Eaiting the planet doc complete web by Pietro Bruni

PLANET THE

An analysis for DSM Nutrional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This report provides an overview of global trends and forecast developments on the issue of sustainable animal protein. It is the foundation analysis on which Changing Markets then developed its conclusions and recommendations for action by DSM (which are presented separately). It is deliberately an “outsiders” perspective focused on the challenges faced by the industry, rather than also reflecting industry views (which DSM already understands). We are presenting the analysis separately from the recommendations so this report can be used as a stand alone briefing on the issues for others in the company. For this reason the analysis includes issues and data that will be well known to some inside DNP and ANH, but perhaps less so elsewhere in DSM. While we address broader issues around animal agriculture and animal protein consumption, the main focus is on livestock – particularly beef meat and dairy – because the early analysis showed this to be by far the biggest challenge in the area and, in our view, is the question that will drive most market impacts and public attention.

1 Commercial in confidence

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Table of contents Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. Livestock production and climate change

3. Land use, deforestation, and biodiversity loss

4. Impacts on health and food security

5. Market overview

6. Key stakeholders and related activities

7. Campaigning approaches

8. Conclusions

References 58

Acknowledgements This report has been prepared by Changing Markets for DSM Nutritional Products. The information in this document has been obtained from sources believed reliable and in good faith, but we make no representation or warranty as to its accuracy or completeness. The authors accept no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from the use of this document or its contents. Completed in August 2016. Designed by Pietro Bruni â&#x20AC;˘ helloo.org

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Executive Summary The animal agriculture industry – particularly the use of livestock- is at an historic cross roads. As this report lays out, a perfect storm is approaching where the combined pressures on the industry to dramatically transform will overpower any resistance. Various ecological constraints including water and land availability along with climate change – both the impacts on productivity and the impacts of the industry’s emissions on the climate – are combining with negative impacts on human health, concerns about animal welfare and rising market competition for cleaner, healthier alternatives to collectively force the industry’s hand. The big question – and one only the industry can answer - is whether it embraces the challenge and determines its own future or is overwhelmed by these pressures, loses its social licence and is forced into decline. The coal industry’s approach of denial then decline into collapse is a live case study of the perils of the latter choice. We believe the answer will be determined in the next five years.

Historically, people raised animals to produce food: directly for meat and dairy products and indirectly as draught power and manure for crop production1. They recycled household and agricultural waste to feed pigs and poultry, and ruminants such as cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats primarily fed from available pasture. It was a stable and sustainable system that served humanity’s development well. Industrialisation, however, has dramatically transformed this picture. In the last century, increases in global population, wealth and urbanisation have led to livestock production growing at an unprecedented pace. That has driven unhealthy overconsumption of meat and dairy products in developed countries. Global population of major livestock species is currently some 28 billion animals2, around four times as many as humans. Numbers are forecast to continue growing, as emerging economies with growing middle classes increasingly adopt the levels of meat and dairy consumption seen in developed countries. However, there are three compelling reasons on environmental, climate and health grounds for why change must happen and will happen soon. First and foremost, animal agriculture is inextricably linked with the Earth’s rapidly changing climate system. It is both a leading source of global GHG emissions and a sector that will be significantly affected by the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, water shortages and the spread of pests and diseases3. In total, livestock are today responsible for 14.5% of the world’s GHG emissions and are the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. If forecasts for growth for meat and dairy consumption were to materialise, there will be almost no room within the total allowable global emissions budget for any sectors other than agriculture by 20504 - putting it on a collision course with other economic sectors. Increasing this pressure for change is that reducing demand for meat would be a relatively easy and cheap way to quickly mitigate a significant share of GHG emissions and especially short lived, but relatively potent methane emissions. Moreover, this would free up significant amounts of land currently supporting livestock production, which will be needed to maximise land’s role as a plant based food source and as a carbon sink. Given this, studies overwhelmingly suggest that a shift towards healthier diets, lower meat and dairy consumption and significant food waste reductions, is the only way to ensure the world’s temperature keeps below a 2°C increase, as agreed by the world’s governments at the Paris climate conference 5.

Secondly, the Earth’s environment cannot physically maintain supply of the levels of natural resources required to satisfy current and projected demand for meat and dairy. Humanity is already living beyond its means. In 2016 we have, by the beginning of August6, used all the resources that the Earth can regenerate in one year. Animal agriculture is extremely resource intense, as it requires 70% of all agricultural land, including a quarter of all cropland, for pasture and the production of feed7. This totals a third of the planets’ ice-free land surface. The sector’s hunger for land and water makes it the leading source of biodiversity loss through its driving of deforestation, pollution and habitat degradation, as well as its competition with wildlife for natural resources. We are currently experiencing what scientists call the sixth mass extinction8 and animal agriculture is at the forefront of that, estimated to account for about 30 percent of human-caused biodiversity loss on land.

This report describes how and why reducing meat consumption and improving its production can offer solutions that enable both a healthier planet and large public health benefits. It highlights several campaign approaches that could be unleashed under a banner of “Eating Less, but Better” for meat and dairy consumption. It concludes that progressive businesses - by reducing meat content in their products; shifting to sustainable alternative protein sources and significantly improving meat and dairy production methods - could play a significant part in, and benefit from the sector’s transformation.

Finally, there is mounting scientific evidence linking our excessive consumption of livestock products, particularly red meat, with increasing incidence of cancer, obesity, diabetes, heart and foodborne disease, and antimicrobial resistance in human populations. This is a challenge for the existing sector but a large opportunity for innovative companies that are willing to invest in cleaner and healthier alternative products. The urgent need for change is compelling on all fronts and the momentum has been building over the past decades. Civil society and Governments are beginning to realise that growing meat consumption must be addressed as soon as possible in order to mitigate against irreversible damage to our climate and environment as well as to improve human health. We are at a turning point. Public awareness campaigns about meat consumption that were considered a taboo not so long ago, beyond traditionally better-known concerns such as animal welfare, are gaining ground. Many influential NGOs are in the process of rethinking their approach to this issue. Of critical significance regarding the rate of change is that reducing meat consumption is an issue in which market transformation can happen quickly and have significant short term impacts. Unlike the energy sector, there are no large multi-decade infrastructure changes needed. Pressure is piling up on industry to clean up its act and adopt meat and dairy production methods involving lower emissions and better animal welfare. Reinforcing this is a growing market of highly innovative companies that are offering alternatives to conventional meat and dairy: from vegetarian options to meat grown in laboratories.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

1. Introduction Consumption of animal products has increased steadily since World War II following the adoption of intensive livestock production methods and subsequent fall of prices, the rise of fast-food restaurants and supermarkets, and the development of reliable home refrigeration9. Such patterns of consumption, assimilated as a sign of wealth and development, were initiated by the United States, and other developed nations soon followed. Today, people in developed countries consume unhealthy amounts of meat, double that in the developing world. Americans have the largest appetite for meat, consuming six times that of the average African per year10. Demand for meat and dairy worldwide is expected to continue to grow, now fuelled by a fast growing middle class in emerging economies such as China and India. To satisfy an increasing level of demand, the livestock sector, which is already estimated to be worth US$1.4 trillion worldwide11, continues to expand its operations across species and markets, with a few big market players getting even larger through mergers and acquisitions. In addition, the livestock industry is responding to growing demand through further intensifying its production methods despite mounting public concerns about the very significant negative impacts on environment, human health and animal welfare that this poses.

1940s advertisement from the American Meat Institute encouraging meat consumption 6

1.1

A brief history of meat and dairy production and growth

In prehistoric times, humans hunted and killed wild animals for meat as one of their sources of food. The transition to agriculture around 8000 BC saw humans increasingly farm and consequently live in permanent settlements. Domestication of most common ruminants (cows, buffalo, sheep, goats) and monogastrics (species with one stomach such as pigs and poultry) known to us today, began soon after. People raised animals to provide food as meat, dairy or eggs and to support crop production, through the provision of draught power and manure. Most animals fed on locally available resources that were not directly edible to humans, such as pasture for ruminants, and household waste and crop by-products for monogastrics12. During the post-war period, however, agricultural industrialisation effectively eliminated the need for animals to support crop production, as draught power become increasingly mechanised and synthetic fertilisers were introduced. In the United States, against a context of economic growth, rising consumerism and urbanisation, a shift away from small family-owned and operated farms towards industrial meat production started to take place. That approach sought to maximise livestock production at lowest cost, and spread rapidly across developed nations13. Livestock production methods typically require large amounts of inputs including energy for heating and airconditioning for animals housed in crowded conditions; energy for the mechanisation of animal feeding and disposal operations; drinking water supply; an animal feed ration typically produced off-farm; and often large supplies of antibiotics both to prevent and treat disease and, in some countries still, to accelerate growth. These production methods have enabled the meat industry to cut their financial costs and increase meat production significantly. However, this has been achieved by instead growing the externalised costs to society, with worsening environmental damage associated with feed production, enteric emissions (that is, from the digestive system) of ruminants and poor animal welfare conditions14. The total population of major livestock species is estimated at over 28 billion heads worldwide, that is: 24 billion chickens, 2 billion sheep and goats; 1.5 billion cattle and 1 billion pigs15. That already totals four times that of the global human population16. Today, global meat production continues to increase, accounting in 2016 for 109, 90 and 59 MT of pork, chicken

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

CONSUMPTION OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS PER CAPITA

RUSSIA CANADA EUROPE UNITED STATES

CHINA INDIA AFRICA

BRAZIL

AUSTRALIA ARGENTINA

BEEF 8

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

PORK

CHICKEN

DAIRY

EGGS

9 Source: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

2. Livestock production and climate change and beef respectively17. China is the biggest producer of meat worldwide at around 80 MT, almost double that of the United States. China is also the leading global egg producer18, with 40% of the 1,320 bn eggs produced worldwide. Meanwhile, global milk production has also increased rapidly to reach over 750 MT, mostly driven by growth in Southern Asia. India and the EU are the leading milk producers accounting for around a sixth of the market each19. Over three quarters of pork and poultry meat worldwide is produced under intensive operations. Most beef production is typically under mixed-farming arrangements, combining forage and concentrate-feeding at different rates20. While India and Pakistan continue to conduct dairy production in relatively small holdings, intensive production is the norm in the United States, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Although the EU banned battery cages in 2012, the majority of egg production in the rest of the world continues to be produced under such systems21. Delivering the substantial increases forecast in meat and dairy production to 2050 would require further intensification, which is likely to worsen an already excessive environmental footprint while increasing negative animal welfare impacts.

1.2

Increasing consumption is the core of the problem

The economic struggles of the early 20th century, when the ability to consume meat and other animal products was a symbol of affluence, continue to influence the perception of many Americans and Europeans. Most Western countries rationed meat, dairy, eggs and animal fats during periods of food shortages until the 1950s22. Nevertheless, that changed significantly after World War II and indeed, American per capita meat consumption has risen 95% since23. That has been driven largely by a steady drop in prices: ham and steak are respectively 48% and 20% cheaper. Chicken meat prices have fallen by three quarters, while per capita consumption has increased six fold24. While it would be wrong to give all the credit for higher meat consumption to low prices, the price elasticity of demand is still quite high: a 1% price increase for beef would reduce consumption by 0.75%. For dairy, price elasticity is (-) 0.65 and eggs are the most inelastic at (-) 0.2725. The weighted elasticity for all animal products is (-) 0.65, which means that a 10% increase in price (for example through a meat tax) would result in a 6.5% downward shift in consumption26. That indicates how price is an important driver of demand for animal products and why it has played an important role in increased meat consumption since World War II.

