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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

This report shows that Kenyan farmers are being subjected to unfair trading practices such as last minute cancellation of orders and unnecessarily strict cosmetic standards by European retail buyers resulting in massive amounts of food waste. As a result of Feedback’s work, in April 2016 Tesco agreed to change their rules on Kenyan green beans to stop forcing their suppliers to top and tail their produce. They estimate this will save more than 160 tonnes of food waste a year.