98% of Meat & Dairy Green Claims Are Greenwashing (2026 Study)

The Study at a Glance

Citation: Bach M, Loy L, Mach KJ, McDermid SS, Jacquet J. Environmental claims, climate promises, and 'greenwashing' by meat and dairy companies. PLOS Climate, 22 April 2026. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000773. Full paper (open access).

The research team at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School and Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy scraped sustainability reports and corporate websites for every environmental or climate-related claim published by 33 of the world's largest meat and dairy producers. The claim dataset spanned 2021 to 2024 and was coded against a grid adapted from academic greenwashing taxonomy (vagueness, evidence gap, future-only, projection-based, scope mismatch).

The jump from 4 to 17 net-zero commitments in four years — with no corresponding increase in scientific substantiation — is the finding that regulators will notice under the new EU rules.

Claim Category Breakdown

The researchers coded each of the 1,233 claims into one or more categories. A single claim could exhibit multiple greenwashing indicators. The distribution:

Nestlé and Danone published 55 and 49 future promises respectively — claims about what the company will achieve rather than what it has achieved. Under Directive (EU) 2024/825, future claims must be "based on clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments" supported by independent monitoring. A vague 2050 pledge without interim targets or a publicly disclosed transition plan will not survive the September 27, 2026 enforcement date.

The Three Science-Backed Exceptions

Out of 1,233 claims, only three referenced peer-reviewed scientific evidence. They belonged to:

• Fonterra (New Zealand dairy cooperative) — two claims, both climate-related.
• California Dairies, Inc. — one claim.
• Perdue (US poultry) — one claim.

The authors note that two of the three scholarly sources cited were published in journals aligned with agricultural industry interests rather than independent climate science journals — suggesting that even the 0.24% science-referenced subset may not meet the ECGT's "state-of-the-art technical knowledge" threshold.

The Four Greenwashing Patterns Identified

The Miami team grouped the 1,213 non-compliant claims into four recurring patterns that map directly onto ECGT prohibitions:

1. Broad or ambiguous language — terms like "sustainable," "responsible," "climate-smart," or "regenerative" without quantifiable thresholds or definitions. This maps to the ECGT ban on generic environmental claims (Directive 2024/825, Annex I point 4a).
2. Limited transparency on emissions measurement — companies reported progress percentages without disclosing the baseline year, scope (1, 2, or 3), boundary, or methodology. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and its ESRS E1 climate standard, these disclosures are now mandatory for in-scope entities.
3. Reliance on small-scale pilot initiatives — an initiative on 2% of a company's supply chain was routinely presented as evidence of company-wide transition. This is the "scope mismatch" category explicitly banned by the ECGT when a claim suggests whole-product or whole-company performance.
4. Future-only commitments — 38% of all claims described what the company plans to do rather than what has been achieved. The ECGT requires future environmental performance claims to be backed by clear, objective commitments and independent monitoring systems.

For a consumer-facing overview, see our 10 techniques to spot greenwashing guide.

Under EU ECGT Rules, What Fails?

If any of the 33 companies made the same claims on their EU-facing websites after September 27, 2026, here is how the four patterns map to specific ECGT prohibitions:

Penalties under the ECGT and its interaction with Directive 2019/2161 (Omnibus Directive) reach a minimum of 4% of annual turnover in the Member State concerned for widespread infringements, or at least €2 million where turnover cannot be determined. For context, JBS, the largest meat company in the dataset, reported 2024 revenue of €72.8 billion — a 4% cap on EU-sourced revenue would still translate to hundreds of millions.

Related: Full EU Green Claims Directive guide.

Implications for Compliance Officers

For any food, agriculture, or retail business making environmental claims about meat, dairy, or animal-protein products, the PLOS Climate audit is effectively a public map of the claims regulators will now prioritize. Three immediate actions:

1. Audit all future-tense claims. If your sustainability report contains "by 2030," "by 2040," or "by 2050" pledges, each one must be accompanied by a publicly disclosed transition plan, interim targets, and independent monitoring. Our free scanner flags future-tense green claims without accompanying substantiation.
2. Remove "climate-neutral" or "carbon-neutral" milk/meat claims. The EU ban on offset-based neutrality claims is effective September 27, 2026. The Danone "carbon neutral" milk campaign and several European cooperative claims are already under review by national consumer authorities.
3. Replace pilot-project extrapolation. If a regenerative-agriculture pilot covers 2% of supply, the communication must say "2% of our supply chain participates in our regenerative agriculture pilot" — not "we are transitioning to regenerative agriculture."