Exploring why Sainsbury’s farmed salmon supplier Mowi doesn’t live up to its sustainable image and what Sainsbury’s needs to do about it.
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.
Adults in the UK currently consume twice their daily recommended allowance of sugar, with severe consequences for our health and to the NHS. Spending on the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes alone comes to £8.8 billion a year. Foodrise calculates that at the current pace of reduction, which excludes any impact from the relatively recent Sugar Levy, it will take around 422 years for the UK population to reduce their sugar consumption to World Health Organisation recommended levels. Yet we use 115,000 acres of land to grow sugar beet, which is manufactured into refined sugar by one UK company: British Sugar. In the process, in this report we calculate that harvesting sugar beet creates around 489,000 tonnes of soil loss per year. In addition to the sugar in our tea, is it time to rethink the sugar beet in our fields?
Foodrise responds to the Government’s consultation on the new National Food Strategy, led by Henry Dimbleby. We argue that to achieve the best health and environmental outcomes, the government will need to redefine agricultural productivity, to prioritise high quality, nutritious food, low waste, and minimal environmental impact – and that implementing this approach will require a new land use strategy. We also urge the Food Strategy team to take another look at existing land uses – such as sugar beet production and feedstock crops for bio-energy – which do not contribute to human or planetary health.
This policy brief outlines what the research says about changing diets and explores consumption-focused measures that could help reduce animal-based products in diets. The recommendations in the brief focus on higher-income countries that consume more than their equitable share of global meat and dairy, and where the excessive intake of red and processed meat is thought to lead to adverse health outcomes.
The brief presents an overview of the environmental impacts of meat and dairy, and provides a brief review of the research on changing diets, before reviewing three high-impact, practical policy ideas which are ripe for implementation. The goal of this policy brief is to move the conversation beyond controversy over the idea of intervening to shape public diets, and towards practical policy discussions on how, given the extreme urgency, this can be done.
There is widespread scientific agreement that eating less meat in developed countries, in particular industrially-produced meat, is good for public health and a vital step to reducing the burden our food system places on our planet. As an increasing number of individuals aim to reduce their meat consumption, eating more local, high quality meat, adopting flexitarian diets, or even going vegetarian or vegan, an important question arises: are supermarkets, our closest partners in feeding ourselves and
our families, doing enough to help?
This scorecard assesses UK retailers against a set of criteria designed to explore their efforts to reduce the impact of meat production in their supply chains, and their in-store offer to shoppers to support them in eating better quality meat and reducing their meat consumption overall.
The IPCC’s 2019 Special Report on Land Use and Climate Change found that the way food is produced is both a major driver of climate change and biodiversity loss, among other environmental challenges, and compromising our ability to grow food in the future. Our food system contributes up to a third of our global Greenhouse Gas emissions. But so much can be done to ensure we can all have access to good food, while making space for nature and reducing our risk of climate breakdown.
But what action to take, and where? In line with IPCC’s conclusions, this and subsequent policy brief by Foodrise will spotlight demand-side policy interventions that can deliver for people and the planet, across sustainable diets, shorter supply chains and preventing food waste.
In this policy brief we consider a central question: If policymakers were to take the potential of demand-side food system measures as seriously as is warranted by the IPCC’s findings, what should they do? And how?
Farming salmon draws on a key resource: wild fish, sourced from oceans all over the world. This report looks in detail at the Scottish farmed salmon industry, their plans to double in size, and the feed inputs they will need to fuel that expansion. Can that growth be achieved sustainably? We ask three questions of the industry: first, can the Scottish salmon industry meet its growth ambitions while decreasing its reliance on wild fish stocks? Second, can it meet its growth ambitions while reducing its land footprint? And finally – is Scottish farmed salmon an environmentally sustainable way to meet our protein needs?
Reaching Net Zero emissions within an ambitious timeframe will require action on the food system. Many of these actions offer double and triple-wins. In particular: Shifting consumption towards sustainable, plant-based foods offers co-benefits in terms of improved public health. Reducing supply chain and household food waste offers opportunities to shrink the UK’s agricultural footprint and local environmental impacts such as nitrogen pollution, while sparing land for afforestation and rewilding. Meanwhile, nurturing the UK’s horticultural food production to shorten supply chains and encouraging public institutions to source food from their region offers opportunities to increase employment opportunities in the UK food sector, and cultivate regional prosperity and resilience. Read Foodrise’s recommendations on harnessing the potential of demand-side measures to shift towards a sustainable food system.
How much of this discarded milk was still safe to drink? Anecdotally we all know that milk kept in a fridge generally remains good to drink for several days after its ‘Use By’ date. But we at Foodrise wanted to know if anecdote was backed by science. We commissioned laboratory testing at the University of Chester NOW Food Lab to see how long milk really keeps. The food scientists found that milk from the four UK supermarkets with the largest market share (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Morrisons), kept at the recommended temperature for a household fridge (4° Celsius – the WRAP recommendation is below 5° Celsius) and unopened until tested, remained safe to drink seven days after their ‘Use By’ dates.
We ranked the UK’s top ten supermarkets based on publicly available information on their work to reduce food waste. Our ranking assessed the supermarkets against the food use hierarchy which requires that prevention be the priority towards tackling waste. Tesco is ranked at number one, while Waitrose came out at the bottom of the pack. Other supermarkets known for their strong reputations on sustainability, including Co-op and Marks & Spencer, also scored poorly.
Based on Feedback’s experience working with farmers through our Gleaning Network, and a survey of farmers, this report examines the systemic role that supermarkets play in the overproduction and subsequent waste of food on UK Farms. Farmers we surveyed reported reported that together they wasted approximately 22,000-37,000 tonnes per year, equal to enough produce to provide up to 250,000 people with five portions of fruit and vegetables a day for a year.
Based on extensive research into supply chain food waste in Peru, Senegal, South Africa, the UK and a major European port. This report’s findings show a concentration of power in the groceries sector has allowed supermarkets to dictate the terms and conditions by which food is grown, harvested, and transported, and that this concentration of power has given supermarkets the power to force suppliers to waste food through stringent cosmetic specifications and unfair rejections of food.
We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites.
