Sugar consumption in the UK is double the government’s ‘maximum intake’ and isn’t on track to meet that goal, feeding public health challenges such as obesity, childhood tooth decay and type 2 diabetes. We all know too much sugar is bad for our health – so why do we eat so much of it? A new report from Foodrise and Action on Sugar identifies the role that supermarkets play in perpetuating this dangerous level of sugar consumption, and what they should be doing instead.

Far from leveraging their power to aid public health, we found that supermarkets are pursuing ‘business as usual’ strategies that drive overall sales of sugary products even higher. Foodrise and Action on Sugar’s research found that 9 out of 10 UK supermarkets do not have policies to measure overall sugar sales, or to ensure that they are consistently reducing sugar sales.

Further, they were neglecting responsibility for sugar sales beyond their own branded products. Supermarkets choose to continue stocking, and promoting, very high sugar products  – including those explicitly targeted at young children. Supermarkets could instead seize the opportunity to remove the worst offenders from their shelves, with unparalleled impact.

Supermarkets are playing up their efforts to reduce the sugar content of some of their products  – many have reformulated products so they are lower in sugar, or introduced new ‘low sugar’ versions of family favourites. Yet, overall, government research shows that after 5 years of efforts to reduce sugar in a range of foods, sales of sugar have climbed by 7%.

Our original survey of supermarket policies also shows that no retailers are willing to publicly support mandatory reduction targets for sugar, despite marketing their efforts to be healthier. This gap demonstrates that action will not be forthcoming without pressure.

I was disappointed  to see Waitrose using the phrase ‘Perfect for the food bank’ for in-store marketing of some veg stock powder. I took to Twitter to share my disapproval, where it was retweeted over 1,600 times – clearly, my Tweet hit a nerve. Tone matters: Yes, whilst some products are useful for food banks, and shoppers find such in-store reminders helpful, the reality is that no food is ‘perfect’ for the food bank because food banks should not exist. Signs like these are becoming normalised in our society, encouraging shoppers to feel good about helping ‘the poor’ (very Victorian) whilst overlooking why this structural inequality exists in the first place. 

Let’s take a deeper look at the relationship between supermarkets and food banks.

As helpful as it is when someone buys something to donate to a food bank, each purchase ultimately boosts the supermarket’s profit margin. Sainsbury’s was recently in the news for continuing to record massive profits, and these high profits celebrated by Sainsbury’s only serve to highlight the painful inequality of our society: Research from the High Pay Centre revealed that, in 2022, the CEO of Sainsbury’s earned a whopping 183 times more than the average employee. Over at John Lewis, who own Waitrose, the top earner makes 75 times that of an average employee. Interestingly, the pay ratio used to be 25:1 at John Lewis but this was changed in 2012, perhaps given the the Cost of Living Crisis it is time for it to be changed again.

Supermarkets continue to rake in profits whilst millions of people are struggling to feed themselves. Food bank usage is at a record high: the Trussell Trust saw an 81% increase in food bank usage across its network last year. Figures reveal that one in five referrals to food banks are from households where someone works, including nurses. This even includes supermarket employees, with reports that Asda staff are relying on foodbanks. 

Ultimately, good food should not be wasted, and if supermarkets have food surplus, it should be redistributed. But much like that thoughtless sticker in Waitrose, food banks can only ever be a sticking plaster. Furthermore, we have heard anecdotal evidence that up to 20% of products donated directly from the supermarkets as surplus is in fact unusable, yet all supermarkets like to point to their altruism of donating millions of meals per year. 

We need a real living wage and a right to food

After the debacle of the mini budget under Liz Truss et al, we were promised a period of stability and growth that would rebuild the economy. Instead, we have an ever increasing rate of food cost inflation, alongside the quadrupling of energy costs. We are reminded that “everyone” has received an energy support payment, but what is not discussed or even mentioned is Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s decision to defer an uplift to welfare support until April 2023. That means people in receipt of universal credit, pensions and more are still trying to live on an income that hasn’t kept pace with inflation. For these people, food costs are spiralling, hence the increased need for food aid. A rights-based approach to food, on a cash first basis, would create the necessary breathing space and safety net for people, especially if this was enshrined in law. 

