CHUPINGUAIA, BRAZIL – JUNE 28: Cowboys herd bulls at a cattle feed lot in the Amazon on June 28, 2017 near Chupinguaia, Rondonia state, Brazil. The confinement farm currently holds about 38,000 heads of cattle and employs around 125 full-time workers. At peak capacity the farm dispenses around 900 metric tons of feed to the cattle per day. Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of red meat and poultry and annually exports more than $12 billion per year. Brazil holds 212 million heads of cattle- the largest herd of commercial cattle on the planet. Brazil’s finance minister said he expects the U.S. to remove the ban on importing fresh Brazilian beef soon. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Getty Images
As a negotiation focused on implementation and nature, the Amazon COP, COP30 in Belém was widely expected to be the summit that finally brought food systems, agriculture and equity into the center of global climate negotiations. But newly released participant data suggests a different story: industrial agriculture emerged as one of the most influential blocs inside the negotiations, for the first time rivaling even the fossil fuel presence that has dominated headlines for years.
A report by the Changing Markets Foundation, The Meat Agenda: Agricultural Exceptionalism and Greenwash in Brazil, warns that major meat companies are working to position themselves as climate leaders while simultaneously lobbying to weaken or delay mandatory regulation. The report argues that this strategy is shaping the tone and ambition of the host country where global giants, such as JBS, have sought to present themselves as partners in climate action despite long-running scrutiny over their environmental impacts.
A Growing Corporate Footprint At COP30
This year’s attendance data underscores the scale of that influence. Newly released analysis from DeSmog found that more than 302 delegates connected to major food and farming companies were granted access to COP30, a 14% rise from COP29 and a 71% increase since COP27. Representation spanned major companies across meat, dairy, fertilizer, pesticides and biofuels, reflecting the breadth of industrial agriculture’s presence at the talks.
Animal agriculture companies alone sent 77 delegates, a presence on par with the national delegations of Mexico or Switzerland. Brazilian meat companies JBS, MBRF and Minerva brought 13 delegates collectively; Bayer sent 19; Yara sent 5; while additional representation came from Nestlé, Danone, Cargill, PepsiCo and McDonald’s. One in four industry delegates traveled on country badges, and six held party credentials granting access to negotiating spaces.
“Big Agriculture lobbyists are pushing back against regulation,” said Hazel Healy, UK editor at DeSmog. “They are prepared to invest time, money and resources to repeat the line at the UN climate talks that their sector is the solution to climate change.”
The findings mirror parallel analyses showing at least 1,600 fossil-fuel lobbyists and more than 530 carbon-capture technology advocates registered for COP30, according to the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition and the Center for International Environmental Law. Together, the data points to a broader trend: major industrial sectors are increasing their footprint within the UNFCCC process.
In a world where food systems both drive climate change and are highly exposed to it, the composition of who speaks for agriculture at COP has direct implications for how food-system risks are understood and governed.
Brazil’s Political Landscape Adds Weight
Brazil’s role as COP30 host amplified scrutiny of its powerful agribusiness sector. Agriculture is widely promoted domestically as the backbone of the national economy and a guarantor of food security. But critics note that the sector’s largest companies are primarily export-driven. Brazil accounts for 21% of all beef traded internationally — roughly one in every five kilos consumed worldwide — underscoring the gap between agribusiness’ national messaging and its global market priorities.
The composition of Brazil’s official delegation reflects this influence. The country included 26 agriculture-linked delegates, the most of any nation. Agribusiness is responsible for roughly 74% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions and about 97% of native vegetation loss from 2019 to 2024, mainly in the Amazon rainforest and the Cerrado savannah. These figures have made Brazil’s agricultural policies a focal point of international climate criticism.
Beyond the government delegation, industry associations expanded their presence inside COP30. The Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock sent 30 representatives and has previously opposed measures such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium. The soy sector, alongside livestock, is one of the main drivers of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado and research shows that demand for soy contributed to 10% of deforestation in South America over 20 years.
“The agribusiness lobby is blatant at COP now,” said Adilson Vieira of the Amazonian Working Group. The presence reinforced concerns among climate advocates that Brazil’s agricultural sector, widely viewed as central to its economic identity, has significant sway over the national climate narrative.
