In a recent article, the Mauritanian Institute for Oceanography and Fisheries, French fish oil supplier Olvea and the Marine Stewardship Council use the platform of science to pursue a corporate agenda and to promote certification as a model to replicate across West Africa based on the example of a controversial Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP) in Mauritania.  

In reality, the Fisheries Improvement Project the authors are seeking to justify has substantial flaws. NGOs and small-scale fishers have repeatedly denounced the initiative as ‘certifying the unsustainable’. The FIP’s sponsors are principally producers of fishmeal and fish oil, as well as global feed producers such as Cargill and Skretting which supply aquaculture producers in the Global North. Recently, a report by Partner Africa, commissioned by the Global Roundtable for Marine Ingredients, highlighted numerous problems linked to the production of fishmeal and fish oil in the region including pollution from factories, loss of income and opportunities to work, and the depletion of fish stocks. 

According to the authors of the Marine Policy article, “The idea behind FIPs is to use market incentives in seafood value chains to stimulate improvements in fisheries management, which may lead to environmental improvement.” Since the inception of the FIP in 2017, sponsors of the project including Olvea have continued sourcing fishmeal and oil from factories in Mauritania as documented by the Mauritanian Society for the Commercialisation of Fisheries Products (SMCP), the CFFA, and Foodrise, contributing to the problem of overfishing that the FIP is meant to solve.  

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) EAF-Nansen Programme has called the state of the once-abundant sardinella fisheries, which are targeted by the FMFO industry, “alarming” and data shows a precipitous decline in the round sardinella catch since 2018.  

Braham et al Fisheries Research 2024  

The FIP was scheduled to provide a progress report at the end of February, which it has so far failed to do. With the project set to end next year and taking into account all of the above, we cannot see this initiative as anything but a greenwashing attempt by an industry threatened by further reputational risk through their persistent extraction of fish essential to ecosystems and people’s livelihoods in a region struggling with food insecurity. The article’s authors themselves clearly outline the motivations of the industry to be part of the FIP: 

The FIP is recognised under the MarinTrust’s ‘Improver Programme’, which allows factories who are FIP participants and pass a MarinTrust factory audit to sell product ‘from the MarinTrust Improver Programme’. This is not the same as MarinTrust certified product, but nevertheless allows some direct commercial benefit (access to a higher value market), according to FIP-participating companies, and as such is an appropriate tool to anticipate the end of the FIP with the goal of having both the fishery and the suppliers MarinTrust certified. (p.3) 

Going back to the FIP’s impact and benefits to marine ecosystems and local communities, we struggle to find evidence for it in this article. We’re left with the following hypothesis, but miss references or tangible evidence: “in conclusion, a credible FIP, and other engagements with certification programmes, have provided Mauritania with a useful tool to bring together the private and public sector to address management challenges, as well as mobilising international resources which can be used in Mauritania in a flexible way. The benefits brought by engagement with certification programmes also include clear goals and a transparent and participatory ethos”. 

With little progress to show since its inception, and the ongoing depletion of target fish populations, the FIP provides a free-pass to companies aiming for high-value markets, without them needing to comply with the demanding environmental or social standards of these markets. According to the authors of the article, the problems in Mauritanian fisheries stem from weak state regulation: “Weak state regulation has failed to control capacity, and stakeholders are turning to value-chain arrangements such as industry coalitions, fishery improvement projects (FIPs) and certification to support progress towards management objectives in the face of this expansion.” 

Research by Foodrise shows that fish sourced from Northwest Africa (FAO 34) to supply fish oil to the Norwegian salmon farming industry in 2020 could have provided between 2.5 million and 4 million people in the region with a year’s supply of fish sufficient to meet their nutritional needs. The small fish targeted by the FMFO industry contain key nutrients including iron, zinc, and calcium that are those most needed for children’s cognitive development and for women in West Africa, where more than half of the female population suffer from anaemia. This is happening at a time when hunger is on the rise across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and new research shows that of eight global regions, SSA is the one most severely impacted by lack of micronutrient availability 

We should not allow FMFO and feed companies to drive exploitative practices under the guise of a mere promise to improve fisheries that has for more than half a decade failed to deliver. It is time to put a stop to the practice of extracting whole, wild fish in their millions to supply the global feed industry, depriving millions of people in Africa of nutritious food and putting entire communities’ livelihoods at risk. 

Long-awaited, feared, or hoped for – the European elections have finally arrived! In the coming decisive weeks, we will know in what direction our European Union will move in the next five years.  

But before it will get heated here in Brussels (again), it is good to take a step back and reflect upon the last years and especially the last months that were, let’s say it this way, eventful.  

Because it must be said how it is: when it comes to making our food systems more sustainable and fairer, these last five years have been a big disappointment. Starting ambitious with the European “Farm to Fork” strategy in spring 2020 – the EU Commission’s vision for a “fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system” – the debate became increasingly polarized (not to say toxic) and led by absurd fake news.  

