The Sustainability Dilemma of Beef: Can the Industry Find a Solution This Year?

Editor's note:This article is part of the "2022 Food and Beverage Industry Trends" series.

Beef is unsustainable—this is the accusation from critics, and a change many consumers hope to see. The statistics surrounding the environmental footprint of this meat are striking. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, global livestock production contributes 14.5% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, with beef accounting for the largest share. In 2019, the U.S. livestock industry was the second-largest source of methane (a potent greenhouse gas, which according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about 25 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide). Additionally, according to Statista, global cattle methane emissions have risen by more than 10% since 2000.

"We all worry about what the future will look like, and we all feel immense pressure to mitigate these impacts in tangible ways," said Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University and a researcher of sustainable cattle-raising methods.

Although beef demand remains strong—according to Gro Intelligence, sales last June were 12% above the 20-year average—consumer attitudes may shift in the long term due to beef's significant environmental footprint. Multiple studies show that U.S. consumers have a growing interest in limiting meat consumption because of the livestock industry's impact on the climate. A 2020 Gallup poll showed that among those reducing meat consumption, 49% cited environmental factors as the main reason. Meanwhile, the growing popularity of plant-based alternatives—which are said to produce 30% to 90% lower greenhouse gas emissions than animal-based meat—has also put pressure on the beef industry to address the sustainability of its protein.

In response, beef suppliers have recently begun setting emission reduction targets, adopting methods such as regenerative agriculture and methane-reducing feed. In the coming year, these efforts and the exploration of other solutions are expected to accelerate as the industry seeks to win over skeptical consumers and governments addressing climate change. Meanwhile, some critics argue that meat producers are overlooking certain compelling but costly solutions, highlighting the complexity of making beef truly sustainable.

Industry emission reduction efforts

As a first step, many large beef processors have set emission reduction targets, each relying on a range of measures to achieve them.

Last year, Brazilian beef giant JBS committed to achieving net-zero emissions across its global supply chain by 2040. To this end, it invested $1 billion in projects targeting greenhouse gases, including $100 million by 2030 to help its producers implement regenerative agriculture practices. It also vowed to eliminate illegal deforestation in its supply chain by 2025. This followed a 2020 Guardian report that one of JBS's suppliers was linked to illegal deforestation in the Amazon.

Cargill aims to cut beef emissions in its North American supply chain by 30% by 2030, including through regenerative agriculture. In 2021, Tyson Foods announced a goal to achieve net-zero emissions across its global operations and supply chain by 2050, partly by eliminating deforestation and sourcing beef from producers verified through BeefCare—a program that audits farms and ranches to ensure they follow sustainable practices.

While large beef processors set their own targets, the industry is also trying to collaborate with other stakeholders. The membership of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) includes not only large beef producers, processors, and their suppliers, but also retailers, environmental organizations, and academic institutions.

Ruaraidh Petre, executive director of GRSB, said the organization was formed around goals that industry leaders consider crucial to halting rising temperatures, providing specific principles for different beef-producing regions around the world based on their climates. He said the group found common ground in wanting to prevent climate disaster—both on a personal level and for the benefit of the beef industry.

"If we don't stop climate change, we won't be able to continue operating. Nobody will be able to continue operating." —Ruaraidh Petre, Executive Director, Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

Petre noted that one area of industry focus is feed additives, which have the potential to prevent methane production in cattle. In November, JBS SA announced a partnership with ingredients giant Royal DSM to use its new feed additive Bovaer, which is said to inhibit the enzyme that produces methane in beef cattle and reduce emissions by up to 90%.

Hugh Welsh, president of DSM North America, said the company is currently working with JBS to study how to best implement the additive in its supply chain, but did not disclose how long this process might take. However, he noted that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet approved Bovaer for use as a feed because the agency determined the additive has no nutritional benefit for animals. Instead, the agency classified it as a drug, which means it may undergo a potentially longer approval process.

"There is currently no regulatory pathway for feed ingredients with environmental benefits," Welsh said, adding that the company is trying to determine whether the feed has nutritional benefits for cattle. "It may improve the animal's energy efficiency," he said.

GRSB's Petre also mentioned ongoing genetic research to identify cattle with lower residual feed intake, which could reduce emissions. In July, Cargill announced participation in the "Dairy Beef Accelerator" project, a three-year program studying the benefits of crossbreeding beef and dairy cattle to create hybrids with higher feed efficiency.

"There's a lot of promise, but these things are only now really entering the commercialization stage," Petre said.

The rise of regenerative agriculture

Amid these long-term efforts, a common approach many large beef processors and producers are adopting to address emissions is regenerative agriculture. According to the nonprofit Regenerative International, broadly speaking, these farming practices restore soil and water used for food production by sequestering significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They include practices such as using cover crops to prevent land used to raise beef cattle or grow feed ingredients from releasing carbon.

In September, Cargill announced it would pay farmers to expand or implement regenerative agriculture practices. The beef giant said it would involve sustainable grazing practices to "harness the potential of cattle" and restore soil to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

GRSB's Petre said meat companies have adopted regenerative agriculture very quickly. While studies point to the positive benefits of carbon sequestration, he said these benefits are not yet fully understood because different companies define "regenerative" practices differently.

