Duckweed isn’t tasty – unless you’re a duck – but the flavour is at least inoffensive, and it packs a powerful nutritional punch. The plant’s miniature leaves contain uniquely high concentrations of rubisco, a ubiquitous protein that has been recognized by scientists as ideal for human consumption, according to the standards of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

Duckweed’s protein density and high yield are part of the secret sauce that has made the California-based start-up Plantible a darling of venture capitalists. In November, the company closed a US$30-million “series B” funding round to expand its manufacturing operations at its 100-acre “vertically integrated biology platform” in West Texas, also known as the Ranchito. The new financing brings Plantible’s total fundraising to US$57 million since its founding in 2018. Investors include the venture arms of both Kellogg and Chipotle.

This isn’t the first time that duckweed has garnered attention as a potential superfood. Wolffia and Spirodela are two other varieties that have been acclaimed and whose powdered form can be purchased at online stores and health food shops. But apart from in Southeast Asia, where Wolffia (or Mankai) is a traditional ingredient, neither has escaped the tight niche of vegan dietary supplements.

Plantible’s approach is different and may set it on a path for wider adoption. Rather than market to consumers, the company sells directly to food manufacturers like ICL Food Specialties, attracted by the low environmental impact and stable, high-volume supply – Lemna doubles its mass every two to three days and can be grown indoors with 95% recycled water – as well as its non-allergenic properties, nutritive value and ease of digestion.

Plantible put its first commercial product on the market in 2023, an egg replacement for baked goods. Called Ruby Whisk, it claims to whip up better than the real thing, binds unsaturated fats like a dream and emulsifies perfectly. The company has since added Rubi Prime, an ingredient for imitation meat and seafood whose virtues include something called “thermo-irreversible binding.”

A rollercoaster for plant-based protein companies

Anyone who’s been watching the plant-based-proteins space will be rightly wary of hype for new entrants. The market was set for explosive growth in 2019 as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods found pickup in fast-food chains and meat companies started investing big in plant-based product lines. By 2020, Bloomberg Intelligence forecasted that the market would enjoy a compound annual growth rate of 18.6% to 2030. But the boom never materialized, at least in part because of an aggressive smear campaign by food industry lobbyists. After rising quickly, sales plateaued and then declined sharply. Beyond Meat’s shares now trade for less than $5, from a peak of nearly $200.

But plant-based proteins aren’t just a fad. Consumers are more health-conscious than ever, and the appetite for vegetarian and vegan options is growing. “We’re still very optimistic about the long-term opportunity and growth potential for the industry,” said Jen Bartashus, a senior research analyst at Bloomberg, on a podcast in 2023.

Recent analysis by other market intelligence firms has been tempered but upbeat, projecting between 7.5% and 8.1% compound annual growth rate over the next few years and citing “heightened awareness and adoption of plant-based diets among consumers, emphasizing the importance of protein-rich plant sources.”

Plantible already has tens of millions of dollars in contracts, according to MSN, and other duckweed start-ups are rushing to catch up. GreenOnyx in Israel has raised US$47 million, and Flo Wolffia in Thailand, DryGrow in the United Kingdom and microTerra in Mexico are all vying for a piece of the action.

Whatever Plantible’s place in the transition, the way we source plant proteins is changing. According to a paper on duckweed for the food and feed industry published in the journal Foods in May, “it is common knowledge that soy and maize will not be the definitive source of plant proteins as mycoproteins, algae proteins, seaweed proteins and bacterial proteins will tend to become the sources of proteins that will feed the world.”

But trends aside, diets don’t change easily. The pace of the protein revolution will depend on how well companies learn from each other’s mistakes. By targeting producers rather than consumers, Plantible seems to have found a fresh burst of momentum.

Mark Mann is a journalist in Montreal and the associate editor at Corporate Knights. 

The post This California start-up raised $30 million to make plant protein from pond weeds appeared first on Corporate Knights.

How the initiatives were born

In the Netherlands, which has led the protein split initiatives, the idea was born after roundtables between food-system advocacy groups and retailers were held to discuss what the country calls a “protein transition” – a food system shift aimed at reducing dependency on meat and other proteins sourced from livestock.

Examples of animal proteins used to calculate the splits include fish, dairy, meat and eggs. Plant proteins include beans, pulses, nuts and seeds, as well as meat and dairy alternatives.

Though discussions around eating less meat are often fraught and contentious, this particular idea came about collaboratively. “It was fully voluntary [and later] the government . . . included it in their own protein monitor and commissioned the publication of the first national protein split,” says Pablo Moleman of ProVeg, a Dutch non-governmental organization that advocates for a more plant-based food system. From there, the idea spread to other European NGOs and international retail outlets, he says.

Initial results of protein split initiatives are promising

The split initiatives appear to be working, at least for one major Dutch retailer, where meat sales have fallen. The supermarket, Jumbo, is the second-largest in the Netherlands and made headlines in March by ending discounts on fresh animal meat as part of efforts to flip its current protein split sales from 60% animal/40% plant to 60% plant/40% animal by 2030.

Other major supermarkets that have publicly committed to reaching 60% plant protein sales in the Netherlands by 2030 include Aldi, Dirk, Ekoplaza and Lidl, according to a government-commissioned protein split assessment published in March this year.

The emergence of the protein split initiative in the Netherlands is not surprising. Years of intensive farming, which made the country one of the world’s leading dairy and pork exporters, have also turned the country into a nitrogen pollution hot spot.

There are also rising concerns about public health, especially heart disease, as well as concern over diseases that spread from animals to humans. Active civil-society groups have been a factor, too, raising public awareness of intensive livestock production’s negative impact on the climate, air and water, says Florian Wall of Madre Brava, an NGO that advocates for sustainable food systems.

Earlier this year, a survey of Dutch consumers found that consumers’ highest motivation for eating less meat and dairy was health, followed by animal welfare and environmental concerns.

Other efforts to reduce the effects of intensive animal protein production include a Dutch-led search for alternative proteins, like lab-grown meats, and a recent government announcement that it aims to increase the consumption of plant proteins to 50% of the national diet by 2030.