Food banks only work in a short-term capacity and were indeed created as an emergency response for absolute destitution. They have now become ubiquitous, but the model is not sustainable. We are so deep in dystopia that a sign reading ‘perfect for the foodbank’ is being defended by Waitrose. There is nothing perfect about food poverty, there is nothing perfect about supermarket workers relying on food banks, there is nothing perfect about people being made to be grateful for the meagre crumbs given to them – we need a right to food, now. 

Find out more

https://www.ianbyrne.org/righttofood

https://www.foodaidnetwork.org.uk/cash-first

Often presented as a sustainable alternative, Foodrise has shown over the past years that farmed fish production is based on a highly unsustainable mode of production, including, but not limited to, its reliance on wild fish as feed. To satisfy the rapidly growing sector’s ongoing demand for wild ‘feed’ fish, these are increasingly sourced from food-insecure West Africa, where stocks are already under pressure following decades of overfishing of the region’s waters by foreign vessels. Recently, Foodrise travelled to Dakar to discuss this issue with grassroots organisations representing coastal communities affected, and to kick off our newest fish campaign, Notre Poisson (Our Fish) – a collaborative three-year campaign focusing on the fishmeal and oil industry in the region and its links to Europe.

Widely presented as a healthy, climate-friendly protein alternative to meat, a way to protect fish stocks and ‘solve world hunger’, most consumers are unaware that lots of the farmed fish we eat are fed wild fish in the form of fishmeal and oil.

Each year almost a fifth of the world’s marine catch is reduced to fishmeal and oil, the majority of which is used to produce feed for the aquaculture industry – today, the world’s fastest-growing food production sector.

To satisfy the sector’s demand for wild fish, the fishmeal and oil industry has expanded into West Africa. Focusing on Mauritania, Senegal and the Gambia, the number of factories in the region has boomed from 5 to 49 in the past decade.

Today, over half a million tonnes of small pelagic fish, enough to feed over 33 million people, are instead caught, reduced, and exported—from a region dependent on fish as a vital source of affordable protein and micronutrients—to feed farmed fish and livestock elsewhere. These same small pelagic fish are the main source of income for thousands of fishermen and female traders and processors across the region.

While most of the fishmeal goes to China, Europe—home to several of the world’s largest aquafeed companies: Cargill Aqua Nutrition/EWOS, Skretting, Mowi and BioMar (all of which are involved in the trade of fishmeal and oil trade from West Africa)—is the largest importer of fish oil from the region.

Home also to some of the largest farmed fish producers in the world, well-known European retailers are sourcing from companies with supply chain links to these four aquafeed companies. More directly, European firms have invested in factories in West Africa.

Since 2018, Foodrise has established a robust body of evidence on the damaging socio-ecological impacts of feed production for the fish farming sector and campaigned to reform aquaculture, so it delivers the greatest nutritional value for the least environmental impact, does not contribute to destructive fishing, deplete fish stocks, or worsen global food injustice.

To date, this work has largely focused on Europe. Our newest fish campaign, Notre Poisson (Our Fish), now combines this work with a collaborative three-year project comprising partners in Britain, the EU, and West Africa.

Our collective goal is to secure legislative and policy change via a three-year programme of coordinated research, investigation, and advocacy designed to influence politicians and policymakers and equip civil society and consumers with the knowledge and tools to demand policies and actions that protect ecosystems and support food sovereignty of West African communities and nations.

They steal our fish and jobs

At the end of November, we organised a three-day project kick-off meeting with our partners in Dakar, Senegal. Also in attendance, were representatives of several grassroots organisations from Senegal, Mauritania, and the Gambia, who provided first-hand testimony of the devastating impacts of the fishmeal and oil industry on local communities across the region.

