Big Meat is lying about sustainability. These media outlets are helping.
Can newsrooms really expect people to trust their reporting if they fund it by spreading misinformation?
First, Letitia James took on Donald Trump. Now, she’s taking on the meat industry. In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit filed last week, the New York Attorney General accused JBS USA—the American arm of the world’s largest meatpacking company—of “fraudulent and illegal environmental marketing practices” surrounding its claims of sustainability. Specifically, the lawsuit claims JBS USA’s advertisements promising to reach “net zero emissions by 2040” are fabrications, designed to trick environmentally conscious consumers into purchasing an environmentally harmful product.
It’s not the first time Brazil-based JBS has been accused of misleading the public with climate ads. In June 2023, the meat conglomerate—whose brand names include “Swift,” “Certified Angus Beef,” and “Grass Run Farms”—was told by the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), the advertising body of the BBB National Programs, that it should stop advertising its net zero commitment. The NARB concluded that JBS’s claims were unsubstantiated, as the company “does not have a formulated and vetted plan” to reach net zero emissions. It said that “evidence did not support the broad message … that JBS is on a path towards net zero.”
To further support the allegations, James’s lawsuit points out that JBS has not even calculated the full extent of its own carbon footprint. Therefore, there’s no way the $10 billion company could have a credible plan to eliminate it. The lawsuit also notes that JBS’s main business goal is to expand meat production and consumption, which climate scientists say is inconsistent with achieving net zero emissions. JBS already produces 32 billion pounds of animal products per year, and is “one of the biggest consumers of cattle raised on newly deforested land,” The New York Times reports.
“They're making all sorts of claims and promises,” said Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. “I think some people are getting sort of fed up and it's not surprising to see New York take the lead on this.”
And yet, despite the evidence to the contrary, JBS has continued to claim in marketing that it’s on the path to net zero emissions. Worse, some of the most trusted news outlets in the United States have aided in the process, spreading the beef industry’s climate misinformation for a profit. In our analysis of ad monitoring data, we found more than 20 major media outlets that ran JBS climate ads, including Reuters, the Houston Business Journal, CNN, Fast Company, the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, and more.
Here’s are some of the most notable offenders, how they’ve greenwashed for JBS, and what they’ve said in response.
Politico: “It is not up to us to decide what is factually accurate”
Since 2021, Politico has received at least $53,000 to run ads and sponsored content claiming JBS has a plan to reach zero emissions, according to MediaRadar data analyzed by HEATED.
One JBS advertorial in Politico from last year reads: “JBS USA is the first company in its sector to pledge to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.”
To support its claims of sustainability, the Politico advertorial cites information from Colorado State University’s AgNext program. It leaves out, however, that CSU’s AgNext program is funded by the livestock industry, and that its director is JBS USA’s former head of sustainability.
“They're using the university to lend its credibility to the advertorial,” said Jacquet, who recently published a paper in the journal Climatic Change examining how the meat industry cites its own research to make its marketing look legitimate. That’s how corporations create “this illusion of credibility and these false narratives,” she said.
Politico’s ad guidelines don’t prohibit misleading or deceptive content. They only preclude ads that are “gratuitously offensive, depict or advocate violence, or are considered to be in poor taste.” The publication also doesn’t accept “advertisements that discriminate.”
Politico did not respond to our requests for comment about its JBS climate ads. But the company has previously defended its practice of publishing misleading climate ads in comments to HEATED. Politico’s executive vice president Cally Stolbach Baute told us last year: “It is not up to us to decide what is factually accurate or what is not factually accurate.”
The Hill: No comment
The Hill has received at least $15,000 since 2022 to publish sponsored content including claims JBS has a plan to reach net zero emissions, according to MediaRadar data analyzed by HEATED.
One sponsored article calls JBS “The first major meat and poultry company to set a net-zero target for 2040.” It says that “cutting carbon dioxide from food production is among the most significant efforts that need to be made right now,” and that JBS is “fully embracing this sense of urgency.”
In response to the NARB’s ruling, JBS has changed some of the wording of its advertisements. For example, instead of saying it has a “commitment to achieve” net zero emissions by 2040, JBS now often says it is “aiming to achieve” net zero emissions by 2040.
We reached out to The Hill to ask if the publication would continue running JBS climate ads in light of the New York attorney general’s lawsuit, but we did not hear back as of press time.
