[Tench_Coxe]

Lemme guess. It ends up in Judge Engoron's courtroom.

[BobL]

Actually this was explained well in a video:

Basically the carbon in carbon-based fuels is locked in the ground (as in gas, coal, and oil), and would make it into the atmosphere very, very, slowly, if not for human extraction and burning.

The carbon in cows, and all other foods, is ALREADY (or was already, at least was in the recent past) in the atmosphere and instead undergoing transitions, from CO2 (gas) to hydrocarbons (sugar, and then methane, I think). There is no net increase in carbon since nothing new is added to the atmosphere - it’s just bouncing around.

Anyway, the War on Meat continues. I noticed last weekend that the price of lamb was down over 20% in the past few years, and while that might sound like a good thing, it is due to New Zealand (and probably other countries) killing off their sheep herds...to meet their ‘climate goals’, so these low prices will not stick around very long and then the prices will ‘reset’ to levels that lock-out at least 50% of meat consumption - which means, very, very, high.

[HamiltonJay]

Uh huh...

And since said false claims only influence a subset of customers... who determines how big that subset of customer was?

Because frankly, not one time have I ever walked into my butcher shop or grocery market and worried about how many times the cow farted before it was slaughtered and processed.

So, what standard, or statistics will be used to determine how large the set of misled customers exactly was? Seems to me this would paramount to determine the penalty, should a conviction come down.

After all if a company makes 1 Billion dollars over the course of the claimed fraud, but the subset of customers affected by the fraudulent claims is .00000001%, the damages and penalty would be pretty small.

So, who gets to determine how big the group of people wronged are?

[moovova]

Letitia’s coming for your New York strip steak.

Per wiki...

“The subsidiary was created when JBS entered the U.S. market in 2007 with its purchase of Swift & Company.”

[libertylover]

was accused of making misleading claims about its greenhouse gas emission goals to boost sales among environmentally conscious consumers

Marketing people have and always will target gullible people to sell their products.

[Manic_Episode]

"despite having no viable plan to meet that commitment"

=====================================

Or sane reason for such.

[kiryandil]

Sounds like JBS didn’t pay off the right Democrats in the New Jerk state power structure.