Translating the “Farm to Fork” strategy into binding law therefore turned out to be even more challenging than expected, as this overview sadly shows:  

Source: Euronews 

 In other words: What Europe has experienced over the past year has been an outrageous ‘green roll-back’ that is recklessly playing with our future. 

But let’s have a closer look at what this has been looking like in practise! 

 Sustainable Food Systems Law 

With its long-awaited proposal on sustainable food systems (SFS), the European Commission wanted to systematically shift food production and consumption patterns for good, something that could be seen as the core of the Farm to Fork promise. For example, the SFS should have included “measures like mandatory requirements for sustainable public procurement of food or voluntary harmonised sustainability labelling systems”. But after years of work by not only the EU Commission but hundreds of civil society organisations, the proposal was not even published anymore and put back into the drawer.  

Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation:

Following up to the Farm To Fork-Strategy, the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (SUR) proposed to reduce the use of pesticides by 50% by 2030 – a groundbreaking step. But after the EU Parliament had already watered down the proposal in November 2023, it eventually voted against the whole proposal and even decided to not work on the file anymore. At the same time, the Ministers of the EU Member States could also not reach an agreement, despite of efforts by the Spanish Presidency who presided the negotiations. EU Commission President von der Leyen then withdrew the proposal in February 2024, abandoning any target to reduce pesticides completely.
 

EU Nature Restoration Law:  

Not our climate is danger, humanity is. The same applies to what keeps us alive every single day: our nature. But if it is our rivers, wetlands, butterflies and farmland birds, or our pollinating insects – our nature is in rapid decline. That is why the EU Commission proposed a law to restore “at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and ultimately all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.” 

After a tough fight by progressive Members of the EU Parliament (MEPs), civil society organisations, as well as the climate movement, the EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) was eventually passed in the EU Parliament in spring 2024. Still, conservative EPP’s boss Manfred Weber heavily divided his group by demanding everyone to vote against the law. Earlier, he even exchanged MEPs for critical votes in the Environment Committee if they indicated to be in favour of the law. Weakened, but still alive, the law was passed – only to now be in a deadlock in the Council of Ministers. Countries such as Hungary and the Netherlands block the law, and no solution is in sight as their refusal seems to be ideological and not driven by concrete wishes for amendments. 

Ahead of the Council of Environment Ministers on June 17th, Ireland has coordinated an open letter signed by 11 countries and Ministers, demanding an approval of the NRL: The states that have signed up are Germany, France, Spain, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus, as well as Ireland. 

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): 

Imagine, you had 386.6 billion euros in your pocket. Imagine, you could use that money to protect our climate, our biodiversity, and ensure that our farmers receive a fair remuneration. But the truth is that so far, the CAP – accounting for a third of the EU’s budget – has been systematically failing on all these dimensions.  

As a matter of fact, also the last CAP reform in 2020 was a big disappointment. If there was some progress, it was – pushed for by more than 3600 scientists – the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs), in other words minimum standards to comply with to receive CAP funding.  

But then farmers took to the streets all over Europe in the beginning of 2024. While they were united in rightfully demanding fair incomes for their hard work, there remained a huge dispute relating to the environmental ambition of the CAP. For example, the international peasants movement Via Campesina underlined “that certain CAP conditionality rules are not adapted to the realities of farmers, requires complex and heavy bureaucracy indeed, and is insufficient to effectively support European farmers in a transition towards more sustainable agricultural models and towards agroecology. Yet this transition is essential in the face of the seriousness of the climate and biodiversity crises. It requires a strong political commitment from all European institutions to secure the income of all European farmers through fair prices and a better distribution of public aid.”  

But while Via Campesina had to wait months to even get a meeting with EU Commission President von der Leyen, leading policy makers were happy to listen to the controversial and heavily criticised association COPA COGECA and largely fulfil their wish-list of rolling back green rules. In turn, 140 NGOs (including Foodrise EU) condemned what they called an “opportunistic” rollback of EU green policies to gain political support ahead of the upcoming European Parliament elections. 

What this shows? Our votes matter. YOUR VOTE MATTERS.  

The future of the EU’s future food policies lays in your hand! 

Foodrise EU together with six organisations from Europe started a joint project aiming to mobilize voices to enable access and choice of healthy, sustainable, and just food for all. To launch the project, we held a workshop in The Hague from April 24-26.  

The characteristic of this project funded by Healthy Food, Healthy Planet, is that the element of learning is strongly represented. How can the voices and choices of citizens be mobilized to effectively influence policy makers and retailers? How to diversify and unite movements to challenge the existing narratives on healthy, sustainable, affordable, accessible, and fair food (at local, national, EU level and within EU: North-South and East-West). These overall learning questions will be a common thread throughout the duration of the project. 

