Category: Uncategorized

Foodrise update In the media

EU wastes more food than it imports

The European Commission faces pressure to set legally binding targets to tackle food waste scandal
September 20, 2022
European Environmental Bureau & Feedback EU

In 2021, the EU imported almost 138 million tonnes of agricultural products, costing €150 billion. At the same time, the report ‘No Time to Waste’, based on the most up-to-date sources, estimates that the EU wastes 153.5 million tonnes of food each year. This figure is nearly double previous estimates, due to better availability of data on food wasted on farms. Official EU figures still exclude most on-farm food waste from EU member state measurement and reporting. Food waste costs EU businesses and households an estimated €143 billion a year and causes at least 6% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. An estimated 20% of EU food production is currently wasted. Halving EU food waste by 2030 could save 4.7 million hectares of agricultural land.

“At a time of high food prices and a cost-of-living crisis, it’s a scandal that the EU is potentially throwing away more food than it’s importing. The EU now has a massive opportunity to set legally binding targets to halve its food waste from farm to fork by 2030 to tackle climate change and improve food security. Setting targets lower than 50% would be planning to fail to meet Sustainable Development Goal 12.3. It’s critical that targets include waste on farms and from processing and food service businesses – if the EU limits targets to covering only retail and consumer food waste, our report finds that between 48-76% of total EU food waste would be excluded, which would leave most businesses causing food waste in supply chains unaccountable for food waste reduction.” says Frank Mechielsen, Director Foodrise EU

Piort Barczak, Senior Policy Officer at European Environmental Bureau said:“All EU countries had committed to halve food waste within the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. However, almost ten years later, they have not achieved much, and our economies still generate incredibly high amounts of food waste. The EU must urgently include measures in the EU Waste Directives to cut food waste along the whole supply chain – including production processing and food services.”

In light of this food waste scandal, an international movement of 43 organisations from 20 EU countries issued today a joint statement calling on the EU to introduce legally binding targets for member states to cut EU food waste from farm to fork by 50% by 2030, within scope of current reporting, and review extending reporting to cover all on-farm food waste. Besides us, NGOs like the European Environmental Bureau and Zero Waste Europe, food waste businesses Too Good to Go and OLIO, and members of the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste – the EU’s official advisory body on food waste – signed the statement.

“The European Commission has committed to halving food waste by 2030. However, it is not enough to set ambitious goals without ensuring their achievement with concrete legislative proposals, which need to be drafted by the European Commission in the upcoming months. In its resolution on the Farm to Fork strategy, the European Parliament made it clear that levers such as revising the best-before date must be approached in an ambitious manner. We furthermore need binding targets at every stage of the supply chain to achieve the necessary food waste reduction.”  says Martin Häusling, Member of European Parliament and agricultural policy spokesman for the Greens/European Free Alliance (EFA) group

The Commission is due to make a proposal for legally binding food waste targets for EU member states later this year, with formal adoption by 2023. Negotiations with the European Parliament and Council will then decide on the ultimate targets. If adopted, this will be the first legislation of its type in the world.

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
Foodrise update

EU verspilt meer voedsel dan het importeert

Bindende regelgeving zal zorgen voor minder verspilling en kan de voedselprijzen verlagen
September 20, 2022
Frank Mechielsen, Directeur Feedback EU

De troonrede rept vandaag over de hoge voedselprijzen en  een toename van gezinnen die in armoede zijn geraakt, volgens het Nibud al 1 op 3. Er kloppen steeds meer mensen aan bij de voedselbanken, terwijl nog steeds teveel voedsel verspild, met name op boerderijen, door de oneerlijke handelspraktijken van de afnemers. Het is een schandaal dat de EU meer voedsel weggooit dan het importeert. Nu is er een enorme kans om wettelijk bindende doelen vast te stellen om de voedselverspilling van boer tot bord tegen 2030 te halveren om klimaatverandering aan te pakken en de voedselzekerheid te verbeteren.

Het rapport van Foodrise EU and EEB  ‘No Time to Waste’ wat vandaag is gepubliceerd, laat zien dat de EU jaarlijks voor 138 miljoen ton aan landbouwproducten importeert, terwijl er volgens een studie van WWF uit 2021 jaarlijks 153,5 miljoen ton voedsel verspild wordt. Deze verspilling kost huishoudens en bedrijven in de EU jaarlijks 143 miljard euro en veroorzaakt 6% van de broeikasgassen. De hoeveelheid tarwe die verspild wordt in de EU is ongeveer gelijk aan de helft van export van tarwe uit Oekraïne. Met een halvering van deze verspilling zouden voedselprijzen verlaagd kunnen worden.

