The UK’s biggest supermarket is profiting while selling us food containing ‘forever chemicals’, and keeping customers in the dark. It’s time to stop Tesco selling us toxic food.   

You may have heard about PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals’. These toxic substances don’t break down naturally, and have been linked to serious health concerns, from damaging our immune systems to increasing the risk of multiple types of cancer. 

Scientists have long been sounding the alarm about the serious risks of PFAS, and public concern is growing. But up until now, no research has assessed the extent that forever chemicals are present in our food. 

That’s why we took a range of everyday meat, dairy and fish products sold by the UK’s biggest supermarket – Tesco – to be tested at the University of Birmingham’s state-of-the-art PFAS laboratory. 

The result? Every single product contains toxic forever chemicals. 

Every little hurts 

Tesco claims that it is ‘committed to helping customers, communities and the planet’. 

But our results make it clear: The supermarket giant is selling food products that could carry serious health risks, with no transparency or health warnings. 

Several of the items tested – including family favourites such as fish, tinned hot dogs, and turkey sausages – contained especially worryingly high levels of PFAS. 

A national scandal 

Tesco receives more than £1 in every £10 spent by the British public in retail – and its boss, Ken Murphy, has previously taken home nearly £10 million in a single year. 

Tesco is profiting whilst putting its customers at risk. 

And supermarkets are well aware of this issue. Back in 2021, Tesco ignored a petition signed by almost 12,000 people urging supermarkets to remove PFAS from their food packaging. Meanwhile, other supermarkets have made commitments to phase out PFAS, and to investigate further. 

Take action with us 

Tesco must urgently recall the products found to contain high levels of PFAS, and tell its customers how it will ensure the safety of its food products going forward. 

The UK government recently published a plan to take action on PFAS. We believe this plan needs to hold supermarkets including Tesco accountable. 

We’re demanding that Tesco urgently reviews its food safety standards, and commits to eradicating harmful levels of PFAS from its food products. 

Take a couple of minutes to contact Tesco using our email template, and tell Tesco boss Ken Murphy that we won’t accept forever chemicals in our food. 

Alchemic Kitchen started in 2018 as a delivery project of Foodrise (formerly known as Feedback). Now, it’s become an independent community interest company (CIC), marking an exciting new chapter as it continues to create a fairer food system across the Liverpool City Region.

Creating change 

Alchemic Kitchen began as a development kitchen in Merseyside, transforming surplus fruit and vegetables into jams, chutneys and ketchups to reduce food waste. 

But in 2020, Covid-19 lockdowns exacerbated the problems many communities faced in accessing affordable and nutritious food. In response, Alchemic Kitchen shifted its focus to working with local partners to deliver emergency food provision to communities across the Liverpool City Region. 

Today, Alchemic Kitchen is an action-led social enterprise working with communities and individuals to improve food access, create opportunities for knowledge exchange, and advocate for better food systems that support people and the planet. These three ways of working are connected by one belief: everybody should be able to eat a healthy and sustainable diet.  

Improving food access 

Queen of Greens 

Bright and early each morning, you’ll find one of the Queen of Greens greengrocers stocking up the bus for the day ahead. They understand the needs of their communities, loading the bus with local and seasonal produce and an organic offer wherever possible. 

The Queen of Greens is a mobile greengrocer visiting 40 stops across Liverpool, including hospitals, children’s centres and schools. The bus has become a staple, relied on in the community. Customers are welcomed by friendly faces and share stories about the health, social and financial benefits of stopping by.

“We really wanted to get into the spaces of Liverpool and Knowsley where it is easier to buy a vape than to buy an apple,” said Lucy Antal, Director Alchemic Kitchen CIC and Founder Queen of Greens Mobile Greengrocer.

Bringing fruit and vegetables directly to the people who need them builds a healthier, more sustainable food system, one that isn’t reliant on large supermarket chains. 

Access and advocacy work hand in hand here. Research shows 77% of Knowsley is a ‘food desert’, meaning people simply can’t reach fresh fruit and vegetables easily. Alchemic Kitchen’s community team is running consultations across Knowsley to expand the service into the borough and reach communities where food insecurity is high. The team is meeting community leaders, council members and schools to plan routes to the places that need them most.

Knowledge exchange 

Disco Chops 

Knowledge exchange happens best when it’s fun. One way Alchemic Kitchen shares skills across Merseyside is by hosting Disco Chops. With a groovy beat and a whole load of vegetables that would otherwise go to waste, a Disco Chop turns surplus produce into a fun, shared community meal, and a chance to build the confidence to cook it again at home. 

On a sunny April afternoon, a Disco Chop at Sub Rosa in the Baltic Triangle brought people together to cook a vegetable curry, parsnip bhajis and flatbreads. In true Scouse fashion, the team got by with a little help from their friends: Alison Lockett-Burke of The Fig and the Wild, resident chef on Growing Knowsley’s Future, joined the event. A wonderful crowd got stuck into the prep and, just as important, the eating. The team then headed to a school in Kirkby, where parents and students rustled up flatbread pizzas and apple crumble. Families left with new skills and the confidence to use them. 

Alchemic Kitchen has recently secured funding from the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority to deliver eight more Disco Chops across the city region, bringing these high-energy events to schools and community centres over the next year.

Apple Day 

No year at Alchemic Kitchen is complete without Apple Day. 

Since beginning in 2022, the event has seen Liverpool’s historic Speke Hall welcome thousands of visitors to its orchard. Visitors pick apples straight from the trees and take them home with recipe books or help juice them and turn them into crumble. Either way, Apple Day stops two tonnes of apples from going to waste. 

It’s hands-on knowledge exchange. Young people start to understand the connection between their food and the land, and families come together. As one visitor put it: “There’s teenagers in the trees. Well, at least they’re not on their devices!”. This year will mark the fourth Apple Day, supported by the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority. 

Advocacy 

Good Food Plan 

Alchemic Kitchen also works to change the system that makes good food hard to reach in the first place, and that’s the third way of working: Advocacy. 

As a member of the Feeding Liverpool alliance, Alchemic Kitchen helps deliver the Good Food Plan for the Liverpool City Region. It collaborates on research and evaluation, builds partnerships across housing, health and local food networks, and shares what works.  

What’s next?

Alchemic Kitchen is continuing to grow, with new team members and new projects, while remaining focused on the same goal: good food now and a fairer food system for the future. 

Stay up to date with the latest work at Alchemic Kitchen.

In 2012, in the very early days of Foodrise (then Feedback), a small group of food activists gathered in a field in Kent to harvest cabbages and cauliflowers that would otherwise have gone to waste after a last-minute supermarket contract cancellation. The term was “gleaning” was not a word the volunteers had heard before, but an activity they immediately loved. One of those original volunteers was Ren Piercey, now Foodrise’s Gleaning Network Project Manager, who has been involved in gleaning ever since.

Over the past year, Ren has worked with six gleaning groups across England as part of a Defra-funded project, Ready, Steady, Glean. The aim was to increase the volume of surplus food leaving farms and encourage more farmers to welcome volunteers to harvest produce that would otherwise go unsold. The six groups, Still Good Food (Suffolk), Avon Gleaning, Khepera (Buckinghamshire), Sussex Surplus, Alchemic Kitchen (Merseyside) and Deal With It (Kent), rose to the challenge.

Between June 2025 and March 2026 these groups gleaned an impressive 80.2 tonnes of produce, equivalent to £95,267 in wholesale value, preventing 53,752kg of greenhouse gas emissions and providing over one million portions of food. This food has reached social supermarkets, community meals, school kitchens and a wide range of local food projects, as well as being shared among volunteers.

The funding enabled groups to expand their capacity by hiring coordinators and assistants, strengthening relationships with farmers and managing volunteer logistics. It also supported practical investments, from harvesting tools to infrastructure. Deal With It purchased a defibrillator, while Sussex Surplus invested in a shiny second-hand electric van.

A key focus of the project was to support gleaning groups to become more sustainable longer-term. Alongside increasing capacity, Foodrise supported groups to build skills in communications, grant writing and developing new income streams, ensuring they are better equipped to thrive in an increasingly competitive funding environment. We are grateful to Embrace Finance and Nova Fundraising for their support in the developing the capacity of the gleaning hubs.

This Defra project marks the final chapter of Foodrise’s direct coordination of the Gleaning Network, as the organisation shifts towards a national campaigning strategy. Over the years, gleaning has evolved from a Foodrise-led initiative into a thriving, community-driven movement. Today, independent groups work closely with local farmers and communities to ensure good food doesn’t go to waste.