Along with a drop in prices, increases in income leads to greater consumption of animal products27. Meat

consumption has steadily risen since the 1960s in most of today’s developed world, recently stabilising at an average 80kg per person28. Americans consume the most meat, an average of 120kg per person per year. That is an excessive level of consumption overwhelmingly associated with a significant increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes and certain types of cancer29. Meat consumption levels in Africa and some parts of Asia remain low, with average consumption in developing countries being 34kg per person30. However, the amount of meat consumed by major emerging economies is quickly catching up with that in developed countries. The average Chinese person, for instance, now consumes around 60kg of meat per year31 compared to less than 10kg in 196032. Indeed, growth in the poultry and, to a lesser extent, pork sectors for emerging Asian economies is expected to drive future global meat market growth33. Consumption of other animal products has also grown significantly since the early 1960s, and a similar uneven distribution applies globally. Per capita milk consumption in Western Europe of over 300kg per year exceeds ten times the less than 30kg per year seen in certain African and Asian countries34. Per capita egg consumption in Mexico of 358 eggs per year is some six times higher than that in certain African and Asian countries35.

1.3

Livestock: a sector at a crossroads

The livestock sector is unquestionably a major global player economically, socially and politically. Its value is estimated at US $1.4 trillion, equal to 40% of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) worldwide36. By comparison, that is onethird of the value of the fossil fuel sector37, but a much larger source of employment with 1.3 billion people depending on it in both developed and developing countries38. What is the future for livestock systems globally? There is mounting evidence that the sector’s current direction of travel - both in terms of size and production methods - is radically incompatible with addressing humanity’s major challenges this century. These include tackling climate change, halting biodiversity loss and feeding an increasing global population. The sector is hugely reliant on natural provisions from the very ecosystems it is undermining. In addition, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields and water scarcity will put the sector in increased competition with other needs and therefore other economic sectors. The case for change in the livestock sector is now so compelling that the only real decision for the industry is how quickly and at what speed and scale they should initiate it. Or whether they will be overwhelmed by it.

“Livestock emissions were all over the menu—in the form of butter, cheese and meat—but they were nowhere to be found on the agenda” reported a Forbes’ journalist covering the Paris Climate Conference39. Indeed, discussions by policy makers have long focused on how to decarbonise the energy, industry and transport sectors and have hitherto largely ignored the need for drastic change towards more sustainable consumption and production of livestock products. However, it is now clear it is not possible to address climate change without addressing this issue. Directly, this sector is already responsible for a sizeable chunk of global greenhouse gas emissions and is now a leading and growing cause of rising temperatures through large emissions of two of the most damaging greenhouse gases - methane and nitrous oxide. A further challenge is that much of the large land area its production relies on, a third of the world’s ice free surface, is required for afforestation and reforestation to increase the supply of bioenergy and act as a net carbon sink to stabilise the climate system.

2.1

A major source of greenhouse gas emissions

The livestock sector is a major contributor to climate change, responsible for a total of 7.1 GtCO2eq per annum or 14.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a reference point this is equivalent to the emissions from combustion of all transport fuels40. Major GHG emission sources along the livestock production value chain relate to animal feed production (expansion of grazing and agricultural land; fertiliser use for crop production), its digestion (methane emissions related to enteric fermentation of grass and lingo-cellulose material by ruminants) and its elimination by animals (manure decomposition). Emissions are also associated with slaughter of animals, their processing into meat and other products, energy and transport used in meat production and distribution41. Cattle are by far the most emissions-intensive livestock type, with typical beef and dairy production estimated to be responsible for over two thirds of the sector’s emissions. Cattle are very inefficient in turning inputs into edible calories and protein and so require large inputs (animal feed and grass) and generate large outputs (enteric emissions and manure)42.

2.2

The future of the livestock sector: current trends at odds with climate goals

With a growing world population and changing diets, consumption of animal products is projected to increase by 80% to 205043. Emissions associated with the agriculture and land use change sector could thereby increase significantly by 2050 to 15 GtCO2eq44 or 20 GtCO2eq45. That would be incompatible with drastic GHG reductions needed under the objective of the recent Paris agreement (i.e. to keep increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels, and to limit the increase to 1.5°C) 46 for a number of reasons. In 2050, annual global emissions must, as a minimum, be within a range of 16-31 GtCO2eq for the world’s temperature to keep below a 2°C increase. Indeed, a greater likelihood of achieving such a goal would require further reductions in emissions to 4-14 GtCO2eq during the same period47. In that context, if climate change is to be addressed, the forecast increase in demand for animal products by 2050 would leave very little or no room for any other source of emissions. Moreover, greater efforts will be required in the post2050 period to stabilise the climate, through near zero or negative emissions across all sectors, in order to lower global temperatures towards a 1.5°C goal. Therefore, there seems

THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR…

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

GHG EMISSIONS FROM LIVESTOCK BY SOURCE (PERCENTAGE) Source: FAO (GLEAM)

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

14,5%

7,100*MtCO e /year

MANURE MANAGEMENT

OF TOTAL GLOBAL GHG EMISSIONS

* It includes all emissions across the livestock production value chain

TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS BY LIVESTOCK TYPE BEEF CATTLE

DAIRY CATTLE

PIGS

BUFFALO

SMALL RUMINANTS

CHICKENS

ENTERIC FERMENTATION

Source: FAO (GLEAM)

OTHER POULTRY

FEED

1,5% DIRECT ENERGY USE, CO2

2,495

2,128

668

618

612

474

2,9% POST FARMGATE, CO2

0,3% INDIRECT ENERGY USE, CO2

4,3% MANURE MANAGEMENT, CH4 5,2% MANURE MANAGEMENT, C2O

MILLION TONNE CO2-EQ

16,4% APPLIED & DEPOSITED MANURE, N2O

2050 GHG EMISSION SCENARIOS ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURE AND LUC VS REQUIRED GHG EMISSION REDUCTION TRAJECTORIES CONSUMPTION AS TODAY

REDUCE WASTE ONLY

≈15 GtCO2e/y

LESS MEAT -DAIRY, LESS WASTE

Likely (>66%) 2°C pathways

Global total GHG emissions ( Co2e/yr)

≈20 GtCO2e/y

Higher - cost “ deliberate dealy 2° C scenario

≈10 GtCO2e/y

13% FEED, CO2

40 Historical Emissions (CAT)

2030

2040

2050

7,7% FERTILIZER & CROP RESIDUES, N2O

10 39,1% ENTERIC FERMENTATION, CH4 0

6,0% LUC - SOYBEAN CO2

High probability 2° C pathways with return to 1,5° C by 2100 3,2% LUC - PASTURE EXPANSION, CO2

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Source: Climate Action Tracker & Chatham House

0,4% FEED - RICE, CH4

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Livestock emissions: why do literature estimates differ so much?

Methane emissions: should they be addressed differently?

Two different types of accounting systems are typically used to calculate total emissions for the global livestock sector. Both are often quoted and reported in the press and elsewhere leading to confusion as to what the total emissions figures related to the livestock sector are. The two methodologies are based on either a) mission source inventory accounting or b) life cycle assessment.

Different types of greenhouse gas can be classified according to a) their atmospheric lifetime and b) their global warming potential. These differences are important when understanding the benefits of reducing emissions associated with the livestock sector. The first concept refers to the amount of time it takes for an increase in the concentration of a given gas in the atmosphere to return to natural levels (i.e. converted to another chemical or be taken out via a sink). Of the main greenhouse gases, average lifetimes can vary from about 12 years for methane to over a century for carbon dioxide and 114 years for nitrous oxide.

The first method is based on discrete categories of direct emission sources and sinks aggregated into sectors (i.e. agriculture) under each geographic unit (e.g. nation) and it is used by countries to report to UNFCCC via International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines. According to a study by UNFAO, the sum of emissions from enteric fermentation, manure and cropland related to feed would put total livestock emissions at 4-5 GtCO2eq or 8.8% of the total in 2010*.

The second concept refers to the warming potential (i.e. amount of heat trapped) of a concentration of a given gas in the atmosphere. By definition, this is measured against that of CO2. Of the main greenhouse gases, fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane have over 1000, 298 and 34 times higher warming effects than carbon dioxide respectively, when compared over a 100-year timespan.

The second method is based on accounting for the direct and indirect environmental impacts and resource use along the value chain, for a particular product or service. This method is often used when the goal is to understand where in a value chain resource use and environmental impacts occur. According to a study by FAO, livestock related emissions calculated this way amount to 7.1GtCO2eq or 14.5 % of the total in 2013**. This includes additional sources of emissions the livestock sector is connected to, such as deforestation linked to crop expansion for animal feed.

Following from these differences, climate experts have recently started to call for policies that manage these gases separately. This reasoning does not change the need to drastically reduce long-lasting global CO2 emissions to zero as soon as possible to stabilise global temperatures, but it does highlight that steeper reduction trajectories for high warming gases would facilitate adaptation to evolving climate change and help achieve the lowest temperature goals (1.5C). In this context, the reduction of demand and shifting to better production methods in the livestock sector could make a big difference because it roughly contributes to a third of man-made methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

What’s most important to understand is that although they do give different numbers, both of these methods are entirely valid, depending on the aim of the analysis. * Tubiello, F. N. et al. The Contribution of Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use activities to Global Warming, 1990- 2012: Not as high as in the past. Glob. Chang. Biol. (2014). doi:10.1111/gcb.12865 ** Gerber, P. J. et al (2013) Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

to be no room for current animal product consumption and production trends48. Future investment destined to support unsustainable levels of meat consumption may therefore lead either to a food system locked-in to harmful climate action, or to stranded assets incompatible with future agricultural neds.

2.3

Land use: reductions by the livestock sector are key to allowing other sectors to decarbonise at reasonable cost

Another key characteristic of the livestock sector is being a major user of land. Animal agriculture uses 70% of all agricultural land, including all pasture land and the rest cropland to grow animal feed49. If we look at just cropland, already a quarter of it is used to grow feed for animals and this is projected to increase to 50% by 205050. This will unavoidably drive further expansion into natural areas such as forests and grasslands and further increasing livestock GHG emissions51. Natural land areas are expected to play an increasingly important role as carbon sinks to stabilise the Earth’s climate. That makes competition for land an important climate policy issue.

Indeed, almost all GHG reduction scenarios considered by IPCC to achieve the 2˚C ambition require a significant

percentage of natural land to play its role to the full as a carbon sink as the only feasible way to achieve negative emissions at the required scale post-2050. That would involve major levels of afforestation and reforestation, as well as the provision of significant amounts of biomass to replace fossil fuels in the production of energy, fibre and other materials such as chemicals in the power, transport and industrial sectors52,53,54. That scenario will be impossible to realise without addressing land-use by the livestock sector. Of critical political and economic significance is that the extent to which we fail to address the expected land needs of the livestock sector will lead to increased costs of mitigation for other sectors. As well as conflict with these sectors, that will severely question the feasibility of achieving our climate goals. The analysis shows that freeing up land that would otherwise be used by the livestock sector will require both reduction in demand for animal products and increased efficiency – a reduction in land used per unit of product. One study estimates that moving the world by 2050 to the ‘Harvard Healthy Diet’- which advocates sparing use of red meat and more moderate consumption of dairy, eggs and poultry meat - could halve the costs of decarbonising the energy sector. It would do so by freeing an area of rangeland

equivalent to the United States and reducing cropland by the combined land-size of the United Kingdom, France, and Spain. Lower costs to the energy sector would result from a slower decarbonisation pace and the avoidance altogether of the most expensive range of carbon mitigation tools55.

