‘Climate-Friendly’ Meat? Regulators Tighten Scrutiny of Label Buzzwords.

“Climate-smart.” “Regeneratively grown.” “Sustainable.”

If you’re wondering about all those labels on meat and poultry at the grocery store, so too, it turns out, is the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The agency, in an update to its industry guidelines published this week, signaled that it’s paying closer attention to how companies back up the new environmental buzzwords and said it “strongly encourages” meat and poultry purveyors to get those claims verified by independent third parties.

Food companies have long had to get U.S.D.A. approval for their labels. That has applied to terms like “cage free” eggs or “grass fed” beef. The last update to the guidelines was in 2019.

In this week’s update to the guidance, published Wednesday, the U.S.D.A. took note of some of the latest environment-related marketing claims, like “climate-friendly.” It said it “strongly encouraged” meat producers to provide the U.S.D.A.’s food safety arm with “data or studies to support environment-related claims on their label.”

The agency said third-party verification “helps ensure that such claims are truthful and not misleading,” though advocacy groups point out that these verification services are themselves of varying quality.

The agency’s guidance follows growing concern by environmental advocates and consumer protection groups about what’s often called greenwashing, or the practice of making misleading claims about a product’s environmental impact. And it reflects growing scrutiny by courts and regulators around the world on the labeling of products aimed at consumers concerned about the environment.

For instance, earlier this year, a national court in Denmark told Danish Crown, the country’s biggest pork producer, that it was misleading to label its pork “climate-controlled.” The company discontinued that phrase along with another climate claim.

In New York, State Attorney General Letitia James has sued JBS, the meat multinational, for making “sweeping representations” about neutralizing its emissions in the coming years, but offering “no viable plan.” JBS asked the court to dismiss the case. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The marketing claims reflect how brands are trying to meet consumer demands. In the United States, sales of consumer products that are labeled green or sustainable are growing twice as fast as those that are not, according to research from New York University’s Stern School of Business.

The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization, filed a petition to the U.S.D.A. last year, asking that it prohibit companies from marketing beef as “climate-friendly.” That was prompted by an announcement from Tyson Foods, one of the country’s largest livestock companies, about a ground beef product that the company said was produced from cattle in its “climate-smart beef” program.

Tyson Foods did not return a request for comment on the latest U.S.D.A. guidance. Its website says its “climate-smart beef” program aims to reduce emissions in the beef supply chain.

Beef is the most climate polluting form of meat.

Scott Faber, who leads government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, applauded the latest guidance. He said it reflects the U.S.D.A.’s shifting approach to looking at the proliferation of new climate claims on meat products. “There will be much more scrutiny,” he said.

The guidelines do not require third-party verification of environmental claims.

The new U.S.D.A. guidance is particularly sharp on claims about antibiotic use. If a company attaches a label claiming that the livestock was raised without antibiotics, the agency recommends, but does not require, companies to sample and test animals for antibiotic use before they are slaughtered or use a third-party organization to do the testing.