"It's somewhat being treated as a panacea. Regenerative (agriculture) has become very popular, almost before we have evidence to say 'these are the things to focus on.'" —Ruaraidh Petre

In a 2021 survey of sustainability claims in the meat industry, environmental group DeSmog argued that regenerative practices do not guarantee offsetting beef's climate impact, citing a New York University study that found limited evidence that such practices can sequester more carbon than the industry produces.

However, some small beef producers view regenerative agriculture as a key part of improving the sustainability image of their meat.

The owners of Stemple Creek Ranch, a grass-fed beef company in Northern California, are accustomed to dealing with a difficult growing climate because their home state faces drought trends every year. Lisa Poncia, who co-owns Stemple Creek with her husband Loren Poncia, said the company has prioritized sustainability since its founding in the 1970s, using practices such as rotational grazing, which confines cattle to one area of pasture to allow plants in other parts to recover.

The company sells whole-cut steaks, hot dogs, jerky, and ground beef on its website. Poncia said the company believes in the potential of regenerative agriculture. She noted that the soil improved by these practices supports more biodiversity and allows plants to extract more moisture, and these plants are eaten by cattle, promoting growth.

"The more carbon in the soil, the more water it absorbs," she said.

New Zealand's Silver Fern Farms has adopted some regenerative agriculture practices for its grass-fed beef. According to Matt Luxton, U.S. sales director, the company views the approach as a comprehensive effort involving the entire process of beef production, including lowering overall carbon content, maintaining water quality, and the social impact of beef production.

In July, the company announced it would launch its "Net Carbon Zero Certified Beef" in the United States. It told Food Dive that its retail launch is "coming soon," but has not yet set a release date. To obtain certification, Silver Fern Farms must track the lifecycle of its products from the birth of the cattle through the processing stage to the consumer. It arranged carbon offsets to compensate for emissions generated during the process.

"So all these things have to be investigated, and it's a long and arduous process to make sure all our numbers are correct," Luxton said. The product will be available to U.S. consumers in whole-cut form through the company's website and various grocery stores, he said.

He noted that ultimately, Silver Fern is striving to sequester more carbon than it produces overall. It hopes its practices can provide a broader model for the beef industry.

"If we come to market with this carbon-zero beef and there are 20 other companies within two months, that's a good thing," Luxton said.

Are some measures just 'greenwashing'?

Although beef producers have set goals and adopted methods to address meat sustainability, critics say many of these efforts are "greenwashing." They worry that producers are merely announcing sustainability efforts without a plan to implement them, or that they will not actually reduce emissions.

Stemple Creek's Poncia acknowledged that greenwashing exists in the industry, from both large and small businesses. However, she said her company focuses on prioritizing sustainability as it expands in the future.

"It's not bragging. It's truly who we are as individuals and as a business," Poncia said.

Companies may not be "intentionally" greenwashing, but sustainability goals must provide farmers with a roadmap to more broadly implement their practices, according to Stackhouse-Lawson, who also serves as director of AgNext, the agricultural research center at Colorado State University. She added that these roadmaps may vary by location and by different parts of the supply chain.

Perhaps more fundamentally, Stackhouse-Lawson said it is currently not even known what the total emissions from beef production are, because measurement is very costly and technology is not yet able to measure emissions from large numbers of animals.

"Unfortunately, we don't actually even have a baseline for greenhouse gas emissions from livestock in this country. That's research we would love to do, and we've been proposing it." —Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, Professor of Animal Science, Colorado State University

The sustainable investor organization FAIRR found that only 18% of global meat and dairy companies track even partial methane emissions. This raises the question: if most beef suppliers are not tracking their total emissions, how can they properly achieve their goals?

GRSB's Petre said the commercial beef industry has been investing in reducing emissions. He cited research showing that industry carbon emissions in countries such as the United States, Canada, and New Zealand have been declining for decades. Petre said the industry's overall carbon footprint is rising due to low-income countries increasing herd sizes but with poor nutrition, as well as deforestation, citing findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Meanwhile, progress on feed additives like Bovaer will take a long time to be more widely adopted, he said, because the regulatory process is arduous and financial incentives for farmers are low.

"Individual ranchers or farmers are the ones applying such products, but if there's no financial incentive and the product costs money, adoption will obviously be slow."

One promising method AgNext has been researching is precision grazing, which trains cattle to graze on less land. It involves placing collars on cattle's necks and tracking their movement. When an animal moves outside its desired range, the collar emits a beep.

"You can herd cattle from your desk on your phone and move them appropriately based on pasture growth," Stackhouse-Lawson said.

However, Stackhouse-Lawson said precision grazing is costly to research and implement, and funding is limited from private, grant, and federal investments.

"We are very behind in solutions that truly reduce the broader impact of livestock on greenhouse gas emissions," she said. "In funding mechanisms, it's simply not prioritized."

Petre said technology companies like Vence are developing virtual fencing for grasslands.