A London-based environmental law firm has lodged a complaint with a global trade organization accusing Cargill Inc. of endangering human rights and biodiversity in Brazil.

ClientEarth, a frequent litigant against both countries and companies for producing pollution and fossil fuels, said it filed a complaint with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) detailing how the Minnetonka-based agricultural giant has failed to adequately monitor its extensive soy practices in Brazil.

Cargill is one of Brazil's largest soy exporters. The alleged failures violate OECD "due diligence" guidelines, it said.

The law firm declined to provide a copy of the full complaint to the Star Tribune, saying confidentiality is required by the OECD, an international organization of 38 countries that includes the United States. It provided a summary.

The complaint would be made public if the OECD office in Washington, D.C., decides the allegations are "material and substantiated" and allows it to proceed.

ClientEarth estimated that could happen within a few months. The goal of the OECD complaint process is mediation, which is voluntary.

In its news release, ClientEarth said that despite Cargill's public commitments, the company has failed to lessen its role in soy production that has contributed to the region's ongoing deforestation. The legal group is particularly concerned about the wooded savanna region known as the Cerrado, where soy production is expanding, as well as the Atlantic Forest along Brazil's east coast.

"The rapid expansion of soy production for animal feed worldwide is pushing Brazil's vulnerable rainforests and savannas dangerously closer to tipping points they may never recover from, while putting the communities that depend on them in danger," ClientEarth said in the news release.

When asked about the complaint, Cargill spokeswoman Emily Webster said the company is strongly committed to protecting human rights and forests and pointed to its published policies on both.

"In line with Cargill's unwavering commitment to eliminate deforestation and conversion in South America, we do not source soy from farmers who clear land in protected areas and have controls in place to prevent non-compliant product from entering our supply chains," Webster said. "If we find any violations of our policies, we take immediate action in accordance with our grievance process."

In 2022, the company moved up its deforestation target in Brazil, saying it would end deforestation in its soy supply chain in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco environments by 2025.

Cargill operates seven ports in Brazil and plans to construct an eighth, in the northern city of Abaetetuba. The company was sued in Brazil over the proposal last year for allegedly acquiring the land for the new port through third parties with fake land titles. According to that complaint, the land rightfully belonged to a federally protected traditional community that relies heavily on fishing.

The company has denied the allegations, saying through a spokeswoman that no building would happen without the "proper environmental permits" and consultation with both local regulators and the community.

That lawsuit is ongoing.

In a January interview at Cargill's headquarters, Pilar Cruz, the company's chief sustainability officer, said the company has sought to comply with stringent environmental guidelines while also recognizing Brazilian farmers' rights to produce soy in their country.

"It's not necessarily the big farms that have significant resources, but we're talking about smallholder farmers with a small piece of land," Cruz said. She reiterated that the company works with these producers to adapt practices that would "eliminate deforestation."

"We feel Brazil is such an important country from an agricultural perspective to feed the world," Cruz said.

It's unclear whether the OECD will accept the case. A 2018 peer review of the Washington, D.C., office where this complaint was filed found that it has handled about 18 cases since 2012. In 67% of the cases where mediation was offered, "no mediation took place because the company declined to engage in the process."