For the greenhouse gas calculation methodology to be workable, it must combine scientific accuracy with operational practicalities, says BMPA sustainability manager Lucas Daglish.
In September 2025, I wrote about a new best-practice methodology for calculating product-level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions developed by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) as part of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs’ (Defra) LED4Food initiative.
Since the publication of these recommendations, the UK meat processing sector has submitted its feedback, setting out a clear set of principles and practical recommendations for how the framework could work effectively at scale. While our sector continues to welcome the ambition for greater consistency and transparency in emissions reporting, recent feedback from meat processors and industry bodies highlights that successful adoption will depend on simplicity, alignment with existing standards and clear safeguards on use.
There is broad agreement that, if adopted, the methodology should build on recognised best practice rather than introducing a wholly new, bespoke approach for meat. At a high level, processors strongly support the goal of a simplified, transparent and consistent life-cycle assessment framework. Alignment with established methodologies used in dairy, seafood and EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) work is seen as essential, both to ensure comparability and to avoid duplicating effort across similar sectors.
A strict reliance on economic allocation applied singly remains a central concern. The sector supports a hybrid approach, combining economic and mass-based principles. Evidence from existing PEF and seafood studies suggests that economic allocation performs well for most edible carcase outputs, but processors argue that flexibility is needed to avoid price-driven distortions. Practical solutions put forward include treating the carcase as a single value where appropriate, and omitting low-value co-products, to reduce complexity without materially affecting results.
On scope and system boundaries, the meat sector feedback reinforces the need for clarity and balance. A cradle-to-grave default approach is supported, aligning with assurance requirements, but with practical exclusions where robust data is not feasible. Capital goods and certain waste streams, for example, are viewed as adding complexity without proportionate benefit at product level. However, clear and measurable data, divided across farm, processing and retail stages, are vital for consistent interpretation.
The treatment of on-farm emissions remains one of the most sensitive areas. Processors are calling for a standardised on-farm measurement scope to ensure parity across the sector, alongside clear differentiation between dairy-derived and suckler beef production, and while carbon is currently the primary metric, there is recognition that a more holistic approach will ultimately be needed, particularly as emerging standards begin to address removals and land-sector changes.
To support uptake, the meat sector strongly recommends using tools to provide practical guidance that demonstrate real-world implications of different allocation and boundary choices to help practitioners, auditors and businesses understand trade-offs and avoid misinterpretation. There is also interest in exploring whether a single, agreed GHG reporting tool could be recommended, informed by the ongoing baselining work underway across the sector.
To conclude: meat processors are seeking clarity on how industry feedback will influence the final methodology, what engagement routes exist across Government, and what timelines apply for any future pilots or consultations. Our ongoing engagement will help shape a workable solution, but credibility and impact will depend on whether the methodology can balance scientific accuracy with operational reality.