2.4

Mitigating emissions associated with the livestock sector

In addition to demand reductions, there are also other significant mitigation opportunities available to livestock producers to reduce their carbon footprint. Those are based on the application of new technologies or through better management of farming systems56. Indeed, if producers in any given system, region and agro-ecological zone were to apply the practices of those with the lowest emissions’ intensities, livestock emissions would reduce by onethird while maintaining constant output. Key identified practices include reducing the following •

Enteric methane production through selective breeding, use of vaccines, manipulation of diet and feed additives (thereby improving feed efficiency and animal productivity). In this context, some feed supplements, such as 3-nitrooxypropanol, have been reported to inhibit methane production by cattle

between 30-60%, while indirectly increasing cattle’s weight and maintaining productivity57; •

Methane production from manure degradation through the manipulation of diet (effectively altering the content and the amount of fermentable matter in excrement through changes in ration composition and additives). Shortening manure storage duration, ensuring aerobic conditions, or capturing the biogas emitted in anaerobic conditions, can also help58.

Nevertheless, there are often important trade-offs to be considered when changing to some practices. For example, intensification of livestock production by rearing cattle on feedlots, instead of grazing, may be used as a strategy to reduce direct emissions per unit of output by reducing the amount of time to reach slaughter weight. However, this poses higher challenges in terms of deforestation associated with increased animal feed production, animal welfare, animal disease and environmental pollution associated with increased fertiliser use, and waste disposal problems59. Clearly, a holistic approach taking into account all impacts need to be employed when developing mitigation strategies to reduce eissions.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

2.5

Reducing emissions from the livestock sector: a gap in EU climate policy Despite the significant potential for reducing GHG emissions associated with livestock production, emission from the livestock sector have received little attention from jurisdictions across the world. Indeed, the EU, often seen as the global leader in terms of climate change policy, has shown very little action in this area. For example, negotiations at EU level are currently ongoing regarding how to realise a 30% GHG reduction in 2030 across the “non-traded” sectors of the economy (i.e. buildings, agriculture, waste management and transport). However, the legislative proposal made by the European Commission has been criticised by NGOs because of its lack of ambition on the agricultural sector. In summary, the Commission’s proposal would allow countries with large agricultural sectors to meet the bulk of their overall GHG reduction targets through reducing emissions in other sectors*. In any case, international accounting rules mean that emissions associated with imports of meat, dairy and animal feed from outside the EU are ignored. To date, the bulk of actions to reduce emissions have been taken forward voluntarily by industry**. These include emission reduction targets by 2020 of a nonbinding 25% and a 20-30% emission reduction target by 2020 from 2009 levels respectively in United States and United Kingdom dairy production from 2009 levels***. In general, the powerful EU agricultural industry is fully opposed to any significant GHG reductions and often argues that this would lead to agricultural activities being moved outside of the EU****. At the same time, it is looking to significantly increase supply of dairy products, pork and poultry meat to Asian and Middle East markets by 2025*****. * http://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Policy-Brief_ ESD-after-2020-Ensuring-that-the-EU’s-largest-climate-instrument-is-fit-forpurpose_final.pdf ** Bailey, R., Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. (2014). Livestock–Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. Chatham House. *** http://www.nfuonline.com/sectors/dairy/dairy-news/the-dairy-roadmap/ **** CRISP, J. (2016) EU agriculture limits for agriculture certain gases face uncertain future. Euractive. Online version 27 January 2016. Available at http:// www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-emissions-limits-foragricultural-gases-face-uncertain-future/ [accessed: 25 July 2016]. ***** http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/medium-term-

outlook/2015/fullrep_en.pdf

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Curving demand for meat and dairy is essential

It is evident then that current planned mitigation policies and activities need to be scaled up significantly to achieve climate goals included in the Paris agreement. This is where we understand the scale of the challenge for the industry and society. In the context of forecast demand growth for meat and dairy of 80% by 205060, even the maximum potential emissions savings from efficiency gains in overall production, as described above, would be overwhelmed by growth and will therefore not come close to addressing the problem. Therefore, to reduce emissions from agriculture in real terms between now and 2050 to the level required by 2050, demand reduction starting now is going to be essential61. A study exploring the role of food-demand management as part of climate mitigation concluded that - even making optimistic assumptions for future crop yields and 50% food waste reductions - only a move towards healthy dietary recommendations with fewer animal products would reduce agricultural and land use emissions below 10GtCO2eq in line with the minimum required reductions by 2050. A similar conclusion was reached by a study looking at Sweden’s climate change committments and diet62. A large range of studies have shown that up to 50% of a person’s dietary GHG emissions’ footprint can potentially be reduced63,64,65 through reducing or eliminating consumption of animalbased foods. Dietary change was also cited in a study as the most cost-effective mitigation action available to American households66. A UK study67 highlighted the climate change benefits resulting from decreased amounts of meat in the global average diet by everyone switching to a healthy diet as recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Under this (with a maximum 160 kcal per day per person come from meat, approximating 36kg per year, compared to current UK consumption at 85kg per person per year), a total of 15GtCO2eq a year could be saved globally by 2050 through the amount of land freed from production being used for carbon mitigation activities such as reforestation or bioenergy cultivation. This brings us to an issue of great strategic importance for the way society is likely to respond to the animal agriculture challenge - the question of the comparative economic cost, complexity and speed of different approaches to reducing emissions. It seems that dietary change ranks among the simplest, most impactful and cost effective actions society can take to tackle climate cange.

Sustainable consumption: the role of food waste reductions What does a sustainable level of consumption of livestock products look like? The Food Climate Research Network* believes that the answer includes improvements in the efficiency of livestock production, addressing environmental (i.e. reduce irrigation and dependency on feedcrops, address manure disposal problems, etc.) and welfare impacts of production, increase amount of animal parts eaten, reduce waste and adjust meat consumption accordingly. According to the UN FAO’s, 32% by weight, of all food produced in the world in 2009, was lost or wasted. The fraction of animal-based foods wasted is small compared to other foodstuffs in terms of weight (i.e. 19% of meat and 18% of milk produced, compared to 63%, 42% and 26% of all roots and tubers, fruits and vegetables, and cereals respectively)**. In this context, greenhouse gas emissions embodied in global food loss and waste amount to 2.7 GtCO2eq (or 3.49 GtCO2eq, if embodied emissions from deforestation and organic soils are included)***. Despite the smaller contribution to food waste by weight of animal-based foods, its contribution to the total embedded environmental impacts is much larger, given their higher environmental footprint. In fact, milk was found to be the highest contributor of any commodity to greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food waste, followed by grains, and then meat, with proportionately distributed greenhouse gas impact costs. Meat and milk were the highest contributors to total land occupation, although the majority of this land when compared to their cropland occupation, can be seen to be grasslands or pasture. Meat’s water scarcity costs, were the largest for any commodity. The costs associated with the externalities of meat and milk production on erosion, water pollution, and biodiversity and ecosystems, were also considerably higher than for any other commodity. As such, significant reductions in waste of animal products must be part of a more sustainable pattern of consumption. Nevertheless, even if all waste of animal food products could be eliminated (i.e. 20%), current consumption levels would still be too high to allow for a more sustainable livestock production. A study**** exploring a number of scenarios for a sustainable meat and milk consumption in 2050 estimates that the average per capita consumption would need to be reduced to 12 and 26kg/year for meat and milk respectively (or 20 kg of meat, and 43kg of milk or 4.3kg of cheese at today’s levels), to allow livestock production be sustained purely through an efficient use of grasslands, wastes and cropland not required for human food. This level of production is referred to as “default livestock”, as livestock production at such low levels would make most efficient use of existing land and feed sources. *FCRN. Retrieved from http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_what_is_a_sustainable_healthy_diet_final.pdf ** Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., & Searchinger, T. (2013). Reducing Food Loss and Waste (Creating a Sustainable Food Future No. Instalment 2). Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://unep.org/wed/docs/WRI-UNEP-Reducing-Food-Loss-and-Waste.pdf ***FAO. (2014). Food wastage footprint: full-cost accounting. Final Report. Rome. Retrieved from https://www.google. comurl?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYgbWn0pDKAhWHCI4KHUlyCEUQFggoMAE&url=http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3991e.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH7yX7VQI_OF8sfkIIR3yUbjJG06w&sig2=uKA9X-6f2YpJF4i-ZgmBcw&bvm=bv.110151844,d.c2E **** FAIRLIE, S. (2010). Meat: a benign extravagance. East Meon, Permanent Pub.

BREAKDOWN OF GLOBAL DEFORESTATION CAUSES

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

DEFORESTATION CAUSE (1990-2008)

AREA DEFORESTED (MHA)

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

3. Land use, deforestation,and biodiversity loss

% OF GLOBAL

% OF AGRICULTURE

239.3

100

N/A

AGRICULTURE (ALL)

127.6

100

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION (ALL)

72.7

ALL

RUMINANT PRODUCTION (ALL)

ANIMAL PASTURE

58.2

SOY BEANS

CROP PRODUCTION

CROPS: RUMINANT FEED

CROPS: PIG & POULTRY FEED

69.4

54 3 8

CROPS: FOOD, FIBRE & FUEL

43 Source: European Commission

The livestock sector has grown at an unprecedented scale over the last decade. Humans are now rearing over five times more animals than in 1960s68. Weighing 25 times more than all wild land animals combined, the livestock population has been referred to as the leading cause of modern species extinctions.69. Just maintaining current animal food production levels, without delivering the significant increases forecast, is radically incompatible with global Sustainable Development Goals and biodiversity targets. In that context, the urgent transformation towards less resource and pollution-intensive livestock production - including supporting major dietary change and waste reduction measures as argued for above - is required to maintain the ecosystems that support it.

3.1

Livestock and the global biodiversity crisis

Biodiversity refers to the variety of ecosystems, species, and their genetics that exist across scales from the global to the local. Currently the Earth’s biodiversity is facing a crisis almost without precedence, except for previous global mass extinction events in its history. Modern extinction rates are estimated to be 1,000 times the natural background rate70. Global populations of vertebrate species have, on average, halved in the last 40 years, with freshwater species declining by 76%71. Fish populations utilized by humans have also halved on average over this short period of merely two human generations72. Due to its enormous scale and connectivity to so many environmental issues of concern, the consumption and production of animal-based foods is one of the most important stressors on biodiversity globally, and so it is central to addressing this crisis. Directly or indirectly, it contributes to habitat loss (including deforestation); land degradation; overexploitation of natural resources; environmental pollution; invasive species; climate change; and human vs. wildlife conflict. Consequently, the livestock sector profoundly impacts ecosystems and biodiversity at a planetary scale73,74. By one measure, it has been estimated to account for about 30% of human-caused biodiversity loss on land75. If internationally agreed goals to halt biodiversity loss such as those set out in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and more recently, those given in the Sustainable Development Goals, are to be achieved, significantly reducing the outsized environmental impacts from this sector will be essential.

Global Biodiversity Goals The Aichi Biodiversity Targets are a set of five strategic goals containing 20 targets that the world’s governments agreed to in 2010 as part of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The focus of Goal B and its associated targets is to reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and to promote sustainable use and to promote sustainable use of natural resources. The Sustainable Development goals, adopted by the world’s governments via a United Nations resolution in 2015, are an intergovernmental set of 17 aspirational goals with 169 associated targets. Addressing agriculture’s environmental impacts is central to achieving many of the goals and targets, especially those relating to biodiversity. Goal 14, for example, is to conserve and use sustainably the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. Goal 15 is to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

3.2

Livestock species dominate the Earth

Animal-based food consumption has increased rapidly worldwide; so too therefore has the population of animals farmed or harvested to service this growing demand. The curious consequence of this is that those species farmed for human consumption are now more ‘successful’ ecologically than almost any other on earth, with the global population of livestock species mounting to 28 billion76. Illustrating this new ecological dominance, it has been estimated that global livestock collectively weigh more than 25 times the total weight of all wild land animals on Earth combined77. Unfortunately, the price of their ‘success’ has been paid by wild species, with the primary underlying driver of livestockrelated biodiversity loss being the sector’s monopolisation of global land-use and its associated resources. Today, the global land area used to provide feed, fodder, or grazing for livestock is three times higher than that of all land-based protected areas for conservation globally combined78,79. That contrast reflects a long history of habitat destruction through agricultural expansion into lands once occupied by a variety of natural ecosystems, linked to population growth and increased animal-based food consumption in human diets80. It also emphasises the huge spatial extent to which livestock and in particular, cattle, now directly interact with human-modified ecosystems. Sometimes that is to the benefit of farmland biodiversity, long adapted to semi-natural grasslands. However it is also often to its detriment where overly-intensive agricultural production methods, including pasture fertilisation and high stocking rates, are practised.