Yet another factor pushing the Netherlands ahead of other countries is size. The small country has become a global hub for food production and innovation, growing lots of food on tiny plots that are, in some ways, the exact opposite of America’s vast agricultural lands. But being so innovative cuts both ways, Moleman says: the country has one of the highest livestock densities in the world, but also the highest per capita consumption of meat alternatives in Europe.

RELATED:

Is it time for a just transition in the meatpacking industry?

Amsterdam is the latest city to throw its weight behind Plant Based Treaty

Cooking the books: The magical math of ‘climate-friendly’ meat

It’s too soon to tell what impact the end of fresh meat discounts will have on Jumbo’s protein split, but since the summer of 2022, when major Dutch retailers first set their protein split targets, company data shows that previous efforts to boost plant sales have succeeded, says Moleman, whose NGO co-authored the Dutch protein split assessment.

Jumbo’s plant-boosting initiatives include the introduction of price parity between animal meats and the supermarket’s own brand of plant alternatives. This led to a jump of 15% in alternative sales and, during the full year 2023, a drop of 3% in conventional meat sales.

At Lidl’s Dutch supermarkets, the current split is 61% animal-sourced meat versus 39% plant sales, and the company is aiming for a similar flip to selling 60% plant proteins by 2030. As part of that effort, Lidl ran a test project that placed alt-meats next to animal meats, resulting in a 7.14% increase in plant-based sales, Moleman says. It also launched a minced-beef product that uses 40% pea protein, is 33% cheaper than pure ground beef and produces 37.5% less emissions.

Although Moleman says it is too soon for concrete emissions-reduction data, lowering animal protein sales is expected to be a priority, given that about 34% of indirect, or Scope 3, grocery emissions come from meat, and 17% from dairy. The drive to reduce sales from animal-sourced meat will likely accelerate as supermarkets’ own emission targets kick in, with a recent study by Madre Brava finding that the 15 largest European supermarket chains “have a target in place or will set one by the end of this year to reduce emissions from the food they sell.”

Even partial reductions of meat and dairy sales should have major climate impacts. Another Madre Brava study found that six major food providers could cut their meat-sales emissions by 40% if they replaced half their beef, pork and chicken with legumes, tofu and plant-based meat alternatives.

Now, more European supermarkets have begun publishing their own protein split initiatives, although not all are committing to specific targets. The broader European protein split uptake, Wall says, is driven by factors that include both the emergence of flexitarian consumers and emissions concerns. Just as in the Netherlands, he says, “campaigning by animal welfare and environmental groups . . . has helped create a growing segment of conscious consumers . . . looking to cut down on meat and dairy consumption.”

Forward-looking retailers see the shift to selling fewer animal-based products as a way to meet their climate goals. As French retail giant Carrefour told Madre Brava, “a shift from animal proteins to vegetal proteins will be necessary to achieve our Scope 3 [emissions] targets.”

How the U.K. is doing with its reduction goals

In the U.K., where participating grocery chains tend to include fewer products in their protein splits, Lidl’s latest data shows it is selling about 15% plant-based protein foods and about 7% dairy alternatives. The U.K. chain Sainsbury’s annual data shows that about 15% of protein sales are plants, while the dairy split is 7% plant-based. Tesco’s latest disclosure shows a similar plant/animal split of 11% plant/89% animal-sourced and a dairy split of 7% plant versus 93% meat and other animal-sourced food.

Because of the different measurement systems, it’s difficult to compare the effectiveness of the Dutch and U.K. splits. Although there are no individual protein split targets, several U.K. retailers have signed up to a World Wildlife Fund commitment, called the WWF Basket, that includes an “ambition . . . for retailers to work towards a 50-50 split between sales of plant and animal proteins by 2030.”

Is there any hope for something similar in the United States?

To a U.S. consumer, these initiatives might sound a bit like hopeful fan fiction; one more example of the way Europe is so far ahead of the United States when it comes to combatting climate change through addressing food systems.

Wall says that although they lag behind Europe, cities like New York, with its university and healthcare company–backed Plant-Powered Carbon Challenge, are blazing a trail.

He holds out hope, too, that European protein split leaders – which own U.S. brands like Giant and Stop & Shop – might bring “inspiration from what’s happening in Europe” to their locations in the United States.

Culture wars over meat inevitably make these kinds of transitions harder, Moleman says, adding that the Netherlands has its own share of polarization around meat and livestock. But that makes it all the more important for supermarkets to be involved, he argues.

Protein split initiatives have had some challenges, Moleman says. They often work better when major retailers publicly commit together, mainly because being the one to renege in that situation would be bad publicity. Government support for plant-based goals and broader behaviour change are important too, he says, as well as improvements in the quality and availability of meat alternatives. Finally, he adds, there are some relatively painless options supermarkets can take, such as removing egg yolks from salad dressing and reducing the meat content of ready meals and adding more plants.

“It is important to realize that the extreme opposition represents a very small but vocal minority, and we should not worry too much about convincing them. There is a much larger group of people that are on the fence; they are not very keen on alternative proteins or on changing their diets, but they broadly support measures to improve planetary and human health,” he says.

At the same time, Moleman warns, plant-based advocates should avoid falling into the trap of becoming culture warriors themselves. “It is crucial that the plant-based movement comes out of its progressive bubble and reaches out to people on the fence.”

Grocery stores, then, are in a unique position to get people eating more plants. Outside of the “progressive bubble,” supermarkets can be a “crucial partner,” Moleman says, one that can “reach almost the whole of society.”

This article was originally published by Sentient. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style.

The post Dutch supermarkets are trying to get shoppers to choose plant-based proteins over meat appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Scientists have been sounding the alarm that we need to do more and quickly to help curtail global warming’s catastrophic impacts, pointing out that coal, cars and cattle are top greenhouse gas emitters. The good news is that growth in clean energy was twice that of fossil fuels from 2019 to 2023, and global sales of electric cars surged 31% in 2023 from the year prior. But the world keeps eating more meat, with forecasts estimating that we’ll be consuming 50% more by 2050. 

And that’s a problem that wealthy nations in particular need to get a handle on, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. A 2020 study conducted by the University of Michigan found that if Americans cut their meat consumption in half by 2030 and shifted to more plant-based alternatives, the country would cut the equivalent annual emissions to taking 47.5 million cars off the road.