According to a report published by the FAO earlier this year, the rapid expansion of the industry in the region has had negative impacts on fish stocks and fishing livelihoods. The social benefits of the industry to the region have been limited and have been “accompanied by threats to livelihoods, employment, food security and nutrition, and the health and well-being of local communities.”

Reflecting this, “they steal our fish and jobs” was a common theme over the course of our discussions together. The devastating impacts of the diversion of catches from human consumption to the production of fishmeal and oil for export on the availability and affordability of fish were particularly salient. The implications for women fish processors and traders are especially acute.

Stressing the severity of the problem, Diaba Diop, president of Réseau des Femmes de la Pêche Artisanale du Sénégal (REFEPAS), an organisation that represents women fish processors and traders, warned “our survival depends on our ocean”.

Undelivered promises from factories, in terms of jobs, and direct environmental and health impacts, in terms of environmental pollution, smells, and consequent impacts on tourism were also highlighted by participants from across the region. Drawing on his own experiences in the Gambia, Biochemist Ahmed Manjang (CETAG) highlighted just how serious these were.

Adding to these, participants shared stories of the historical, as well as the ongoing, decimation of fish stocks off the West African coast, more generally, by foreign fishing interests and the knock-on implications of this in terms of illegal migration from the region.

In Kayar, Maty Ndaw, a woman fish processor and member of the Taxawu Kayar Collective—who this autumn, began historic legal proceedings against the fishmeal factory located on the edge of their town—shared, “we see our children migrating and dying in the ocean”. Located in the Thiès region, 36 miles northeast of Dakar, artisanal fishing is the main economic activity in Kayar, employing and feeding the population of roughly 18,000 people. The Collective represents a cross-section of the community, most of whom are engaged in fishing or fish one way or another.

We had travelled to the fishing village to hear about the Collective’s more than a decade long struggle against the factory there. Originally owned by Spanish company Barna, the factory was sold this summer to Senegalese owned Touba Protéine Marine.

While there, a street in from the white sand beach full of colourful pirogues, we witnessed near-empty processing facilities. Once worked by over three hundred women fish processors, today, these traditional facilities are used by less than fifty. Another street in, modernised processing facilities are unused. Without fish, the facilities lie idle.

Direct competition with the fishmeal factory for fish, alongside declining catches, means processors have been priced out of the market, with knock-on implications in terms of availability of fish for the local population. According to the FAO, the impact of the fishmeal and oil industry on food security and nutrition in Senegal, where almost half of the country’s protein comes from fish, is considerable.

Across the road from the fishmeal factory, at the lake on the edge of Kayar, clear evidence was visible of the waste dumped by the fishmeal factory. This lake connects to the town’s water supply. Its pollution forms the basis of the Collective’s legal action against the factory.

An ongoing trajectory of stolen resources

Controlled by foreign investors and reliant on catches from already precarious stocks, that the fishmeal and oil industry in the region is threatening fish stocks, food security and livelihoods in West Africa is by now well documented. The lived realities of those from around the coasts are testament to these impacts.

The Kayar case was dismissed by the judge in November on account of there being reasonable doubt that the factory was the cause of the water pollution. The appetite of local, national, and cross-national communities and organisations, however, to unite and work together to tackle this industry is strong.

The problem is also clearly recognised by communities as part of an ongoing trajectory of stolen resources from the African continent.

Implemented together with West African partners RAMPAO, Greenpeace Africa, ADEPA, CAOPA, SRFC, PRCM, alongside Lancaster Universities, in close collaboration with grassroots organisations representing coastal communities across the region, we want to force change in this industry, and those related to it, by turning this issue into one of key concern for a broad group of civil society actors to campaign jointly in West Africa and in Europe.

Ultimately, we want to see better regulation of the industry in the region, and an end to the use of fish fit for human consumption by the industry. As part of this, we will work to increase pressure on companies involved in or related to this sector to hold aquafeed companies who source from West Africa, and aquaculture companies who source from these, accountable for their sustainability promises.