Het is van cruciaal belang dat de EU-doelstellingen ook verspilling op boerderijen en van voedselverwerkers, cateraars en horeca omvatten. Uit ons rapport blijkt dat als de doelstellingen beperkt worden tot alleen verkwisting in de detailhandel en consumenten, 48-76% van de totale voedselverspilling in de EU niet wordt meegenomen, waardoor bedrijven die ook veel voedselverliezen veroorzaken in de toeleveringsketens niet verantwoordelijk worden gehouden voor de vermindering van deze verspilling.

In het licht van dit voedselverspillingschandaal heeft een internationale beweging van 43 organisaties uit 20 EU-landen vandaag een gezamenlijke verklaring uitgegeven waarin de EU wordt opgeroepen om wettelijk bindende doelstellingen voor de lidstaten in te voeren om de EU-voedselverspilling van boer tot bord met 50% te verminderen tegen 2030 en de rapportage uit te breiden met álle voedselverspilling vanaf de boerderij. De ondertekenaars zijn onder meer NGO’s Foodrise EU, het Europees Milieubureau en Zero Waste Europe, voedselverspillingbedrijven Too Good to Go en OLIO, en leden van het EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste – het officiële adviesorgaan van de EU over voedselverspilling. Sinds 2017 hebben meer dan 70,000 mensen de Change.org petitie ondertekend om de EU aan te sporen tot wettelijk verplichte doelstellingen om voedselverspilling te halveren.

De Commissie zal later dit jaar een voorstel indienen voor wettelijk bindende streefcijfers voor voedselverspilling voor de EU-lidstaten, met formele goedkeuring in 2023. De onderhandelingen met het Europees Parlement en de Raad zullen dan beslissen over de uiteindelijke doelstellingen. Als dit wordt aangenomen, zal dit de eerste wetgeving in zijn soort ter wereld zijn.

In Nederland is afgelopen april de motie aangenomen waarin de regering wordt verzocht om in Europa voor te stellen de ambitie voor halvering van voedselverspilling in de Farm to Fork-strategie uit te breiden naar de volledige voedselketen. Nederland kan leiderschap tonen om de gehele voedselverspilling van boer tot bord terug te dringen, in Nederland en in Europa.

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
Foodrise update

Waarom Foodrise EU zich inzet voor een rechtvaardig en duurzaam voedselsysteem? Daarom!

Nieuw stikstofbeleid, boeren die protesteren, tekorten door een oorlog duizenden kilometers verderop. Waarom werkt ons huidige systeem niet?
July 4, 2022
Frank Mechielsen

Waarom noemen we ons Nederlandse voedselsysteem efficiënt, terwijl we sinds 1950 per calorie geproduceerd voedsel drie keer zoveel fossiele energie zijn gaan gebruiken en twee keer zoveel land wereldwijd? 

Waarom zijn de boeren en de belastingbetaler de klos en hoeven de grote bedrijven en banken niet mee te betalen aan de transitie van het huidige vervuilende systeem wat zij hebben aangejaagd? 

Waarom maken we minder vlees eten niet de norm, voor een hogere prijs, die direct gaat naar de boeren?  

Waarom geven we voedseleducatie geen prioriteit, zodat onze kinderen weten waar boter, kaas en eieren vandaan komen, en ze leren koken met spek en/of bonen? 

Waarom slepen we 750.000 kalveren per jaar naar Nederland om vet te mesten, voeren we het kalfsvlees weer naar Italië en laten we de ammoniak achter op de Veluwe? Het gigantische bedrijf VanDrie Group verdient hier jaarlijks 2 miljard euro mee, terwijl de boeren weinig van de winst zien.  

Waarom varen we 4 miljard kilo soja uit onder andere de Amazone naar Rotterdam om veevoer van te maken voor onze 4 miljoen koeien, 11 miljoen varkens en 100 miljoen kippen, waarvan we een groot deel exporteren en de mest met stikstof en fosfaat hier dumpen? 

Waarom willen wij op dit krappe landje de tweede landbouwexporteur ter wereld blijven, terwijl wij met onze geschiedenis, kennis en kunde de wereldwijde innovator in kringlooplandbouw kunnen zijn? 