But even climate-concerned politicians tend to stay away from the issue with a 10-foot pole. It’s a touchy topic. People get defensive when it’s suggested that we change the way we eat – especially when meat industry groups are stoking the flames with disinformation campaigns. Australian academics surveyed 150 news articles in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand and found that “industry frequently framed [red meat] reduction as part of a ‘Vegan Agenda’” and “an infringement on personal choice and traditional values.” The researchers concluded that all that polarization “may diminish the extent to which political leaders will prioritise this in policy agendas.”

The meat and dairy industries are clearly sweating bullets. They’re lobbying for bans on the use of terms such as “milk” and “steak” on plant-based products (even cauliflower steaks are off the table in Italy, along with lab-grown prosciutto). They’re also funding ads that portray plant-based foods as unhealthy, unnatural and ultra-processed, as a new report from Freedom Food Alliance chronicles. And it’s working. In Europe, a 17-country survey released in February found that more than half of respondents are avoiding plant-based meat because it’s “ultra-processed.” 

The media has been quick to announce that the plant-based bubble has burst, that plant-based meat has “lost its sizzle.” Of course, the media loves to declare things “dead.” And yes, Silicon Valley equally loves a good overhyped product, perhaps overestimating just how much people would spend for two plant-based burgers (hint: $8 for two Beyond Meat patties proved to be too much for many consumers).

Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, both of which have taken a hit on the nose with investors over the last couple of years, have been taking notes. In February, Beyond Meat unveiled a new and improved burger now made with avocado oil, 20% less sodium and protein from brown rice and red lentils. “The new products . . . were designed to meet the standard of the national health organizations [including the American Heart Association’s Heart-Check program] to create a product that delivers the taste satisfaction and utility of 80/20 beef – yet is demonstrably healthier,” said Beyond Meat’s founder and CEO, Ethan Brown.

Some governments are taking notice. Last year, Denmark launched the world’s first national plant-based action plan that will include subsidy schemes and advice for plant-based start-ups. Germany announced US$41 million in funding for alternative proteins. Twenty-six cities, including Amsterdam, Los Angeles and Edinburgh, have endorsed a Plant Based Treaty. And over the last five years, the Government of Canada has invested more than $300 million into Protein Industries Canada, an industry-led, not-for-profit “innovation cluster” focused on growing Canada into a plant-based protein powerhouse while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions associated with food.

As a recent UN report on alternatives to conventional meat noted, livestock production is fuelling Earth’s triple environmental crisis: the climate emergency, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste. But there is an enormous economic opportunity underfoot. Already, plant-based foods, including legumes and tofu, provide 57% of protein that humans consume globally, according to the UN. Sales of alternative meat, seafood and dairy products reached US$28 billion globally in 2022. Entrepreneurs and researchers around the world are using technology – from AI to 3D-printed plant-based salmon fillets – to innovate the future of food. 

Canada is a world leader in growing some of the legumes used to make plant-based proteins and is home to the world’s largest pea protein plant, in Manitoba, with new facilities in the works. And we’re adding that protein to bread, pasta – you name it. A 2024 report by the Smart Prosperity Institute says that the plant-based meat sector could contribute $25 billion to the country’s gross domestic product over the next decade. 

If you prefer to keep things simple, Canada is a leading grower of lentils and chickpeas, too.

While the plant-based sector faces challenges, industry observers at Euromonitor say that “the current slowdown in growth does not signify the death of this category.” Instead, they describe this moment as the “end of the beginning” as market expectations recalibrate to match reality. 

As the number of meat reducers, or “reducatarians,” continues to grow globally, will we finally eat our veggies to save the planet? 

This story is part of our Spring 2024 Plant Power package.

The post We need to talk about meat appeared first on Corporate Knights.

It was also the birthplace of industrial meat, where fateful new methods permanently changed how beef, pork and poultry were produced and transported, and evolved into what is now called factory farming. Namely, refrigerated train cars enabled a nationwide supply network, and production (once local and small-scale) was highly centralized by the biggest four meatpacking companies. A surge in output relied on the abundance of a cheap, desperate and largely immigrant workforce that included children. Production lines had been effectively de-skilled through division of labour (the “disassembly line”), and workers lived in unsanitary, crowded slums on the outskirts of the stockyards. 

In 1904, the young socialist Upton Sinclair spent seven weeks in Chicago’s stockyards making notes on the squalid working and living conditions. The result was The Jungle, a novel about a Lithuanian immigrant’s journey through Chicago meatpacking. The Jungle made it to the desk of President Theodore Roosevelt, who used its stomach-turning descriptions of unsanitary meat being shipped out to Americans to push food-safety legislation. In 1906, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, thus beginning the era of federal food inspection. 

Roosevelt’s bills overlooked Sinclair’s primary aim, however, which was to improve the lives of workers. Eventually, after decades of organizing, unions grew stronger, and the dream of The Jungle looked more like reality. Between 1960 and 1980, meatpacking wages ranged from 15% to 19% higher than average manufacturing wages. The “big four” controlled only 20% of the meat market. But the 1980s saw the beginning of a gradual backslide, with production moving from urban centres to union-weak rural areas, line speeds increasing and wages falling. From 1952 to 2020, the percentage of workers covered by union contracts went from about 90% to 18%. Today, the new big four command more than 80% of the market.

Now almost 120 years after The Jungle was published, industrial meat has yet to find the balance between profit and worker well-being. 

The most dangerous industry

In the early hours of the morning shift at a Virginia poultry factory in February 2022, a 14-year-old Guatemalan boy had been cleaning a machine that suddenly turned on and pulled him by his shirt sleeve along a conveyor. His forearm was then torn open down to the bone by plastic machine teeth. He survived the incident, undergoing several surgeries and months of physical therapy. Then in July, a 16-year-old worker was killed after being pulled into a machine at a Mar-Jac Poultry plant in Mississippi. The teens were among thousands of migrant youth illegally working dangerous jobs in the United States, many for sanitation companies where they would clean dangerous equipment like bone saws and head splitters. At the Virginia plant, minors were falsifying papers to get hired by Fayette Janitorial, the cleaning company contracted by Perdue Farms, then working overnight and attending school during the day, exhausted. 