These groups exist in all shapes and sizes, and operate in many different ways. Avon Gleaning runs small, regular sessions with a local community farm, while Still Good Food redistributes tonnes of surplus produce at scale. Whatever the model, each group plays an important role in connecting people to the realities of our food system.

Foodrise has always been clear: gleaning is not a solution to poverty. It should not replace a fair food system where farmers are paid properly for their crops, and everyone can afford nutritious food. But it is a powerful way to engage people – sparking awareness, conversation and action – whilst also offering a practical response to frequent occurrence of farm level surplus.

For many, including Ren, that impact is personal:

“Since that day on the field as a student in Kent, my life course was redirected. I was so outraged by the level of waste I saw and how hidden the issue was, I’ve been in the sustainable food and farming sector ever since. I’ve worked as a campaigner, food grower, food growing teacher, public health nutritionist and community organiser, all with a central aim of getting more people involved with food and how it relates to every element of our lives. Gleaning is a brilliant way to get people tangibly connected to their food system.”

The coordination of the Gleaning Network at a national level will now become a legacy project of Foodrise. While networks are vital for building movements, there is also value in knowing when to step back. Foodrise has played an important role in growing gleaning across the UK, but today, it is the independent groups who are leading the way. The Gleaning Toolkit website will continue to exist online as a resource for existing and prospective groups to consult and learn from.

With strong foundations, practical tools, and years of shared learning behind them, gleaning groups across the UK are well placed to continue growing and inspiring new initiatives. It seems fitting that the final funded project for the Gleaning Network involved groups whose existence has been supported and enabled by Foodrise, and managed by one the first ever gleaning volunteers.

While this Gleaning Network chapter is closing, the future of gleaning is firmly in the hands of groups and communities across the UK who are stronger than ever.

Environmental sector is uniting to express concern over upcoming Supreme Court judgement which could put environmental justice at risk

In 2023, Foodrise mounted a legal challenge to the government over the environmental impact of the UK-Australia trade deal, which gives Australian meat and dairy producers tariff-free access to the UK market, unfairly undercutting UK farmers who operate to higher environmental and welfare standards.

The High Court granted the case Aarhus costs protection, which sets a £10,000 cap on the costs to pay if we go to court and lose.

But the government successfully appealed the judge’s decision to grant the cost cap on the grounds the legislation being challenged was about tariffs rather than environmental issues – despite Foodrise bringing the case because of climate concerns.

The loss of the cost cap is extremely worrying for the wider environmental sector for two main reasons:

1. Without the financial safety net of the cost cap under the Aarhus convention, there is considerably more risk involved for civil society organisations and individuals to mount legal challenges to protect climate and nature. This could mean that whole categories of cases are effectively exempt from challenge because potential litigants, understandably, feel unable to take the risk of losing with an open-ended financial commitment.
2. The Court of Appeal’s decision to lift the cost cap on this particular case has now narrowed the scope of what classifies as an ‘environmental’ case under the Aarhus Convention going forward. From now on, only cases that challenge legislation that in some way regulates the environment will qualify for this type of environmental costs protection. Therefore, cases such as ours, which is based on a challenge to a law, act or failure to act that will have an impact on the environment will not qualify.

Essentially, legal routes to environmental justice are now at risk. 

For this reason, we are challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision at the Supreme Court on 11 June.  

We have taken this important step because accessing the legal system is a critical component of our work and the work of others on behalf of the needs and rights of wider society and nature.    

Ahead of the hearing, we’re issuing a public statement to highlight the significance of this issue and unite with organisations across environmental, climate and food sectors who share our concern. 

View the statement here 

If your community group or organisation is working for a better, greener UK, please join Foodrise and allies including by adding your name to the statement or contacting hello@foodrise.org.uk.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Timeline of events

May 2023: Foodrise launches a formal legal challenge against the UK government over inadequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The deal gives Australian producers significant (tariff-free) access to the UK market to sell beef, lamb and mutton and dairy. Foodrise’s key argument is that climate change impacts were not properly assessed before UK legislation implemented the agreement and that the government failed to have regard to the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change when signing the trade agreement. This has important implications for future trade deals. More detail here.

July 2023: Judicial review filed. Foodrise is represented by Leigh Day. More detail here.

June 2024: Permission to bring the judicial review challenge with an Aarhus costs cap granted by the High Court.

July 2024: The (previous Conservative ) government files an appeal to challenge the Aarhus costs cap on the case at the Court of Appeal (CoA), contesting that the claim relates to the environment.

May 2025: The new Labour Government pursues the appeal (it was previously expected the new government would drop the attempted block). The CoA rules in favour of the government and the costs cap is removed. More detail here.

July 2025: Foodrise applies to the Supreme Court to contest the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the cost cap. Foodrise argues that the government’s appeal could put the UK in breach of the Aarhus Convention. More detail here and here.

October 2025: Supreme Court grants Foodrise permission to appeal. More detail here.

April 2026: Supreme Court grants Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Law Foundation permission to file written submissions in support of Foodrise’s case.

11 June 2026: Supreme Court hearing date

Foodrise has submitted a response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry on air pollution – outlining how agricultural emissions are a significant source of air pollution in the UK, and what actions the government must take to tackle them.

• Read the submission

What’s the problem? 

Agricultural emissions are a significant source of air pollution in the UK. 

Agriculture causes 88% of UK emissions of ammonia (NH3), which is emitted during storage and spreading of manures and slurries and from the application of inorganic fertilisers. Agriculture is also estimated to be Europe’s biggest cause of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution – caused primarily by livestock manure and overapplication of fertilisers. 

This pollution is harming us and the planet.  

Ammonia damages sensitive natural habitats and contributes to particulate pollution in urban areas. 

Air pollution from agriculture is a major public health threat linked to high mortality. According to the EAT-Lancet report (2025), agriculture accounts for one-fifth of global mortality related to poor air quality, which is largely due to nitrogen pollution from fertilisers. 

Despite this, successive governments have failed to take effective measures to tackle them. In fact, we’ve seen unchecked expansion of intensive livestock units in recent years, with a 20% increase in megafarms since 2016. 

Solutions 

Research shows that reducing meat and dairy consumption is one of the best ways to reduce nitrogen pollution. 

A 2014 study estimated that halving European meat and dairy consumption could lead to 40% lower nitrogen emissions. A 2022 study estimated that shifting to the Planetary Health Diet would see an estimated 23.4% drop in EU and UK fertiliser use. 

A shift to lower meat and dairy consumption also has numerous potential co-benefits for public health and the environment. Low-meat diets have been shown to have approximately half the emissions and land use of high meat diets, whilst vegan diets have around a quarter of the emissions and land use of high meat diets. 

Policy recommendations 

There are several policy levers that the UK can use to achieve dietary change: 

1. Reform public procurement and the UK’s dietary guidelines: For recommendations on how the UK could reform its public procurement of food and dietary guidelines to support healthy sustainable diets, see Foodrise’s joint policy briefing ‘Serving Up’ – co-signed by 25 health and sustainability organisations. 
2. Reform farming subsidies and introduce a Plant Based Action Plan: Foodrise’s report ‘CAP at the Crosswords’ explores strategies for how subsidies could be reformed to support a just transition to healthy sustainable diets – with many transferable lessons for the UK.
3. Introduce a moratorium on new factory farms 

Read the submission: 

The government is being forced to defend a new trade measure which will flood the country with cheap sugar – using taxpayers’ money to undermine its commitments on climate and public health.

Legal proceedings have been threatened against the government by charity Foodrise over its decision to substantially increase the raw sugar cane Autonomous Tariff Quota (ATQ). This is a trade measure that allows raw cane sugar to be imported into the UK tariff-free and amounts to a £90 million yearly tax break [1] – which could instead pay for more than 35 million free school meals [2].

This tax break on sugar imports came into force on 1st January and is not due to end until December 2033. The announcement stands in stark contrast to the government’s recent strengthening of the soft drinks industry levy, which was widely welcomed as a public health measure.

Foodrise has put the Department of Business and Trade on notice of this potential legal action, which seeks the Government to reverse its reckless decision to increase the subsidy from 260,000 to 325,000 tonnes of raw sugar cane imports.

The charity, which works to transform the food system, is calling on Peter Kyle MP, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP, to reverse the ATQ increases. If they refuse, then Foodrise plans to bring a claim for judicial review.