3.3

A major driver of deforestation and habitat destruction worldwide

Livestock production has been described as the predominant driver of natural habitat loss worldwide81. Production of animal products has been linked to 65% of global land use change between 1961 and 2011, requiring an additional 439 million hectares of agricultural land to be brought into production - an area greater than all of India82. Much of that has come at the expense of high-biodiversity value habitats, such as tropical forests83. Moreover, expansion of pastures is also recognised as a regional driver of wetland and mangrove destruction - both habitats of high biodiversity value that have seen large declines in areal extent in recent decades84,85.

Livestock are estimated as the root of 30% of human-caused biodiversity loss on land due to land occupation and habitat destruction. That impact will surely increase if, as projected, global land use for grazing and crops grows much further (see section 3), in the absence of measures to reduce overall meat and dairy demand. That will be compounded by the fact that

most newly created agricultural land globally is concentrated in tropical countries where biodiversity is greatest86. In 2050, using current agricultural technology to feed all 9 billion forecast globally a western style diet rich in animal-foods would require global cropland areas almost to double87. It is clear, therefore, that to stop future habitat destruction through agricultural expansion, moderation of dietary demand for animal-based foods will be necessary. The case for urgent demand reduction has been further confirmed by recent modelling studies88. One such study concluded that human diets play a decisive role in making the twin goals of halting deforestation by 2050, while still being able to feed the world, mathematically possible. At one end of the spectrum, all 500 scenarios considered were found to be biophysically possible if a vegan diet was adopted globally, whereas at the other, only 15% of scenarios might be possible through global adoption of a North American style high-meat diet. Significantly, the study identified a fundamental tradeoff between on the one hand future deforestation and dietary meat content, and on the other, the extent to which global agriculture can be organic and, thereby, better for farmland biodiversity89,90.

3.4

Soy production for animal feed: an ongoing threat to the Amazon

Animal agriculture is both a direct and indirect driver of deforestation, respectively through pasture and cropland expansion into forests for animal feed. Grazing in forests is also recognised as a minor cause of forest degradation in Africa and the Americas91. Globally through these processes, the livestock sector has been linked to 72.7 million hectares of global deforestation in the period 1990 to 2008. Of that total, 80% resulted from pasture expansion - predominantly soy- for ruminants; 14.5% for crops fed to monogastric pigs and chickens; and 5.5% for crops fed to ruminants92. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay are responsible for 99% of Latin American soy production93, and represent 97% of soy-related deforestation worldwide94, a majority of which is exported95. Three quarters of global soy production is destined for use in animal feed as the mainstay source of protein supporting the industrial model of pig and poultry production worldwide96. Globally, the top two soy-importing regions are China and the European Union, which in 2013/14 accounted for 63% and 12% of global soy imports respectively, used to support their large domestic livestock industries97. Importantly, soy production does not just affect tropical forests. In the last few decades, vast areas of highly biodiverse grasslands and savannah have been converted to agriculture. In South America, the area of land devoted

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

to soy production grew from 17 million hectares in 1990 to 46 million hectares in 2010, mainly on land converted from natural ecosystems. Driven by increasing global demand for animal foods, global soy production is projected to double by 2050, corresponding to a likely 50% increase in land area devoted to it. That will put at risk further large areas of savannah and grassland ecosystems suitable for soy cultivation in both South America and Africa98.

3.5

Livestock’s huge demand for natural resources

The large amount of wild plant and animal biomass appropriated by the livestock sector is another important pathway via which it impacts upon ecosystems and biodiversity. That is significant ecologically because species

diversity in a region is correlated with its available energy – for which biomass is a measure99. In short, if less energy it available, then an ecosystem may support fewer species and with lower populations. That concept is illustrated by the competition for forage between livestock and wild herbivore species, which has been demonstrated to impact numbers of wild species and their predators in both Asia and Africa100. Of all the plant-biomass utilized by humanity each year, 60% is used to feed or provide bedding for livestock, while just 12% was embodied in plant-based foods for human consumption101. Fishmeal and fish oil are further examples of the livestock sector’s biomass demands. Forage fish species low in the food web are ecologically important prey species, especially for some regional populations of marine mammals and

Animal Agriculture and the Geography of Deforestation Although animal agriculture’s contribution to global deforestation has been significant, the geography of this impact is regionally specific. To date, the vast majority of livestock related deforestation has taken place in Latin America, where in the Brazil for example, 19% of the Amazon region’s 1970 extent has been deforested, of which 62% was being used as pasture in 2008. The environmental cost of this expansion has been significant. One recent study has attempted to estimate the unpriced natural capital costs to society from the Brazilian cattle and soy industries, finding that for every dollar of revenue made, cattle ranching costs society a further 22, and soybean farming costs a further 2 dollars. In the case of Costa Rica, nearly half of its tropical forests have already been cleared and are now dedicated to livestock production. Looking more widely, throughout Latin America, between 2011 and 2013, 57% of new pastureland replaced forests*. Together, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay, incurred over 80% of forest loss in Latin America in the 2000’s; accounted for 73% of total beef production; and comprised 83% of the regions beef exports**. Commercial agriculture in the region, producing beef, leather, soy, and other commodities has been the dominant driver, responsible for two thirds of deforestation between 2000-2010. Elsewhere in the world, other commodities such as palm oil are the dominant direct drivers of deforestation and local or subsistence agriculture plays a greater role***. Interestingly, a by-product of palm oil production ‘palm kernel meal’ does enter the livestock supply chain as a low-value feed ingredient, mostly exported from South East Asia to the European Union and New Zealand. The majority of beef produced in Latin America is still consumed in domestic markets, but the 2000’s has seen sharp increases in beef exports, especially in Brazil** where in the decade between 1999 to 2009, Brazil’s beef exports grew approximately 500% to become the world’s largest exporter. Despite this, about 80% of beef is still consumed domestically in Brazil**** and globally, only 8% of deforestation embodied in beef and milk is traded internationally. The opposite pattern is observed for beef’s co-product leather, with 74% of Brazilian leather exported in 2009****, but its contribution as an overall economic driver of deforestation is considered to be small, when compared to beef. * Graesser, J., Aide, T. M., Grau, H. R. & Ramankutty, N. Cropland/pastureland dynamics and the slowdown of deforestation in Latin America. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 034017 (2015). ** Persson, M., Henders, S. & Kastner, T. Trading Forests: Quantifying the Contribution of Global Commodity Markets to Emissions from Tropical Deforestation. Cent. Glob. Dev. 60 (2014). *** Hosonuma, N. et al. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044009 (2012). **** Walker, N., Patel, S. & Kalif, K. From Amazon pasture to the high street: deforestation and the Brazilian cattle product supply chain. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 6, 446–467 (2013).

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

CATTLE

HUMANS

PIGS

PETS

SHEEP

HORSES

EARTHâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S LAND MAMMALS BY WEIGHT

TONS

GOATS

WILD ANIMALS

1 unit of each equals one million tons 22

Source: XKCD.com

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR… Source: FAO

50% 14.5% 70%

Water used in total for food production

Global greenhouse gas emissions produced by livestock

30%

Global agricultural land devoted to livestock feed and pasture

Human-caused biodiversity loss on land

ANIMAL - BASED FOODS ARE MORE RESOURCE-INTENSIVE THAN PLANT BASED FOODS

seabirds102. Although most wild-caught fish are used for direct human consumption, about 10% of the global catch is currently used for the production of fishmeal and fish oil103. The primary consumers of this resource today are carnivorous fish species produced in the rapidly growing global aquaculture sector, which in 2010 consumed 73% of global fishmeal (up from 2% in 1960)104, and in 2012 consumed 74% of global fish oil production105. In contrast, pigs and chickens consumed 20% and 5% respectively of global fishmeal in 2010, down from almost 50% each in 1960106. Human vs. wildlife conflict is another important pathway by which animal agriculture impacts upon global biodiversity. Carnivore species in particular, which require large prey and habitats in order to support their metabolisms, have been hunted to regional extinction worldwide, primarily to protect livestock from predation. Familiar examples include the lynx in Western Europe and the grey wolf in Europe and the Americas. Research has recently demonstrated that top predators play an essential role in regulating competition within ecosystems – all the way down to plants - and so longterm impact of this hunting on ecosystems worldwide, is likely to be significant beyond only carnivore species107.

PER TON PROTEIN

1,000 m

180

120

t CO2e

3.6

ANIMAL - BASED

PLANT - BASED

The depletion of water sources associated with livestock production also plays an important role in biodiversity loss. That occurs through increased water demands associated with the drinking and servicing of animals, the processing of livestock products (meat and offal processing and rendering processes in the slaughterhouse/agro-food industries; and the tanning process of heavy and light leather). Above all, however, increased water demand arises from the needs of irrigated feed crop production and grazing areas. Indeed, animal feed production is estimated to represent around 7% of all global water use, half of all water used in total food production, and 15% of all water in irrigated areas. That is driven particularly by the decline of grazing systems in favour of increased livestock production methods for which animal feed depends on barley, maize, wheat and soybean crops108.

3,000 LAND USE (ha) Pasture Cropland FRESHWATER CONSUMPTION (1,000 m3)

150

100

2,500

Rainwater Irrigation GHG EMISSIONS (t CO2e) Land-use change Agricultural production

120

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Livestock’s large water footprint

In addition, significant water pollution cases are associated with discharges from livestock production (nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from fertilisers on pasture and feed crops; large disposal of manure; pesticides on crops, etc.)109. This has led to dead zones being formed in those areas most affected (i.e. the Mississippi Delta, Gulf of Mexico and the Baltic Sea). In less extreme cases, the impacts are still significant and the costs associated with rectifying this type of environmental contamination are high. In New Zealand, the upper end estimate is similar to the total value of dairy

0 Wheat

Rice

Maize

Roots Pulses & Tubers

Pork

Eggs

Fish Poultry (farmed)

Dairy

Beef

Source: World Resources Institute

exports at $8.5 bn. In the European Union, the costs for cleaning up excess nitrogen for the whole agricultural sector range between €20-150 bn110. Moreover, livestock also contribute to the presence of pesticides (used in feed production); drug residues such as antibiotics and hormones (given to animals for therapeutic or prophylactic reasons, and to encourage growth); and heavy metals such as copper, zinc, selenium, cobalt, arsenic, iron and manganese (used as feed supplements) in water sources.