The U.S. Department of Labor announced an investigation into Perdue and Tyson Foods, two of the country’s largest poultry producers, and in February of this year asked a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order against Fayette while it investigated the company’s labour practices. This followed Labor Department penalties last February of US$1.5 million against Packers Sanitation Services, which was found to employ more than 100 children illegally in eight states, including at plants owned by JBS, the world’s largest meat company.

The New York Times called the situation “a new economy of exploitation,” but it’s only the latest chapter in the meat industry’s history of worker hazards.

For the last two decades, groups like Human Rights Watch and Oxfam have been sounding the alarm about high injury rates, insufficient regulations, suppression of collective bargaining rights, and the growing reliance on vulnerable migrant and undocumented workers largely powerless to demand better conditions. High line speeds are cited by workers as the main source of danger, causing them to cut themselves or develop musculoskeletal disorders. Gail Eisnitz, author of Slaughterhouse, reported Bureau of Labor Statistics showing “nearly thirty-six injuries or illnesses for every hundred workers,” making meatpacking “the most dangerous industry in the United States.” Eisnitz called meatpacking workers “an army of walking wounded.” 

Horror stories occasionally spark public awareness of the meatpacking world, but the industry quickly returns to obscurity.

In April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic brought the vulnerabilities of meat workers into clear relief, once again. Amid plant closures, looming meat shortages and rising infections and deaths, President Donald Trump signed an executive order using the Defense Production Act to compel meatpacking facilities to remain open. Following this, 15 large poultry plants received U.S. Department of Agriculture approval to increase line speeds from 140 to 175 birds per minute. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received a spike in worker complaints. 

In June 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report that found COVID-19 infection rates in meatpacking facilities up to 70 times higher than the general population due to the crowded nature of the workplaces.

Canada didn’t fare well, either. By May 2020, the single-largest COVID-19 outbreak site in North America was a Cargill meatpacking plant in High River, Alberta, where 950 cases had been recorded (out of 2,000 workers), and two deaths. The union representing the plant’s workers filed a complaint of unfair labour practice and requested a stop-work order, but the plant reopened after a brief closure, with a majority of workers reporting concern for their safety. A class action lawsuit against Cargill is ongoing.

Canadian meat workers also face the grinding pressures of speed and output. David Magina, a former inspector with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, says he inspected chicken carcasses at line speeds of three birds per second (280 per minute). Even with the benefits of being a federal employee, Magina felt the deleterious effects of the environment. “My life is more important than any amount of money,” he says. Magina developed severe asthma, contracted a pathogen and suffered frequent headaches. The line workers he became friendly with regularly reported carpal tunnel syndrome, shoulder pain and eye strain. 

Magina’s tenure in slaughterhouses also triggered what may be the most inadequately addressed hazard of working in the meat industry: post-traumatic stress disorder. “I saw unimaginable things. Standard industry practice is horrific, but I’ve seen even more extreme things.” People working the kill floor in particular become “shells of themselves,” Magina says. Studies have found that slaughterhouse workers experience higher rates of depression, anxiety and negative coping behaviour such as aggressiveness, substance abuse and domestic violence. The often vulnerable economic and cultural position of these workers means they cannot access sufficient mental health support – many lean on their communities for relief.

The industry keeps looking to temporary foreign workers (TFWs) to fill its labour shortages. In 2022, Employment and Social Development Canada announced a temporary increase on the cap of how many TFWs can work at a specific work location in certain sectors (including meatpacking), from 20% to 30% (after a previous limit of 10%). In 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services extended its own TFW program by three years so that producers could retain workers whose visas were expiring. 

Some say we’re looking at the problem all wrong. Instead of putting economic migrants in dangerous jobs, should we be creating a labour market that uplifts precarious workers and doesn’t put them in harm’s way?

A way out 

“Nobody dreams of working in a slaughterhouse,” says Kendra Coulter, a University of Western Ontario professor who studies labour involving animals. Coulter says that while unions can increase wages and improve conditions marginally, “they will never fundamentally improve slaughterhouse work.” The focus, she says, needs to be on the creation of humane jobs that are good for people and good for animals. 

A recent report by the Stockholm Environment Institute suggests that a just transition for meat workers start with the Global North. Scaling down industrial meat could reduce environmental and health impacts, especially for communities exposed to the pollution associated with factory farms. However, the report cautions that a transition away from industrial meat will have “strong repercussions for communities where large numbers of people derive their livelihoods from meat supply chains.” While the plant-based sector could create more high-skilled jobs in certain regions, policy-makers will need to prioritize “the meaningful participation of marginalized groups,” groups that are often left behind in big industrial turnovers, like when auto and coal producers vacate regions. 

The UN Environment Programme and investor network Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) have also recently called for a just transition for meat workers. “Although no silver bullet exists for this sector” FAIRR says, “a just transition for food systems must be on the agenda for investors and policymakers alike.”

For workers seeking near-term relief, one possible answer might be more initiatives like Brave New Life Project, a volunteer-run non-profit that supports Colorado meat workers aiming to find new opportunities. Not an employment agency, Brave New Life is more of a holistic support network that assists with job-seeking and works with clients to find housing and food support, or obtain new job skills.

Although no silver bullet exists for this sector, a just transition for food systems must be on the agenda for investors and policymakers alike.

 

– Helena Wright and Stephanie Haszczyn, FAIRR

“One employment agent made a worker feel guilty about wanting to leave,” says co-founder Jessi Geist, referring to the JBS plant in Greeley, Colorado. It’s just one of many barriers workers face when seeking a way out. “If immigrants have a low baseline of English, slaughterhouse work is all they can get,” Geist says. Other trade-offs like taking wage cuts for less stressful work, or upending their homes to relocate, are not always options for people supporting families. “Is my mental health more important than my family?” It’s a question workers often ask themselves, Geist says. 

Putting workers in better positions is key for Brave New Life. “Our long-term goal,” Geist says, “is to buy a piece of land, have people cultivate it, learn business skills, sell their products and become landowners themselves.” 

After an injury makes him unhirable in the stockyards, The Jungle’s central character finds work at a fertilizer plant. The fertilizer, it turns out, is toxic and deadly. Even today, it’s still not as simple as just getting out.