Tate & Lyle is the sole importer of raw sugar cane – which means this amounts to a £90million a year tax break to just one company.

The letter is a formal legal warning sent before court proceedings begin. Foodrise has argued that in renewing the ATQ the government has failed to take into account both its climate and public health commitments, to the detriment of domestic legislation and the UK’s international obligations. Foodrise highlights the lack of an environmental impact assessment and failure to assess the impacts of the policy decision on groups particularly vulnerable to health conditions caused by over consumption of sugar.

Sugar supply is already nearly three times greater than the maximum safe limit for population consumption in the UK, with enough domestic supply from British sugar beet farmers to meet the population’s recommended daily allowance.

Since the ATQ was introduced, Brazil has become the UK’s dominant supplier of raw cane sugar. Foodrise has outlined its concerns to the government over the environmental impact of Brazilian sugar consumption, including water use, soil erosion and deforestation of the Amazon and Atlantic Forests. Additionally, imported sugar cane has a far higher impact than British grown beet driven by emissions from its transportation.

The overconsumption of sugar contributes to major public health challenges including obesity, tooth decay, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension. On average, hospitals in England perform 83 decay-related tooth extraction operations each day on children and teenagers, costing the NHS £45.8 million per year [2]. This is equivalent to half of the £90million yearly subsidy to enable more sugar to flood into the country.

Natasha Hurley, Deputy Director at Foodrise, said:

“The decision to subsidise more sugar coming into the country is absolutely nonsensical for so many reasons, including that we already have an oversupply purely from sugar beet grown in this country. Any decision on trade by the government should prioritise the country’s health, support British farmers and properly – and transparently – consider environmental impacts. The sign off to substantially increase the ATQ on raw cane sugar imports falls way short on all three, which is why the decision must be reversed and quickly.”

Rowan Smith, solicitor at Leigh Day, said:

“Foodrise is concerned about the potential unlawfulness of the Autonomous Tariff Quota. They believe important considerations about climate change impact and worsening public health appear not to have been properly taken into account and hope that this letter prompts the Secretary of State to look at this issue again.”

Dr Kawther Hashem, Head of Research and Impact at Action on Sugar, said:

“It is astonishing that the government has introduced a trade measure allowing raw cane sugar to be imported into the UK tariff-free, which effectively equates to handing out a £90 million annual tax break. That money could fund 35 million free school meals instead. At a time when families are struggling, the last thing we need is another tax giveaway to companies importing sugar we simply do not need. As a country, we already consume at least twice the recommended maximum amount of sugar, contributing to rising rates of childhood obesity and tooth decay.”

ENDS

References

[1] Imports of raw cane sugar would cost £28 per 100kg outside of the tariff-free quota, so the full 320,000 tonnes tariff-free saves them £89,600,000: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-the-uks-raw-cane-sugar-atq-and-related-considerations/raw-cane-sugar-autonomous-tariff-quotas-atqs-public-consultation-information

[2] Institutions receive funding at a rate equivalent to £2.53 per student per meal: [Withdrawn] Free meals in further education funded institutions guide: 2023 to 2024 academic year – GOV.UK

[3] Short statistical commentary for hospital tooth extractions in 0 to 19 year olds 2024 – GOV.UK

CAP at the Crossroads: Reforming EU CAP subsidies to support healthy sustainable diets, a new report from Foodrise, reveals the scale of EU common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies directed to meat and dairy, and makes the case for reform to support healthy sustainable diets. 

• Download the full report

• Read the press release

What’s the problem? 

Animal-sourced foods are estimated to cause a staggering 81-86% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from EU food production, yet only supply an estimated 32% of calories and 64% of protein consumed in the EU. 

This new report reveals that a hugely unfair share of EU CAP subsidies, worth billions of euros of EU taxpayers’ money, are directed to propping up high-emissions meat and dairy production, and to promote meat and dairy products. 

The EU is at a crossroads – poised to make crucial decisions on the future of CAP for 2028–2034. Right now, it has the opportunity to support a transition to healthy sustainable diets – a huge economic opportunity with multiple benefits for EU food security, climate mitigation, nature and health. Or continue with a broken status quo. 

Key findings: 

• Beef and lamb received an estimated 580 times more CAP subsidies than legumes such as lentils and beans in 2020. 

• Dairy received an estimated 554 times more CAP subsidies than nuts and seeds in 2020. 

• Meat and dairy received over 10 times more CAP subsidies than fruit and vegetable production, and more than 16 times more than cereal production. 

• Overall, the EU directed three times more CAP subsidies to production of high-emitting animal-sourced foods than to plant-based foods in 2020 – around 77% of total CAP subsidies (€39 billion out of €51 billion). 

• The estimated €39 billion in CAP subsidies spent on animal-sourced foods in 2020 makes up nearly a quarter (23%) of the EU’s total budget of €168.7 billion for 2020. 

Solutions 

Calls have been growing for agricultural subsidies to be reformed to support a shift to healthy sustainable diets and reduced livestock numbers – including the EU’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, the European Court of Auditors, the World Bank, and the 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission. 

The benefits this could bring are huge.  

The adoption of the plant-rich Planetary Health Diet in high-income countries could reduce agricultural production emissions by an estimated 61%. It could also reduce the EU’s reliance on food imports, boost agricultural incomes, reduce EU fertiliser use by about a quarter, reduce deaths from air pollution, and prevent up to up to 10–39% of cancers in Europe. 

Policy recommendations 

We recommend that EU policymakers: 

• Support protein diversification through increased CAP funding and support for farmers engaged in growing plant-based foods for direct human consumption. 

• Increase CAP funds available for the promotion and marketing of plant-based wholefoods and alternative proteins. 

• CAP subsidies for livestock farmers should be made conditional on meeting limits on livestock stocking density per hectare. 

• End all use of EU funds for the promotion and marketing of meat and dairy. 

• Support a just transition in the livestock sector, through an Agri-food Just Transition Fund (AJTF). 

• Ensure that CAP subsidies support nature restoration, of habitats such as peatlands, wild grasslands and woodlands. 

• Introduce an EU Action Plan for Plant-based Foods to support the production and consumption of more plant-based foods across every stage of the supply chain, which: 

• Promotes the public procurement of healthy sustainable plant-rich diets in public institutions like schools and hospitals 

• Provides increased financial support through CAP and other means, for the increased production and processing of plant-based foods for direct human consumption – particularly agroecologically produced foods. 

• Reform dietary guidelines to factor in both health and sustainability – aligning more with the Planetary Health Diet. 

What the experts say 

Martin Bowman, Senior Policy and Campaigns Manager at Foodrise, said: 

“It’s scandalous that such an unfair share of EU subsidies, worth billions of euros of EU taxpayers’ money, are being pumped into propping up high-emissions meat and dairy production and distorting European diets. CAP is at a crossroads, and EU policymakers have a huge opportunity to switch course and take the action required to support a just transition to healthy sustainable plant-rich diets. Which we know have the potential to boost farmer incomes, reduce reliance on imports, mitigate climate change, improve Europeans’ health and restore nature.  

“At the very least, plant-based foods deserve a fairer share of CAP subsidies, to compete on an equal footing. In line with the recommendations of the landmark Strategic Dialogue report, EU policymakers should urgently introduce a Plant-Based Action Plan to promote plant-based foods across the supply chain, and an Agri-food Just Transition Fund to support farmers in the transition. The shameful use of EU funds to promote meat and dairy to EU citizens – which is directly contrary to EU health and climate goals – should end immediately.”  

Read the full report: 

High-emissions beef and lamb received an estimated 580 times more common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies from the European Union than legumes such as lentils and beans in 2020 (€8 billion compared to just €14 million), according to shocking figures released by charity Foodrise. 

Similarly, dairy received an estimated 500 times more CAP payments than nuts and seeds (€16 billion compared to just €29 million). Overall, the EU directed three times more CAP subsidies to production of high-emitting meat and dairy than to plant-based foods in 2020 – around 77% of total CAP subsidies for farmers (€39 billion out of €51 billion).  

The breakdown of funding for individual food types by the EU is published today in a new report, CAP at the Crossroads, from charity Foodrise (formerly Feedback) showing the production of meat and dairy received over 10 times more CAP subsidies than fruit and vegetable production, and over 16 times more than cereal production.

This comes as EU policymakers are due to make crucial decisions this year on public money given to farmers through its common agricultural policy for 2028–2034, with the significant risk that meat and dairy will continue to get the lion’s share.   