3.7

Livestock impacts on soil’s nutrients

One of animal agriculture’s most important environmental impacts, affecting global ecosystems and biodiversity, is its role as a driver of environmental pollution through the release of excess nutrients as nitrogen and phosphorus into the natural environment111. In the previous section we explain the impacts of nutrients on water pollution, but the problem is bigger than that as those nutrients are being wasted. Core to that problem is the fact that livestock are inefficient at using nutrients to make human food due to environmental nutrient losses occurring during the growth of feed and fodder. That is compounded further by the fact that livestock convert less than 11% of nitrogen and 19% of phosphorus in the feed and fodder they consume into human-edible food112. Consequently, animal-based foods have large nutrient footprints, with the average nitrogen footprint being some ten times that for plant-based foods113. For phosphorus, 72% of the global average dietary footprint between 1961 and 2007 can be attributed to animal-based foods114. Overall, 80% of the nitrogen and phosphorus contained in crops and grass consumed by livestock globally provides only around 20% of the nitrogen and phosphorus contained in human diets115. To address the impact of nutrient pollution on global biodiversity, it has been proposed that a globally sustainable level of nitrogen and phosphorus use would be approximately half that currently used by humanity116. That in itself would require substantially increased production efficiency and dietary consumption changes. However, if projected growth in population and per capita meat and dairy consumption it realised, it is anticipated that global nutrient related pollution in 2050 might increase by a further 40-50%117.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

4. Impacts on Health And Food Security

MEAT & CANCER THE WHO HAS INCLUDED MEAT ON A LIST OF CANCER CAUSING SUBSTANCES

GROUP 1 CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS 33

As 74.922

TOBACCO

ALCOHOL

SAUSAGES

ARSENIC

ASBESTOS

HOT DOG

BACON

PLUTONIUM

SALAMI

PROCESSED MEAT

GROUP 2A PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

Today’s consumption of meat and dairy products in developed countries is considered to be between two and three times higher than that which is considered healthy. Levels are also rising rapidly in the majority of developing economies118. Such consumption patterns are associated with increased incidence of dietrelated disease including obesity, heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer119 as well as a significant number of foodborne disease cases. In addition, the intensification of production methods for livestock poses significant threats to public health as a major driver of antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic disease outbreaks and thus undermines the positive contribution of livestock production to food security. These issues make a further compelling case for significantly reducing consumption of meat and dairy products and improving their production methods. USE SPARINGLY: RED MEAT & BUTTER REFINED GRAINS: WHITE BREAD, RICE & PASTA SUGARY DRINKS & SWEETS SALT

ANABOLIC STEROIDS

ARCYLAMIDE

Overconsumption of livestock products and personal health

Meat and animal products are good sources of some nutrients, particularly: high-quality protein, iron, selenium, vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids. Alternative plant foods can also provide these nutrients (as well as high levels of fibre and some vitamins and minerals not provided significantly by animal products)120. This is not without controversy with many arguing that plant based sources are less convenient, concentrated or available. What is not in dispute is that animal products are typically high in saturated fat and cholesterol and processed animal-derived foods such as bacon contain potentially harmful additives such as salt and nitrates. Overconsumption of animal products, in particular red and processed meat, is associated with obesity and an increased risk of non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, type-2 diabetes121 and certain types of cancer including of the stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas and prostate122. Given the balance of the evidence, the vast majority of health experts conclude that consumption of animal products – especially processed meat, red meat and dairy - should be reduced, while that of plant-based foods increased123. Despite that advice, animal products consumption in developed countries, although stabilised, remains excessive, and continues to grow in emerging economies such as China and India124. In addition, cases of foodborne disease, particularly those related to salmonella and campylobacter infection, are often linked to the consumption of contaminated animal products, particularly meat and eggs. The European Food Safety Authority estimates that a total of 9 million cases of human campylobacteriosis a year in the EU, costing €2.4bn. For salmonellosis the costs are €3bn. For both diseases, a large number of cases are foodborne125.

DAIRY (1-2 servings a day) OR VITAMIN D/CALCIUM SUPPLEMENTS

GLYPHOSATE

4.1

The Healthy Eating Pyramid

HPV NUTS, SEEDS, BEANS & TOFU

FISH, POULTRY & EGGS

Source: Harvard School of Public Health

HEALTHY FATS AND OILS: OLIVE, CANOLA, SOY, PEANUT & OTHER VEGETABLE OILS; TRANS -FREE MARGARINE VEGETABLES & FRUITS

PORK

BEEF

HEALTHY FAT /OILS

LAMB

RED MEAT DAILY EXERCISE & WEIGHT CONTROL

WHOLE GRAINS

WHOLE GRAINS: BROWN RICE, WHOLE WHEAT PASTA, OATS, ETC.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

because regular administration of antibiotics wipes out weaker bacteria and increases proliferation of resistant genes127.

Meat and cancer

Factory farming and animal welfare

The International Agency for Research on Cancer published a review in October 2015 classifying red and processed meat such as bacon and sausages as carcinogenic and included them in a list with substances such as tobacco, asbestos, plutonium, alcohol and arsenic. Unprocessed red meat was also classified as a “probable carcinogenic” listed alongside a number of chemical products and pesticides*. This led to a drop between 15-17% in sales of sausages and bacon in the UK alone in the following weeks **. Excessive levels of consumption of meat products are thought to be associated with an increase in the number of certain diet-related types of cancer and so the benefits of reducing the consumption of animal products and increasing that of vegetables is two-fold***. In fact, Cancer Research UK reports that 3% of all cancers in the UK per year 8,800, may be linked to excessive consumption of red and processed meat. This goes up for certain types of cancer, such as bowel cancer, where it is associated with 21% of the cases. Worldwide, this means that around 300,000 cases of bowel cancer a year could be avoided. * IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2015) IARC Monographs Evaluate the Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat. Available at https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf. [accessed 7 June 2016] ** The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/23/bacon-sausage-sales-fall-who-report-cancer-risk-processed-meat *** Cancer Research UK. Retrieved from http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/

4.2

Intensive production methods and public health

Intensive livestock production has been identified as one of the main drivers for the excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics and the associated rise in global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to antibiotic treatment in humans126. The quantity of antimicrobials used in food production in

developed nations is estimated to be higher than those in humans, being, for instance, some 80% of all antimicrobials in the US. Their relative use in agriculture is projected to double in the major emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa by 2030. Very often these antibiotics are given to healthy animals to make them grow faster or for prophylactic purposes to control disease for animals growing in confined conditions. This is problematic

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SELECTED INFECTIOUS DISEASE OUTBREAKS Source: Bio-Era, 2008

$50bn SARS CHINA, HONG KONG SINGAPORE, CANADA $45-55 BN

$40bn

H1N1 WORLDWIDE, $45-55 BN

$30bn FOOT & MOUTH UK, $10-15 BN

$20bn

$10bn

H5N1 AVIAN FLU WORLDWIDE, $30 BN

BSE UK, $5BN

FOOT & MOUTH TAIWAN, $5-8 BN

BSE US, $3-5 BN

MRSA US, $5-10 BN

BSE CANADA, $3 BN

LYME DISEASE US, $200 M

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Animal welfare regulations setting minimum standards for farm animal breeding conditions exist in the EU (Council Directive 98/58/EC) and the US (Animal Welfare Act). However, factory-farmed animal housing is considered unethical by many NGOs because of issues associated with high stocking density; the confinement of animals in cages and crates; with poor air quality, floors which are too smooth and often wet; lack of environmental stimulus and inability for animals to perform their normal behaviours, and concentrated feed - can lead to animal discomfort and disease (i.e. weaker bones, poor level of cardiovascular fitness, etc.)***.

* Grace Communications Foundation (2015). Industrial Livestock Production. Available at http://www.sustainabletable.org/859/industrial-livestockproduction. [Accessed online: 9 June 2016].

1995

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) as being agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations and which congregate animals, feed, manure, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. To be classified as an AFO, a lot or facility must have animals that are, or will be, stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period and crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues that are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility**. Such facilities range from large (1,000 beef or 700 dairy cattle, 2,500 hogs or 125,000 chickens) to medium (300-999 beef or 200-699 dairy cattle, 750-2,499 hogs and 37,500 to 124,999 chickens). The main animals for such operations are cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys, but their practices are also applied to sheep, goats, rabbits, and various types of poultry.

** UNITED STATES. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (2008) Animal Feeding Operations. Available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/animal-feeding-operations-afos [accessed 9 June 2016]

NIPAH SE ASIA, $500-640 M

1994

There seems to be no strict definition of ’factory farming’ although the term it broadly held to refer to modern livestock production systems involving dense animal populations raised on limited land and requiring large amounts of food, water, energy and medical inputs*.

2002

E.COLI 0157:H7 US, $1.8 BN

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

*** FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (2012) Factory farming in Europe: the impacts and our demands of the Common Agricultural Policy. Available at https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/cap_ briefing_2012.pdf [accessed 9 June 2016]

In that context, there are risks associated with drug-resistant strains being passed on through direct contact between humans (especially farmers); and live animals; the food chain (when consumers prepare or eat the meat itself); and animal excretion in the environment. In some countries, there is evidence that last-resort antibiotics for humans are being used extensively in animals, with a recent Chinese finding of a bacterial gene conferring resistance to colistin – a last resort antibiotic. This contrasts with more sustainable livestock production methods, such as organic, in which antibiotic use is severely restricted. In the meantime, the costs associated with healthcare and productivity losses resulting from the 25,000 patients who die each year from an infection caused by AMR in the EU, has been estimated at €1.5bn128. In addition, the UK-based AMR review projected that by 2050, drug resistant bacteria could kill 10 million people per year globally and make routine medical procedures, such as hip transplants and chemotherapy, impossible. This would cost the loss in economic outputs of up to 100 trillion USD and lower projected GDP by 2-3.5 percent by mid-century. While there is strong attention in the retail context on antibiotic free food, this is driven by consumer perceptions of the direct impact on their health through consumption. We are yet to see a strong public association between the animal industry and blame for the wider AMR crsis.

4.3

Air pollution

Agriculture is a key source of three major air pollutants: ammonia, particulate matter and nitrous oxide emissions. Around two-thirds of all global emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide are associated with livestock production. Air pollution is a serious problem for human health as it contributes to conditions such as bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer and congestive heart failure. In that context, emissions associated with the livestock sector can have a large impact on local and regional air quality. The related costs are considerable. For example, emissions in Denmark cause health-related costs in the order of €4.9 billion per year, with agriculture contributing to around 43% of those emissions, more than twice those from road traffic (18%) and over four times those from major power plants (10%). A study for the US suggests that a 10% reduction in livestock ammonia emissions can lead to particulate-related health benefits valued at over US$4 billion annually129.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

5. Market Overview 4.4

Transmission of disease

Animal confinement conditions facilitate the spread of disease among flocks and could transmit zoonotic disease to humans. The impacts of animal disease outbreaks can also have significant economic consequences. These are driven by negative effects for the health of animals and humans, and the financial costs to farmers and related industries of dealing with disease and of business disruption. In addition, costs involving disease eradication and monitoring, changes

in consumption patterns, impacts on international trade of animals and animal products, and impacts on wild animal populations all have impacts on the public purse. The total costs associated with the largest global outbreaks are large. These include US$45-55bn associated with the 2009 swine ‘flu (H1N1) outbreak; US$30-50bn associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Symptom (SARS) and US$30bn associated with avian ’flu (H5N1)130.