Most organisations will collaborate with communities who have difficulties accessing affordable healthy food and will listen to what they need. Retailers are still by far the most dominant food suppliers in our surroundings and therefore we will target supermarkets to adjust their supply to affordable, sustainably produced, more plant-based, and healthy food. Starting at the local and national level, we hope to expand this initiative to more countries in the EU and will target policy makers at the right level to make enabling policies. Being aware that a fundamental change of the food system is needed, we will promote alternative models for healthy food environments, as well as a 60-40% plant-based supply in supermarkets by 2030.  

The kick-off workshop was held in the Utopie and the Gymzaal, both locations are based on alternative models. In the evening of 25th of April, we organized an event with local people from the Hague who engage in alternative food initiatives. Participants from the workshop and local people gave presentations, for example Keenan Humble from Foodrise UK about a green bus in Liverpool providing affordable healthy food in areas that are characterized as food deserts. Liane Lankreijer, member of the Food Council of The Hague presented her survey showing the structural challenges around food poverty in certain areas in The Hague, and also the first experiments to strengthen cooperation in neighbourhoods based on positive forces that have since been set in motion and involve collaboration between formal and informal organisations. Foodrise EU supported the translation of this report Weaving Food into English (link). The city of The Hague was also represented and was telling how they support and cooperate with local food initiatives. During dinner lively discussions continued. 

ALTAA and CAN from France, CECU from Spain, Green Rev Institute from Poland, Terra! from Italy, Foodrise UK and Foodrise EU will also reach out to organisations from different sectors. We will search dialogue with climate, environmental and agricultural organisations, health organisations, farmers, consumers, and organisations working on poverty reduction and social justice aiming to bring our voices together in a loud demand for a sustainable and just food system. 

Our Food, Our Choice! 

In late April, the Regional Partnership for the Conservation of the Coastal and Marine Zone hosted the 11th edition of the Marine and Coastal Forum in Guinea-Bissau, bringing together a host of actors working for the protection and restoration of the oceans and the safeguarding of populations negatively impacted by the blue economy. Apart from scientists and civil society, decision makers also attended, among whom the President of Guinea-Bissau and several ministers from countries across the region.  

The conference hosted various events spanning a wide range of topics, and although only reserved a small space in the overall agenda, we made sure to address the problems of fish farming and this industry’s rapid global expansion. It baffles us how the role of aquaculture keeps being portrayed as a spotless solution in the transition to a sustainable food system. A former Fisheries Minister from Mauritania, invited to speak of his countries role in conservation efforts and sustainable fisheries, almost got away with not mentioning his country’s massive expansion of fishmeal and fish oil factories over the past decade until put on the spot by a Mauritanian CSO referring to this industry’s devastating impacts on marine life and coastal communities. Unfortunately, this intervention was left without comment by the official. 

We did not miss the opportunity to present our work along with the partners of the Our Fish project at a dedicated side event. Our coalition made sure to highlight the dramatic decline in small pelagic fish stocks in the region, illustrate the problems this causes for local communities and how the global fish farming industry, at the example of salmon farming in Europe, is driving the needless destruction of marine life and people’s livelihoods. The audience’s reactions supported our message and appreciated the facts and figures we shared as they allow them to spread the message and join our advocacy efforts. 

Venturing out to Bissau’s fishing port, we see a familiar sight from across the West African coast: Chinese funded and built infrastructure as well as a refrigerated storage facility taking up a sizeable portion of the small port, and placards displaying the support of the EU in the context of the EU-Guinea-Bissau fisheries partnership agreement in force since 2019 which gives access to EU member states to fish in Bissau-Guinean waters for around 15 million euros a year. The agreement includes the fishing of small pelagics. 

Although disappointed by the uncritical embracing of aquaculture by institutions like the World Bank during the conference, we left Bissau encouraged by the Forum’s Declaration issued after the conference as well as the myriad initiatives labouring to protect marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them, making sure that producing aquatic foods does not harm people or the planet.  

Our society’s relationship with the nature that sustains it is fundamentally broken. Despite the growing evidence of looming ecological collapse and the alarming acceleration of the climate crisis, European governments and EU politicians are currently blocking new measures to protect nature and tearing up ones already in place.

Healthy nature underpins our ability to feed ourselves, to have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and a safe climate to live in. We are horrified that so many politicians across Europe are threatening the basis of life on this planet to provide false solutions to farmers’ hardships, while doing nothing to address farmers’ complaints of abusive practices in the supply chain or unfair competition and cheap imports from trade deals. And all this as an opportunistic attempt to gather a few more votes in the upcoming elections.