These disparities come despite animal-based foods being estimated to cause between 81 and 86% of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions (the total emissions released during the lifecycle of products) from EU food production, [1] while only providing an estimated 32% of calories and 64% of protein consumed in the EU. [2]   

On average, beef causes an estimated 21-62 times more emissions compared with pulses, per gram of protein [3] – and pulses have benefits for fixing nitrogen in soils and health. [4] 

Calls have been growing for agricultural subsidies to be reformed to support a shift to healthy sustainable diets and reduced livestock numbers – including the EU’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, [5] the European Court of Auditors, [6] the World Bank, [7] and the 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission. [8]  

But this comes in a context of the EU rolling back environmental commitments faced by agribusiness lobbying and the rise of the far-right – and is still mulling a potential ‘veggie burger’ labelling ban reserving words like ‘burger’ and ‘sausage’ for meat products.  

Martin Bowman, Senior Campaigns Manager at Foodrise, said: 

“It’s scandalous that such an unfair share of EU subsidies, worth billions of euros of EU taxpayers’ money, are being pumped into propping up high-emissions meat and dairy production and distorting European diets. CAP is at a crossroads, and EU policymakers have a huge opportunity to switch course and take the action required to support a just transition to healthy sustainable plant-rich diets. Which we know have the potential to boost farmer incomes, reduce reliance on imports, mitigate climate change, improve Europeans’ health and restore nature.  

“At the very least, plant-based foods deserve a fairer share of CAP subsidies, to compete on an equal footing. In line with the recommendations of the landmark Strategic Dialogue report, EU policymakers should urgently introduce a Plant-Based Action Plan to promote plant-based foods across the supply chain, and an Agri-food Just Transition Fund to support farmers in the transition. The shameful use of EU funds to promote meat and dairy to EU citizens – which is directly contrary to EU health and climate goals – should end immediately.”  

The food experts highlight the economic, health and environmental benefits of the EU supporting a shift to healthy sustainable diets – with a greater transition to plant-based foods, and less meat and dairy. 

In addition to a move from funding from meat and dairy to plants, Foodrise’s report recommends that the EU takes forward key Strategic Dialogue recommendations, like implementing a Plant-Based Action Plan to promote plant-based foods across the supply chain, and an Agri-food Just Transition Fund to support farmers through a just transition.

The report also recommends ending the use of EU funds for the promotion and marketing of meat and dairy.  

The adoption of the healthy sustainable Planetary Health Diet in high-income countries could reduce agricultural production emissions by an estimated 61%. [9] It could also reduce the EU’s reliance on food imports, [10] boost agricultural incomes, [11] reduce EU fertiliser use by about a quarter, [12] reduce deaths from air pollution, [13] and prevent up to up to 10–39% of cancers in Europe. [14] 

The European Plant-Based Food and Beverage Market is projected to grow by over 50% to USD 83.3 billion by 2030, [15] and a recent report found that alternative proteins have potential to support 414,000 high-quality jobs by 2040. [16] Healthy sustainable diets could increase average EU agricultural incomes, according to a recent study. [17] 

The 2024 Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture resulted in a breakthrough agreement between EU farming groups, civil society, businesses and academics, which acknowledged an EU trend towards more plant-based foods and recommended “it is crucial to support this trend”. [18]

 
ENDS

Notes to Editors

• For more information please contact Martin Bowman, Senior Campaigns Manager at Foodrise:  martin@foodrise.org.uk
• Please link to Foodrise report in coverage, available here: https://foodrise.org.uk/CAPCrossroads
• Further quotes available on request.

Methodology

Foodrise analysis was based on the underlying dataset from Kortleve et al (2025), shared by researchers at the University of Leiden. Figures are calculated on a consumption basis – so subsidies for crops fed to animals are counted towards animal sourced-foods. For instance, estimates for subsidies to beef and lamb includes estimated subsidies to animal feed used to produce beef and lamb.  

Further info on meat and dairy subsidies

Promotion and marketing of European agricultural products is part of the CAP. Between 2016–2020, the EU spent €252.4 million to exclusively promote European meat and dairy products, including campaigns like “Become a Beefatarian” [19]. In 2023 alone, the EU spent nearly €75 million promoting animal products, of which €29 million was for campaigns encouraging people to eat more meat. [20]  

Footnotes

[1] Based on various sources: Anniek J. Kortleve et al., ‘Over 80% of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy Supports Emissions-Intensive Animal Products’, Nature Food 5, no. 4 (2024): 288–92, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-00949-4; Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (European Commission) et al., Future of EU Livestock: How to Contribute to a Sustainable Agricultural Sector ? : Final Report (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2762/3440; European Court of Auditors, Common Agricultural Policy and Climate: Half of EU Climate Spending but Farm Emissions Are Not Decreasing (European Court of Auditors, 2021), 28, https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr21_16/sr_cap-and-climate_en.pdf.  

[2] EC, EU Agricultural Outlook, 2024-2035 (European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, 2024), 18, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2762/2329210.  

[3] Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek, ‘Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers’, Science 360, no. 6392 (2018): 987–92, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.  

[4] Fabio Stagnari et al., ‘Multiple Benefits of Legumes for Agriculture Sustainability: An Overview’, Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 4, no. 1 (2017): 2, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-016-0085-1. 
 
[5] Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission) and Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (European Commission), Towards Sustainable Food Consumption: Promoting Healthy, Affordable and Sustainable Food Consumption Choices (Publications Office of the European Union, 2023), 29, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/29369.  

[6] European Court of Auditors, Common Agricultural Policy and Climate: Half of EU Climate Spending but Farm Emissions Are Not Decreasing (European Court of Auditors, 2021), 28, https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr21_16/sr_cap-and-climate_en.pdf.  

[7] The World Bank, ‘Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System’, World Bank, 2024, xxiii, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/publication/recipe-for-livable-planet. 

[8] Johan Rockström et al., ‘The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Food Systems’, The Lancet 406, no. 10512 (2025): 1625–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01201-2; EAT-Lancet Commission, ‘New Landmark EAT-Lancet Commission Warns Food Systems Breach Planetary Limits’, EAT, 2025, https://eatforum.org/update/eat-lancet-commission-warns-food-systems-breach-planetary-limits/.  

[9] Zhongxiao Sun et al., ‘Dietary Change in High-Income Nations Alone Can Lead to Substantial Double Climate Dividend’, Nature Food 3, no. 1 (2022): 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5.  

[10] Zhongxiao Sun et al., ‘Adoption of Plant-Based Diets across Europe Can Improve Food Resilience against the Russia–Ukraine Conflict’, Nature Food 3, no. 11 (2022): 11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00634-4.  

[11] Jörg Rieger et al., ‘From Fork to Farm: Impacts of More Sustainable Diets in the EU-27 on the Agricultural Sector’, Journal of Agricultural Economics n/a, no. n/a (2023), https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12530.  

[12] Zhongxiao Sun et al., ‘Adoption of Plant-Based Diets across Europe Can Improve Food Resilience against the Russia–Ukraine Conflict’, Nature Food 3, no. 11 (2022): 11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00634-4.  

[13] Marco Springmann et al., ‘The Global and Regional Air Quality Impacts of Dietary Change’, Nature Communications 14, no. 1 (2023): 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41789-3.  

[14]  In a 20-year risk period. See: Jessica E. Laine et al., ‘Co-Benefits from Sustainable Dietary Shifts for Population and Environmental Health: An Assessment from a Large European Cohort Study’, The Lancet Planetary Health 5, no. 11 (2021): e786–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00250-3.  

[15] Mordor Intelligence, ‘Europe Plant-Based Food and Beverages Market – Size, Trends & Share’, Mordor Intelligence, 11 November 2025, https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/europe-plant-based-food-and-beverage-market.  

[16] Systemiq, ‘Seizing the Economic Opportunity of Alternative Proteins in Europe’, SYSTEMIQ, January 2026, https://www.systemiq.earth/economic-opportunity-of-alternative-proteins-europe/.  

[17] Jörg Rieger et al., ‘From Fork to Farm: Impacts of More Sustainable Diets in the EU-27 on the Agricultural Sector’, Journal of Agricultural Economics n/a, no. n/a (2023), https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12530. 

[18] Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture: A Shared Prospect for Farming and Food in Europe (2024), 10, https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/171329ff-0f50-4fa5-946f-aea11032172e_en?filename=strategic-dialogue-report-2024_en.pdf. 11–12.  