Christopher St. Prince is a Toronto-based journalist and fiction writer.

This story is part of our Spring 2024 Plant Power package. 

The post Is it time for a just transition in the meatpacking industry? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

It’s part of a growing wave of cities around the world that have been signalling an understanding that food can’t be ignored when it comes to dealing with the climate crisis. (Livestock agriculture is responsible for 14.5% to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.)  

The Plant Based Treaty now has 26 municipalities pledging to take the matter seriously. The treaty is non-binding, but as the Scottish capital Edinburgh stated when it signed on last year, it “represents a public acknowledgement that food production and consumption are key drivers of the climate crisis.” Other cities that have signed on include Los Angeles; Didim, Turkey; Kyotera, Uganda; Norwich, U.K., and 15 cities in India, where nearly four in 10 people identify as vegetarian, the highest rate in the world.  

The treaty is modelled after the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty – a global agreement to phase out oil and gas production. Among the Plant Based Treaty’s goals are halting deforestation attributed to animal agriculture, pushing for subsidies that incentivize a plant-based food system, and freeing up land to rewild and reforest the earth.  

“Rapidly reducing animal agriculture and shifting humanity to a plant-based diet is one of the best, easiest and fastest things we can do to save the planet,” NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus told USA Today in December. “It will also buffer food security in a time of increasing crop failures due to global heating. The world needs a Plant Based Treaty.” 

From handing out veggie hot dogs at climate conferences to lobbying politicians and universities, the group is gaining traction, garnering some 135,000 signatures to back its pledges. “Our theory of change is to create grassroots, bottom-up pressure on governments to negotiate a global treaty,” the group said in a video that outlined the gains made in 2023.  

Not all cities have followed up their public plant-based pledges with concrete actions. But Edinburgh has been a leader, unveiling earlier this year its “Plant Based Treaty action plan,” designed to shape diets through menu changes in schools, hospitals and nursing homes; carbon labels on food served at an Edinburgh university; and public education campaigns. Primary-school cafeterias already have one meat-free day a week in Edinburgh, and vegetarian or vegan options are available every day. There’s also been more emphasis on buying local fruits and vegetables, along with fostering community gardens.  

“I want to be clear that this does not seek to eliminate meat and dairy,” Edinburgh Council leader Cammy Day said in a statement earlier this year. “It’s not about removing freedom of choice, but about increasing availability and awareness of plant-based options.” 

For Amsterdam, which is aiming to see 60% of the protein in its residents’ diets plant-based by 2030, the motivation is explicit. “The consumption of more plant-based proteins is better for our health,” the motion expressing support for the treaty stated. “It is also better for our climate impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing land use and depletion of oceans.”   

And for those who use other barometers to measure change, there’s always McDonald’s, which last year started placing plant-based burgers above meat ones on their menus in the Netherlands. 

The post Amsterdam is the latest city to throw its weight behind Plant Based Treaty appeared first on Corporate Knights.

No longer are media, investors or flexitarians rallying behind the novel products quite so fervently. Did the products change? Did consumers suddenly quit caring about the eco and ethical impact of their food? Or, has there been a calculated effort at play to turn interest away from the new and improved meat? And what can be done to rally that interest once again? 

In 2019, Beyond Meat famously went public with an IPO that closed at US$65.75 per share, a 163% increase on its first day. That same year, Impossible Foods partnered with Burger King, introducing the Impossible Whopper and marking a major milestone in bringing plant-based meat to the mainstream. By 2020 though, marketing campaigns were already ramping up to pit those ingredient-heavy, plant-based meats against “all natural” animal meat. 

Full page ads in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal claimed that “fake meats” are full of “real chemicals.” A Super Bowl commercial featured a young girl in a spelling bee asked to spell scary-sounding “methylcellulose.” She was told it is a “chemical laxative” also used in “synthetic meat.” It’s actually a common binding agent used in many foods.  

Both the newspaper and TV ads were paid for by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a group headed by former tobacco lobbyist Richard Berman.  Forbes once described the CCF as “a front group that represents tobacco, alcohol and meat companies.” A spokesperson for Impossible Foods similarly called the group a “dark-money front group funded by Big Beef to mislead consumers and push propaganda.”   

There has since been much media commentary on the hows and whys of plant-based meats becoming, as Bloomberg described, “just a fad,” as sales at Beyond Meat fell by almost a third in the last quarter. Founder of the “Reducetarian Movement,” Brian Kateman, for example, responded optimistically in Fast Company, describing a newborn industry simply enduring the natural ebbs and flows of innovation. While Vox Kenny Torrella of Vox chalked it up in part to unrealistic expectations and products that remain too high on cost and too low on taste. But Torrella, too, still sees potential. Although, to meet that potential, the sector will need far more financial support. 

And relying on private investment alone will not get the plant-based sector to price and taste parity. Meat, dairy and egg industries across Canada and the U.S. receive billions in government propping each year, not only for production but also marketing and lobbying, which is spent in –part on turning consumers off plant-based products. This has been deemed by some commentators as an all-out culture war. Plant-based proteins must become a far greater government priority if these undoubtedly beneficial products are going to stand a chance in the battle against Big Meat. 

The fundamentals have not changed: We are still coping with climate chaos caused in part by animal agriculture, contributing at least 14.5% of all GHG emissions. And plant-based meats have not changed: They still require significantly less water, land and energy to be produced, and they emit notably fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Sure, Beyond and Impossible burgers may be considered processed foods, but they still contain all the protein of their animal-based competitors, without all the cholesterol and saturated animal fat and with the added benefit of fibre.

Plant-based meats may not save the planet, but they are a much-needed part of the solution. Governments need to pay closer attention to this and provide the support that this industry needs and deserves.  

The post Where’s the plant-based beef? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Canada’s Food Price Report warns us that food price inflation will continue throughout 2023, especially for dairy, vegetables and meat, and that a family of four will need an additional $1,000 to feed themselves. This is not a short-term crisis. Many of the crop losses that caused prices to rise were caused by the increase in dramatic floods, droughts and storms, courtesy of the climate crisis, which is just getting started. Meanwhile, politicians on Parliament Hill held committee hearings last week to grill grocery-store CEOs on their part in the sky-high prices.