Why Agriculture Matters For The Climate
The expanding influence of industrial agriculture comes at a moment when food systems play an increasingly central role in determining global climate outcomes. Food production, processing and land use account for up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock alone responsible for about 32% of global methane emissions. A 2020 study found that even deep cuts in fossil-fuel emissions would be insufficient to keep 1.5°C (and possibly 2°C) within reach if food-system emissions continue on their current trajectory.
These numbers matter not only because they reflect the scale of agricultural emissions, but because industrial agriculture sits at the core of the global food system. The sector shapes land use, commodity markets, and global trade flows, meaning its climate footprint is inseparable from how the world produces and distributes food.
Brazil illustrates this dynamic clearly. As one of the world’s largest beef and soy producers, and the host of COP30, agriculture is responsible for more than 75% of its methane emissions, largely from cattle. With some scientific assessments now suggesting that the 1.5°C threshold may no longer be attainable, pressure is increasing on policymakers to address agricultural emissions alongside energy-sector decarbonization.
Climate Risks Are Now Supply Chain Risks
These scientific warnings are increasingly mirrored in commodity markets. Climate impacts are no longer a distant constraint on future yields; they are now reshaping production volumes, shipping routes and price volatility. The result is that agricultural emissions and agricultural supply risks are converging faster than policymakers expected.
New data from the International Coffee Organization shows that climate disruptions, structural supply deficits and logistical bottlenecks are reshaping global commodity markets. Between 2021 and 2023, global coffee production fell short by nearly 20 million bags. Even a projected surplus in 2024/25 remains too small to rebuild depleted inventories. Extreme weather in Brazil, Central America and Asia, combined with shipping delays linked to Suez Canal restrictions and higher logistics costs, has pushed prices to multi-year highs.
The pressures extend beyond coffee. A recent study in Environmental Research Letters concluded that even advanced adaptation strategies may not be enough to protect crops such as coffee, cacao and wine grapes from rising temperatures and increasingly erratic rainfall. These findings underscore the dual role of agriculture in the climate equation: the sector is both a major emissions source and one of the most vulnerable to climate-driven shocks.
Who Gets a Seat at the Table?
Representation has become another central theme at COP30. Civil society groups argue that those most exposed to climate-related disruptions in food systems have limited access to negotiating spaces, even as agrifood systems employ roughly one-third of the global workforce. Smallholder women farmers in Asia and Africa make up a substantial share of that workforce yet have little to no representation.
“Big agribusiness is driving deforestation, animal cruelty, and emissions, yet they have a VIP seat at the COP30 table,” said Elodie Guillon of World Animal Protection. Others expressed concern that industrial agriculture interests are shaping discussions on methane reduction, land use and agricultural finance. “Multinational corporations of the food and agriculture industry keep undermining the multilateral processes of the UNFCCC,” said Marie Cosquer of Action Against Hunger.
Legal and Regulatory Scrutiny Is Rising
Despite its growing influence at climate negotiations, the sector is facing heightened scrutiny elsewhere. On November 3, the New York State Attorney General announced a $1.1 million settlement with JBS USA over allegations of misleading net-zero advertising. The case followed a 2024 lawsuit challenging the company’s claim it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions have increased oversight of environmental marketing across food and agriculture, suggesting that litigation risk is becoming a meaningful factor for major global producers.
“Meat giants are using their influence over politics, corporate events, and public discourse to shape the narrative,” said Maddy Haughton-Boakes of the Changing Markets Foundation.
The Fossil Fuel Debate Is Overshadowing a Third of Global Emissions
While many governments and civil society groups are pushing for clear language on a fossil-fuel phaseout, researchers note that food-system emissions — which account for roughly one-third of the global total — will play an equally important role in determining long-term temperature outcomes
The trajectory of agricultural methane, land-use change and fertilizer emissions will help determine how far temperatures rise above 1.5°C and 2°C. Whether food systems receive attention commensurate with their climate impact, or whether industrial agriculture’s influence limits the scope of new commitments, remains one of the summit’s defining unresolved questions.
As the talks conclude, the balance of these pressures will shape how food systems appear in the final outcome and whether mounting regulatory and legal scrutiny prompts shifts in the sector’s approach in the years ahead.