[19] Greenpeace EU, Marketing Meat: How EU Promotional Funds Favor Meat and Dairy (Greenpeace EU, 2021), https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-eu-unit-stateless/2021/04/20210408-Greenpeace-report-Marketing-Meat.pdf.  

[20] Party for the Animals, ‘EU spends millions in taxpayer money on meat ads’, Party for the Animals, 30 April 2024, https://www.partyfortheanimals.com/sv/eu-spends-millions-in-taxpayer-money-on-meat-ads.  

The autumn budget saw a tax break for imported raw cane sugar renewed, but it isn’t a sweet deal for public health or the environment. Sugar campaigner, Ali Hines, spotlights how this move directly contradicts government missions and why it should be reversed.

Foodrise and Seastemik have published a stark new policy briefing Fish out of water: Pulling the plug on land-based salmon factory farms – calling for governments to ban land-based salmon production.

This is a call now backed by 22 organisations including Communities Against Factory Farming, Greenpeace France, Greenpeace Africa, the Green Britain Foundation, and World Animal Protection.

Key Findings:  

• Foodrise and Seastemik’s research reveals that land-based salmon production is an environmental and ethical disaster representing a new, catastrophic form of factory farming.  

• The expansion of land-based facilities will only deepen salmon production’s existing impacts: driving demand for wild-caught fish for feed and triggering a cascade of other harms on the environment, wildlife, animal welfare and communities. 

• UK and European Union decision-makers must act now to stop the spread of this destructive technology before the industry takes hold and causes irreversible damage. 

What is land-based salmon production? 

Globally, around 70% of all the salmon we consume is farmed. Most of this happens in open net pens – giant floating cages in coastal waters. However, a new trend has emerged as companies are starting to experiment with producing salmon on land.  

Using costly and high-tech systems, salmon are now starting to be raised in warehouses on land, crammed inside artificial indoor tanks. This technology is swimming under the radar and presented as the new frontier of the salmon industry, bringing with it a fresh wave of environmental harm and animal suffering.   

Land-based facilities are spreading across the globe, from the USA and Canada to Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, and the UAE. In the UK, interest in land-based salmon is growing rapidly. While no such facilities are operating yet, multiple projects are already in the pipeline. 

That’s why Foodrise and Seastemik have published this new policy briefing to give this emerging technology the scrutiny it needs and raise the alarm with decision makers.  

What’s the problem? 

Land-based salmon farms are nothing more than industrial factory farms. These on-land warehouses are sterile, unnatural and built for mass production. Salmon are packed into barren indoor tanks, denied natural light and space, suffering until slaughter or premature death. It’s factory farming at its worst – and it has no place in our food system. 

The expansion of land-based production systems will only deepen the industry’s existing harms:  

• Fuelling demand for wild-caught fish for feed, plundering vast numbers of fish and taking food from coastal communities. 

• Driving mass mortality events where thousands of fish die due to tech failures, with at least 17 major mortality incidents since 2020. 

• Huge energy and water use. One large farm requires the treatment capacity of a wastewater plant for up to 100,000 people.   

• Harming communities rising up against them. From Belgium to France, the US, and the UK, communities and MPs are saying NO to factory fish farms.  

What can governments do? 

Around the world momentum is building to stop these factory fish farms. 22 organisations have already joined the call for a ban on this destructive industry.  

However, the responsibility to stop the expansion of the destructive industry must not rest with communities and local authorities alone. 

It is therefore critical that government acts now to ban land-based salmon production before it takes hold and becomes the new ‘normal’. 

What the experts say 

“Land-based salmon production is one of the worst forms of factory farming imaginable, reliant on the unsustainable plunder of wild fish for feed and plagued by shocking mass mortality events where thousands of fish die.

This not the future of food. Governments must act now to stop this dystopian reality,” says Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Foodrise.

Read the briefing:

Exhausted Earth: How fertiliser corporations destroyed the nitrogen cycle and how to fix it, a new report by Foodrise, exposes the villains of the nitrogen crisis who are making billions while devastating public health, biodiversity and climate.

What’s the problem? 

Nitrogen is essential for all life on Earth – but industrial farming practices since the Green Revolution have unleashed a flood of synthetic fertilisers that has overwhelmed Earth’s natural nitrogen balance. We are now beyond the “safe operating space for humanity”, with devastating consequences for people’s health, biodiversity and the climate. Nitrogen pollution has well and truly Exhausted Earth but the companies causing it are targeting growth, putting us on a collision course with ecological breakdown. 

This isn’t new. Scientists and policy makers have warned about nitrogen pollution for more than 50 years. The EAT–Lancet Commission’s 2025 report delivers the starkest warning yet: the nitrogen crisis is a food systems crisis and surplus nitrogen must be halved, meaning that agricultural nitrogen inputs need to be cut by more than one-third (42%) by 2050.

Yet instead of shrinking, nitrogen fertiliser output continues to rise. Production has surged by one-fifth (20%) since 2009, when the first planetary boundary assessment was published and scientists first warned that Earth’s nitrogen boundary had been breached.

This report exposes an industry that has long operated in the shadows but whose activities have set off a visible cascade of environmental, public health and social harms. Flying in the face of the science, it has increased output and deployed a full suite of underhand tactics to maintain business-as-usual and protect its profits. 

Nitrogen fertiliser corporations do not feed the world, they fail it. For too long, they have put their profits before our Earth and our food. 

It’s time for our political leaders to rein in, require redress from, and begin shrinking this industry before the window of opportunity closes. 

Solutions 

Tackling the nitrogen crisis means listening to peasant farmers, who already have the solutions – not to agribusiness lobbies who don’t – and redirecting public subsidies. It also means giving teeth to existing domestic and international initiatives to tackle the nitrogen crisis, enforcing them, and moving beyond ‘nutrient loss’ reduction targets. 

Governments must set measurable, year-on-year reduction targets for nitrogen production, in line with the EAT–Lancet recommendations. 

Our demands 

• Drive the shift to the planetary health diet: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, just and sustainable food systems is the most comprehensive and holistic scientific paper ever produced on the food system transformation. Political leaders must implement its recommendations without delay. 

• Listen to farmers, not to agribusiness: As governments take action to enable the shift to the Planetary Health Diet and reduce the nitrogen surplus, it is imperative that they listen to farmers and not to corporate lobbyists. 

• Redouble international cooperation for nitrogen reduction: Given the global consequences of the nitrogen surplus, which extend far beyond national borders, effective mechanisms for international cooperation to achieve nitrogen reduction must be developed. 

• Make the nitrogen fertiliser corporations pay: Reducing nitrogen surplus requires reducing production of nitrogen fertilisers, in the context of an industry structured to grow and to maximise its profits. This will not happen unless political leaders show the necessary leadership to rein in, regulate and shrink the industry. 

What the experts say  

“Nitrogen fertiliser corporations must become as infamous and publicly shamed as the fossil fuel giants for reaping billions in profits at the expense of public health, biodiversity and the climate,” says Carina Millstone, Executive Director at Foodrise. “These companies are pumping millions into greenwashing nitrogen fertilisers and claiming to help feed the world – when in reality they fail it.   

Food system transformation will require significant political leadership to tackle the greatest barrier to change: corporate control. It’s time for our political leaders to rein in, require redress from and begin shrinking the nitrogen fertiliser industry before the window of opportunity closes. The nitrogen cycle must be de-corporatised if humanity is to return within its safe operating space, with a life-supporting nitrogen cycle, rather than a destructive nitrogen surplus.”  

“Synthetic nitrogen fertilisers are devastating Africa’s soils and waters, accelerating climate breakdown, and trapping farmers in a cycle of dependence and debt,” says Million Belay, General Coordinator at Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA). “Meanwhile, powerful corporations are flooding the continent with fertilisers to maximise profit, no matter the human or ecological cost. It is time to break this toxic model. Governments and public banks must stop bankrolling harmful fertiliser expansion and invest instead in farmer-led agroecology that restores our lands, strengthens our sovereignty, and safeguards our future.”  

Read the full report: 

As COP30 wraps up today in Belém, a new climate storyline is taking shape – one that sits squarely at the crossroads of climate action and global trade.

More than ever, governments are using trade tools to deliver their climate targets, from border carbon taxes to deforestation-free import rules.

But why talk about trade when we talk about climate mitigation? 

Because climate policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It happens in a global economy where countries buy, sell, and ship goods every second. Trade is the channel through which one country’s decisions have a knock-on effect across borders, shaping what gets produced, where, and with what environmental and social consequences. 