Animal products: a history of food scandals The livestock industry has been at the forefront of some of the major food scares in the media since 1990s. In 2015, nearly 20% of the 3049 cases involving a breach of food law notified to the European Union (RASFF) were related to terrestrial animal feed and food products. Typical cases involve contamination of these foods with microorganisms (i.e. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., E. coli, Listeria spp., etc), toxic industrial compounds present in the environment (i.e. dioxins, furan, etc), veterinary and chemical residues, adulteration and fraud. One of the first and biggest food scandals in history was the BSE or mad-cow crisis. Although it had been first detected in animals in the UK in 1986, the first human death from the disease was only reported in 1995. The cause of the transmission was thought to be the feeding of infected meat and bone meal to naturally herbivore cattle. The handling of the crisis by the UK Government was severely criticised and consumer confidence in food plummeted. This led to the separation of food safety agencies from key Government departments across the EU. The toll was devastating, a total of 226 people are reported to have died from it, it led to the slaughter of millions of animals worldwide and cost taxpayers billions. More recently, a scandal involving the switching of beef with horse meat in processed meat products hit the news. The alarm was first raised by the Irish Food Safety Authority. An ‘Everyday Value’ beef burger from supermarket giant Tesco was found to contain 29% horsemeat. Other supermarkets were affected, with horsemeat also being found in beef products from discount supermarkets, Aldi and Lidl. Some of the products were also found to contain illegal veterinary drug residues. Within days, 10 million burgers – enough calories to feed a million people for a day – had been removed from shelves by worried retailers. Consumers reacted by shunning frozen burgers, with UK sales dropping by 43%. Some supermarkets blamed the longer and more complex supply chains, others the pressure for realising lower prices during the recession (CIWF, 2016). *European Commission (2015) Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. Preliminary Annual Report. ** BBC. *** Lymbery, P. (2016) Horsemeat scandal two years on- lessons learned? Compassion in World Farming

This chapter identifies key market players along the livestock sector’s value supply chain. 5.1 The livestock supply chain The global value of the livestock sector is 5.1.1 Livestock in the global food chain estimated at US$1.4 trillion and it is a large source of employment worldwide, on which The livestock supply chain covers all the activities required to bring a product (live animals, meat, milk, eggs, leather, fibre, 1.3 billion people depend in both developed manure etc.) to consumers, including the different phases and developing countries. The industry is of production, processing and delivery. The way livestock supply chains operate has traditionally differed across dominated increasingly by a few key players, countries, in line with the specific environmental, cultural as big companies continue to expand across and socio-economic drivers in place which determine how livestock is produced and the required resources available131. markets and species through mergers and acquisitions, as well as continuing to However, increasing food chain globalisation is removing many such differences. Traditional livestock production intensify their operations. Most of these large systems in developing countries (those integrated into companies are starting to make very modest agriculture production, distributed amongst many owners and in proximity to feedstocks) are gradually being pledges to improve the sustainability of their industrialised (becoming segregated from agricultural operations as public awareness of the sector’s production and increasingly independent of local resources). Trade in livestock products is also increasing and so livestock impacts increases. They also show increasing producers are competing at greater scale. overreactions, if their operations are challenged In addition, there have been major organisational changes by health and environmental organisations. In in the way animal products are being procured, processed, addition, the market for food companies offering and marketed132. Because profit margins are tightening, and companies chase after economies of scale, they seek better produced animal products and plantgreater efficiency and get bigger through mergers. Although based protein alternatives - even if still modest production of livestock products, particularly beef, is highly dispersed, associated processing and distribution activities - continue to experience consistent growth.

are increasingly vertically-integrated, with meatpacking companies moving into food manufacturing and wholesaling. Multinational market players are also integrating horizontally with, for example, liquid milk suppliers extending into new value added product categories such as cheese, butter, yoghurt and infant formula). The picture on the marketing stage of the chain is more mixed. While there are a relatively small numbers of supermarkets, the foodservice sector is far more fragmented. Despite the presence of of major global players in the later, such as McDonald’s and KFC, accounting for significant sales of processed beef products133, the wholesale market remains important as many businesses don’t have the scale to form their own direct supplier relationships.

5.1.2

Livestock products as traded commodities

The role of the agricultural sector as a share of the global economy is falling. Despite the fact that the total value of agricultural exports has increased tenfold since the 1960s, its share in the value of all traded goods has gone down from

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

24% to 10% over the same period134. That has driven a shift in trade and production towards the highest value commodities, such as animal products, to the detriment of lower value plant-based agricultural commodities such as grains.

stands at around 109 MT, with China’s appetite for pork making it both the top producer and importer. The EU and the US are the top world exporters136, with shipments to Asia expected to grow further in the future.

The world’s major beef producers are Brazil, the US, the EU and China, each with 10% or more of global production, which stands at a total of 59MT. Brazil, the biggest exporter (as we have seen above), sells 15% of its production to Russia, the Middle East, North Africa, the EU, Venezuela, Chile and Hong Kong. Other major beef exporters include Australia, the US and India, the latter’s exports driven by a surplus of male calves from the dairy herd, despite religious slaughter restrictions135.

Equally, robust Chinese demand is driving trade in broiler meat. China is the leading producer of broiler meat, followed by the US, Indonesia and Brazil, making up 90 MT worldwide. The US and Brazil are the top exporters, accounting for twothirds of total world trade, with shipments to China expected to grow further in the future137. Moreover, China is also the top producer of eggs, accounting for almost half of total world production at 1,320 bn units, followed by the EU and the US. The fragile nature of shell eggs means they are normally transported over relatively short distances, mainly to neighbouring countries, unless they are in processed form138.

The global pork market is influenced strongly by large, and growing, Chinese demand. Global pork production currently

Livestock production- the hidden costs of a not-so-free market “There is no such thing as a free market” claims ex-US Labour Secretary Robert Reich*. This statement couldn’t be more true for the livestock sector. Livestock producers in rich countries are very reliant on subsidies. In the EU, farmers receive around €200 of taxpayers’ money per hectare of land**. Subsidies annually cost the EU some €58 billion and represent almost half of the EU budget***. In the US, similar subsidies amount to US$20 billion per year****. This reliance on subsidies has lead to the development of a powerful farm lobby, which is often perceived to have heavy control over legislators. These type of subsidies are increasingly controversial because of their sheer size, the ways they are distributed and their results. In the US, it is estimated that two-thirds of American farmers missed out on direct subsidies over $100 billion over the last 15 years*****. Despite their policy goal to promote rural development, the recipients of this money were all big corporations which employ fewer workers and source more supplies outside the local area, than than regular farms. In addition, a majority of Governments in developed countries continue to promote the consumption of livestock products despite the excess consumption levels seen. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been criticised for spending $550 million a year promoting the consumption of animal foods despite having twice the number of cases of obesity and diabetes, and three times the number of cancer cases associated with current levels of overconsumption******. And there are also large hidden costs associated with the provision of healthcare and remediation of environmental damage. When everything is added together, the total bill to society is estimated to be $414 billion only in the US. If those costs were internalised in the price, a $5 burger would cost $13*******. *http://www.salon.com/2015/09/29/robert_reich_theres_no_such_thing_as_a_free_market_partner/ **http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21857459 *** http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm#start **** http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers ***** ROBINSON SIMON, D. (2013). Meatonomics. Berkeley, CA, CONARI PRESS, U.S. ****** http://www.peta.org/living/food/10-things-wish-everyone-knew-meat-dairy-industries/

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Although not an animal product, trade in soy is strongly associated with demand for animal products as 75% of the world’s production is destined to feed chickens, pigs, cows and fish. The largest global soy producer is the US, followed by Brazil and Argentina. China and the EU are the biggest soy export markets, representing 40% and 20% of global imports respectively. While in both China and the EU soy imports are closely associated with trends in animal production, in the EU the biodiesel market is also a key driver for demand139.

5.2

Key market players in the livestock sector

5.2.1

Farmers

Farmers are at the heart of the production of animal feed and livestock. Representing 40% of global agricultural GDP, the livestock sector is a major source of income for farmers across the world. Livestock production remains in the hands of many players, who tend to operate independently, and whose interests are represented by professional lobby groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, COPA-COGECA in the EU and national level organisations such as the UK National Farmers Union. As in other stages of the livestock supply chain, there is a recent move towards consolidation and upscaling in the farming sector although this is nowhere near as advanced a trend as in processing and retail markets. One such example is a recent Chinese-Russian joint venture which will see a hundred thousand cows bred in a Chinese ‘super-farm’ in the city of Mudanjiang to supply the Russian market. China’s Zhongding Dairy Farming and Russia’s Severny Bur are behind the project which will see feed for the cattle grown on 100,000 hectares of land n China and Russia140. Prices for animal products are driven by global supply and demand, so are rarely within the control of the farmer who is generally a price-taker. Since the mid-1900s, in an attempt to stabilise prices, increase production and guarantee farmers’ incomes, livestock farmers in the developed world have received billions of dollars in financial and other support through very large public schemes such as the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) or US Farm Bill.

5.2.2

Group, Cargill, New Hope, Purina, etc. who buy grains and oilseeds from producers or elevators worldwide (i.e. those who store, receive and transport) and process them into compound animal feed for the livestock sector and products for other markets. The top 20 companies control 40% of the global market, primarily based in Asia, followed by EU and US141. Market leader Thai CP Group (Charoen Pokphand) is a large conglomerate of food-related companies. In 2014, CP produced 27 billion tonnes of feed for the poultry, pig, ruminant and pets feed markets in Thailand, China and Vietnam and reported US$14bn total sales. The second largest producer of feed in 2014 was US giant Cargill, with 19.5 billion tonnes of feed for the poultry, pig, ruminant, pet and horse feed markets. Cargill, which is involved in a range of food, agricultural, financial and industrial interests, reported total sales of US$120 billion, equivalent to the GDP of Hungary, in 2014. Cargill operates 250 feed mills worldwide and owns several animal and pet feed brands including Agribrands and Nutrena. In third position, New Hope Liuhea subsidiary of Australian New Hope Group - produced 15.7 billion tonnes of aqua, pig and poultry feed for the Chinese market142. Due to the causality between increased soy production, for animal feed production and deforestation, there has been mounting non-governmental organisation (NGO) pressure on companies in this sector. That has led to a few companies making commitments to work across the supply chain to tackle deforestation. For example, Cargill has committed not to use soy linked with deforestation since 2008. Other companies such as Bunge and Unilever have reported progress towards their goals of not sourcing any soy linked to deforestation by 2016 and 2020 respectively143. However, WWF monitoring of the actions undertaken by 133 companies across the supply chain show insufficient progress in this area144.

5.2.3

Processors of livestock products

In line with trends in the animal feed sector, meat processing is also increasingly concentrated, with some major business operations dominating an increasingly globalised market.

Animal feed producers

In contrast to a disperse production, the processing of animal feed is increasingly concentrated into a number of major agribusinesses. Demand for animal feed continues to grow in line with consumption of monogastrics. The manufacturing of animal feed is dominated by a few agribusiness giants such as CP

The world’s leading meat producer is Brazilian family-owned JBS. It dominates the meat processing industry in Brazil and has been expanding rapidly through mergers and acquisitions into other key markets, particularly the US where it now employs 73,000 people and owns 44 processing plants. In 2015, reported sales reached US$50 billion, with almost half of them coming from sales of beef145. JBS owns some of the most recognisable meat brands in the world such as Seara,

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

$9.8BN CANADA

$21BN

$18.5BN

CHINA

NEW ZELAND

$23BN UNITED STATES

$9BN DENMARK

$14.8BN

$41BN

$13.6BN SWEDEN / DENMARK

NETHERLANDS

UNITED STATES

$17.9BN

$50BN BRAZIL

$5.2BN

$6.3BN

NETHERLANDS

UNITED STATES

GERMANY

$14BN UNITED STATES

$27.8BN

2015 SALES IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS

SWITZERLAND

$19.5BN FRANCE

$3.4BN FRANCE

$19.5BN FRANCE/ITALY

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Pilgrim’s Pride, Moy Park, Doriana, Prima and Friboi146. Among the major US processors, Tyson Foods remains the market leader with reported sales figures of US$40.6 billion in 2015, employing 113,000 people in 100 processing plants. Cargill Meat Solutions and Smithfields Foods follow with US$23 billion and US$14bn sales respectively reported in 2015147. In contrast, sales from European and Asian meat processors are much lower in value. That is both because of lower scales and a greater focus on lower value meats such as pork and chicken. The exception is the world’s top pork processor, Chinese WH Group, with reported sales of US$21.2 billion in 2015148. Large meat companies in the EU include Danish Crown149, Tonnies150, Vion151 and LDC152 , which reported sales figures respectively of €8 billion, €5.6 billion, €4.6 billion, and €3 billion in 2015. Danish Crown, Europe’s largest pork company - operating in Denmark, the UK, Sweden and Poland - has been reducing its slaughtering capacity due to falling demand. It is owned by a co-operative of Danish farmers. LDC is the largest poultry producer in the EU, operating in France, Spain and Poland. In contrast to the meat sector, the top three global dairy companies in terms of value are European. In 2015, the reported dairy products turnover of Nestle, the world’s biggest food and drink company, Lactalis and Danone reached US$27 billion, US$19.5 billion and US$19.5 billion respectively. This market size is separated from dairy volume with Fonterra and Dairy Farmers of America having much larger milk intakes153. Traceability in the supply chain remains poor and so it is mostly not possible for consumers to have comprehensive and accurate information on how their fresh and frozen meats have been produced. Nevertheless, consumers of meat products are increasingly demanding full traceability following a number of high profile adulteration scandals such as the substitution of horsemeat for beef in certain processed food products in Europe in 2013 and the adulteration of infant milk formula with melamine in China in 2008. The horsemeat scandal, in particular, shone a light on the length, complexity and global nature of beef supply chains. One consequence has been a trend for retailers and food service providers to shorten their supply chains by establishing direct relationships with producers rather than relying on an opaque chain of traders and wholesalers to supply products154.