If you were minister of agriculture, what would you do? Websites are full of advice on how to shop more wisely, but this is not the way to address a food crisis.

1. Form community food hubs

Most of the work needed to increase food security is local, requiring partnerships and planning. Every neighbourhood, county or town needs a community food hub to promote best practices and policies, taking inspiration from the Food Hub Network in British Columbia. Community food hubs are often community-led initiatives that distribute local food to those who need it. Governments could provide start-up grants to launch food hubs where they don’t yet exist.

Through strong partnerships, local governments can work with community organizations to turn vacant urban land into allotment gardens. Local farmers can benefit from the shared distribution systems of community networks; schools can develop year-round food gardens; residents can be encouraged to grow food on public boulevards; fruit-tree gleaning projects can be started; and much more.

In B.C., the provincial government has announced a $200-million investment to spend on a variety of measures to increase local food security and reduce the cost of food.

2. Launch a nationwide grow-your-own-food campaign

Throughout history, people have dug into the soil to grow the food they needed. When hunger demanded it, they terraced entire mountainsides to create new beds. At Kiwi Cove outside Ladysmith, on Vancouver Island, 10 volunteers meet for three hours each Tuesday and Thursday morning from spring to fall to grow food for the Ladysmith Food Bank on a 4,750-square-metre plot of land. Together, they grow almost two tonnes of vegetables total, or 200 kilograms per volunteer, in a growing season. In Montreal, volunteers with Carrefour solidaire are growing vegetables in a plastic greenhouse in the middle of winter with thick snow on the ground outside, raising lettuces, cabbages, bok choy and many other vegetables.

We need a nationwide campaign to persuade Canadians to grow their own food, just as we did in wartime with victory gardens and like efforts launched by non-profits during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey by the National Gardening Association showed that Americans could save more than US$500 a year by growing their own food. To encourage Canadians to grow their own food, the federal government could give a $500 grant to any group of five or more neighbours who help each other to convert their lawns into food gardens. In a city of a million people, the government could issue 1,000 grants that would cost $500,000, or $19 million for the entire nation.

To encourage more home-grown food, the government could also remove GST from gardening tools, equipment and bedding plants and set up a fund for garden clubs to help new food gardeners. If the government distributed the grants through community food hubs, this could accelerate the formation of hubs in communities where they don’t exist, as residents (having seen the benefits in other communities) would pressure their government to set them up.

3. Protect farmland

In Ontario, 319 acres of high-grade agricultural land – equal in size to 58 city blocks – are lost to development every day, according to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Since the beginning of the pandemic, municipal zoning orders have been used six times in Ontario to rezone farmland for urban use. For sure, we need to build a massive amount of new housing, but there is more than enough land to build two million new homes in the Greater Golden Horseshoe area around Toronto by 2031, without touching the Greenbelt or expanding urban boundaries.

In British Columbia, good farmland has been protected since 1973 through the Agricultural Land Reserve, but 50% of it is sitting empty, not used for farming. In Surrey, B.C., research found that if 3,300 hectares were used for small-scale, human-intensive, direct market production, it could supply 100% of Surrey’s seasonal consumption of 29 crop and animal products, and create 1,500 jobs.

The solution is to tax unused farmland at an annually increasing rate, forcing owners to either start farming, lease the land to a farmer, or sell. This would reduce the market price of farmland and open up opportunities for new farmers. Metro Vancouver has explored various ways of making farmland tax changes, but nothing has happened.

4. Save and distribute the food that’s wasted

Millions of Canadians are food insecure, yet 58% of the food produced in Canada each year is lost or wasted, according to Second Harvest, a food rescue organization. Of this, 32% (11.2 million tonnes) is edible food that could be redirected to support hungry Canadians. That’s 295 kilograms of dumped food per person per year, or 5.7 kilograms a week. We need to eat around 1.8 kilos of food a day, so that’s enough food for three days. Canada’s goal is to reduce the amount of food wasted by 50% by 2030.

France has set a goal to reduce its 5.5 million tonnes of food waste by 50% by 2025. In that country, 32% of food is lost during farming, 21% during food processing, 19% by consumers, 14% by grocery stores and 14% by restaurants. Since 2016, the French government has banned larger supermarkets from throwing away unsold food that could be donated to a charity. In return, they save on landfill fees and get a tax break of up to 60% on the value of the donated food.

But there are some holes in this plan. The French Federation of Food Banks found that every morning, 2,700 supermarkets send food that would otherwise be wasted to 80 warehouses, rescuing 46,000 tons a year. This, however, is just 6% of France’s grocery store food waste, and the system also assumes that struggling people will go to a food bank.

There’s a lot more that the supermarket industry could do, including training its staff and using demand planning to identify likely food waste. The online grocery store Spud offers imperfect produce at 50% of the price and donates what it can’t sell to charities. Since 2009, the non-profit Move For Hunger has delivered 32 million pounds to food banks across the United States and Canada, equivalent to more than 26 million meals, but that’s two million meals a year, or only 5,500 meals a day. And it still requires people to go to food banks. Across Canada, only 4% of the surplus edible food is being redistributed to charitable organizations. That means 96% is still being thrown away or turned into animal feed or biofuel.

In Italy, the city of Milan has launched three food-waste hubs. They look like regular grocery stores, but all the food is donated by local businesses and supermarkets, and families in need can use a prepaid card to buy what they need. Between them, the hubs recover 130 tonnes a year, around 260,000 meals, saving 30% of the city’s food waste.

An app from Too Good To Go, a certified B Corporation founded in Copenhagen, now in 17 countries (including Canada), seems very promising. It enables bakeries, grocery stores, restaurants and hotels to put surplus food in a bag, and consumers use an app to pre-pay for a bag at a third of the normal price. In Canada, it has saved 1.4 million meals through 5,000 partners, helped businesses to earn $5.5 million on food that would otherwise have gone to waste, and helped consumers to save $16.3 million on food they would otherwise have had to buy at full price. What would it take for every store to get on board?

5. Promote and adopt a plant-based diet

There are many reasons why we should reduce our consumption of meat and dairy, chief of which is that the livestock industry accounts for 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions,  according to a University of Illinois paper. The reason for including it here is that meat is expensive, and a plant-based diet is a good way to reduce your grocery bills (as long as you avoid some of the more trendy plant-based brands).