The European Environment Agency has warned that the continent is woefully underprepared for the impacts of a changing climate. Natural ecosystems that protect us from the worst of extreme weather, drought, heatwaves and floods are disappearing when we should be restoring them.

In recent months, Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission has loosened pollution rules for industrial farms, dropped plans for sustainable food production, abandoned targets to reduce pesticides and shelved efforts to ensure a resilient water supply. Some national governments have frozen EU plans to restore nature in Europe and compromised corporate due diligence rules protecting human rights and the environment. Now, the European Commission wants to scrap basic environmental standards for farms to appease industry lobbyists, and agriculture ministers are threatening the EU’s new rules to fight global deforestation.

Nature is not in conflict with our society’s ability to thrive, it is the very foundation of it. But some politicians in European capitals, and in the EU institutions in Brussels, are accelerating the nature and climate crisis, and risking the lives of the people they represent. We urge you to stop before it is too late.

With the European farmers’ protests and the looming excess of manure in the Netherlands, agriculture will play a significant role leading up to the European elections on June 6th. How do we balance farmers’ livelihoods with the protection of nature and the environment?

On Thursday, May 23rd at 7:45 PM, Foodrise EU, in collaboration with Platform Earth Farmer Consumer, is organizing an election debate at De Schakel in Nijkerk, addressing crucial issues regarding EU agricultural and trade policy.

Candidates include: Hans Geurts (BoerBurgerBeweging), Arjan Tolkamp (CDA), Hendri Nortier (D66), Lara Vita Sibbing (GroenLinks-PvdA), Fenna Feenstra (Socialistische Partij), Hans van de Wind (SGP), and Bart Millenaar (VVD). Pending confirmation: Anja Hazekamp (Partij voor de Dieren) and the EP candidate from NSC.

Introductions by Keimpe van der Heide of the Dutch Arable Farming Union and Frank Mechielsen of Foodrise EU.

We cordially invite you to participate and contribute to this important discussion. It is crucial that we engage in dialogue together about the future of our agricultural sector. Your voice and contribution are invaluable to this critical discussion.

More information and registration

Not so long ago, in November 2023, final negotiations on the Gas and hydrogen markets Regulation came to an end. A hotly debated topic during these negotiations was the introduction of a binding target of 35 billion cubic metres (bcm) of annual biomethane production by 2030 (in comparison, currently, only 4.2 bcm are produced per year).

As we demonstrated in our substantial report, a 35 bcm target (originating from an industry report and then included in the REPowerEU plan by the EU Commission) lacked and still lacks any independent scientific grounding. Furthermore, no impact assessment has been carried out with regards to its environmental impact. In fact, an own study by the European Commission’s Joint Research Center highlighted that only a much lower level of 24 bcm of biomethane could be produced sustainably by 2030.

Even though a binding biomethane target was eventually rejected following strong public pressure by Foodrise EU and 15 other organisations, the industry-led push for unhinged biomethane production is ongoing. This is reflected in a new report commissioned by the European Biogas Association (EBA) that goes far beyond previous projections for EU biomethane.

EBA’s latest figures are highly questionable for a number of reasons:  

Firstly, other than assumed by the report authors, no direct connection can be drawn between biomethane production and emissions savings as a contribution to the EU’s proposed 2040 climate target. Merely substituting part fossil fuels’ use with biomethane does not inherently guarantee sustainability. Rather, it is essential to address the potential for emission reductions together with the feasibility of biomethane production from each feedstock. Independent research and impact assessments taking into account not only the impacts of biomethane production on climate change in terms of GHG emissions but also environmental impacts related to different planetary boundaries are therefore urgently needed.

Secondly, EBA’s projections completely ignore the necessity to drastically lower the production of livestock in Europe – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase food security, and promote healthier diets – as called for by the EU Commission’s Chief Scientific Advisors. In fact, manure should not just be seen as a waste product and means to produce biomethane but as a byproduct of livestock (over)production which causes substantial methane emission. Likewise, the projections pay no heed to the EU’s commitment to reduce food waste as reaffirmed in the current revision of the waste framework directive. Unarguably, EBA’s projections are based on failing on major EU environmental targets including dietary changes and reductions in food waste that are indispensable to achieve the sustainability transition.

Thirdly and lastly, the EBA’s reliance on a massive increase in  “sequential crops” to create feedstock availability for biomethane is alarming. The total disregard of significant environmental risks associated with pesticide use, water usage, soil health, and primary crop yields is yet another confirmation that the current biomethane rush is essentially one for profit based on ongoing plunder of the planet.

This is why today, we have published our newest open letter and sent it to key decision-makers throughout the EU. Together with 15 independent not-for-profit organisations, we condemn the current political and industrial push for biomethane production and – based on our report that was published in 2023 – point out that even 35 bcm of biomethane cannot be produced sustainably in the EU.

