The principle behind Defra’s proposed product-level greenhouse gas (GHG) footprinting methodology is one the meat industry welcomes. A robust, standardised way of measuring environmental impact across the agri-food sector would allow businesses to benchmark fairly, drive improvements, and demonstrate progress to customers and policymakers.

But good intentions must be matched by sound design, and right now, Defra’s approach risks undermining its own stated goals. The methodology as it stands overlooks crucial elements, introduces unworkable requirements, and lacks input from key voices in the meat processing sector.

Where the methodology falls short

• Soil sequestration excluded (for now): Defra acknowledges the complexity of measuring carbon removals from soils, but by excluding this from the outset, the system will significantly misrepresent livestock and mixed farming systems. Farmers who are already adopting sequestration and other GHG reduction strategies will see no recognition or reward for their efforts.
• Economic allocation of emissions: Under Defra’s model, emissions would be allocated by product value. In practice, identical weights of beef steak and mince would report very different GHG footprints. Beyond confusing consumers, this requires processors to share commercially sensitive financial data, which is something most will be unwilling or unable to do.
• Weak stakeholder engagement: To date, only one beef & lamb processor has been consulted and the pig sector not at all. This is wholly inadequate for developing rules that will govern the whole sector.
• No incentives for farmers: The methodology’s core use cases fail to include any mechanism that motivates or rewards farmers for reducing emissions — the very group with the greatest potential to deliver change.

Why this matters now
Defra intends to start testing its methodology in September, barely six weeks after publishing the recommendations. However, to date, there has been almost no consultation with or input from meat processing businesses who are best equipped to highlight the complexities, difficulties and opportunities of a new GHG footprinting system.

That timeline gives industry almost no chance to digest the detail, raise concerns, or prepare meaningful input. BMPA has already called this out and asked for the process to be put on hold, Defra to take one step back and organise a proper 12-week consultation period. Industry input from this will then enable more informed, practical recommendation which can then go on to be tested.

Make no mistake, the industry supports the creation of a standardised footprinting system, but only if it is workable, scientifically accurate, and developed in partnership with the businesses and farmers it will directly affect.

What happens next
We are calling on BMPA members to get involved in challenging Defra’s recommendations. We need direct, on-the-ground input from businesses as well as a collective voice to advocate for a pause and an opportunity for Defra to gather insights and intelligence from those working ‘at the coalface’ which will yield more informed and practical recommendations. Without strong and coordinated industry input, there’s a real risk we will end up with a system that is confusing to consumers, damaging to farmers, and unfair to meat processors.

This is a pivotal moment. If we engage now, we can help shape a methodology that is fit for purpose. It needs to be transparent, fair and capable of driving the environmental improvements everyone wants to see.