--- title: Why 'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth description: Tyson's USDA-endorsed 'climate-friendly' beef may be more greenwashing than planet-saving solution. canonical: https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/ author: Brian Kateman article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2023-09-08T14:07:47.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T08:03:33.695Z article:section: Ideas og:title: 'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth og:description: Tyson's USDA-endorsed "climate-friendly" beef may be more greenwashing than planet-saving solution. og:url: https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltd951a2e61cbd9a50/698a401e01168226ae983659/beef-meat-climate-impact.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2000 og:image:height: 1125 og:image:alt: Beef section in supermarket aisle og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: 'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth twitter:description: Tyson's USDA-endorsed "climate-friendly" beef may be more greenwashing than planet-saving solution. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltd951a2e61cbd9a50/698a401e01168226ae983659/beef-meat-climate-impact.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 --- # 'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=48e55c8e-d795-440d-8746-1192a350ce63&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=48e55c8e-d795-440d-8746-1192a350ce63&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=48e55c8e-d795-440d-8746-1192a350ce63&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ## Video: Lab-Grown Chicken Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. [Watch (HLS stream): Lab-Grown Chicken Can Now Be Sold in the U.S.](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/fGk6ReWT.m3u8) (2:33)  _Published 2023-06-21. For the first time, U.S. regulators approved the sale of chicken made from animal cells, allowing two California companies to offer “lab-grown” meat to the nation's restaurant tables and eventually, supermarket shelves._ Sep 8, 2023 2:07 PM UTC  In 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched a verification program that would allow meat producers to label their product “low-carbon” if it meets certain criteria. In 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched a verification program that would allow meat producers to label their product “low-carbon” if it meets certain criteria. Getty Images/iStockphoto by [Brian Kateman](https://time.com/author/brian-kateman/) ## Brian Kateman Sep 8, 2023 2:07 PM UTC Meat eaters are about to have a new option in the beef aisle. Along with cuts of meat labeled as organic, GMO-free, grass-fed, or what have you, consumers will now be able to buy beef that’s certified “climate-friendly.” In late 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched a [verification program](https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/auditing/process-verified-programs) that allows meat producers to label their product “low-carbon” if it meets certain environmentally-conscious criteria. And just [last month](https://schweidandsons.com/news/), Tyson Foods and Schweid & Sons, in partnership, began selling the [first burger](https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2023/08/22/schweid-sons-launches-usda-approved-climate-friendly-burgers-with-tyson-foods-for-retail-distribution) to earn that designation. The [Brazen Climate Friendly Ground Beef Burger](https://schweidandsons.com/product/climate-friendly-the-butchers-blend/) was developed under Tyson’s own [Climate Smart Beef Program](https://www.tysonfoods.com/climate-smart-beef-program), supported by [taxpayer funds](https://www.usda.gov/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities/projects). On its face, this might give the impression that the beef industry is finally doing its part to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing emissions. But frustratingly, the whole scheme is more about marketing magic than science-backed solutions. It’s a classic case of[ greenwashing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankateman/2023/03/08/new-technologies-make-factory-farming-more-palatable-thats-not-good-enough/amp/)—using language that intentionally misleads the public into believing that something is environmentally friendly. The USDA is the agency that oversees the agricultural industry and determines which products can use labels like “organic” or, now, “climate-friendly.” Their [climate-friendly certification](https://www.wired.com/story/low-carbon-beef/) program, however, operates via private [third-party companies](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Official%20Listing%20of%20Approved%20Process%20Verified%20Programs%20for%20Sevice%20Providers.pdf) contracted by the USDA. These companies evaluate candidate meat producers’ agricultural practices to determine the emissions output. If that measurement is at least 10% lower than an industry benchmark set by the auditing company for emissions, the producer gets USDA approval to label their products “climate-friendly” and use related language in packaging and marketing. Ten percent probably doesn’t sound terribly impressive, and actually, it’s even worse than it seems. When the USDA first launched the “climate-friendly” certification program (which initially used the label “low-carbon”), it quickly became subject to criticism. Matt Reynolds, a senior writer at [_WIRED_](https://www.wired.com/story/low-carbon-beef/), pointed out in January 2022 that the criteria for earning the certification isn’t very high: for example, the benchmark used by [Low Carbon Beef](https://www.lowcarbonranch.com/), one of the third-party companies that performs evaluations for companies seeking this label, is 26.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions per kilogram of carcass weight. In other words, beef producers must emit no more than 23.67 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions per kg of weight (the [equivalent](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator#results) of the emissions released by driving 60.7 miles in an average gasoline-powered passenger vehicle) to earn the right to call their product climate-friendly. ### More From TIME But that benchmark does not actually indicate below-average CO2 equivalent emissions. A 2019 [study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X18305675) found that the U.S. average for this metric is only 21.3 kilograms, already well under the benchmark of 26.3\. Matthew Hayek, assistant professor of environmental studies at New York University, [points out](https://twitter.com/matthewhayek/status/1696152725086503001?s=46&t=KJrTgN3gmB7D6rznj8taoA) that this means that even products with higher-than-average emissions outputs will qualify for the “climate-friendly” label. On top of that, the third-party verification process isn’t as rigorous as it sounds—it runs on the [honor system,](https://twitter.com/ewg/status/1696257842636857695?s=46&t=KJrTgN3gmB7D6rznj8taoA) allowing companies to report their own calculations, as if there were no obvious conflict of interest. **Read more:** [_Cow Burps Have a Big Climate Impact. Solving That is Harder than You'd Think_](https://time.com/6251162/cow-burps-climate-impact-methane-emissions/) And