Waarom blijft Louise Fresco van de WUR zich zo hardnekkig vastklampen aan de gevestigde machten op haar universiteit, terwijl de toekomst van onze planeet toch echt een andere richting aanwijst? 

Waarom wordt er niet echt geluisterd naar alle boeren en de verschillende organisaties die hen vertegenwoordigen en alle mogelijke ideeën en oplossingen die zij aanbieden? 

Waarom erkent Rutte, na meer dan 10 jaar verantwoordelijkheid voor dit dossier, niet het totale failliet van het beleid van pappen en nathouden van de afgelopen 30 jaar, en stelt hij een deltaplan voor de landbouw op met een boer-burger-expert-raad aan het roer?  

Vanuit Foodrise EU willen we antwoorden op deze vragen. Intussen zitten wij niet stil , en werken we aan oplossingen samen met andere organisaties in Nederland en Europa. Wij laten zien dat het voedselsysteem wél rechtvaardig en wél duurzaam kan zijn. We vragen supermarkten om eerlijk te zijn over hun uitstoot, klanten te helpen minder vlees en zuivel te laten eten, en hun klimaatverantwoordelijkheid te nemen. We leggen de macht die vlees- en zuivelbedrijven hebben bloot, waarmee ze  beleid beïnvloeden, maar ook hun slimme tactieken om ons te doen denken dat ze goed bezig zijn. Tenslotte willen we de oneerlijke handelspraktijken veranderen van supermarkten en andere voedselbedrijven waardoor boeren vaak de helft van de productie op hun veld of in hun stal niet kunnen verkopen, en daardoor noodgedwongen bijdragen aan de voedselverspilling 

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
Campaign update Fish Farming

What does a farmed salmon eat? Lots of nutritious wild fish…

Salmon are farmed using fish oil and meal made from millions of tonnes of wild-caught fish most of which are food-grade.
March 3, 2022
Lia ní Aodha

Based on current practices, farming salmon demands wild fish for feed. But what if we ate some of those wild fish directly instead and only used byproducts (the heads, bones and other trimmings) left over from fish processing in salmon feed? How about if we added some mussels or carp—aquaculture species that don’t rely on wild caught fish for feed—to our plates too?

Building on our previous work on farmed salmon, these are questions that Foodrise, along with a team of scientists from Cambridge, Lancaster and Liverpool Universities set out to answer in a study recently published in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Highlighting some stark ecological and social inefficiencies surrounding the production of farmed salmon, the analysis shows that if we removed whole wild-caught fish from salmon feed and made some changes to the types of seafood we eat, we could leave millions of tonnes of fish in the sea and produce more nutritious seafood at the same time. We could even still eat a little farmed salmon.

Sounds like a win-win!

Often presented as a way of relieving pressure on wild fish stocks and providing much needed nutrition for a growing population, aquaculture is the world’s fastest growing food sector. But some aquaculture species, like Atlantic salmon, are farmed using fish oil and meal made from millions of tonnes of wild-caught fish, most of which are nutritious food-grade fish that could be eaten directly instead.

We know salmon farming’s (continued) dependence on wild caught fish is unsustainable—ecologically and socially—in terms of the quantities of wild fish it requires to grow a kilo of fish and the fact that, fueled by the industry’s rapid growth over the past two decades, fish for feed are increasingly caught off the coast of West Africa, where there is increasing evidence that this is impacting both livelihoods and food security.

Looking at Scotland’s salmon industry specifically, the third largest worldwide and the UK’s largest food export by value, what’s novel about this research is its focus on the transfer of micronutrients from the wild fish fed to farmed salmon. Placed fourth in terms of the ‘big five’ fish species (cod, haddock, tuna, salmon and prawns) consumed in Britain, (farmed) salmon is marketed as being a rich source of important vitamins, minerals and fatty acids. And it is. Interestingly, however, many of the wild fish fed to farmed salmon have even higher concentrations of key micronutrients than their farmed counterparts

So, what happens to those essential micronutrients when these ‘feed’ fish are eaten by salmon? It turns out a huge proportion are a lost. More than half (!), in fact. In some cases, up to 99%! In other words, farming salmon, from a nutritional perspective, is an inefficient way of delivering required micronutrients to human diets.