A quiet shift: the UK’s sugar supply goes Brazilian  

Brazil is famous for its vast natural resources and for exporting commodities such as soybeans, coffee, and beef to the UK. But in recent years, it has taken the top spot in exporting another everyday commodity to the UK: sugar. 

When the UK rewrote its tariff regime post-Brexit, it created a special quota allowing tariff-free imports of raw cane sugar.

The result? A flood of cheap Brazilian sugar heading across the Atlantic and entering the UK market. Today, Brazil – the world’s largest producer and exporter of sugar worldwide – dominates UK sugar imports. 

Yet the narrow lens of free market economics helps to conceal a whole swathe of environmental and human rights abuses driven by sugar production in Brazil. 

Sugar’s hidden environmental footprint 

Sugarcane now covers nearly 10 million hectares in Brazil and plays a major role in driving indirect deforestation. As cane expands over old pasture, cattle are pushed deeper into the Amazon and the Cerrado – two vitally important ecosystems already under immense pressure. 

The risks have only grown since Brazil scrapped federal zoning rules that once stopped sugarcane creeping into the Amazon and Pantanal – the world’s largest tropical wetland. Together, these dynamics make sugar a meaningful contributor to ongoing land-use change, even if its direct footprint on rainforest remains smaller than commodities such as soy and beef. 

Sugar is also profoundly water-hungry, requiring 1,200–1,500 litres of water per kilo. Processing plants still draw heavily on rivers and groundwater, whilst fertiliser runoff and waste products like vinasse pollutes waterways, fuelling algae blooms and degrading ecosystems. 

The human cost 

Behind the sugar industry is a dark labour record. Brazilian authorities have rescued thousands of workers from forced-labour conditions in sugarcane fields. Investigations continue to uncover cases of debt bondage, child labour, and dangerous working conditions – sometimes even in operations claiming sustainability credentials. Land conflicts with Indigenous and traditional communities remain a constant pressure point. 

Taken together, these issues show that Brazil’s sugar supply chain carries significant environmental and social risks. 

It doesn’t stop there… 

When you import sugar from Brazil – putting it on a long sea route across the Atlantic, then onwards to the UK – you’re adding kilometres of shipping, fuel use, and carbon dioxide. Transport-emissions estimates for global food-trade show transport alone can account for roughly 19% of total food-system emissions. 

Combine that with the fact that sugar is already identified as a health-risk product linked to obesity, diabetes and other chronic disease, and it begins to look doubly problematic: high carbon footprint and negative health impact. 

In short: importing sugar from thousands of miles away makes little environmental sense and even less sense when the product itself is harmful for health. When the value of life and nature is taken into account, the numbers simply do not add up.  

It’s time for leaders to confront the real cost of sugar. Climate-aligned trade policy must stop rewarding environmentally destructive and socially unjust supply chains – and start putting people and the planet first.

As COP30 arrives in Brazil, deforestation and its drivers must take centre stage. But will the farmed salmon industry get the scrutiny is deserves? 

If you’ve followed Foodrise’s work on aquaculture, you’ll know that the salmon industry extracts vast quantities of wild fish – much of it from the Global South – to feed the farmed salmon that end up on European dinnerplates.[1] But what’s less well known is the salmon industry’s similarly voracious appetite for soy.  

Farmed salmon is devouring both the ocean and the rainforest, harming people and planet in its wake.  

Global soy production is on the rise

In Belém, the world’s spotlight will rightly be on Amazon deforestation, which is in part driven by soy production. Global soy production has sky-rocketed over the past 50 years and is now more than 13 times higher than it was in the early 1960s. 

Brazil is at the heart of this boom. In 2023, it became the largest producer of soybeans, with exports which hit a record just last month (October 2025). Three decades ago, only four of Brazil’s nine Amazonian states planted soya beans; today, all nine do, making it Brazil’s fastest-growing commodity.  

This huge growth is primarily down to the increasing demands of industrial livestock and aquaculture. Nearly 80% of global soy is turned into animal feed, with nearly 6% going to aquaculture alone. This is more than double the amount that goes towards making tofu (2.6%). 

Without tackling global appetites for meat, animal products and farmed fish, demand for soy – and the environmental devastation it’s causing – will only continue to grow. 

From the Amazon to the Atlantic

Advertising from the global salmon industry would have you believe that farmed salmon is the ‘climate-friendly’ option, but its outsized demand for soy, alongside its rapacious appetite for wild-caught fish, shows otherwise. The reality? Farmed salmon is a key player in driving the extraction of soy and it should not be overlooked.  

In 2020, Norway imported around 370,000 tonnes of Brazilian soy protein concentrate to feed farmed salmon. The land required to grow the soy in Brazil to feed Norwegian salmon in 2020 was 2,154 km2 – an area larger than the size of Greater London. 

Foodrise’s research shows that major salmon producers – Mowi, SalMar, Lerøy, Bakkafrost and Grieg – all source soy from Brazil. 

A social and environmental disaster

Farmed salmon’s demand for soybeans drives a cascade of environmental destruction: 

• Deforestation that wipes out wildlife and fuels increased greenhouse gas emissions 

• Overuse of fertilisers and pesticides that pollute local waterways and soils 

• Soil erosion that strips aways topsoil that this essential for carbon storage.  

And the damage doesn’t stop there. Soy production is also linked to serious social injustices, including slave labour, shocking working conditions and the displacement of small farmers and Indigenous peoples. 

According to the Rainforest Foundation Norway report ‘Salmon on Soybeans’, the soy industry’s expansion is intensifying land conflicts between Indigenous groups and farmers. For example, in the Guarani-Kaiowá territory, soy plantations now occupy disputed lands claimed by Indigenous communities, leading to ongoing violence. Just last year, when Indigenous people attempted to reclaim their land, they were attacked by farmers, leaving 11 people injured.  

It’s time to act

Without cutting our global demand for meat, dairy, and farmed fish, soy-driven destruction will only grow.  

At COP30, world leads must act to break this cycle of exploitation and stop the farmed salmon industry from devouring Brazil’s forests and eating up the Amazon in the name of profit.  

Amelia Cookson is Aquaculture Campaigner at Foodrise  

Learn more about the impacts of salmon farming here: Blue Empire, Fishy Finances 

[1] Research published in 2024, suggests that it takes up to 6 kilograms of wild-caught fish to produce just 1 kilogram of farmed salmon (https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn9698). 

This Autumn, the government’s budget might come with a sugar rush – but not the good kind. 

On November 26th, brace yourself for the familiar flash of cameras as Rachel Reeves, the UK’s Chancellor, brandishes the iconic red briefcase outside No. 10. The Autumn Budget will take centre stage, with headlines buzzing about tax tweaks, spending plans, and the delicate act of balancing the books. 

But beneath the soundbites, one quiet policy may be poised to slip by unnoticed: a sweet deal for Big Sugar. 

Enter the Autonomous Tariff Quota – or ATQ – a wonky-sounding trade measure with big consequences. In short, it lets 260,000 tonnes of raw cane sugar into the UK tax-free. Yes, current policy is actively helping flood the country with cheap sugar. 

That’s why Foodrise and Action on Sugar responded to the UK Government’s Treasury Autumn Budget representation survey, making the case for why the ATQ on raw cane sugar being imported into the UK should not be renewed. 

Because this sugar flood is a big problem, and not just a dietary one. The UK already has nearly three times more sugar than its population should be consuming, according to NHS guidelines. We need 0.75 million tonnes to stay within safe limits. What we actually have? A staggering 1.91 million tonnes. And about a quarter of that is imported raw cane sugar.1 

And where does all this sugar end up? Often in the diets of the most vulnerable. Children in deprived areas are consuming more sugar than those in wealthy communities. Black people and people of colour are far more likely to face sugar-linked health issues such as Type 2 Diabetes. And childhood tooth decay is hitting Asian, Black, and mixed-race children the hardest. 

That’s not the whole story, either. Over half of those sugar imports come from Brazil, where industrial-scale cane production wreaks havoc, from air pollution and deforestation to water depletion and labour abuses. 

So who does this policy actually benefit? Just one company: Tate & Lyle. The ATQ was introduced after the sugar giant lobbied hard – and it’s reportedly saving them up to a cool £72.8 million a year. 

If this government is serious about cutting sugar consumption in half and improving public health, it can’t just talk tough – it needs to act. That starts with putting a stop to cheap sugar imports. The ATQ must go. 

Sweet tooth or not, this is a bitter pill we can’t afford to swallow.

