As input prices surge, extreme weather is the norm and margins become tighter, food producers are making significant changes. Benchmarking to compare performance, author Lisa Jack argues, is essential to manage and assess these changes. She provides an overview of existing practices and explores the potential for them to drive sustainable innovation. 

This article investigates the current state of nutrition and sustainability of plant-based and animal-sourced products, mainly beef. It reflects upon the different metrics used in research and how they impact research results, narratives and policies. From the literature they reviewed, the authors found there to be a consensus that plant-based beef generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventionally reared beef. They found it is more difficult to make nutritional comparisons due to the variability in plant-based beef products. Comparisons mainly focus on nutritional content, water use, land use and greenhouse gas emissions, but exclude social and economic sustainability. The authors highlight the impact of funding sources on the type of metrics chosen and call for more independent analysis focusing on a wider range of metrics.

NGO Feedback has published a website, Big Livestock's Big Greenwash, outlining the marketing strategies used by large livestock companies, including: reporting emissions and climate targets in ways that appear to show more progress than has happened; focusing on technological options (e.g. feed additives) to increase efficiency without reducing meat and dairy production; downplaying the climate impact of livestock; and building narratives that argue livestock production is good for farmer wellbeing, food security and traditional meat-based diets. Feedback argues that these strategies amount to greenwash.