We have this week launched a legal challenge against the UK government over inadequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The free trade deal gives Australian producers significant access to the UK market to sell beef, lamb and mutton and dairy, potentially undercutting UK producers with agrifoods produced to lower standards.

The key argument is that the Impact Assessment erred in concluding that it was not possible to assess the impact of carbon leakage because data on relative carbon emissions associated with cattle meat was too “variable”. Renowned experts from the Institute of Environmental Science at Leiden University and New York University outline that there is consistent data demonstrating that Australian cattle meat has a materially higher emissions intensity than UK meat. As these same experts demonstrate, a consistent application of the gold standard methodology available would have shown considerable difference in the climate impacts of livestock produced in the United Kingdom and in Australia.

The fundamental issue in the claim is whether the government acted lawfully in deciding not to assess the relative carbon intensities of beef produced in the UK and Australia, for the stated reason that the available evidence was inconclusive and too variable. Experts argue that available statistical evidence on agricultural emissions is categorically not inconclusive and that, in fact, contrary to what the impact assessment concluded, it consistently shows that the emissions intensity from Australian beef is substantially higher than that from the UK.

Globally, agricultural emissions alone are enough to breach 1.5 and even 2 degrees of warming this century. This is in line with evidence from the government’s former advisor on food, Henry Dimbleby, who found that Australian beef had greater emissions intensity and a considerably larger deforestation footprint than beef produced in the UK. The UK government is bound by various legal and international obligations to take climate change, biodiversity and emissions reduction into account when setting trade policies, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement of 2015.

“With its flimsy environmental impact assessment of the UK-Australia trade deal, the government has blithely thrown both British farmers and the Paris Agreement under the bus in its futile bid for positive post-Brexit headlines. At a time of crisis in food and farming, and with global temperature highs broken daily, the government must ensure all trade deals work towards our emissions reduction targets rather than towards further catastrophic heating.” Carina Millstone, Executive Director Foodrise

The impact assessment also fails to quantify the carbon impact of any changes to domestic UK meat and dairy consumption because of tariff-free imports of Australian food. Cheaper Australian goods were touted as one of the key benefits of the agreement for the UK. Australia’s biggest cattle farmer suggested that the trade deal could result in Australian beef exports to the UK rising tenfold. The greater availability of cheap meat on UK supermarket shelves and in the food service industry will increase consumption, undermining recommendations from both the independent review of the National Food Strategy, commissioned by the government in 2019, and the Climate Change Committee (CCC), that substantial reductions in meat and dairy are essential to tackle climate change.

The legal challenge will test whether the government has adequately assessed the impact of this trade agreement. This has important implications for future trade deals.

In an important attempt to safeguard its rights to access environmental justice, Foodrise is also defending claims made by the government that it should not benefit from costs protection rules under the Aarhus Convention. Remarkably, the government is arguing that the judicial review does not relate to the environment, despite the existential threat of climate change. Foodrise is strongly resisting these arguments, which (if successful) may well set a valuable precedent for other environmental NGOs bringing legal challenges against trade deals.

Alexandra Maruntu and Kyrel Ibrianne Sawal of Year 10, Waterside Academy, spent a week doing work experience at Foodrise’s head office. Here are their reflections.

This week has been our chance to experience what life is like in the working world. Foodrise is an organisation that specializes in how agriculture and food effects our environment but also how this food effects our bodies in the process.

We spent some time researching their campaigns and looking through their reports and found out just how much meat makes up of our global emissions. We even got a chance to make our own campaigns for our school suggesting implementing Meatfree Mondays. We got to try make our own posts and tweets using Canva, though at first, we found it a bit hard to navigate.

Over the course of the week, we got to meet staff from all sectors of the organisation. We got to talk and ask about their journeys as well as their daily routines. It was interesting to see what office life was like by having keys, having desks, going out for lunch and interacting with co-workers.

Near the end of the week, we found out we would have the chance to go to court and excitedly agreed. Reading the briefing we realized it was very hard to follow. Ultimately, we agreed that the government should be upholding their policies regarding taking CO2 emissions into account. Surprisingly, at the court the barristers were wearing wigs which we found laughable. It was our first time entering the royal courts of justice and seeing what it’s like in court.

Overall, we enjoyed learning more about the environment and considered the next steps to take in the future. Thank you to everyone from Foodrise for being very welcoming during this week.

Thank you Alexandra and Kyrel for all your hard work!

Last week, we were at Tesco’s AGM to challenge the food retail giant on its climate targets, and its inaction to meet them. Tesco has committed to be net zero by 2050, but is dangerously light on detail for how they’ll achieve this. Most importantly, it has no plan nor ambition to reduce its sales of the most highly polluting food products – meat and dairy.

As they haven’t even published the emissions data of their massive meat and dairy sales, we calculated it for them and presented the findings to their CEO, Ken Murphy, in front of the Board and the shareholders.

Using open data from similar businesses, we estimated Tesco’s meat, fish and dairy sales to be 24.8 million tonnes CO2e every year. This is equivalent to the emissions from the whole country of Northern Ireland, and is a considerable roadblock to their net zero ambitions. Yet Tesco has yet to publish a strategy for how it will reduce this enormous greenhouse gas bill. Instead, Tesco has been busy publicising its fleet of electric delivery vans, which they have predicted to save 82,000 tonnes by 2028 – representing only 0.1% of the company’s overall emissions this year.

We made it clear to the CEO, the Board of Directors, and the shareholders: Every little doesn’t help when it comes to a carbon footprint as big as Tesco’s. Initiatives like electric vans amount to little more than greenwash and gimmicks if they aren’t paired with a real plan to tackle the 24.8 million tonnes of C02e from Tesco’s continued and reckless sales of meat and dairy.

That’s also why our ‘Tesco Climate-Delivery Van’ recently took to the streets of London – to let Tesco’s customers know how the supermarket is failing to act on the climate crisis. The spoof delivery van carried the familiar style of Tesco’s advertising, but cut through the bull to show the reality of the food retailer’s climate impacts.

Foodrise are calling on Tesco to get serious on their meat and dairy sales, publish their product emissions data, and start taking action to reduce their emissions where it matters.

On June 16, the Court of Appeal upheld our claim that the government’s failure to adopt measures to reduce meat and dairy production and consumption in its Food Strategy published in June 2022 was arguably unlawful. A full judicial review hearing will take place in the Court of Appeal in autumn to rule on the legality of the government’s Food Strategy.  

Senior president of tribunals, Lord Justice Keith Lindblom, stated this would allow the arguments to be fully debated in a longer hearing. “The issue of climate change itself and the steps to be taken to achieve net zero are in themselves matters of public interest,” he concluded. 

The livestock industry 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. This means tackling emissions from the food and farming sector is key for the government to meet climate targets.  

The Net Zero Strategy published in 2021 expressly stated that the Food Strategy would support the delivery of the Net Zero target, outlining how carbon budgets would be met in the food system.

However, Leigh Day representing us argued that the Food Strategy neither addressed the emissions impact of meat and dairy, nor put in place policies for their mitigation. The full hearing in October will determine if this omission was unlawful. Central to the argument will be whether the Secretary of State relied on the Food Strategy to discharge his duty under Section 13 of the Climate Change Act, which compels him to put in place policies to ensure carbon budgets are met.  

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) have identified substantial reductions in meat and dairy as essential to tackle climate change. In 2020, it recommended a 20% reduction in meat and dairy consumption by 2030, and a 35% reduction for meat by 2050, as part of its Balanced Net Zero Pathway scenario. 

David Wolfe KC argued for Feedback that the government’s failure to incorporate this advice, in particular the CCC’s recommendations, or explain why it opted to not adopt their expert recommendations was unlawful. This will be decided at the full hearing in October.  

“We have long known the government’s food strategy was completely useless, today’s ruling suggests it may also be unlawful. The Climate Change Committee has repeatedly sounded the alarm over the climate impacts of livestock and recommended an accelerated shift away from unsustainable diets. We’re confident that the ruling in October will compel the government to re-write the Food Strategy and start listening to its own expert climate advisors.” Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Feedback 

The hearing will take place on June 16 in Court Room 71 at 10:30am. Court room 71 is in the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. As a high-profile and legally significant case, the hearing will be livestreamed here.

Our lawyers will argue in the Court of Appeal that the government’s failure to adopt measures to reduce meat and dairy production and consumption in its Food Strategy published in June 2022 was unlawful.

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. This means tackling emissions from the food and farming sector is key for the government to meet climate targets. The Net Zero Strategy expressly stated that the Food Strategy would outline how carbon budgets would be met regarding the food system.  However, the Food Strategy does not include policies for meat and dairy reduction, essentially the Food Strategy does not provide a  mechanism to fulfill its obligations under Section 13 of the Climate Change Act (CCC).

Both the independent review of the National Food Strategy written by Henry Dimbleby and commissioned by the government in 2019 and the CCC have identified substantial reductions in meat and dairy as essential to tackle climate change. The government failed to incorporate this advice, in particular the CCC’s recommendations, or explain why it opted to not adopt their expert recommendations, which the lawyers representing Feedback will further argue that they were bound to do.

In previous legal proceedings the government’s lawyers have sought to argue that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the government department that drafted the Food Strategy, is not bound by Section 13 of the Climate Change Act. Instead, only the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), formerly the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is bound by the Section 13 obligations, as the government department tasked with achieving carbon budgets.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal in this case will effectively rule on the scope of Section 13 of the Climate Change Act. The ruling will establish whether it is only the Secretary of State for DESNZ that must formulate policies to meet carbon budgets for his department, or whether other Secretaries of State and their respective departments are bound by the same obligation.

This ruling is therefore expected to have significant implications on the government’s climate policy. It will establish whether DEFRA must develop policies to meet carbon budgets, considering the CCC’s advice in doing so, in this instance in the Food Strategy. It will also establish whether other government departments, such as the Department for Transport (DfT), must equally put in place their own policies to reduce emissions to meet carbon budgets.

We’ve launched 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 access to the UK market to sell beef, lamb and mutton and dairy.  Represented by law firm Leigh Day, we previously sent a legal letter to Environment Secretary Therese Coffey. The response received was unsatisfactory, and so Leigh Day filed a claim form at the Administrative Court, signalling the start of the process for judicial review of the impact assessment of the deal.

The government suggested data uncertainties made drawing conclusions on the emissions impact of the trade deal difficult, choosing not to apply an internationally recognised methodology to ascertain livestock emissions – the ‘gold standard’ methodology according to experts from the Institute of Environmental Science at Leiden University. As these same experts demonstrate, a consistent application of that methodology would have shown considerable difference in the climate impacts of livestock produced in the UK and Australia.

Experts clearly state that the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on overall emissions will have a material impact on international climate targets. Globally agricultural emissions alone are enough to breach 1.5 and even 2 degrees of warming this century. This is in line with evidence from the government’s former advisor on food, Henry Dimbleby, who found that Australian beef had greater emissions intensity and a considerably larger deforestation footprint than beef produced in the UK. The UK government is bound by various legal and international obligations to take climate change, biodiversity and emissions reduction into account when setting policies.

“The government has recklessly sacrificed both British farmers and the climate in a rush for post-Brexit headlines. At a time of crisis in food and farming, the government must ensure all trade deals work towards our emissions reduction targets rather than towards further catastrophic heating.” Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Foodrise

The impact assessment also fails to quantify the carbon impact of any changes to domestic UK meat and dairy consumption. Cheaper Australian goods were touted as one of the key benefits of the agreement for the UK. Australia’s biggest cattle farmer suggested that the trade deal could result in Australian beef exports to the UK rising tenfold. The greater availability of cheap meat on UK supermarket shelves and in the food service industry will increase consumption , undermining recommendations from both the independent review of the National Food Strategy, commissioned by the government in 2019, and the Climate Change Committee (CCC), that substantial reductions in meat and dairy are essential to tackle climate change. The legal challenge will test whether the government has adequately assessed the impact of this trade agreement and in doing so risks the UK’s capacity to deliver on Net Zero targets.  This has important implications for future trade deals.

“The meat industry is one of the largest contributors to the climate crisis by sector, and one of the biggest winners from this Free Trade Agreement. Our client’s scientific evidence shows that Australian beef is far more damaging for the climate than UK beef, yet tens of thousands of tonnes of it will be imported tariff free as a result of this deal. The legislation implementing the new tariff rules was, our client will argue, based on an impact assessment, which completely ignored that science. It is argued that this irrationality renders the statutory instrument unlawful, and our client is asking the Court to quash it.”  Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith

A couple of weeks ago, Foodrise travelled to Birmingham to put a question to HSBC’s board of directors  at the bank’s annual general meeting (AGM). We wanted to find out why the bank persists in financing industrial livestock companies despite their outsized contribution to climate change, deforestation and human rights violations. 

We found our seats in a large conference hall, where the board of directors sat looking back at us from behind their podiums on the stage. No doubt in a bid to avoid the chaos that ensued following protests in previous years, HSBC’s strategy for managing dissent in 2023 seemed to be to suck all of the energy out of the room. Despite person after person standing up to protest the bank’s financing of climate destruction, each director remained unmoved. Towards the beginning, a group of middle-aged professional types sitting in front of us suddenly got up and burst into song. Unfurling long, hand sewn banners from underneath their dress shirts, they accused HSBC of being arsonists and liars, and criticised them for all of the money they continue to sink into fossil fuels. After the singers were carted out by security, another couple jumped into action, donning head-to-toe cleaning outfits and scrubbing the “filthy” meeting down– did somebody say greenwash? Finally, after a series of speeches by directors, it was time for the Q&A section. This was dominated by concerned shareholders, NGOs, and activists further pressing HSBC to stop bankrolling the climate crisis. Our names were read, one by one, by a booming-big brother voice that appeared to emanate from the heavens. Perhaps it was AI, perhaps it was God. Either way, it succeeded in both making me feel small and watched. I proceeded with my question.

I reminded Noel Quinn, HSBC’s Group Chief Executive that his bank has pledged to reduce the carbon emissions it finances to Net Zero by 2050 or sooner, and to not support businesses directly involved in deforestation. I wanted to know why HSBC is investing in companies whose actions stand in direct contradiction with these commitments. 

HSBC’s supposed commitment to Net Zero doesn’t add up, not only because it persists in financing fossil fuel companies, but also due to its funding of the industrial livestock industry, which is a massive global emitter. If growth trends continue, animal agriculture will be using up almost half the world’s 1.5°C emissions budget by 2030– making staying within safe levels of climate change virtually impossible. 

One of the companies HSBC provides finance to is Brazilian beef giant JBS, the world’s largest meat producer. In 2021, JBS’ emission footprint alone was larger than the entire country of Spain’s. JBS’  supply chain has been repeatedly accused of links to illegal deforestation. HSBC has been well aware of this for some time. The bank’s  own analysts warned in 2020 that JBS: “has no vision, action plan, timeline, technology or solution” for monitoring whether the cattle it buys originate from farms involved in rainforest destruction. Additionally, JBS has also faced multiple allegations of  Indigenous land theft and modern day slavery in its supply chains. Despite that, our research has uncovered that HSBC was still holding $3.5 million in JBS shares as of the end of last year. 

However, when I asked Noel Quinn why HSBC continues to finance one of the world’s highest-emitting companies, in which it holds millions of dollars’ worth of shares, he simply shrugged, and claimed that he is not familiar with JBS.

Seriously?

I pushed back on his response. Surely, after the extensive media coverage of JBS and its connection with the destruction of the Amazon, which experienced record breaking wildfires in 2022, simply ‘not knowing’ is no longer good enough. Quinn would’ve certainly heard about JBS from his own analysts. My mic was shut off and we were soon on to the next question, but the bank’s skirting of responsibility was clear. Be it indifference or true ignorance at the helm of HSBC, the response its CEO gave me in Birmingham is unacceptable. Not knowing is a privilege that those most impacted by climate change do not have.

We all have to live with the consequences of this bank financing climate chaos, and it’s time HSBC took that responsibility seriously. Other financial institutions have already cut off financial support for  JBS, deeming the company too risky: for example, in 2020, Nordea Asset Management pulled out $45 million from the company– over 12 times HSBC’s investments. If Nordea can do it, why can’t HSBC?

It’s clear that HSBC needs to stop funding climate destruction, including its financing for livestock companies like JBS as well as its funding of fossil fuels. The Board of Directors spent a decent amount of time in the AGM paying lip service to various climate positive commitments, but ultimately that rhetoric is worthless without concrete targets for change– especially if we can’t even get a simple, truthful, recognition of their relationships with the companies destroying our planet.

Watch this space for Foodrise’s upcoming research on UK banks’ funding for industrial livestock. In the meantime, check out our 2020 report Butchering the Planet.