in the case of Tyson Foods’ [Brazen Burger](https://schweidandsons.com/product/climate-friendly-the-butchers-blend/), it’s a complete and utter mystery how this product qualifies as “climate-friendly.” Although [we know](https://heated.world/p/the-mystery-of-climate-friendly-beef) a company called [Where Food Comes From](https://www.wherefoodcomesfrom.com/) is the third-party auditor, [journalists](https://newrepublic.com/article/175337/bs-behind-usdas-new-climate-friendly-beef-label) have been [unable](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/8/23863100/tyson-climate-friendly-beef-burger-usda) to obtain any information about what baseline that company used, instead being instructed by the USDA to submit a Freedom of Information Act request. What this means is that there is a total lack of transparency, and none of this nuance is required to be presented to consumers. Another problem with the new certification program is that CO2 emissions may not be the best or only proxy for planetary harm. The initiative is a perfect example of [carbon tunnel-vision](https://environment-analyst.com/global/107463/expert-opinion-avoiding-carbon-tunnel-vision): the tendency to focus on CO2 emissions to the exclusion of all other environmental impacts. Yes, greenhouse gasses are directly linked to climate change, and reducing emissions is an important goal. But carbon emissions are far from the only way industrial animal agriculture negatively impacts the environment. Waste from livestock farms [pollutes water](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33959840/) and [makes people sick](https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/sanitation-wastewater/animal-feeding-operations.html). Livestock farming also uses a massive amount of water, such that a single 4 oz serving of beef takes, on average, [463 gallons of water](https://www.watercalculator.org/water-footprint-of-food-guide/) to produce (only serving to further exacerbate climate-linked water scarcity issues). By contrast, a single 4 oz serving of potatoes (basically a small potato), [uses nine](https://www.watercalculator.org/water-footprint-of-food-guide/). In fact, the industry harms the environment just by taking up space. Some of the richest [ecosystems](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon-beef-deforestation-brazil/) on the planet are consistently wiped out to make room for cattle operations; livestock farming is a known threat to [biodiversity](https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca4960en) and a cause of species extinction. With all of this in mind, focusing exclusively on carbon emissions seems wildly myopic for a federal program that certifies products as climate-friendly. **Read more:** [_The Cow That Could Feed the Planet_](https://time.com/6109450/sustainable-lab-grown-mosa-meat/) The program isn’t just useless; it could even harm the environment further. The low bar to certification could de-incentivize producers from making bigger changes and leading consumers to complacency. And even if the requirements for certification were better than average for beef products, the label “climate-friendly” would still be seriously misleading. Beef is by far the [least climate-friendly](https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/carbon-footprint-factsheet) food a person can eat due to its levels of greenhouse gas emissions; according to [one study](https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine), producing a kilogram of beef contributed over 22 times more to the climate crisis than producing a kilogram of rice, and 63 times more than a kilogram of wheat. Not to mention the myriad other ways it negatively impacts the environment. And since brands generally aren’t required to print the relevant numbers, shoppers can’t even compare products to figure out which are the lesser of the evils. Tyson’s [description](https://www.tysonfoods.com/climate-smart-beef-program) of their Climate Smart Beef Program, predictably, is also a big fat nothingburger. Within a thousand words, they manage to avoid any specifics. They talk about implementing and incentivizing “climate-smart practices” through “advanced technology” and “agricultural intelligence,” but they don’t specify what even one single “climate-smart practice” actually is. **Read more:** [_How Israel Became the Global Center For Alternative Meat Tech_](https://time.com/6237414/israel-lab-grown-meat/) It’s unsurprising that an industry would spin the truth to position itself as being on the right side of the climate crisis, but it’s a little galling that a government agency would not just allow this, but facilitate it. The USDA isn’t serving the American people in any legitimate way, despite the government’s ostensible purpose. This program only serves the beef industry, at the expense of misleading (and [likely up-charging](https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/jul/03/tysons-brazen-beef-now-available/)) the customer. It’s unethical and calls the agency’s very purpose into question. The truth is that anyone who is legitimately interested in lowering their environmental impact should [cut back on or skip beef altogether](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-less-red-meat-is-something-individuals-can-do-to-help-the-climate-crisis/), opting instead for plant foods like fruits, grains, vegetables, and legumes. If anything, the “climate-friendly” labeling program is a cynical reminder that customers shouldn’t believe all the claims made in advertising, even when the ads are government-sanctioned. And remember: there is no such thing as climate-friendly beef. At least, [not yet](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fda-approved-lab-grown-meat-is-better-than-factory-farmed-meat-rcna57992). ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/"},"headline":"'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth","datePublished":"2023-09-08T14:07:47.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T08:03:33.695Z","description":"Tyson's USDA-endorsed \"climate-friendly\" beef may be more greenwashing than planet-saving solution.","url":"https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/","keywords":["climate change","healthscienceclimate"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Brian Kateman","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/brian-kateman/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/climate-change/","name":"climate change"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/","name":"'Climate-Friendly' Meat Is a Myth"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Lab-Grown Chicken Can Now Be Sold in the U.S.","description":"For the first time, U.S. regulators approved the sale of chicken made from animal cells, allowing two California companies to offer “lab-grown” meat to the nation's restaurant tables and eventually, supermarket shelves.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/fGk6ReWT/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2023-06-21T20:11:57.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/fGk6ReWT.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/","duration":"PT2M33S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/6311793/climate-friendly-meat-myth/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```