Over the next few weeks, we will be inundated with news from COP30 in Belém. As you follow the developments, bear this question in mind: How much are you hearing about the influence of the fertiliser industry? 

The lobbying prowess of oil and gas is not big news – and the first blog in our COP30 series outlined how the agribusiness lobby has been showing up in high numbers at recent UNFCCC climate talks.

But another powerful force is increasingly muscling in on these negotiations: the nitrogen fertiliser industry. 

New analysis by Foodrise shows that the number of nitrogen fertiliser lobbyists has tripled since COP26. But the extent of their influence is slipping below the radar.  

The hidden polluter behind our food

While we have long known that food systems account for roughly a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, nitrogen fertiliser is an unrecognised but critical contributor to this figure.  

What most people don’t know is that nitrogen fertiliser alone has a bigger climate impact than the entire aviation sector: 

‘A peer-reviewed study published in August 2022 found that the global climate impact of nitrogen fertiliser alone exceeds that of commercial aviation, contributing roughly 2 percent of all global GHG emissions.’ 

And the recently launched EAT-Lancet Commission’s report delivers the starkest warning yet: the nitrogen crisis is a food systems crisis. 

However, this is not what we are hearing from the fertiliser industry, who have deflected responsibility for the nitrogen crisis onto farmers, and doubled down on an insidious narrative that they ‘feed the world’. 

The lobbyists in negotiation rooms

The nitrogen fertiliser industry has sent lobbyists to every climate summit since COP26. And this year is no exception, with 17 in attendance – that’s more than triple the number of lobbyists compared with COP26. 

COP28, held in Dubai, maintains the record for the industry’s biggest turnout, with 48 representatives from eight major nitrogen fertiliser producers: EuroChem, Fertiglobe, Nutrien, OCI Global, PhosAgro, Pupuk Indonesia, UralChem and Yara International. 

This outnumbered the individual official delegations of Nauru (21), Cook Islands (19), Niue (24), Micronesia (26) – all South Pacific small island development states experiencing some of the deadliest impacts of climate breakdown. 

While fewer lobbyists are attending COP30, this year’s contingent is dominated by just three companies: Pupuk Indonesia, UralChem and Yara International. 

So why is this a problem?   

The real cost of ‘feeding the world’

Nitrogen fertiliser production continues to accelerate (production has increased by 20% since 2009) despite the multiple harmful consequences (soil depletion, biodiversity loss, eutrophication, air pollution), and despite the call for a required reduction by 3% every year till 2050. 

Nitrogen fertilisers are pushed by industry and policymakers as necessary for increasing yields and food production. But in reality, they trap farmers into paying for expensive inputs – not to mention that more than half of today’s fertilisers are made from fossil fuels. They are a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, fuelling extraction and the climate crisis. 

And the biggest obstacle to change is the powerful fertiliser industry itself, who are determined to protect their profits and water down, influence and obstruct policy change. Their presence represents a blatant conflict of interest. While their actions cause environmental destruction, they are in the negotiating rooms embedding their narrative that fertilisers are ‘necessary and safe’. 

The science is clear – we can’t tackle climate breakdown without solving the nitrogen crisis. The growing number of fertiliser industry lobbyists at the climate negotiations must raise questions about power, access and influence. 

Perhaps the continued presence of the fertiliser lobby is a response to the increasing body of evidence highlighting its catastrophic impacts. Our analysis even exposed that Bernhard Mauritz Stormyr, the Vice President of Sustainability Governance at fertiliser giant Yara International, has attended every climate summit since COP26. 

We need better governance

To address this, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must urgently implement a governance framework that mitigates conflicts of interest and ensures equal and meaningful representation for all food system actors – particularly marginalised communities (including women, small holders and indigenous communities). 

Whether you sit within the negotiating rooms at COP30, or are following along from afar, consider who might be controlling the narrative – and look out for the fertiliser industry hiding in plain sight. 

Menu of Food Voices reflects our key learnings during the eighteen-month Food Voices Coalition project, funded by Healthy Food Healthy Planet.

Seven organisations in six European countries worked in various ways to influence the food retail sector, from workshops to research and campaigns, through food policy councils, networking, and mobilisation. The common thread in all our work is that we worked from the bottom up, giving a voice to citizens; to marginalised communities, students, and farmers.

A brief recap of our impact so far:

• Foodrise UK explored alternative food networks in deprived areas of Liverpool/Knowsley, focusing on the Queen of Greens mobile greengrocer as an example. Research interviews revealed that residents often prefer community-led shops and pantries over supermarkets, challenging assumptions about consumer choice and showing the limits of food aid.
• Foodrise EU supported residents in a food desert in developing a ‘democratic supermarket’ – a retail model linking food access with community, social, and economic empowerment and has been now included in the local food strategy of the municipality of The Hague. Our approach disproves the stereotype that low-income groups only care about price, showing instead that food can be a starting point for inclusion, health, and dignity. The concept of a democratic supermarket is having momentum with research and an animated video
• Green REV Institute positioned food as a human rights and solidarity issue, engaging youth, local decision makers and citizens through Safe Food Days, participatory storytelling, Safe Food Magazine and Safe Food Portal. Their innovation lies in giving young people leadership roles, proving that ownership, relatability, and emotional connection drive engagement more than technical advocacy. They engage youth in advocacy work by writing to national policy makers and undertake bold action such as filing a complaint to the European Ombudsman regarding the European Commission’s unfulfilled commitments on sustainable food systems.
• ALTAA developed the tool “My Responsible Supermarket” to map 16 areas of retail activity which can be influenced and shaped at the local level. It includes 50 action levers of change that can be implemented by supermarkets and 40 action levers for other stakeholders. Their approach is unique in showing that supermarkets’ practices can be shifted locally and calls on dialogue and cooperation between store managers and local food practitioners creating proof of concept for stronger national and EU regulation.
• CAN France worked with people experiencing food poverty and students to shape supermarket policy demands. Their unique shift was from advocating ‘fewer harmful promotions’ to ‘more positive promotions on healthy, sustainable food’, adapting to community realities while safeguarding against corporate misuse. They published a new report, Retailers: allies or barriers to the transition towards healthy and sustainable food for all?  and started the campaign “When will there be good promotions for good food?”
•  CECU has collaborated with residents in the region close to As Conchas (Galicia) to reframe conflicts related to pollution as a struggle between community and the corporate food system. By defending fundamental rights, they achieved a historic court ruling recognising water pollution as a violation of human rights. They have also promoted a regional alliance in Galicia to demand a fair and healthy food system. Agricultural, environmental and social economy organisations joined forces to form ACUGA (Association of Consumers and Users of Galicia).
•  Terra! focused its work on communities in Rome affected by food insecurity and the fact that this is not simply about lacking access to sufficient food in terms of quantity and quality but rather a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. Beyond the material aspect of need, it also includes intangible factors that deeply affect social relationships, sense of belonging, and psychological well-being. Terra! worked with communities to link transition efforts to ecological and social justice, demonstrating the potential of grassroots campaigns in urban settings, and contributed greatly in setting up the Food Policy Council.

What’s special about this journey is that, while pursuing and achieving impact, we did so reflectively, making the quality of the process part of the impact. By raising awareness on processes, not only among communities and stakeholders, but also within ourselves and within our own organisations, we created a lasting impact that extends beyond the project itself, because it’s about strengthening the power of change.

Although the project has come to an end, we will stay connected and continue our work!

Interested in a specific project or location? Please reach out to the organisation in charge.

For general questions please contact: info@foodrise.eu

Two of Foodrise’s longstanding initiatives – Sussex Surplus and Seeding Reparations – have now become independent Community Interest Companies (CICs). This marks an exciting milestone in the evolution of Foodrise and represents a new chapter in our collective work to promote food justice, reduce waste, and support community-led change.

Seeding Reparations is a racial justice organisation that has fostered a collective of allied organisations to form a powerful network of activists working towards food justice and equitable access to resources. The organisation will now be co-directed by Andre Kpodonu, Foodrise’s outgoing Director of Programmes, alongside Tom Wakeford and Tatiana Garavito, providing strong leadership to expand its reach and impact.  

During his five years at Foodrise, Andre made an outstanding contribution, and his steadfast guidance and relational approach will be greatly missed in the charity’s communities team. Seeding Reparations continues to grow its network of food justice activists, amplifying the voices and leadership of those working towards systemic change. 