One analysis found that the savings for a vegan are $4.50 a day, or $1,500 a year, entirely neutralizing the increased cost of food. A Harvard study put the saving at US$750 a year. Around 2.8 million Canadians describe themselves as primarily vegetarian, and 1.7 million as primarily vegan. That leaves 35 million Canadians who could be reducing their grocery bills by adopting a plant-based diet.

6. Stop food profiteering

Canadians for Tax Fairness reports that Loblaws’s markup increased from 32.5% in 2010 to 46.7% in 2022, and profits rose by 10%. “If they had maintained their 2019 markup, that would have saved Canadians almost $900 million,” economist D.T. Cochrane told the Toronto Star. Loblaws has 27% of Canada’s grocery retail market, or some 10 million Canadians, so that’s $90 per customer – or $1.73 a week. The price of two tomatoes. Not exactly a crisis-solver.

Loblaws’s recent quarterly profits also rose by $529 million, which the company says stems from the growth of non-food sales (such as clothing, personal care products and financial services). But even if it came from increased food prices, it’s only a dollar a week for their 10 million customers: half a cucumber. Parliament held hearings last week into possible grocery store profiteering, but I suspect that this may be a red herring ($1.72 for a tiny 3.5-ounce can of herring) as the evidence seems to show that if they have been profiteering, it’s on a very small level.

On the other hand, a report by Oxfam International found that 62 food capitalists became billionaires during the pandemic, amid record profits for the industry titans, whose wealth increased by 42% while global food prices soared by 33%. A small handful of corporations, including Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Conagra, Unilever and Del Monte, control the market share of 80% of the food products we buy, so governments need to cooperate to take a close look at monopolistic collusion in the industry, to find ways to reduce it.

A new Greenpeace report found that globally, 20 of the world’s biggest food corporations reaped such big profits in 2021 and 2022 that they were able to return US$53.5 billion to their shareholders. The United Nations, meanwhile, has recently issued an urgent humanitarian appeal to raise US$51.5 billion to help 222 million people who face acute food insecurity, including 45 million who risk starvation. Something is very rotten in the state of global food capitalism.

Back here in Canada, those of us who can afford the increased cost of food may not be worried. So, remind yourself: almost one in three Canadians are eating less healthy food because of rising costs. If we are to continue to think of ourselves as a caring people, our ministers of agriculture must step up: this is the time for big moves.

The post 6 ways to reduce the cost of food appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The company’s founder, Lo Kwee-seong, started off selling soy milk door-to-door as a low-cost source of protein at a time when the then-British colony was in the grip of food shortages and malnutrition. Today, Vitasoy is leading the charge to take the cow out of the milk business.

“The original intent of the company was to help make protein affordable,” current CEO Roberto Guidetti told Well magazine in May 2021. “Eighty years later, with the rise of climate consciousness, this story is extremely relevant.”

Guidetti, an Italian who previously headed Coca-Cola’s operations in China, has elevated sustainability goals into what he described to Forbes as “core corporate purpose work, as opposed to just adequate compliance to Hong Kong Stock Exchange guidelines.”

Vitasoy has extensive guidelines for suppliers, covering sustainable farming and fair labour practices, among others. One priority has been to cut the inputs that go into making Vitasoy products, reducing water usage by 22% between 2014 and 2021, fuel by 18% and electricity by 12%. Solar energy systems have been installed at Vitasoy plants in Hong Kong, Singapore and Foshan, China.

The company is also piloting the recycling of its Tetra Pak cartons, though Guidetti acknowledges that “there are some gaps to be addressed … as not every market has the full infrastructure for carton recycling and circularity.”

Vitasoy has been named best in class both on sustainable revenue and sustainable investments in the 2023 Corporate Knights Global 100. Annual revenues doubled to 7.52 billion Hong Kong dollars from 2011 to 2021. While China makes up more than four-fifths of its business, the company also has growing operations in Australia (Vitasoy is Australia’s top plant-based milk brand) and exports to several dozen other countries.

Much of Vitasoy’s growth is explained by shifting consumer preferences as plant-based items like tofu, soy and oat milk gain popularity outside Asia. But Guidetti is confident that his sustainability drive has sharpened Vitasoy’s competitive edge.

“We are not obsessed by short-term growth at the expense of long-term results,” he told Well. “We want to grow faster than the market growth rate, but [to] do so sustainably.”

Find out which company we named Zero of our 2023 winter issue.

The post Hero: Vitasoy wants to take the cow out of the milk business appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The environmental consequences are so profound that the world cannot meet climate goals and keep ecosystems intact without rich countries reducing their consumption of beef, pork and chicken.

To slash emissions, slow the loss of biodiversity and secure food for a growing world population, there must be a change in the way meat and dairy is made and consumed.

A rapidly evolving market for novel alternatives, such as plant-based burgers, has made the switch from meat easier. Yet in countries such as Britain, meat consumption has not fallen fast enough in recent years to sufficiently rein in agricultural emissions.

Instead, prices on meat and other animal products will eventually need to reflect all this damage. There are several ways to do this, but each intervention poses its own difficulties.

In our view, the most likely result will be simple, direct taxes on meat and animal products. Our latest research, published in the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, considered how an environmental tax on meat could work.

Our calculations suggest that the average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35%-56% for beef, 25% for poultry, and 19% for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental costs of their production. In the UK, where the average price for a 200g beef steak is around £2.80, consumers would pay between £3.80 and £4.30 at the checkout instead.

Fortunately, our research found that a meat tax, if implemented correctly, need not increase the pressure on poorer households – or the farming industry.

Fairer, healthier and greener food

Before food prices soared in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the idea of a meat tax was already being mulled by agricultural ministers in countries like Germany and the Netherlands. Even if a meat tax is currently unthinkable in the current political environment, higher taxes on meat and dairy may become inevitable to decarbonise agriculture at the necessary pace for limiting global heating to at least 1.5°C.

Our analysis showed that by redistributing revenue from a tax on the sale of meat and animal products evenly across the population, in the form of uniform lump sum payments at the end of each year perhaps, most people on low incomes would have more money than before the tax reform.