Consumer-facing brand-owners of further processed meat and dairy products - such as those supplying cured meats, sausages, cheese, yoghurt, ice cream, etc. - are increasingly under pressure to address public concerns around the

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

sustainability of their products. For example, -efforts by certain animal-derived food products brands under Unilever (Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream, Hellman’s, Flora, Calve, etc.), HeinzKraft (Philadelphia, Cadbury’s), Premier Foods (Mr Kipling), Hein Frozen Foods (Linda McCartney), among others, to source eggs and milk with lower environmental and welfare impacts, have been recognised by leading NGOs155. In the foodservice sector, meanwhile, there have been moves by a number of major players, including McDonald’s and Subway, to phase out the use of antibiotics in poultry products following recent revelations about the contribution of overmedication of livestock to antibiotic resistance in humans156,157.

5.2.4

However, a majority of such pledges do not set clear actions or targets. For example, McDonald’s has made commitments of “no deforestation of high-carbon stock areas and forests by 2030”, and to ensure “a portion of its beef comes from a sustainably verified production from 2016”. The latter has resulted in the establishment of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), which aims to bring major companies such as JBS, Cargill, farmers associations and some NGOs such as WWF together to agree criteria that can be used for the certification of “sustainable” beef production. So far, the principles agreed by GRSB have been rejected by a number of leading NGOs as an attempt to “greenwash” conventional beef production for excluding major issues (i.e. antibiotic overuse, animal confinement, traceability, worker’s conditions) and failing to set clear targets and strategies for those included (i.e. environment).

Organic certification is probably the best-known sustainable production scheme on this issue of “better” currently on the market. The primary focus of organic production is to minimise the environmental impacts associated with livestock production and restrict the use of chemical inputs (fertilisers, antibiotics, etc.). Although better animal welfare is also encouraged through this ’extensive’ production method, some animal welfare NGOs believe that organic production has a number of shortcomings in that area because it allows physical castration (over chemical methods which are considered more humane but contrary to organic production). Also, the transportation of animals, and feed certification requirements, may restrict the use of non-organically certified waste or local feed. In addition, although the organic production system clearly minimises environmental pollution of soil, air and water, it does not always ensure overall GHG balance is not compromised.

In the UK, an industry taskforce including all major supermarkets and dairy processors agreed in 2008 a number of targets for the dairy industry to reduce its environmental footprint, including a “20-30% GHG reduction by dairy farms by 2020 compared to 1990 levels”. Nevertheless, a recent survey published by UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs highlights that more than half of the UK farmers do not believe greenhouse gas emissions are an important issue to be considered when making decisions about their crops, land management or livestock.

In any event, organic livestock production currently represents a very small share of the total worldwide market. It is estimated, for instance, that around 2% of all UK livestock production is organic163. That is higher than both the US164 and EU averages165, but comparisons are difficult because certification standards differ across regions. Organic livestock production outside the OECD remains very limited and is reduced to a small share of all the beef from Brazil and Argentina destined for export markets166. Seen as a growing market, some of the biggest food companies such as General Mills, Coca-Cola, Perdue, Kellogg’s, etc. have recently been buying up smaller organic food companies167.

Sustainability pledges: too little, too late?

Food retailers and food service providers

Food retailers and service providers are the largest buyers and suppliers of livestock products. They include multibilliondollar companies such as retailers Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Carrefour, Sainsbury’s, Delhaize, Tesco, M&S, and Whole Foods and food service providers such as McDonalds, Starbucks, Nestle and Sodexo158. McDonald’s, for example, reports beef and dairy purchases representing 2% of the global production159. Meanwhile, Starbucks reportedly uses 423 million litres of milk a year160. Food retailers are often accused of exploiting their effective monopoly as the biggest buyers of food, in order to provide customers with the lowest prices possible. Food retailers exercise tight controls over their specifications as to how food is produced, packaged, stored and delivered to them. They can do so because they often have direct contracts with selected farmers and favoured slaughterhouses and processing and packing companies161. They also employ third parties to regularly audit suppliers to ensure they are meeting the retailer’s standards. As part of the supply chain closest to the consumer, food retailers and food service providers face the greatest public pressure to ‘come clean’ on their operations. Sustainability plays an increasingly important element in their ability to gain and retain market share, often inducing them to make greater levels of information available. Over recent years, that has led indirectly to significant progress being made in improving the sustainability of egg production. That has been particularly successful in the UK, with major food service operators such as McDonald’s, Pret A Manger, Subway, Starbucks, KFC, Burger King and IKEA and big supermarket chains such as M&S, Waitrose, Co-Op and Sainsbury’s, having stopped, or planning to stop serving or selling non free-range eggs, either when whole oras an ingredient in a product162.

Food retailers and service providers, as the most customer facing organisations, are under growing pressure to guarantee sustainability of their products. Given increasing awareness of the impacts of meat and dairy production, these organisations are starting to put pressure on their upstream supply chain and examples of different initiatives have started to take place.

in parallel with achieving consumption reductions. This is based on the view that moving to more sustainable production systems combined with reducing global meat consumption, will be necessary to keep global warming below the ‘danger level’ of two degrees Celsius. Thus there is a push for what we are calling “Eat Less, but Better” meat and dairy. Although there is no concrete definition of ‘better meat’, it is understood to comprise three elements: animal welfare, sustainable land management (such as optimisation of pastureland and minimisation of land needed for feed production) and closer to organic production methods (such as non-GM feed, reduced use of antibiotics, etc.). However, there is no certification scheme that takes into account all three elements.

5.3

Market trends and key players in the better meat and plant based sectors

5.3.1.

The market for better meat and dairy

There is an emerging consensus across civil society that meat and dairy production improvements need to happen

An emerging movement in this area relates to livestock production reared under ’permaculture’ conditions, resembling traditional production systems (such as silvopastoral, etc.). This concept builds on sustainable aspects of production captured under organic certification, yet it seeks to go further by aiming to produce livestock under a closed local loop within which all inputs and outputs are provided and accommodated (animals are fed

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

on local resources, animal waste is used locally to fertilise animal farming, etc.)168. Similarly, biodynamic is a closed loop method of predominantly mixed farming (livestock, arable and horticulture) where the farm is a self-sustaining organism requiring far fewer external inputs. In practice, this means a commitment to crop rotation and composting, little or no tillage or application of chemicals, and employment of a system of water capture and reuse. In addition, the fact that many production labels exist at national level makes it more difficult for the consumer to navigate all the different schemes and understand what they mean. For example, in the UK there are several higher welfare labels - including “organic-Soil Association”, “Linking Environment and Farming”, “outdoor reared”, “free range” and “RSPCA assured”169. Although these production methods are better in terms of environmental pollution and animal welfare, they do not necessary decrease overall GHG impacts.

Also of note is that major FMCG companies are active in this space. Unilever for example has a clear strategy to pursue more plant based products and is using this claim in marketing. Ben & Jerry’s recently launched a high quality vegan range and Flora spreads relaunched a new product using the slogan “Powered by Plants179.

Increasing fish consumption is an obvious opportunity to improve health and reduce climate impacts, however doing so poses a number of challenges. World per capita fish consumption has grown steadily to a record high of 20 kg per year in 2014172, mostly driven by growth in aquaculture, which now provides more than half of all fish for human consumption. However, most marine stocks continue to be reported as either over or fully fished, with only 10% of the total being classified as underfished. The reduction of waste and post-harvest losses, and the replacement of fishmeal and fish oil in animal feeds with plant-based alternative sources of omega-3 and omega-6, such as algal products and hemp, seem to be the only strategies that will allow fish consumption to continue to grow.

The leader of plant-based products in Europe, Alpro180 (an EU subsidiary of WhiteWave), reported a turnover of €385 million in 2014 (including sales of organic dairy products). The UK leader, Quorn181, reported record sales of £150m in 2015, up 6.7% on 2013 sales, before being taken over by Philippine company Monde Nissin.

In contrast, consumption of pulses per capita has experienced a slow decline in both the developing and developed world, to an average of 7kg per year, although very large variations remain at country level173. Total pulse production174 stands at 78 million tonnes, with India, Canada and Myanmar being the largest pulse producers.

Therefore, it seems likely we will see the development of a more comprehensive, clearly-targeted and universallyadopted labelling scheme as more NGOs engage in this area. The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) or the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) are examples where stakeholders have come together and worked out certification criteria for one sector as a whole.

Food markets reflect a growing trend towards processed, plant-based, protein products. The share of food and drink products launched into the market carrying a vegetarian claim increased from 6% in 2009 to 12% in 2013. That trend is likely to continue and the value of the global market for meat substitutes alone is expected to reach US$4 billion and US$5.2 billion in 2016 and 2020 respectively175.

5.3.2.

Alternative sources of protein

The major protein-rich food groups other than livestock are fish and seafood, plant-based protein-rich foods (nuts, seeds, grains and pulses), meat substitutes (plant-based protein such as tofu, seitan, tempeh, fungi-based mycoprotein and algae), and so-called future foods (insect protein and laboratory-grown meat and dairy, etc.).

beliefs. In the US and EU, the number of vegetarians has also been growing over the past years, but it is believed to be well below 5% of the population. However, there is a growing trend towards flexitarianism (’part-time’ meat eaters), motivated by a combination of environmental, health and animal welfare concerns.

In this context, there are different views about what “efficient production” means and its relationship with sustainable or ‘better’ meat and dairy. For some, a ruminant feeding on unfertilised, unirrigated, natural grass and producing meat or milk is the epitomy of efficient production as it creates something from nothing with fewer undesirable outputs (soil & water pollution etc.) than industrial farming methods. But a counter view points to the extensively-reared cow’s high GHG emissions intensity and compares it with the ‘efficiency’ of a cow reared in an intensive livestock system that produces fewer emissions and requires less land per unit of production than the grass-fed cow170.

Despite recent trends towards higher consumption of meat products in its middle classes171, India continues to have one of the lowest levels of meat consumption in the world and the largest vegetarian population, at around 400 million people, driven by class, low average incomes and religious

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

5.3.3.

The market for processed, plant-based alternatives

To understand the potential for disruptive growth in this area, if the issue takes hold, it is important to understand the size and type of the companies involved. This will influence their capacity to invest and innovate to take plant based foods to scale if the market opportunity justifies it. In the US, the market leader focused on plant based foods (though not exclusively) is WhiteWave176, reporting global sales of US$3.8 billion in 2015, followed by Hain Celestial177, with sales of US$2.7 billion (both companies include some organic meat and dairy production). In addition there are smaller but more disruptive companies like Terravia178 which produces algal based ingredients and has partnerships with companies like Unilever.