“It’s been a joy and a privilege to work with so many incredible people to get Seeding Reparations to this point. More than ever, we need initiatives which work directly with communities to further racial justice and holistic repair within food systems. We look forward to working with Sussex Surplus, Foodrise and our shared networks over the coming years to continue championing our common values.” 

Andre Kpodonu (Director), Seeding Reparations 

Since its inception in 2020, Sussex Surplus has grown from a small pilot project into a dynamic social enterprise, offering training and opportunities for neurodiverse young people, gleaning surplus food, and providing fresh, healthy, and delicious meals from their community kitchen in East Brighton. The organisation will now be co-led by Phil Holtam and Ingrid Wakeling, combining their expertise, passion and shared vision to guide Sussex Surplus into this next stage. 

Co-founding Sussex Surplus has been a real journey, exploring the complexities of how to reduce waste in our food systems while adding value at every step for our community. Foodrise’s guidance in navigating a complex landscape of governance and finance has helped us get our feet rooted firmly in the ground of excellence in the charity sector and we now look forward to spreading our wings in the grassroots sectors of food and community.  

Ingrid Wakeling, Sussex Surplus  

Independence enables both organisations to strengthen their missions while continuing to collaborate with Foodrise and the wider food movement. Cross-pollination is already underway: at a recent Seeding Reparations gathering at Sadeh Farm near Orpington, Sussex Surplus provided catering, demonstrating the continuing synergy between the two organisations. Sussex Surplus will also continue as a partner on Foodrise’s Defra-funded Ready Steady Glean project, ensuring that gleaned food from farms reaches communities across Sussex. 

Becoming independent gives each organisation the space to grow, adapt, and respond to their communities’ needs with greater autonomy, while retaining the shared values of collaboration and solidarity that are inherent to Foodrise.  

“It’s inspiring to see how thoughts and ideas have developed into proposals, proposals into projects, and projects into thriving, independent organisations. This milestone reflects not only the dedication of staff but also the support of our partners, funders, and the communities we serve together. 

“We look forward to seeing Sussex Surplus and Seeding Reparations continue to flourish as independent, autonomous organisations. Their success is a testament to what can happen when activists with vision, collaboration, and determination come together to create meaningful change.”

Carina Millstone, Foodrise  

For more information visit the new organisations’ websites: 

• Seeding Reparations 

• Sussex Surplus

The world’s major meat and dairy companies are generating combined greenhouse gas emissions on par with some of the biggest fossil fuel producers, according to new estimates from environmental and food policy experts issued ahead of the COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil. More than half of the estimated emissions stem from methane, a powerful but short-lived gas that scientists warn must be sharply reduced in this decade to keep global warming within 1.5°C.

The analysis, Roasting the Planet: Big Meat and Dairy’s Big Emissions, published today by Foodrise, Friends of the Earth U.S., Greenpeace Nordic, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, estimates that 45 major meat and dairy corporations generated more than a billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (in CO₂-equivalents) — more than has been reported for Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest oil producer. [1]

The study found that the largest five emitters of this group — JBS, Marfrig, Tyson, Minerva, and Cargill — together produced an estimated 480 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq), surpassing emissions reported for Chevron, Shell, or BP. [2] In addition, the estimated methane emissions of the 45 meat and dairy firms exceeded the reported methane of all EU countries and the UK combined.

Martin Bowman, Senior Policy and Campaigns Manager at Foodrise, said: 

“These profit-hungry Big Meat and Dairy companies are shamelessly driving the climate crisis through their addiction to industrial-scale mass production of meat and dairy. This is despite crystal-clear evidence that to limit climate catastrophe, a shift to healthy, sustainable and plant-rich diets is essential, alongside some much smaller-scale animal farming.

“That’s why we’re sounding the alarm on Big Meat and Dairy’s sky-high emissions, which closely rival Big Oil and exceed those of entire countries. We urgently need to see policymakers step up to take on this powerful industry through both taxation and regulation. This is absolutely crucial for the health of people and planet, and to fund a just transition to healthy food which is sustainably farmed.”

Shefali Sharma, Global Agriculture Policy Expert for Greenpeace Germany, said: 

“As governments head to COP30 in the heart of the Amazon — an ecosystem devastated by global meat giants — scientists are clear that a failure to bring down agricultural emissions will torpedo us well past the Paris 1.5°C red line. Farms that restore nature and communities, not corporate-controlled factories, should be at the center of our food system. It’s not too late for governments to commit to such a transition in their climate plans coming out of this COP.” 

Kari Hamerschlag, Deputy Director of Food and Agriculture at Friends of the Earth, said: 

“We cannot be fooled by shameless greenwashing by Big Meat and Dairy companies. The numbers are stark. Meat and dairy giants are responsible for a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane. If governments are serious about meeting climate goals, they can no longer ignore the climate impact of industrial meat and dairy. Binding agricultural emissions targets, full supply-chain reporting, and support for a just transition toward agroecology and more plant-based food systems are essential.”

Ben Lilliston, Director of Climate Strategies at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, said:

“Despite years of pledges to reduce emissions, major meat and dairy companies continue to recklessly drive climate-polluting production systems. It’s time for governments to step up and lead, with aligned regulations and public spending designed to cut emissions and support farmers in a transition toward more sustainable, lower-emitting farming systems.”

Other key findings from the study include:

• JBS leads by far: Brazil-based meat company JBS alone accounted for nearly a quarter (24%) of the total emissions estimates calculated for the 45 companies covered in this report, with more than 240 million tonnes CO2eq.
• Methane dominates emissions: Methane is the source of more than half (51%) of the emissions (CO2eq) from the 45 companies — exceeding the reported methane emissions of all EU countries and UK combined.
• Concentration of GHG emissions: Three-quarters of the estimated emissions stem from just 15 out of the 45 companies, underscoring the outsized role that Big Meat and Dairy giants have. 

With global methane emissions needing to drop by 45% by 2030 according to the UN [3] to stay within the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit, the report’s authors are calling for urgent action from governments to: 

• Introduce mandatory and transparent corporate production figures and emissions reporting
• Set binding targets for absolute reductions in agriculture GHG emissions, including separate methane reduction targets.
• Implement policies that curb overproduction and overconsumption of meat and dairy resulting in reduced herd sizes and protein diversification.
• Support a just transition toward agroecology, food sovereignty and plant-based foods, including by shifting public funds away from large-scale industrial animal agriculture. 

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

• You can read the full study, Roasting the Planet: Big Meat and Dairy’s Big Emissions at https://foodrise.org.uk/RoastingThePlanetReport
• For this report, researchers estimated emissions by combining the most recent meat and milk processing data that is publicly available for 45 major meat and dairy companies with emission factors from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s GLEAM 3.0 model. GLEAM attempts to capture greenhouse gases across the livestock supply chain, including methane from enteric fermentation (cattle burps) and manure, carbon dioxide from land use change and energy use, and nitrous oxide from fertilisers for animal feed. The authors note that the resulting figures are likely conservative, since the FAO’s most recent estimates of total anthropogenic livestock emissions using GLEAM 3.0 is at the lower end of existing scientific literature [4].  
  
• The report’s foreword is written by Prof. Paul Behrens, who co-authored a survey of over 200 climate scientists and food and agriculture experts — half of whom have authored IPCC reports — asking what efforts would be needed in animal agriculture to meet the Paris agreement. Averaging their responses, they suggested that global livestock emissions would need to peak this year (2025) and then to be reduced by 61% by 2036, with faster and deeper reductions in higher-income countries. 78% of the experts surveyed said that absolute global livestock numbers need to peak by 2025, and 85% agreed that dietary shifts to less livestock-derived foods are required, particularly in high and middle-income countries.

Footnotes:

[1] The scope of research was 45 major processors of beef (12), pork (15), chicken (15) and milk (15)—see Annex 1 (Methodology) for more info on company selection. 2023 data was used for the number of animals processed for beef, pork and chicken. 2022 data on milk intake was used for dairy companies as 2023 data wasn’t available at the time of analysis. 

The comparisons with reported emissions for countries and fossil fuel companies in this press release and report are indicative only, as these emissions are calculated using different methodologies. Country emission data have been sourced from: Our World in Data, ‘Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Including Land Use’, Our World in Data, 2025, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=table 

[2] Fossil fuel company emission data have been sourced from: Carbon Majors, ‘Carbon Majors Dataset – High Granularity’, InfluenceMap, 2025, https://carbonmajors.org/Downloads.

[3] UNEP and Clean Air Coalition, Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021), 11, https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions