WASHINGTON — Tyson Foods Inc. was accused of misleading consumers with its marketing claims that promote a commitment to net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 and referencing product as “climate-smart beef.” The Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a lawsuit against the meat processor, alleging that these climate claims are unsubstantiated.

The suit, filed under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) in D.C. Superior Court, seeks to hold Tyson accountable for “misleading statements” and keep the company from continuing with such claims.

“Our lawsuit aims to hold Tyson accountable for misleading consumers about the true nature of its products and their environmental costs,” said EWG in a joint statement with other environmental and animal rights organizations participating in the suit. “A court order stopping Tyson’s harmful conduct would represent a turning point in the fight to hold the biggest, most powerful contributors to the climate crisis — across industries — accountable for greenwashing.”

EWG said Tyson Foods accounts for approximately 20% of beef, chicken and pork production in the United States, with its beef production responsible for 85% of the company’s total emissions.

Tyson announced in 2021 plans to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Before instating this goal, Tyson originally planned to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 but adjusted its target to address the urgency to combat climate change, the company said.

At the time, the company laid out steps to help reach this goal, such as utilizing 50% renewable energy across its domestic operations by 2030, eliminating deforestation risk throughout its global supply chain by 2030 and expanding its then-5-million acre grazing lands target for sustainable beef production, among other steps.

The lawsuit said Tyson’s 2022 annual revenues exceed $53 billion while it is spending less than $50 million on GHG reduction production, amounting to less than 0.1% of its revenue. Tyson spends around eight times as much on advertising as it does on research, EWG said.

The group claims Tyson is trying to capitalize on consumers’ interest in and willingness to pay more for climate-friendly foods without having “serious plans to achieve” this.