In light of the coming European elections and thus a new EU Parliament as well as a new cabinet of EU Commissioners, we therefore urgently demand a review of high biomethane targets together with sustainable food and land use experts to ensure that EU biomethane production helps rather than hinders climate and sustainability goals.

Read the full letter here

Demand trade justice politics from your candidates in the 2024 European Parliament elections. European trade and investment agreements are still not in line with EU´s climate and sustainable development ambitions. Trade policy and the European Green Deal are in stark contradiction. We, as EU citizens, want to put the planet and people before profit. And for this to happen, the next EU parliament must vote for a fundamental shift in trade politics. Together we can make this happen!

Ask your candidates for the EU parliament to make EU trade policy fit for the 21st century and its challenges. Ask them to sign the pledge by sending them an email (see below)!

By making the pledge on trade justice, candidates promise  to promote 5 key commitments for changing the track of the EU trade policy in the next legislative cycle.

This means we all together have the best chance to stop detrimental trade deals and develop a globally just and climate and environmental friendly trade policy which respects human and workers rights, fosters the creation of decent jobs and promotes animal welfare. Send out the mail and ask your candidates to make the pledge for a new EU trade policy.

All major Dutch supermarkets have expressed the ambition to offer more plant-based products. Unfortunately, they still heavily promote meat and dairy products. However, Jumbo is the first to completely abandon promotions on fresh meat.

Societal pressure

CEO Ton van Veen in  de Volkskrant: “With the cessation of meat promotions, we are taking a significant step towards our contribution to the protein transition from animal to more plant-based food. We realize that acceleration is needed in this regard.” Jumbo acknowledges that societal pressure has played a role in the decision.

Jumbo’s footprint

Jumbo emits 10.5 megatons of CO2 throughout its entire chain. An estimated 40% of this emission comes from the sale of meat and dairy products. Hence, there is substantial climate improvement to be made. Since 2021, Foodrise EU has been campaigning supermarkets. We want them to take action on climate change and reduce their meat and dairy sales. We ran a campaign targeting Jumbo, urging the supermarket to: 1) be transparent about their climate impact and the sale of meat and dairy, 2) embrace the protein transition towards more plant-based options, and 3) reduce the promotion of meat. Jumbo was among the lowest-scoring supermarkets in our 2022 scorecard (see ´de Minder Vlees Race´).

Supermarkten en greenwashing

In 2023, Jumbo and other major supermarkets made commitments to transparency regarding their greenhouse gas emissions, their protein ratios, and their ambition for a protein transition to a 50/50 animal/plant-based ratio by 2025 or 2030. However, none of the supermarkets ceased offering promotions on meat and dairy products. This means that in practice, customers are still tempted to purchase more meat than is beneficial for their health and the environment.

Our report  ´ , launched mid-2023, highlighted the greenwashing tactics, questionable data reporting, and profit-driven approaches regarding the climate crisis within supermarkets. Our findings reveal a lack of clarity and commitment from retailers regarding how they intend to achieve their climate ambitions. Supermarkets employ greenwashing tactics to appear more sustainable while continuing to promote meat and dairy products

Who’s next?

Market leader Albert Heijn is renowned for its abundance of promotions. Therefore, we strongly urge Albert Heijn to follow Jumbo’s example and cease promoting bulk discounts on meat and dairy products

Brussels, 13 March 2024 – Members of the European Parliament voted on the Waste Framework Directive to raise legally-binding food waste reduction targets to 20% for processing and manufacturing, and 40% for retail, restaurants, and households.

The Prevent Waste Coalition on food waste remarked that setting the first EU-wide food waste reduction targets confirms political commitment to tackle the environmental and social impacts of food waste. However, the result is at odds with the European Parliament’s previous commitments to slash food waste by 50% from farm to fork; a commitment expressed in the EU Green Deal and UN Sustainable Development Goals. The Coalition is part of a wider group of 65 organisations from 22 countries that signed a joint statement calling EU policymakers to support the 50% reduction target.

Theresa Mörsen, Waste & Resources Policy Officer, Zero Waste Europe, states:

“Almost 10 years ago, the EU and its Member States committed to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including 50% reduction of food waste across the entire supply chain as outlined by SDG 12.3, but now that the proposal is on the table, decision-makers shy away from decisive action. This is happening against the backdrop of recent reports by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change that warn against the huge impact food waste has on climate change.”

Christophe Diercxsens, Global Public Affairs Director, Too Good To Go, underlines:

“Although the European Parliament’s vote today moves us in the right direction, the adopted targets are significantly lower than the EU’s prior commitment to UN SDG 12.3. Ambitious legally-binding food waste reduction targets are essential to bring all countries and all food businesses on board in the fight against food waste, not just a few.”

