Priorities in Reverse: Most Notable Meat and Dairy Companies Would Rather Spend Money on Ads than Cutting Emissions

The world’s largest meat and dairy companies are contributing significantly to pollution and are responsible for 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. These industries affect climate change with all emissions generated by livestock; cows in particular are the largest agricultural source of methane. The continued expansion of livestock is further imperiling our climate as meat consumption grows. 

Moreover, meat and dairy companies have been responsible for the deforestation of the Amazon, cutting down forests to drive the production of soy exported for animal feed. The carbon footprint of these industries is further increased by steps in the process such as the transportation of live animals to slaughter, the transportation of packaged meat to stores, and the continuous refrigeration required to store meats. All of this quickly adds up.

Despite these contributions to climate change, meat and dairy companies are spending the vast majority of their revenue on advertising. Ironically, the ads that these companies invested in tout their market sustainability, attempting to sway consumers with their green credentials. Their actual follow through has been lacking, though, failing to cut emissions that align with the guidance they received from United Nations experts.

Empty Promises of Carbon Neutrality

With meat and dairy companies investing so much money in public promises of reaching net zero and carbon neutrality, they fail to be specific in exactly how they will go about it and how much they will invest in cutting emissions. These companies also mislead consumers by having vague and misleading statements on their product packaging, like the company Arla saying its cheddar is “building a sustainable future” even though they failed to hit climate targets established by the Paris Agreement, which agreed to keep global average temperature increases to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

With meat and dairy companies investing so much money in public promises of reaching net zero and carbon neutrality, they fail to be specific in exactly how they will go about it and how much they will invest in cutting emissions. These companies also mislead consumers by having vague and misleading statements on their product packaging, like the company Arla saying its cheddar is “building a sustainable future” even though they failed to hit climate targets established by the Paris Agreement, which agreed to keep global average temperature increases to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

JBS, the world’s largest meat company, is perhaps the biggest offender of this lack of follow through. Despite being the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, they have only invested a disturbingly low 0.03% of their annual revenue into climate measures. This amounts to just 6% of its total advertising spending. The company has promised net zero emissions by 2040 and has worked hard to paint an image of climate sensitivity, but so far, their greenhouse gas emissions have actually been increasing each year.

The company’s emissions increased by 51% between 2016, demonstrating that they have been misleading investors and the public. The number of cattle used in their supply chain has increased as well, by 54%. Now, JBS is being sued by New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, for misleading consumers about its commitment to carbon neutrality.

What Can We Do About It?

One of the proposed solutions to combat the carbon emissions generated by the meat and dairy industries is to implement a meat tax. This would involve adjusting the price of meat to reflect its true environmental costs. In high-income countries, beef prices would need to rise by 35-56%, likely driving down meat consumption. The revenue generated from the tax could then be redistributed to enable a higher production of grains, vegetables, and alternative proteins. If plant-based foods were much more affordable, more people might be apt to turn to those instead.

One of the proposed solutions to combat the carbon emissions generated by the meat and dairy industries is to implement a meat tax. This would involve adjusting the price of meat to reflect its true environmental costs. In high-income countries, beef prices would need to rise by 35-56%, likely driving down meat consumption. The revenue generated from the tax could then be redistributed to enable a higher production of grains, vegetables, and alternative proteins. If plant-based foods were much more affordable, more people might be apt to turn to those instead.

A more equal distribution of government support could also be helpful, shifting financial incentives towards sustainable practices and plant-based production. Since subsidies are currently favoring the meat and dairy industries, prices are artificially low, making for an overconsumption of meat and dairy. If governments offered subsidies and tax breaks for sustainable agricultural practices and plant-based food producers, the playing field would be leveled, and environmentally friendly food choices would be a more attractive option. 

If financial support is reallocated, governments can mitigate the environmental impacts of food production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No matter the solution, it will take joint efforts to align economic recovery with sustainable practices and to keep these huge industries accountable for their contributions to climate change. If they could only follow through on what they are advertising, a gigantic step would be made towards damage control.