The government wishes to “ensure that the CFD scheme continues to support low carbon electricity generation at the lowest possible cost to consumers”. The summary of evidence presented here shows that Anaerobic Digestion rarely delivers this desired outcome. Therefore, Contracts for Difference should not give support to Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plants of any size. Moreover, Foodrise strongly recommends against creating a bespoke version of CfD to subsidise smaller scale AD plants than are currently covered by CfD.

Foodrise welcome the CCC’s modelling of a 50% reduction in food waste by 2030. We recommend that the CCC use the following means of measuring the 50% per capita food waste reduction target, as a more ambitious scenario:
• 50% reduction of edible and inedible food waste (in practice mainly achieved through a
greater than 50% reduction in edible food waste)
• 50% reduction by 2030 against a 2015 baseline (there is a strong rationale for 2015 as
the baseline year, as the founding year of the SDGs, including SDG 12.3, which sets the
food waste reduction target)
• 50% reduction of food waste from farm to fork
• Additional prevention of edible surplus food currently sent to animal feed

The current Covid-19 pandemic is exposing many aspects of our food system which pose major challenges to both ensuring that the public’s nutritional needs are fulfilled fairly and equitably and to producing food without exacting a dangerous environmental toll. Our response to the enquiry is founded on our belief that true food system productivity should be measured as the greatest nutritional value consumed (with the least waste) for the least environmental harm or the greatest environmental enhancement. The Government’s response to the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on our food supply chain needs to go beyond measures to relieve immediate scarcity – though these are of course important and vital – to encompass action that will help to build a food system that is more resilient to future shocks, especially those posed by the ongoing climate emergency.

Building on a wealth of research about the role of industrial livestock production in climate breakdown, this report draws an analogy with another high impact industry: fossil fuel production. The report uncovers the ways in which the current business practices of meat and dairy corporations – such as Tyson, JBS, Cargill and Fonterra – are incompatible with a sustainable and just future. Using the example of emissions, the report questions whether these companies are capable of the sort of transformation needed to be compatible with a zero-carbon future. We outline the strategies for dealing with the industry, arguing that for change to occur at the pace required, there needs to be an increased campaigner and investor focus on the financing and investment that sustains this industry: Big Livestock’s financial fodder.

Published in partnership with the Changing Markets foundation, this report scores the top 10 UK supermarkets against a set of criteria designed to assess how effectively they are addressing the ocean sustainability implications of the farmed seafood they sell, which remains largely reliant on the use of wild-caught fish in feed. The report finds that ALDI is the worst-performing supermarket in this area, with policies and practices in relation to the sustainability of its farmed fish that do not live up to the broader sustainability image it is cultivating. Tesco was found to be the best-performing supermarket, albeit with a middling score of 60%; seven retailers, including high-end Waitrose, scored less than 30%. The report calls on all retailers to recognise the risks posed by their aquaculture supply chains, and commit to measures to phase out the use of wild-caught fish in farmed-fish feed, setting a target to achieve this goal of no later than 2025.

Building on advice from microbiologists, epidemiologists, veterinarians and pig nutritionists, the REFRESH technical guidelines on animal feed set out the key principles for producing safe feed from surplus food. To ensure safety, only omnivorous non-ruminant livestock should be allowed feed made from surplus food that may contain meat. Such feed should be sourced exclusively from specialist licensed treatment plants located off-farm and subject to stringent controls regarding heat treatment, acidification, and biosecurity to ensure the feed is free from disease. Surplus food feeds could reduce farmer feed costs, land use for European livestock farming, carbon emissions, and deforestation from soy imports. From a food security perspective, surplus food feeds provide an opportunity to decouple some of Europe’s feed supply from global agricultural commodity prices.

Adults in the UK currently consume twice their daily recommended allowance of sugar, with severe consequences for our health and to the NHS. Spending on the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes alone comes to £8.8 billion a year. Foodrise calculates that at the current pace of reduction, which excludes any impact from the relatively recent Sugar Levy, it will take around 422 years for the UK population to reduce their sugar consumption to World Health Organisation recommended levels. Yet we use 115,000 acres of land to grow sugar beet, which is manufactured into refined sugar by one UK company: British Sugar. In the process, in this report we calculate that harvesting sugar beet creates around 489,000 tonnes of soil loss per year. In addition to the sugar in our tea, is it time to rethink the sugar beet in our fields?

Foodrise responds to the Government’s consultation on the new National Food Strategy, led by Henry Dimbleby. We argue that to achieve the best health and environmental outcomes, the government will need to redefine agricultural productivity, to prioritise high quality, nutritious food, low waste, and minimal environmental impact – and that implementing this approach will require a new land use strategy. We also urge the Food Strategy team to take another look at existing land uses – such as sugar beet production and feedstock crops for bio-energy – which do not contribute to human or planetary health.

There is widespread scientific agreement that eating less meat in developed countries, in particular industrially-produced meat, is good for public health and a vital step to reducing the burden our food system places on our planet. As an increasing number of individuals aim to reduce their meat consumption, eating more local, high quality meat, adopting flexitarian diets, or even going vegetarian or vegan, an important question arises: are supermarkets, our closest partners in feeding ourselves and
our families, doing enough to help?

This scorecard assesses UK retailers against a set of criteria designed to explore their efforts to reduce the impact of meat production in their supply chains, and their in-store offer to shoppers to support them in eating better quality meat and reducing their meat consumption overall.

The IPCC’s 2019 Special Report on Land Use and Climate Change found that the way food is produced is both a major driver of climate change and biodiversity loss, among other environmental challenges, and compromising our ability to grow food in the future. Our food system contributes up to a third of our global Greenhouse Gas emissions. But so much can be done to ensure we can all have access to good food, while making space for nature and reducing our risk of climate breakdown.

But what action to take, and where? In line with IPCC’s conclusions, this and subsequent policy brief by Foodrise will  spotlight demand-side policy interventions that can deliver for people and the planet, across sustainable diets, shorter supply chains and preventing food waste.

In this policy brief we consider a central question: If policymakers were to take the potential of demand-side food system measures as seriously as is warranted by the IPCC’s findings, what should they do? And how?

Farming salmon draws on a key resource: wild fish, sourced from oceans all over the world. This report looks in detail at the Scottish farmed salmon industry, their plans to double in size, and the feed inputs they will need to fuel that expansion. Can that growth be achieved sustainably? We ask three questions of the industry: first, can the Scottish salmon industry meet its growth ambitions while decreasing its reliance on wild fish stocks? Second, can it meet its growth ambitions while reducing its land footprint? And finally – is Scottish farmed salmon an environmentally sustainable way to meet our protein needs?