The targets do not apply equally to all steps of the food supply chain. Both the Commission proposal and the Parliament position set a far lower target for manufacturing and processing, and completely omit taking action against food losses and waste at farm level. With evidence from Kellogg’s showing that fast reductions are possible in the processing sector, this unequal treatment is not justified. Moreover, Eurostat data shows that at least 11% of food is lost at primary production level. Meanwhile, the majority of food loss has been excluded from the EU measurement of food waste. This urgently needs to be rectified as current best estimates suggest that up to 90 million tonnes – 60% of EU food waste – could occur on farms.

Antonio De Carluccio, Policy & Project Officer, Safe Food Advocacy Europe, states:

“It is inconsistent and unfair for processing and manufacturing to be assigned far lower targets than other sectors, especially given the ample evidence that manufacturers are equally capable of food waste reduction. We therefore recommend that the targets for the manufacturing sector be raised to match those of other sectors. This adjustment ensures that manufacturers contribute equitably to the EU’s efforts to combat food waste. That being said, we saw a strong political statement by some groups today who lent their support to a 50% target, signalling a promising alignment with SDG 12.3.”

Frank Mechielsen, Director, Foodrise EU, points out:

“Excluding primary production from binding food waste targets is harmful not only to sustainability efforts, but also farmers. This will only increase the likelihood that food waste will be pushed onto farmers via cosmetic rejections, unfair contracts, and order cancellations, at a time when many farmers suffer crippling costs due to food waste caused by retailer practices. Including farms in the targets, and expanding the scope of measurement to cover unharvested food waste, would raise pressure to reform these practices so farms can get more of their produce to market.”

Members of the Prevent Waste Coalition on food waste now put their hopes on Member States to honour their previous commitment to the SGD 12.3 and support a binding target of 50% reduction from farm to fork.

Notes to Editors

A group of NGOs and progressive businesses, the Prevent Waste Coalition, consisting of Zero Waste Europe, the European Environmental Bureau, Too Good To Go, Foodrise EU, and Safe Food Advocacy Europe, has campaigned jointly over the past months and raised awareness with policymakers about the importance of aligning EU targets with the Sustainable Development Goal 12.3.

Champions 12.3, an international coalition of executives from governments, businesses, and civil society leading global food waste action, recommends that states should interpret the SDG 12.3 target as a 50% reduction in all food losses and waste from farm to fork, including ‘food losses’ [i.e. pre-retail food waste], not just food waste at the retail/consumer-level.

In 2017, the European Parliament voted consistently with this Champions 12.3 recommendation when it called on Member States to “take the measures required to achieve a Union food waste reduction target of 30% by 2025 and 50% by 2030”, covering “the whole supply chain, including in primary production, transportation, and storage”. The recent Parliament vote therefore represents a significant watering down of the Parliament’s position.

Zero Waste Europe ENVI Committee vote press release: “Waste Framework Directive: proposal to tackle food and textile waste only slightly improved by European Parliament’s committee” [Published 14 February 2024]:

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/press-release/waste-framework-directive-proposal-to-tackle-food-and-textile-waste-only-slightly-improved-by-european-parliaments-committee/

ZWE feedback to the proposal for a targeted revision of the Waste Framework Directive [Published 30 November 2023]:

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/library/feedback-to-the-proposal-for-a-targeted-revision-of-the-waste-framework-directive/

Foodrise EU’s briefing on food waste [Published September 2022]: https://foodrise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Feedback-EU-2022-No-Time-To-Waste-report.pdf

Joint statement from Prevent Waste Coalition: “Statement on EU legally binding targets to reduce food waste” [Published 20 September 2022]:

https://eeb.org/library/statement-on-eu-legally-binding-targets-to-reduce-food-waste/#:~:text=The%20EU%20has%20committed%20to,waste%20by%2050%25%20by%202030.

Proposal for a targeted revision of the Waste Framework Directive [Published 5 July 2023]: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-targeted-revision-waste-framework-directive_en

Press contacts

Sean Flynn, Media Outreach & Communications Officer at Zero Waste Europe, sean@zerowasteeurope.eu or news@zerowasteeurope.eu / +32 471 96 55 93

Theresa Mörsen, Waste & Resources Policy Officer, theresa.morsen@zerowasteeurope.eu

Christophe Diercxsens, Global Public Affairs Director at Too Good To Go, cdiercxsens@toogoodtogo.com

Daemon Ortega, Policy & Project Officer at Safe Food Advocacy Europe, campaigns@safefoodadvocacy.eu

Maximilian Herzog, EU Advocacy Officer, Foodrise EU, maximilian@foodrise.org.uk

About Zero Waste Europe

Zero Waste Europe is a European network of communities, local leaders, experts, and change agents working towards the elimination of waste in our society. Advocating for sustainable systems and the redesign of mankind’s relationship with resources, they accelerate a just transition towards zero waste for the benefit of people and the planet. www.zerowasteeurope.eu

