Over the years, we’ve seen a wide range of numerical percentages used to assign the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) the animal agriculture industry contributes on a global scale. Different studies and debates on the number continue, but meanwhile, it’s certain that processors are making concerted efforts — and setting ambitious goals — to reduce and/or neutralize their carbon footprints.

That Danish Crown withdrew its “climate-controlled pig” phrasing on its label under pressure from retailers and environmental activists speaks to the issue of just how much credit the industry can expect to get for its efforts — and from whom. Europe’s largest pork processor, like many of its U.S.-based meat counterparts, also recently rolled out a plant-based product line. Its CEO said beef, for example, would soon become a “luxury,” and that they have underestimated the staying power of such meat alternatives.

Much of the ascent of plant-based analogues, in recent years, can be tied to relentless marketing that extols the flowery virtues of a production system ostensibly less taxing on the planet than is animal agriculture. But when the muscle of your company is, well, the muscles of animals, and you’re trying to do good by way of both platforms, can you expect the same reception in both?

In ditching its “climate-controlled” claim, Danish Crown has discovered not only a dilemma facing its hybrid contemporaries, but alsoa damaging hypocrisy in the growing marketof “sustainability.”

“We think it’s a shame, because climate-controlled pigs were a way of communicating that the farmers who supply pigs to us are actively working to lower their CO2 footprint,” Danish Crown spokeswoman Astrid Gade Nielsen was quoted as saying. “We will lose the climate fight if large companies are not allowed to take part in it and communicate about the effort.”

Danish Crown is fighting the lawsuit behind its predicament, countering that it did not misrepresent its carbon footprint in its marketing. The processor, which aims to be carbon neutral by 2050, says it has research and third-party verification and certification to back up its claims in court.

New entrants into this hostile arena best have their back-ups in order, too. For example, Low Carbon Beef, a Stillwater, Okla.-based company, recently received approval from USDA’s Process Verified Program to figure the life cycle of GHGs for beef production in order to allow marketers to distinguish beef products as having been produced with a reduced carbon output.

Undoubtedly, there are consumers willing to pay the premium for such a product. But growth beyond niche will be an uphill battle as long as those controlling the narrative on “sustainability” effectively prohibit its association with animal agriculture. The industry’s efforts to protect the planet are virtuous, necessary and must continue, but marketing dollars might be better spent on easier sells, such as its natural qualities, nutritional content and deliciousness.

As we see with plant-based bellwether Beyond Meat’s mighty struggles, even a company built “on a mission” to “save the planet” one veggie burger at a time isn’t guaranteed success with such marketing, especially when trying to mimic the product it is shaming takes a hell of a long list of ingredients and a hell of a lot of capital.

Editor's note: This article ran as the Editorial in the February issue of Meatingplace magazine.

The court of claims

Join for free* to continue reading.