBS is the biggest meat company in the world.鈥�

According to Dr. Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, Director of Colorado State University鈥檚 program, animal agriculture inevitably has a very heavy greenhouse gas footprint that makes net-zero commitments more challenging than in other parts of the economy.

Adding to that challenge is the fact that there鈥檚 still a lot we don鈥檛 know about livestock-related emissions, which overwhelmingly come in the form of methane and the extremely potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. 鈥淭here's a lack of experimental data,鈥� Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson said. 鈥淭rue methane and nitrous oxide baselines from livestock systems don't exist today.鈥�

Counting greenhouse gases emissions

Even if we had that data, accounting for corporate emissions is a tricky business. Emissions are usually placed into three general categories.

• Scope one emissions are associated with internal operations, which the company can generally control. 鈥淚n a company like JBS it would include their manufacturing processes, or their transportation business,鈥� Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson explained.

• Scope two emissions comefrom the company鈥檚 energy use. Corporations have some control over these emissions - they can increase efficiency 鈥� but a greater factor is the energy mix of the regional power company wherever the corporation is located.

• Scope three emissions come fromgreenhouse gasses associated with the company鈥檚 entire supply chain. 鈥淭hose emissions include everything that it takes for the product to come into the company,鈥� Stackhouse-Lawson said.

Scope three emissions make up by far the biggest and most nebulous category. According to Stackhouse-Lawson, they account for about 90% of emissions from most food-related companies. These emissions are also the most difficult to track, and they can be a lot more difficult for corporations to control. There is not yet a standard universally-accepted way to account for them.

Lilliston says that the JBS Net-Zero question is part of an international debate about how companies should set and account for emissions targets.

Because Scope 3 emissions are so large, lack a standard accounting method and are so difficult to track, Lilliston says corporations like JBS can get away with fudging those numbers when they make grandiose climate promises. 鈥淚t gives a sort of distorted view,鈥� Lilliston said. The lack of transparent Scope 3 emissions reporting means there just isn鈥檛 a lot of substance behind these net zero claims. 鈥淚t makes a lot of these net zero pledges more marketing than actual real reductions in emissions,鈥� Lilliston said.

Accountability in Advertising

There is no one group tasked with oversight in the climate claims space, leaving companies to hold themselves accountable for living up to their widely publicized aspirations.

鈥淭here's not a lot of explicit accountability other than companies reporting,鈥� Dr. Stackhouse-Lawson said. 鈥淚t's a real challenge for us in science, because everybody's reporting differently and it's sometimes a bit apples compared to pears. It's certainly hard to compare company to company, and it can even be difficult to determine progress over time.鈥�

That鈥檚 likely why the JBS case ended up on the desk of the National Advertising Division. There鈥檚 no governing body for accountability in climate pledges, but there is a watchdog for truth in advertising.