Prawns aside. the ‘big five’ fish species currently favoured by British consumers are all just that, big, high trophic species. In contrast, many of these ‘feed’ fish are small – think herrings, sprats, sardines, and anchovies. So, what if we were to eat some of these small ‘feed’ fish instead? To investigate this, three alternative production scenarios were developed whereby farmed salmon were only produced using fish byproducts, and then more wild-caught fish, mussels or carp were added for human consumption. All alternative production scenarios produced more seafood that was more nutritious than farmed salmon AND left 66-82% of feed fish in the sea.

Based on findings on the Scottish salmon industry, theses alternative scenarios were then applied at a global scale. One scenario shows that farming more carp and less salmon, using only feed from fish byproducts, could leave 3.7 million tonnes of wild fish in the sea while producing 39% more seafood overall. So now we’re talking a socio-ecological win-win-win! More and better fish on our plates, and more in the sea.

These findings show salmon farming, in its current form, is not only an inefficient way of producing good food but quite irrational from a social and ecological standpoint – in terms of human nutrition and food security, unnecessary pressure on fish stocks, and overall fish production. Removing whole wild caught fish from aquafeed would go some way to mitigating these impacts.

Aquaculture will have an important role to play in terms of meeting global food demands in a manner which is sustainable – indeed, a key aspect of this study is that it does offer more sustainable alternatives. However, until marine-fed aquaculture, such as intensive salmon farming, moves away from using whole wild fish questions will remain regarding the extent to which this can become a reality.

In its current guise certainly, the ‘unpaid’ environmental and social costs of farming salmon for high income markets means this mode of production is not only unsustainable but raises serious ethical questions as well.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
In the media Fish Farming

Wild fish stocks squandered to feed farmed salmon, study finds

Wealthy nations accused of depriving poorer ones of nutrient-rich food and wasting mackerel, sardine and anchovy stocks.
March 3, 2022

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
In the media Fish Farming

Swap salmon for sardines to keep 4 million tonnes of fish in the sea

A leading cause of overfishing is, ironically, the demand for fish feed. Over 1/3 of all fish caught worldwide are fed to farmed animals.
March 2, 2022

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
Campaign update Meat and Dairy

Supermarkets in the Netherlands are avoiding responsibility for one third of their CO2 & methane emissions

Our new report explores whether Dutch supermarkets are doing enough to tackle the climate impact of their meat and dairy.
November 2, 2021
Frank Mechielsen, Campaign Lead, Netherlands

Today, Foodrise EU published its first report (in Dutch or read the English summary here): a brief exploring the role of Dutch supermarkets in addressing the country’s climate footprint by taking responsibility for the environmental impact of their high meat and dairy sales. Frank Mechielsen, Campaign Lead in the Netherlands, explores how they’re measuring up.

During the Climate Summit COP26 this week in Glasgow, it is important that Dutch supermarkets show their ambitions in their fight against climate change. In their announcements, they emphasize the reduction of CO2 emissions in their own stores and their transport, but what they don’t mention is that this is only a small part of their overall emissions. Like in the UK, 95% of supermarket emissions come from the supply chain. About a third of this is caused by the production of meat and dairy. Two major retailers, Albert Heijn and Lidl, are starting to become transparent about their meat sales, but no supermarket has a plan to reduce meat and dairy sales.

The report draws on a poll by IPSOS among a representative sample of 994 Dutch citizens. Four in ten young people see a greater role for supermarkets in reducing meat consumption. For example, by fewer promotions on meat and more promotion of meat substitutes. Supporters of the Green party (GroenLinks), the Party of the Animals, and Democrates D66 also expect more leadership from supermarkets on this theme. Furthermore, 18% of young people up to the age of 35 say they do not buy meat, almost twice as high as average.

With an 80% market share, the five largest retailers have an enormous influence on the food system in the Netherlands. Last year, supermarkets saw their turnover increase by 14% thanks to the impact of Covid-19. Nearly half (45%) of consumers under 35 believe that supermarkets should reinvest their Covid-19 profits in offering more plant-based and sustainably produced products.

Dutch supermarkets continue to offer too much cheap meat, which causes more than half of the food-related greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In the Netherlands, livestock is the driving force behind the nitrogen crisis, and growing emissions of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Supermarkets must take more responsibility for the climate impact throughout their entire chain by halving the sale of meat and dairy by 2030, and offer more healthier and plant-based food. If they don’t, they won’t be able to achieve their climate ambitions.

The report analysed data and commitments from the five major retailers and concludes that Albert Heijn, through parent company AholdDelhaize, is the only retailer to be transparent about greenhouse gas emissions across their entire supply chain, including the part caused by animal proteins.