About Too Good To Go

Too Good To Go is a certified B Corp social impact company that connects users with partners to rescue unsold food and stop it from going to waste. With 90 million registered users and 155,000 active partners across 17 countries, Too Good To Go operates the world’s largest marketplace for surplus food. Since its launch in 2016, Too Good To Go has helped to save over 300 million meals from going to waste, the equivalent to 810,000 tonnes of CO2e avoided.

www.toogoodtogo.com

About Foodrise EU

Already in 2013, Foodrise was founded in the United Kingdom to create a food system that nourishes both people and our planet. In 2022, Foodrise EU was established to broaden Foodrise’s impact in Europe, and strengthen the involvement with EU food policy development & civil society coalitions. In its work, Foodrise especially focuses on EU governments & institutions, supermarkets, livestock companies, and investors.
Foodrise: Feeding People, Backing the Planet (foodrise.eu)

About Safe Food Advocacy Europe

SAFE – Safe Food Advocacy Europe is currently the only Brussels-based NGO specialised in the protection and representation of EU consumers in the food sector. SAFE aims to ensure that consumers’ health and concerns remain at the core of the EU’s food legislation, and its mission includes strengthening the voice of civil society in European food legislation and increasing public awareness of food safety issues. This is achieved through advocacy and lobbying campaigns, publications, working groups, trainings, and more.

www.safefoodadvocacy.eu

It probably won’t surprise that fish played a crucial role in the diets of Dutch coastal communities, and that many shaped not only their profession, but also their identities around this staple food. Dutch proverbs dating back centuries bear testimony of this:

• ‘De haring braadt hier niet’ (‘the herring doesn’t fry here’ – nothing’s going according to plan),
• ‘de haring braaden om de hom of kuit’ (‘to fry the whole herring for the sake of the roe’ – doing much but achieving little),
• ‘de haring hangt aan zijn eigen kieuwen’ (‘the herring hangs on its own gills’ – one’s responsible for one’s own actions),
• ‘daar steekt meer in dan een eenkele panharing’ (‘there’s more in there than one herring’ – there’s more to it than meets the eye),
• ‘achter het net vissen’ (‘fishing behind the net’ – to miss an opportunity).

Herring seller. The Herring Woman. By Charles Howard Hodges

Herring in particular remains a staple in Dutch national cuisine and festivals such as the Vlaggetjesdag celebrate the Dutch herring fishery each year in early summer. While fishing was traditionally a man’s job, women took to any matters on-land, including processing and selling the catch. In short: they were managing the family and the business on shore, independently.

Just like their Scottish and English counterparts, society didn’t necessarily cherish them. They were looked down upon for their crude language, and the lingering smell of fish marked them. Not that it bothered them too much – it’s a small price to pay for an entirely self-sufficient and empowered way of living in a time when women were openly oppressed.

Cornelie Quist from the International Collective in Support for Fishworkers adds this:

“In the 19th century, fishermen were paid wholly or partly in kind (i.e. the fish they helped catch). This fish was called women’s fish because it went to the fishwives to feed the family and to sell in the market or at the door. With the advent of industrialization in Dutch fisheries, fishermen’s pay in kind was abolished and replaced by direct cash payments.

In addition, fishermen now went to sea for longer periods (sometimes up to months at a time), which meant that women had to care for their families alone. Fish was still available, but now had to be bought. Women now generated the income needed for the family by taking out loans and/or doing wage work for fishing companies, such as repairing nets and processing fish, or as maids for an employer and less and less as self-employed workers. Before industrialization, the entire fish chain was a household and family-based activity with interdependent roles. Industrialization changed this and marginalized small-scale fishing and the status of women in fisheries.”

Credit: Katwijks Museum’s photo archive

On this International Women’s Day, we want to pay tribute to not only these resilient women from the past, but also those of today, and underline their crucial role in society (providers of food, especially for the less fortunate), as caretakers for their families and communities as well as in the local economies.

In our work, we fight alongside West African women processors and fishmongers for their right to food and against the destruction of their livelihoods and profession by a rotten food system, where staple wild fish are pillaged and reduced to meal and oil for export and to produce farmed fish for luxury markets – driving a phenomenon we can only call food colonialism.

Fish processors protesting against industrial overfishing in Bargny, Senegal, with empty calabash bowls made from gourds, which symbolize the lack of fish in the seas off West Africa. © Clément Tardif / Greenpeace

They’ve consistently called for action and stand up for their rights, and our partner organisation Greenpeace Africa made sure their voices are heard again today:

There are many ways to join the fight, including reading our latest report Blue Empire: How the Norwegian Salmon Industry extract nutrition and undermines livelihoods in West Africa, and signing on to our latest petition to have Wagamama drop farmed salmon off their menu. Dropping farmed fish off one’s menu is another clear individual call for change in the food system, and using one’s agency as a citizen (writing to your local MP or MEP) and as a consumer (writing to your supermarket, and leaving reviews) will help counter the root causes of the problems faced by local fishing communities the world over: harmful private sector practices and insufficient regulation.

We certainly won’t give up the fight, so please stay tuned for our future campaigns.

Further reading:

How your supermarket salmon is impacting communities in West Africa

Blue Empire report

Right to Resources

Dutch Banks: Cease Financing Industrial Livestock Farming

 A call for change: the impact of industrial livestock farming

In a world grappling with the consequences of climate change, deforestation, and human rights violations, industrial livestock farming takes center stage. Often overlooked as a driver of these issues, their continued expansion is incompatible with the urgent need to protect our planet and ensure the well-being of future generations.

The role of Dutch banks in this story

The recent report by Foodrise EU, ‘Climate Impact of Big Money’, sheds a stark light on the role of Dutch banks, such as ING, ABN Amro, and Rabobank, in financing these harmful practices. These banks have invested substantial sums of money in industrial livestock farming.

ING and Rabobank both rank in the top ten largest financiers of the sector globally. They provided business loans and revolving credit, and guaranteed bond issuances. ING with $15.6 billion in credits, Rabobank with $15.4 billion. This cannot be ignored any longer.

Local consequences and the responsibility of banks

The impact of this financing extends not only globally but also to our own backyard. In the Netherlands, the expansion of mega-farms has led to the bankruptcy of small-scale farmers and serious environmental issues. We must acknowledge that these problems concern us all and that it is time to take action. It starts with no longer funneling billions into the agribusiness.

“The continuous financing of mass production of meat and dairy by Dutch banks undermines crucial efforts in climate, biodiversity, deforestation, human rights, and corruption,” says Frank Mechielsen, Director of Foodrise EU. “It is time for change. Banks must stop financing industrial livestock farming, and they must do so now.”

Towards a sustainable future: A Call to Action

These findings compel us to act. It is time for Dutch banks to cease their financing of industrial livestock farming. It is time for governments to impose stricter regulations and revise subsidies. It is time for change, and it begins today.

Read the full report by Foodrise EU here.

As Ahold Delhaize, the parent company of Albert Heijn, published their annual figures today, we again observe the contrast between soaring food inflation and supermarkets reporting substantial profits. It raises concerns about the industry’s priorities and its commitment to the public’s well-being: groceries in the Netherlands now cost about 30% more than two years ago. Yet the parent company of biggest retailer in the Netherlands made 451 million euros in profit in 2023. That is 1.24 million euros per day. These figures are a crucial reminder that supermarkets do not have the public’s best interests at heart.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in their climate plans, and their lack of concrete actions. Foodrise EU´s report ‘Valse Bingo’ launched mid 2023 and shed light on the greenwashing tactics, questionable data reporting, and profiteering related to the climate crisis within supermarkets. Almost 40% of their total greenhouse gas emissions are related to the sales of animal products. The findings reveal a lack of clarity and commitment from retailers regarding how they plan to achieve their climate ambitions.

This January, we visited the headquarters of Albert Heijn in the Netherlands and handed them the postcards of our supporters. We were well received but remain in the dark on how Albert Heijn aims to exactly achieve their publicly stated ambition to achieve a protein ratio in the sales of their products of 60% plant based and 40% animal based in 2030, nor were any specific commitments made to stop the marketing of meat and dairy.

Expanding Campaigns Across Europe
In the UK, Foodrise scrutinized the retailers in their ‘ and campaigns are launching in other parts of Europe: reports came out in These initiatives seek to address greenwashing practices and promote transparency within the retail sector. As consumer awareness grows, the call for responsible and sustainable practices in the industry becomes increasingly imperative.

New Law to Protect Consumers and Curb Misleading Marketing Practices
The European Parliament has recently approved a groundbreaking law to curb greenwashing and deceptive product information. This legislation is designed to shield consumers from misleading marketing practices and allow them to make informed choices. The directive, which received overwhelming support from members, addresses various marketing habits related to greenwashing and premature product obsolescence.  The new law prohibits the use of terms such as “environmentally friendly” in advertising or packaging without concrete evidence. It also tackles claims suggesting a product has a “climate-neutral,” “reduced,” or “climate-positive” impact on the environment due to CO2 emissions offsetting schemes, which are often bogus.

Leading the Change
It is imperative for market leaders like Albert Heijn to lead by example. By prioritizing concrete actions over mere rhetoric, they can pave the way for a more sustainable future, starting with ending the promotion of multibuys on meat and dairy products now. It’s time to demonstrate true leadership and commitment to the well-being of both consumers and the planet. As we have seen once more today, they sure have the means to do so.