Would people spend this compensation on meat or other products tied to high levels of pollution? Research from British Columbia in Canada showed that returning the proceeds from a carbon tax to citizens had no significant effect on how much the province cut emissions (between 5% and 15%). Making meat relatively more expensive would most likely encourage people to spend their money elsewhere.

Part of the tax revenue could finance subsidies for growing vegetables, grains and alternative proteins, or help low-income households meet their food bills on a more regular basis.

Just as meat and dairy must become more expensive, healthy and sustainable plant-based foods should become more affordable. Using revenue from a meat tax to cut value-added taxes on fruit, vegetables, and grains for example, could provide much-needed relief to poorer households during a cost of living crisis, while encouraging everyone to reduce their intake of animal products.

Levelling the playing field

Other types of regulation, such as stricter rules on managing animal feed or manure more sustainably, run the risk of putting domestic livestock farmers at a disadvantage compared to competitors from abroad who are not burdened with the additional costs of complying with these rules. This is why a form of “border adjustment”, as economists call it, is also necessary to include products from overseas.

A tax levied on any firm selling meat – including restaurants and cafes as well as supermarkets – in a given country would capture all meat producers. Other research indicates that consumers are typically more supportive of environmental taxes of this nature if they are phased in with a lower tax rate initially.

Some of the revenue raised by the tax could be given directly to farmers, leaving them with higher profits than before. This could be paid according to their work stewarding the land, restoring habitats like peat bogs. Or, it could help them invest in the transition to new income streams, such as producing high-quality, organic meat from low-density herds which, when consumed in much lower quantities, may still be compatible with emissions targets.

Taking steps to make plant-based foods more affordable and meat substitutes more attractive will pave the way for a future in which it’s possible to make meat and dairy much more expensive. The good news is that – once their time has come – meat taxes could actually help us eat better, at lower cost.

If implemented correctly, a meat tax could protect the environment, while helping secure a sustainable future for livestock farmers, as well as affordable and sustainable food for all.

Cameron Hepburn is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Oxford.

Franziska Funke is an associate doctoral researcher in environmental economics at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Is it time for a meat tax? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Advocates of plant-based proteins hope that these higher meat prices may eventually convince consumers to switch to meat alternatives if environmental benefits haven’t already done so. But that won’t happen immediately, as prices for plant-based alternatives have remained stubbornly high, according to a recent study from Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab (AAL). The study found that plant-based versions of specific meat products are more expensive in Canada, costing on average 38% more than meat. Researchers found that chicken nugget alternatives cost 104% more than animal-based versions at the highest end. 

Plant-based food advocates say government subsidies that go to the meat industry are largely to blame, as they keep meat prices artificially lower and make it hard for alternatives to reach competitive pricing. 

“Without taxpayer-funded subsidies, the price of animal-derived products would more closely reflect their true production costs,” says Jenny Henry, co-founder of Nation Rising, a Canadian advocacy group lobbying the federal government to shift subsidies from animal agriculture to plant-based foods. “These massive subsidies serve to drive down the cost of meat.” 

Henry says meat prices in Canada are comparatively lower than plant-based alternatives because governments and taxpayers are helping foot the bill. Based on government reports, the group calculated that federal and provincial governments committed to well over $1.7 billion in subsidies to animal agriculture in 2021. 

Sabina Vyas, senior director of impact strategies at the U.S.-based Plant Based Foods Association, says that while price parity is a goal for many plant-based food companies, “it is important to consider the full system they are working within.” In the United States, she says, “animal-based foods are artificially low-cost thanks in part to the US$38.4 billion annual subsidies the industry receives” from the federal government, in addition to various state subsidies. 

One study from University of California Berkeley estimated that one pound of hamburger meat would actually cost US$30 without any government subsidies. And that was in 2015.

These massive subsidies serve to drive down the cost of meat.

 

–Jenny Henry, co-founder of Nation Rising

A report by CNBC last year, on efforts being made by plant-based giants Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods to reach price parity with meat, explains that some of the economic obstacles for alternatives brands include small-scale production, supply chain issues (only a few countries produce pea protein, including Canada) and a continuous need for product development to reach that authentic meat experience. The report claims that reaching price parity could take anywhere from five to 20 years. 

Some believe price parity might not be that far off. Non-profit Good Food Institute believes that plant-based alternatives could reach price parity with meat as soon as 2023 and that cultured meat (produced in a lab) could be competitive with conventional meat by 2030. 

In the meantime, high prices may be eating into demand for plant-based foods. A recent CBC report claims that demand for plant-based meat alternatives is on the decline in Canada, after the market saw rapid growth of 40% in 2019 and 2020. While the report includes a couple of industry experts claiming taste to be the reason behind the drop, it appears price is the true culprit.

In recent years, major meat companies, including JBS, Tyson and Cargill, have invested heavily in plant-based proteins and cellular meats while also buying out many existing plant-based brands. Maple Leaf Foods has invested close to a billion dollars in building out its plant-based protein investments. 

Still, AAL’s senior director, Sylvain Charlebois, says that with so many meat-alternatives brands being bought up by large meat companies with efficiencies of scale, he had expected plant-based products to come down in price by now. He adds that meat companies and retailers may be using plant-based products as a new benchmark to support higher prices at the meat counter. 

Dror Balshine, founder and president of plant-based brand Sol Cuisine, which retails in both Canada and the U.S., agrees that government propping up of animal agriculture plays a role in the current protein marketplace. But, he also says that plant-based meat pricing should be viewed in a different light, more on par with higher-value meat items.

“Comparing premium meat items to value-added plant-based items should be the benchmark,” he says. “The plant items are usually non-GMO, kosher [and] organic. So they should be compared to those levels of meat with those benefits as well.” Sol Cuisine was purchased by major Brazilian meat producer Marfrig Global Foods in 2021.

Ultimately, Charlebois says, the addition of plant-based alternatives to the grocery market only helps to “democratize proteins in general,” and “making protein more affordable for everyone is really the best outcome possible.” However, he concludes, “consumers today deserve a real economic choice between two sources of protein, and that’s not what they are getting.”

The post Why is plant-based protein still more expensive than meat? appeared first on Corporate Knights.