This article from The Guardian discusses the lobbying, media, and marketing tactics employed by the US beef industry to safeguard its interests. The author Joe Fassler highlights the industry’s use of extensive networks and resources to promote potentially misleading claims around the sustainability of beef production and consumption and contrasts it with scientific evidence showing beef on average to be the single most climate damaging food in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, this article asserts that the US beef industry is engaged in “an all-out public relations war to pre-empt environmental criticisms” in order to maintain a hold over consumers.

This report by Friends of the Earth United States and the Open Markets Institute criticises US policies aimed at creating agricultural carbon markets where farmers can be paid for carbon sequestration. It argues that the scheme is unlikely to generate genuine emissions reductions because there is no cap on the emissions allowed, unlike in cap-and-trade schemes, and because the science around soil carbon sequestration is not yet fully settled. Furthermore, it notes that in some cases, farmers are paid by large companies to adopt farming practices that rely on data platforms or proprietary technology owned by those companies, potentially entrenching both their market power and “chemical-dependent” farming methods.

This report by the Dutch think tank Questionmark examines how Swedish supermarkets encourage the consumption of meat, notably by multi-buy discounts where customers only receive a discount if they buy multiple items. Furthermore, the types of meat that are promoted by the four biggest supermarkets are very rarely (in only 3% of meat promotions) rated “green” (i.e. most sustainable) by the Swedish WWF meat guide (see also the TABLE blog The Swedish Meat Guide – multidisciplinary research that reached society).

Farmers in the UK are receiving only a tiny fraction of the supermarket price of five common foods - often receiving less than a penny of the purchase price - according to this report from UK NGO Sustain. Other stages of the supply chain - notably processors and retailers - often receive a much greater portion of the profit. The report also notes that growers could receive more profit by supplying through alternative supply chains, such as non-profit food hubs.

In the UK, average prices for a representative “basket” of food and non-alcoholic beverages have risen by 14.6% in the 12 months to September 2022, driven in particular by increases in the prices of bread and cereals, meat, milk, cheese and eggs. The statistics are from the UK’s Office for National Statistics.

Inclusion of smallholders in modern (i.e. formal and globalised) food supply chains may not bring the benefits that it was expected to, according to this working paper from the International Institute for Environment and Development. Based on a literature review and stakeholder interviews, it concludes that smallholders’ access to higher-value markets probably results in only small income gains with most benefits going to the farmers who were wealthier to start with; that farmer cooperatives can be exclusionary; that despite high awareness of gender issues, there has been little progress on outcomes; and that it is difficult to quantify progress on the outcomes of environmental sustainability standards.

This report by the Canadian NGO the ETC Group profiles the world’s largest corporations in each of 11 agrifood sectors, including seeds, fertilisers, livestock genetics and food delivery. It shows that most of these sectors are dominated by just four to six large companies and argues that this “top heavy” structure threatens food sovereignty and gives large corporations outsize influence over markets, research and policy.

Consumers are familiar with alternative proteins and many would eat more of them if barriers around health, taste and price were to be resolved, according to this report by consultancy BCG and investment firm Blue Horizon. The report also tracks investment in the alternative proteins sector (which has risen from $1 billion in 2019 to $5 billion in 2021) as well as regulatory support. The report calculates that substituting 8% of animal-sourced foods with alternative proteins could reduce 1.5% of global emissions in 2030; furthermore, plant-based proteins could generate at least three times more carbon savings per $1 trillion invested than decarbonisation in other sectors such as cement, iron, buildings and so on.

This book examines the politics and narratives around so-called “superfoods” such as quinoa, kale and rooibos tea, discussing their links to intellectual property, marketing, venture capital and more.