Wall Street Journal: No comment
The Wall Street Journal has received at least $14,000 to publish ads about JBS’s climate commitments since March 2021, according to MediaRadar data analyzed by HEATED. The ads include sponsored content created by The Wall Street Journal’s creative studio, The Trust.
We reached out to The Wall Street Journal to ask if the publication would continue running JBS climate ads in light of the New York attorney general’s lawsuit, but we did not hear back as of press time.
Fast Company: No comment
Fast Company has received at least $9,930 to publish ads about JBS’s climate commitments since March 2022, according to MediaRadar data analyzed by HEATED.
We reached out to Fast Company to ask if the publication would continue running JBS climate ads in light of the New York attorney general’s lawsuit, but we did not hear back as of press time.
The Washington Post: No comment
The Washington Post has received at least $3,304 to publish ads about JBS’s climate commitments since March 2022, according to MediaRadar data analyzed by HEATED. The MediaRadar analysis, however, does not take into account advertising created for JBS by the Washington Post’s creative studio, WP Creative Group.
One glitzy sustainability ad campaign created by WP Creative Group calls JBS “The first global meat and poultry company to set an ambitious net zero by 2040 target.” It says the company “is leading the change in an industry that wields real influence over the fates of both people and planet.” The campaign adds: “JBS isn’t just talking the talk. The company is aggressively innovating and investing to meet its net zero target right now.”
We reached out to the Washington Post to ask if the publication would continue creating climate advertisements for JBS in light of the New York attorney general’s lawsuit. We did not hear back as of press time.
The New York Times: “All advertising is clearly labeled”
Though we did not find New York Times ads in our MediaRadar analysis, the Times is the only media outlet named in the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit for spreading JBS’ misleading claims.
The lawsuit specifically cites a full-page print ad from April 25, 2021 claiming that “agriculture can be part of the solution,” and that it’s possible to have “bacon, chicken wings and steak with net zero emissions.” The ad also told Times readers that JBS would cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030, and would set science-based targets in order to do so.
The NARB specifically called out these claims as misleading in 2023, and recommended JBS not make them again.
We reached out to the Times to ask if the publication would continue running JBS climate ads in light of the New York attorney general’s lawsuit. In response, Times spokesperson Elizabeth MacAulay Young said “All advertising is clearly labeled, entirely separate from our newsroom, and must meet our advertising acceptability guidelines, which are reviewed on an ongoing basis.”
As we’ve previously reported, the Times has a history of publishing misleading fossil fuel ads in their climate stories and on their podcast, The Daily.
Selling out public trust for polluter funds
When we do stories calling out misleading advertising in the news industry, we often get complaints from reporters and editors that we are eroding public trust in their journalism.
First, we always try to make it clear: We are not casting doubt on the quality or objectivity of these outlets’ reporting. And we have never implied that any publication’s climate reporting was affected by its misleading ads.
More importantly, though, we believe these complaints are misdirected. Our most reputable news outlets are funding their fact-based journalism by giving polluters a platform to lie. This is eroding public trust in journalism. Not the fact that we are calling it out.
Correction: A previous version of this article misidentified the NARB as an arm of the Better Business Bureau. It is an arm of BBB National Programs, which was launched as an independent nonprofit by the Council of Better Business Bureaus in 2019.
Catch of the day: These purrfect siblings bring joy every day to reader Paula, who says she’s starting a new generation of California kittens. Pearl and Penny are littermates, while Mango was born a barn kitty, but now all three bosom buds.
Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? It might take a little while, but we WILL get to yours eventually! Just send a picture and some words to catchoftheday@heated.world.
Big Ag spent over 160 million last year lobbying congress. Because of that, we get inaction on many things. As a long time westerner I'm very aware of what cattle welfare ranching has done to our public lands and animals. Have you heard of "wildlife services"? Look up how many animals they kill every year. Too many wild horses? Nope, but welfare ranchers always want more lands for their welfare cows. And nothing will change until we get the money out of politicians' hands. Until then, eating meat 5 times a day is healthy, meat alternatives are poison, and big ag is sustainable.
Both the lack of a sense of responsibility to fact-check the deceptive ads these media organizations take money to promote, and how how little money it costs bad-actor businesses to abuse those media entities' positions of influence, are very curious things. One would think these media entities' credibility would be worth more to them. Complicity in confusing the public about climate pollution will eventually hurt their brand image and thus their intrinsic value.