Supermarkets are starting to respond to this growing climate priority. Albert Heijn is committed to achieving a 50/50 balance in animal/vegetable proteins by 2025 and showed for the first time its current ratio in protein sales: 70% animal to 30% vegetable. Furthermore Lidl announced that 25% of their total revenue derives from fresh meat and dairy products.  Jumbo set a new target to increase their plant-based alternatives from the current 4% to 10% by 2025. But no major supermarket has so far set specific targets to reduce meat and dairy sales. The much smaller Ekoplaza is at the forefront of this and has specific targets to reduce meat sales by 2022.

Foodrise’s UK scorecard, published in June 2021, showed that none of the UK’s 10 largest supermarkets are taking steps to reduce meat supply. They continue to encourage meat consumption through low-price promotions, labelling and product placement. In 2022, Foodrise will launch a scorecard together with partners from other EU countries to assess supermarkets on their commitments, policies and trade practices to tackle climate change and the transition to less and better meat.

The recent Food Policy Coalition report, to which Foodrise contributed, emphasises the importance of a healthy and sustainable food environment. Supermarkets must use their marketing resources to enable their customers to make healthy and sustainable choices, which means eating far less meat and dairy and where they do choose to eat meat buying ‘better’. Instead of the current fixation on price, supermarkets should place other values ​​such as human and animal health, environment, climate, fair income for farmers and workers much more centrally in their communication to their customers.

The Food Transition Coalition (TCV), in which Foodrise EU participates, advocates an ambitious ‘protein transition’ from 60/40 to 40/60 in animal/vegetable proteins to be achieved by 2030. During the ‘Plant the Future’ dinner last month, more than 100 organisations and companies came together to discuss how plant-based can become the new normal. Politicians must make the protein transition a spearhead in policy aimed at food, climate and health. Businesses must be directed to adjust the supply and promotion of animal products. The True Animal Protein Price Coalition (TAPPC), active this week at the CoP in Glasgow, promotes an environmental tax on meat. According to the PBL, this leads to a reduction of 2 Mton CO2 eq. per year, a small coal-fired power station. A large majority of the population in the Netherlands supports an environmental tax on meat in the coalition agreement, which D66 and Christen Unie also support.

A third of AholdDelhaize’s total emissions are produced by meat and dairy. This corresponds to the annual emissions from heating 6 million homes, three quarters of all homes in the Netherlands. Supermarkets must increase their climate ambitions and sell less meat and more vegetables, fruit, legumes, nuts and grains. It is especially important during this COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow that companies set a good example.

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
Campaign update Meat and Dairy

Supermarket scorecard reveals UK retailers are fuelling demand for meat and dairy at expense of the climate

UK supermarkets are fuelling demand for meat and dairy products which is harming public health and the climate.
June 17, 2021
Jessica Sinclair Taylor

UK supermarkets are fuelling demand for meat and dairy products which is harming public health and the climate, reveals a new supermarket scorecard published by environmental charity, Foodrise, today.

The scorecard ranks the UK’s top 10 supermarkets on their efforts to reduce the environmental cost of the meat and dairy products they sell. The Co-op, Tesco, and Waitrose top the rankings but even the Co-op, the best performing retailer, scored just 45%.  Asda, Iceland and Lidl ranked bottom with the worst performer, Lidl, scoring just 17%.

Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Foodrise, said: “UK supermarkets are continuing to drive demand for meat and dairy products that are already responsible for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions – and fuelling deforestation in the Amazon and elsewhere. It’s time for supermarkets to step up to the plate, slash their meat and dairy products and offer customers more sustainable and healthier options”.

The scorecard revealed that many supermarkets have improved their environmental policies since the last assessment in 2019 but that they were failing to translate this into action:

  • All 10 supermarkets actively encourage meat consumption through promotions, and not just to avoid waste when products near their expiry dates. This means retailers are fuelling – and not simply responding to – demand for meat.
  • Only one supermarket, the Co-op, is accurately measuring and publicly reporting on the climate impact of the goods it sells – but only for its own label products.
  • Half the supermarkets including Tesco, M&S and ALDI continue to use misleading or ‘fake farm’ labels and names such as ‘Trusted Farms’ which give the impression that their meat is produced to higher standards than is the reality.
  • Options such as organic or free range make up less than 20% of the products offered by all the supermarkets, while Iceland offers no free range or organic options. Only 3 retailers – Asda, Morrisons and Tesco – ensure that more than a quarter of the ready to cook meals they offer are vegetarian or vegan.
  • None of the supermarkets reveal how much meat and dairy they sell as a proportion of their protein sales, making it difficult to track their progress.

