Research

Food is a climate issue: food waste is both a hidden barrier and an untapped opportunity to help reach net zero UK emissions, and addressing food waste is a ‘no regrets’ policy option. This policy brief argues that the potential of food waste reduction for climate change mitigation has not been realised, in part because of an overwhelming reliance on industry-led. We call for a strong regulatory approach, starting with incorporating food waste in the UK's climate policy. There is and has always been public support for government regulatory action on food waste. Addressing food waste from farm to fork, including in households, as part of an ambitious food and agriculture-focused climate policy is an opportunity for the UK to lead an international agenda to mitigate the environmental impacts of our food system.

As countries and companies commit to net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) targets of varying ambition, anaerobic digestion (AD) has been framed as an environmental silver bullet, a form of renewable energy to rival wind and solar in its desirability and environmental credentials. AD is the process of taking organic materials, known as ‘feedstocks’, both purpose-grown, like maize and other crops, and waste streams, like food waste and manure, and breaking them down using micro-organisms in the absence of air. To date, the AD industry’s claims have largely gone unchallenged. However, by comparing the AD industry’s ideal scenario – one that maximises growth and draws the greatest subsidies – with a scenario in which policy decisions maximise proven climate change mitigation policies, this report shows that the benefits of AD have been overstated. Worse, the industry’s ambitions may be crowding out better environmental alternatives. This report uses the results of a life cycle assessment (LCA) conducted in collaboration with researchers at Bangor University to shed some much-needed light on the limitations of AD, and show what role there is (and is not) for AD in a sustainable future. See also: Executive Summary, Appendices and Life Cycle Assessment study

The government wishes to “increase the proportion of green gas in the grid” and to “provide targeted support to heat pumps”. The summary of evidence presented in our response shows that “green gas” from Anaerobic Digestion (AD) is often a suboptimal use of land and resources, except for a limited sustainable niche. Foodrise therefore recommends that greater subsidies are dedicated to electrifying the heat supply as quickly as possible through technologies such as heat pumps, rather than locking in expensive and suboptimal “green gas” infrastructure. Foodrise recommends increased taxes on landfill and incineration of waste feedstocks so that AD becomes attractive as a last resort only, with the revenue raised used to subsidise more cost-effective and more sustainable alternatives to AD, such as food waste prevention, afforestation, a just transition to more plant-based diets, and scaling up more efficient renewables such as solar and wind

Meat and dairy are a climate issue. But from the scale of investments made by the biggest global financial institutions, all with high-level and public commitments to sustainability, you wouldn’t know it. Between 2015 and 2020, global meat and dairy companies received over $478 billion in backing by over 2,500 investment firms, banks, and pension funds headquartered around the globe. In this report, Foodrise exposes the sheer scale of the global financial fodder behind meat and dairy corporations and reveals how high street banks, global investors and pension funds are bankrolling destructive livestock corporations.

The NHS recommends that we eat two portions of fish a week: seafood is a good source of vital micronutrients like omega 3. But with wild fish populations are under severe stress, the Scottish salmon industry frames itself as part of the solution - a source of healthy, omega 3-rich fish, without increasing demand for wild fish. The reality is not so simple: Scottish farmed salmon's high levels of omega 3 are the result of feeding salmon with fish oil made from hundreds of thousands of tonnes of wild fish each year. This report, taking the Scottish farmed salmon industry as a case study, explores how we could meet our micronutrient needs from fish, while posing a minimal burden on our oceans. Using nutritional modelling, we show that by directly consuming a wide variety of small, oily fish, commonly used for salmon feed, we could access the same level of micronutrients as through current levels of farmed salmon consumption, while avoiding the capture of 59% of fish currently used in Scottish salmon feed. This report reframes the debate on fish consumption to show that flexible, diverse fish diets are possible while protecting the long-term health of our oceans.

Every year, the Scottish farmed salmon industry uses around 460,000 tonnes of wild fish to feed its salmon. But where does this wild fish come from, and are the measures in place to try to minimise the environmental and social risk of catching fish to feed farmed fish working? In this report, Foodrise takes a deep dive into the sourcing practices of the Scottish farmed salmon industry, to explore the role of 'reduction fisheries' in feeding our global appetite for farmed salmon. We look closely at the role of certification schemes in protecting our seas from over-fishing to feed growing demand for salmon feed ingredients, and conclude these schemes do not protect wild fish populations, or communities around the world who depend on them, from the appetite of the salmon aquaculture industry.

The government wishes to “ensure that the CFD scheme continues to support low carbon electricity generation at the lowest possible cost to consumers”. The summary of evidence presented here shows that Anaerobic Digestion rarely delivers this desired outcome. Therefore, Contracts for Difference should not give support to Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plants of any size. Moreover, Feedback strongly recommends against creating a bespoke version of CfD to subsidise smaller scale AD plants than are currently covered by CfD.

Foodrise welcome the CCC’s modelling of a 50% reduction in food waste by 2030. We recommend that the CCC use the following means of measuring the 50% per capita food waste reduction target, as a more ambitious scenario: • 50% reduction of edible and inedible food waste (in practice mainly achieved through a greater than 50% reduction in edible food waste) • 50% reduction by 2030 against a 2015 baseline (there is a strong rationale for 2015 as the baseline year, as the founding year of the SDGs, including SDG 12.3, which sets the food waste reduction target) • 50% reduction of food waste from farm to fork • Additional prevention of edible surplus food currently sent to animal feed

As part of our Food Citizens project in Buckinghamshire we have developed a cookbook showcasing how to make the most of seasonal gluts.

The current Covid-19 pandemic is exposing many aspects of our food system which pose major challenges to both ensuring that the public’s nutritional needs are fulfilled fairly and equitably and to producing food without exacting a dangerous environmental toll. Our response to the enquiry is founded on our belief that true food system productivity should be measured as the greatest nutritional value consumed (with the least waste) for the least environmental harm or the greatest environmental enhancement. The Government’s response to the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on our food supply chain needs to go beyond measures to relieve immediate scarcity – though these are of course important and vital – to encompass action that will help to build a food system that is more resilient to future shocks, especially those posed by the ongoing climate emergency.

Building on a wealth of research about the role of industrial livestock production in climate breakdown, this report draws an analogy with another high impact industry: fossil fuel production. The report uncovers the ways in which the current business practices of meat and dairy corporations - such as Tyson, JBS, Cargill and Fonterra – are incompatible with a sustainable and just future. Using the example of emissions, the report questions whether these companies are capable of the sort of transformation needed to be compatible with a zero-carbon future. We outline the strategies for dealing with the industry, arguing that for change to occur at the pace required, there needs to be an increased campaigner and investor focus on the financing and investment that sustains this industry: Big Livestock's financial fodder.

Published in partnership with the Changing Markets foundation, this report scores the top 10 UK supermarkets against a set of criteria designed to assess how effectively they are addressing the ocean sustainability implications of the farmed seafood they sell, which remains largely reliant on the use of wild-caught fish in feed. The report finds that ALDI is the worst-performing supermarket in this area, with policies and practices in relation to the sustainability of its farmed fish that do not live up to the broader sustainability image it is cultivating. Tesco was found to be the best-performing supermarket, albeit with a middling score of 60%; seven retailers, including high-end Waitrose, scored less than 30%. The report calls on all retailers to recognise the risks posed by their aquaculture supply chains, and commit to measures to phase out the use of wild-caught fish in farmed-fish feed, setting a target to achieve this goal of no later than 2025.