During our discussions in Dakar, Mansour Brahim Boidaha, president of ONG Zakia, an organisation working on this issue in Mauritania, where the boom in this industry has been especially concentrated, pointed out that people from Europe should know that the fish from West Africa is processed to fishmeal and oil, with little benefit to the region’s population.

Summing up the nature of the problem, representing Senegalese small-scale fishermen, Abdou Karim Sall, president of Plateforme des Acteurs de la Peche Artisanales du Sénégal (PAPAs), highlighted the problem wasn’t one just relating to fishmeal, but of their being, their identity. This is about our fish, he said. This is about African fish.

Foodrise will be speaking at two events at COP27 which you can attend virtually!

Event 1. Divest, defund and regulate industrial livestock (Tues 15th)

Register here: https://hsi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_IxHfbs78SROXdEa27WoZfw

Livestock is responsible for about 14.5% of global emissions and, if current trends continue, the global livestock industry will be using up almost half the world’s 1.5°C emissions budget by 2030. Join us to discuss how we divest, defund and regulate this industry.

Event 2. Why the climate crisis demands food waste regulation (Weds 16th)

Register here: https://hsi.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7UInREB3TaiTh5axYpxmOg 

The EU wastes more food than it imports, damaging EU food security amid the cost-of-living crisis, according to a recent Foodrise EU report. Food waste also costs EU businesses and households an estimated €143 billion a year, and causes at least 6% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Halving EU food waste by 2030 would save an estimated 4.7 million hectares of agricultural land. In this context, a growing chorus of organisations are calling for food waste policies regulations to tackle the issue at the speed needed. 43 European organisations are calling for the EU to set legally binding targets to halve EU food waste from farm to fork by 2030. Inspiring new policies to fight food waste are being proposed around Europe, which aim to move beyond the slow pace of change achieved by voluntary commitments.

Join us for talks and discussion from inspiring speakers, giving a comprehensive overview of why the EU (and countries around the world) need to set legally binding targets to halve food waste, and the policies we can use to accelerate action. Featuring inspiring speakers from Germany, Denmark, Spain and the UK – and with many transferable lessons to countries around the world.

We have launched a formal legal challenge against the UK government for its failure to adopt measures to reduce meat and dairy production and consumption, contrary to the recommendations of its own expert climate advisers.

Both the independent review of the National Food Strategy written by Henry Dimbleby and commissioned by the government in 2019 and the Climate Change Committee (CCC), an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act, have identified substantial reductions in meat and dairy as essential to tackle climate change. However, the Government Food Strategy, published in June, ignored the clear advice on meat and dairy reduction coming from both the CCC and the Independent Review. This makes the strategy unlawful and is at odds with the government’s Net Zero Strategy which stated the Food Strategy would outline how emissions savings in food and agriculture would be achieved in support of climate targets.

The only references to reducing livestock emissions are unproven technical approaches, which explicitly oppose the displacement of livestock. With regard to the alternative protein sector, the strategy makes it clear that this is seen as additional to livestock farming, not displacing it. Henry Dimbleby recently stated that meat reduction is critical for emissions reduction but is seen as ‘politically toxic’. Since the publication of the Government Food Strategy, the UK has experienced the hottest day on record. Meaningful action on climate change must be taken and this must include meat reduction.

Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Feedback said: The government has announced some ambitious emission reduction targets but failed to formulate the policies required to meet them. This creates the truly dangerous illusion that it is tackling climate change while continuing business-as-usual. Meanwhile in the real world, expert evidence unequivocally shows that curtailing meat and dairy is critical for all transition pathways to net zero. Rather than outlining plans to support the public and farmers in making the shift to low-carbon foods as promised, the Food Strategy blithely ignored the meat and dairy question altogether. We want the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a strategy that delivers for the climate rather than one that simply spurts yet more hot air.’