More promising signs include the steps taken by all retailers to promote healthy fruit and vegetable consumption, commitments from the Co-op and Sainsbury’s to link board or senior leadership remuneration to achieving environmental outcomes, and supermarkets’ work to put pressure on Brazilian suppliers to prevent products linked to deforestation from entering their supply chains. All the retailers, with the exception of Iceland and ASDA, have made a public commitment to drop meat linked to deforestation; however they have yet to remove these products, including chicken and pork fed on soya grown in deforested areas, from their shelves.

Meat and dairy production contributes to climate change through direct emissions from animals and their waste and through the destruction of important ecosystems such as the Amazon rainforest to raise cattle or grow soy for animal feed. The UK imports the majority of its soya from South America, at least 90% of which is fed to animals, particularly chicken and pork.

The 10 supermarkets control 94% of the UK grocery market and have a huge influence on what we eat through the products they sell, and the way in which they market, package and promote them.

Many customers want to reduce the health and environmental impacts of their food with 43% of people surveyed by YouGov say they often make the choice to reduce their meat consumption when shopping.

The government’s Committee on Climate Change has said the UK need to cut meat and dairy consumption by 20% by 2030 to meet its climate commitments while the University of Oxford estimates consumption of meats such as beef should be cut by as much as 89% to meet the NHS Eatwell guidelines.

Carina Millstone said: “With 3 out of 4 shoppers visiting supermarkets several times a week, it is clear that retailers have a special responsibility to help their customers enjoy food that is both good for them and for the planet. Supermarkets must also take responsibility for the emissions of their sales, and commit to reducing these by selling much less meat and dairy and much more fresh fruit and veg.”

Simon Billing, Executive Director of Eating Better added: “Foodrise’s scorecard shows retailers are still focused on boosting meat sales, despite setting net zero targets and pledging to help us eat healthier and more sustainably. Making it easier for shoppers to buy more meat and dairy than they need, or probably want is not the way forward for our health, or that of the planet.”

Mathieu Flamini, former professional footballer and environmental entrepreneur, said: “Reducing my consumption of animal protein and dairy improved my health and my performance on and off the pitch: I was able to recover quicker and cope with the daily workload better. I was not only doing myself good by eating less meat, but as a nature lover I was also able to reduce my impact on the planet. Together let’s all do our bit, including also the businesses like retailers who supply us so much of the food we eat.”

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter
Campaign update Foodrise update

Foodrise responds to the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy

The EU's role in a food system that meets climate ambitions.
May 20, 2020

In response to today’s publication of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Foodrise, said:

“Today’s EU Farm to Fork strategy is an essential and long overdue recognition of the critical role food policy must play in achieving European climate and biodiversity goals: what we eat, how it is grown, processed, transported and sold, are glaring missing pieces of the EU’s climate policy. We hope that, in the shadow of the delay to CoP26, the EU will go one step further and commit to binding targets for food system transformation as part of its contribution to the meeting of the Paris Agreement. Concrete, widespread action to address the scandal of food waste, to shift rapidly to plant-based diets and curb wasteful and damaging production practices are all crucial to the EU’s climate leadership – and to averting catastrophic climate change. 

“Despite its ambition, this strategy chooses to skirt around the thorniest questions at the heart of the EU’s food system: it recognises the urgent need for a shift towards more sustainable diets on the one hand, but fails to acknowledge the billions of public Euros spent every year on propping up the ecologically catastrophic livestock industry – the EU spends 18-20% of its entire budget on livestock. We simply cannot achieve widespread, urgent, and deep cuts in industrial meat and dairy consumption required for climate stabilisation, while public funds are disbursed to an obsolete industry. On food waste, the EU has long dithered over the binding targets which will be necessary to achieve the rapid change needed to meet the Sustainable Development Goal to halve food waste across Europe by 2030, an issue on which this strategy remains inexplicably silent. This strategy opens many doors to action –but the time for good intention is long over, we must now see ambitious action from European leaders, commensurate with the climate and ecological emergencies.”

What you can do

Questions or ideas?

We would love to hear from you!

Send us an email!

Share

Share on social media

Join us

Stay up to date with our latest work.

Sign up for the newsletter