In a major development for the UK agri-food industry the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), in collaboration with WRAP, have released a new best-practice methodology for calculating product-level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed as part of the LED4Food initiative, the guidance is aimed at life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners and sustainability professionals. It offers a science-led, consistent framework intended to support Scope 3 reporting and supply chain decarbonisation across the food sector.

Starting in September 2025, industry stakeholders are being encouraged to participate in live trials of the methodology. The aim is to gather feedback to refine the approach and inform future policy. While the framework is not mandatory, it represents a significant step forward in helping food businesses align with net-zero targets.

However, for the UK meat and livestock sector, a closer look reveals several areas of concern. Despite its potential, the methodology contains some critical omissions and assumptions that may skew results and create challenges in application, particularly for livestock production.

Key Oversights for Livestock

One major issue is the exclusion of soil carbon sequestration. The current guidance focuses only on gross GHG emissions and does not account for carbon absorbed through regenerative grazing or pasture-based systems. This means that some of the environmental benefits associated with sustainable livestock farming are overlooked, limiting the effectiveness of the framework in presenting a net carbon impact.

Another critical area of contention is the methodology’s insistence on economic allocation of emissions across co-products. While this approach is standard in many LCA protocols, it presents distinct problems for meat products. By allocating emissions based on market value, higher-value cuts like sirloin steak could appear to carry up to four times the emissions of the same weight of beef mince, despite being from the same animal. This creates the risk of distorted results, particularly if used for front-of-pack eco-labelling, where price-driven discrepancies may confuse consumers rather than inform them. In contrast, mass-based allocation assigns emissions by product weight and, while not without flaws, offers a more stable and arguably fairer basis for comparison, especially when communicating to consumers.

The guidance also excludes certain indirect emissions sources such as manure storage, farm machinery, and livestock housing. Although consistent with ISO cut-off rules, these omissions risk underrepresenting the full carbon footprint of livestock systems. By doing so, the methodology could inadvertently reduce incentives for farms and processors to invest in emissions mitigation in these areas.

WRAP has identified four primary use cases for this product-level data, once collected: internal business decisions, B2B supply chain communication, corporate Scope 3 reporting, and B2C communication such as eco-labels. Notably absent, however, are clear pathways for engaging primary producers or creating incentives for farmer and processor participation, despite their critical role in reducing and reporting emissions.

Industry Participation Crucial

Although not mandatory, the methodology provides a long-awaited framework for consistent environmental reporting. The upcoming trials present an important opportunity for the meat and livestock industry to test, challenge, and shape the approach to ensure it works in practice and reflects the complexity of meat production systems.

Producers and processors alike are encouraged to engage in these trials and make their voices heard. The future credibility of GHG reporting, and its potential to drive real change, depends on it.