This report from Eating Better assesses the meat and dairy sourcing policies of 10 supermarkets in the UK against the “Sourcing Better” framework. It finds that progress is uneven across different impact categories, and that there are no commitments to raise fewer animals or reduce the amount of meat and dairy sold. Broadly, the report finds that retailers are more active in aiming for responsible antibiotic use, good animal welfare and no deforestation, and less active in areas including local pollution, water use, soil health and using less land for feed.

This Research Brief from the Centre for Food Policy, aimed primarily at policymakers, lists 45 actions that have a direct pathway to impact across five environmental sustainability dimensions (greenhouse gas emissions, chemical pollution, freshwater resources, biodiversity and soil health). It groups the actions into five domains: land use in agriculture; the environmental impacts of agriculture; wild fishery and aquaculture sustainability; food loss and waste; and dietary change.

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 from IPES-Food finds that 60% of low-income countries and 30% of middle-income countries are in or are at risk of debt distress, with 21 countries facing both debt distress and food insecurity. The report identifies four ways in which food systems are contributing to pressure on public finances: dependencies on imports and the dollar; extractive financial flows; boom-bust commodity cycles; and climate change. It calls for policymakers to provide debt relief as well as support for food system reform.

This paper reviews the potential contribution of microbial foods to a healthy, resilient and sustainable food system. It covers three main categories: traditional fermented foods such as wine, yoghurt and kimchi; microbial biomass, where the microbes themselves are directly consumed, for example the mycoprotein used in Quorn products; and “cell factories”, otherwise known as precision fermentation, where microbes are genetically modified to produce certain molecules.

This paper studies how a top-down (i.e. state-led) food sovereignty policy in Bolivia was negatively impacted by the “corporate food regime”. Food sovereignty was included as a central element of Bolivia’s new constitution in 2009, and regulations were introduced to prioritise food from small-scale farmers in school feeding programmes.

This paper calculates the carbon footprints and dietary quality score of six dietary patterns based on consumption data from the United States: vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, keto, paleo and omnivorous diets. All of these diets were loosely defined (e.g. vegetarian diets are those with less than 14 grams of meat and seafood per day) to allow some deviation from the strict conventional definitions of these diets. Pescatarian diets scored as the most healthy, and vegan diets had the lowest carbon footprint.

This paper estimates that the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, which is low in animal products, does not provide sufficient levels of vitamin B12, calcium, iron and zinc. The calculations assume no supplementation or fortification. The authors recommend modifying the EAT-Lancet diet by increasing the levels of animal sourced foods and reducing foods high in phytate.

This article by The Good Food Institute explores global trends in investment in alternative proteins during 2022. Alternative protein companies raised $2.9 billion globally in 2022 - a 42% decrease compared to 2021, which followed several years of increasing global investment in alternative proteins. The article attributes 2022’s lower investment to broader market conditions, as economy-wide private venture funding also declined 35% in 2022. The article also sets out the results of an investor survey showing that 99% of respondents remain optimistic about the alternative protein sector in the long term.