5.3.4.

experience)”. Its focus is in isolating and testing plant proteins and other chemical properties, to build up a database of food properties that will enable it to synthesise the food experience of meat and dairy, using plant ingredients. It is a biotech, big data, and food production company; •

Perfect Day185 company. An early stage US start-up, using “synthetic biology techniques to synthesise the components of animal milk, without the animal”;

•

Clara Foods186, working towards a disruptive advance in food technology by creating the world’s first animal-free egg white;

•

Modern Meadow187. A US biotech start-up using tissue culture techniques to produce leather and meat;

•

Memphis Meats188. A US cultured-meat start up which recently demonstrated a lab-based meat ball;

•

Gelzen189. A US food commodity company start-up focusing on the development of “lab-produced gelatine, without the animal”;

•

The Not-company190. A Chilean based start-up using artificial intelligence to understand at a molecular level, how to combine plant-based ingredients in order to replace animal-based foods. Products under development include plant-based milk, mayo, yoghurt and cheese;

•

Gold & Green Foods191. A Finish-based plant-based company, with a pulled pork product made from oats and beans coming into the market in 2016;

•

Sunfed Meats192. A New Zealand based meat replacement start-up;

•

Kite Hill193. A US dairy replacement company pairing natural ingredients and patented biochemistry with traditional cheese- and dairy-making techniques to offer almond milk alternatives to traditional dairy products;

•

Miyokos Kitchen194. A US small brand, selling plantbased artisanal cheese and dairy replacements from cultured nut products;

•

Purple Carrot195. A US Plant-based meal delivery company providing “a subscriptions service where “”all of the pre-measured ingredients you need to create spectacular vegan meals, made with fresh, responsibly sourced ingredients”” are shipped to people.

Young, hip and trendy start-ups

Apart from the more established companies, many new businesses focused on new technologies to supply meat alternatives are starting to emerge, with a cluster forming around the Silicon Valley area. They are attracting strong media attention and significant venture capital funding, from sources such as New Harvest, and are being backed by many high profile US personalities like Bill Gates. Amongst these, a number of initiatives are worth mentioning. Beyond Meat182 is a leading US company focused on developing new meat replacements. Their mission is “ to create mass-market solutions that perfectly replace animal protein with plant protein, trying to make meat obsolete”. Launched in 2009, the company now has several mass market meat replacement products such as Beyond Burger, a 100% plant-based burger which bleeds beetroot juice. The company has received considerable venture capital funding from various sources, including Bill Gates, The Twitter Founder’s ‘Obvious Corporation’, Kleiner Perkins, and the Humane Society. Hampton Creek a US company focused on replacing animal foods as an ingredient in processed foods, replacing animalbased food ingredients and foods, by using big data and food technology to identify ways to replicate their properties. Their current product lines include: Just Mayo (an egg free mayo), Just cookie dough (an egg free cookie dough) and Just cookies (using the dough). Their selling point, is that they can replicate the food experience of products that use animal foods, but at a lower cost, with healthier ingredients. 183

In addition, examples of other start-ups with few or no products in the market include, •

Impossible Foods184. They describe themselves as “Another California-based company looking to create meat substitutes from plant based materials, that are direct replacements (i.e. recreate the meat eating

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

6. Key stakeholders and related activities

EUROPE

KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES MAP

UNITED STATES

OTHER COUNTRIES

OTHER INIITIATIVES

We have set out clearly above the inevitability of transformational change. This chapter identifies key organisations already working on reducing meat consumption and improving its production and provides a description of major initiatives being undertaken in this area. Our research suggests that interest in this area is rapidly accelerating, with hubs of activity forming particularly in the US and the UK, and to a lesser extent in other EU member states196. Moreover, it also highlights that the bulk of current work is aimed at changing consumer behaviour and influencing related policy. The fact that initiatives aimed directly at changing current business practices are few, suggests there will be rapid growth in market transformation campaigns. This is a common approach in modern NGO campaigns and so it is an opportunity others will see and pursue given our later conclusions regarding the “gathering storm” of interest.

6.1 Europe and UK Many NGOs - with headquarters in London and Brussels - are working to influence the markets and policy frameworks of different European countries. Some of them are also working beyond European borders, investigating supply chains and impacts of meat companies on the rest of the world.

Eating Better ♦ Eating Better is a UK-based alliance of NGOs advocating for a society with less dietary reliance on meat and meat-related products. They are the central ‘meeting point’ for many organisations working on this issue and, as such, are a key presence in the public-running of this campaign. At present they have 38 constituent members in their association, as well as 14 local community organisations, and a further 12 partner networks. The most relevant of these are listed below (marked with a ♦). Eating Better’s focus is promoting ‘less-but-better’ meat consumption and they take a holistic view of the issues the meat industry raises. As such, their organisational membership draws on a wide range of different disciplines, from health, environment, resource use, farming, social justice, animal welfare, and international development interests. They lobby and attempt to create change in three distinct areas: in government policy, in business practice, and at the individual consumer level. On the policy side, Eating Better’s efforts are focused on influencing the UK government to develop strategies aimed at reducing the country’s meat consumption in order to meet its international emissions reduction targets and Sustainable Development Goals (explained above). They also advocate for mandatory sustainable procurement standards for public institutions, such as hospitals, schools, and prisons. Their business-focused strategies include persuading food businesses to provide more plant-based meal options. That includes influencing UK high street brands - successfully in the case of Prêt-à-Manger - to offer more vegetarian options in their sandwich range. They also support and promote businesses and restaurants that choose to reduce the emissions’ impacts of the food they produce, in an attempt to give them more public presence and a better market share.

Their strand aimed at changing consumer behaviour supports projects that attempt to inform the public about their role in the meat production crisis. They recently commissioned a report, Let’s Talk About Meat: Changing Dietary Behaviour for the 21st Century197, which identified 10

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

ways to motivate a more plant-based diet within consumer groups in the UK. Finally, Eating Better provides a central platform for their members’ successes. While they have only a small campaigning capacity (which has recently been focusing on sustainable lunch options from major UK high-street brands), they run an active news-feed with links to official reports by their members.

WWF also regularly reports on progress made by “133 leading European retailers, food service companies, consumer goods manufacturers, dairy companies, meat, egg and feed companies on actions related to sourcing responsible soy and eliminating deforestation from the animal products they sell” in their Soy Scorecard. Criteria measured included transparency on total soy use, use of responsibly produced soy and efforts to remove deforestation and conversion of other natural habitats from soy supply chains200.

WWF UK ♦

Share Action ♦

WWF UK is the leading environmental organisation promoting dietary change in Europe and were amongst the first NGOs that started work on reducing meat consumption. They have a broad-based food campaign that looks at (a) encouraging key players in the UK food industry - retailers, food processors, governments and charities - to change the way we produce and consume food, and (b) raising awareness amongst consumers about the benefits - both dietary and environmental - of eating healthily. Both workstreams are aimed at reducing meat consumption.

Share Action is a charity that promotes responsible investment and greater transparency in the investment process. They write policy recommendations and try to create networks of investors and organisations that demand social and environmental value from their investments.

Starting with their Livewell for Life Project and campaign in 2010, WWF focused on both the public consumer and businesses within the food supply chain. Their LiveWell Plates provided examples of healthy, sustainable meals from different European countries (specifically France, Spain, and Sweden) to demonstrate the feasibility of sustainability within different national food styles. That programme ended in 2015. The other focus of this campaign was to look at the food supply chain as a whole and locate means of improving the sustainability of each link, from producer to consumer. That culminated in eight policy recommendations aimed at different members of the food production industry. Since then, WWF UK have furthered their commitment to healthy diets with their recent partnership with catering industry giant Sodexo and their proposed plant-based eating coalition. The latter aims to ensure the sourcing of sustainable plantbased food products for key food retailers and industry players, while championing healthy eating for individual consumers. WWF’s recent report Catering for Sustainability198 makes suggestions as to how the UK catering industry can make gains in the field of sustainability.

Most recently, WWF UK has been pursuing a campaign that shows links between certain food choices in the UK and habitat destruction around the world. Their recent efforts to Save the Cerrado199 demonstrate potential environmental damage in Brazil brought about by the food choices made by UK consumers.

They have a campaign on factory farming, which - alongside the work of Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return (FAIRR) (see below) - is aimed at exposing the risks of such livestock rearing models to the health of animals, people, and the environment. They work to try to shift investors’ money away from large-scale industrial farming, to smaller, more sustainable models. They focus on three main areas: • Animal welfare: exposes the poor conditions to which animals are subjected within such farming systems. • Social costs: highlights the impact of industrial farming on people via the increased risk of pandemics (e.g. swine ‘flu) or antimicrobial resistance and poor working conditions and loss of rural jobs created by societal conflict. • Environmental impact: work to tackle such a range of problems including: GHG,; soil degradation; deforestation; air and water pollution; intensive resource use; and biodiversity-loss. Other campaigns include work on corporate tax, digital rights, renewable electricity, and the living wage.

Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return (FAIRR) FAIRR wish to make more transparent the risks - such as pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, emissions, etc. associated with intensive farming, so that investors can make more reasoned choices. They outline that in their 2016 report Factory Farming: Assessing Investment Risks, which explores in-depth some of the inherent risks in industrial farming investments. FAIRR is partnered with Share Action to run ‘collaborative corporate engagement initiatives’ on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues of

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

factory farming. FAIRR’s work is aimed at businesses and potential investors in the farming industry. Their aim is to build a network of investors and to share knowledge of issues between them. A full list of their members includes major investors such as AVIVA, Triodos, etc. can be found in their website201.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) UK and other FoE groups around Europe ♦ FoE UK have been advocating for lower meat diets within their ‘Land, Food and Water’ campaigns. Their 2010 report Healthy planet eating: how lower meat diets can save lives and the planet202, sets out a blueprint for achieving greater global sustainability through the altering of UK consumer food choices. Much of their campaigning calls upon the public to bring about change via their purchasing choices. Their ‘cowculator’ shows how many emissions would be prevented if the UK public committed to a range of different eating scenarios. FoE UK also ask the public to sign a ’Let’s Eat Better’ pledge’”, which they will present to the government in due course. In return, FoE send out to consumers recipes and ideas for making sustainable eating easier and interesting. As part of their consumer-focused campaigns, they have started initiatives such as Meat-Free May203. FoE have a large network with presence in most countries. Many of their network members are working on land and resource use and land-grabbing - work in which the use of land for meat production features prominently. Two important recent reports include their 2014 Meat Atlas204 - which they wrote in cooperation with Heinrich Boell Foundation - and Europe’s Land footprint report published in 2016. Most FoE groups currently do not run any corporate or advocacy campaigns about meat consumption – most of their knowledge is focused on information sharing and awareness raising. Their Brussels office has been working to persuade the European Commission to adopt resource use indicators, which include land, water, GHG emissions and materials205.

Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming ♦ An alliance of over 100 organisations, Sustain is an established UK-based campaigning group for food and farming sustainability. In their own words, they ‘advocate food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improve the

working and living environment, promote equity and enrich society and culture’. Most recently, their work has focused on better awareness of food for children, combatting food waste, and reducing food poverty in the UK. Their campaigns Better Hospital Food and Sustainable Food Cities Network both promoted the consumption of fewer meat products. They also publish their own magazine, The Jellied Eel, which gives advice and ideas on sustainable eating.

Soil Association The Soil Association it a UK-based charity founded in 1947 on the premise of raising awareness of the importance of soils. Since then they have attracted over 27,000 members and grown to encompass aquaculture, forestry, textiles, and ethical trade. Significantly, they created the world’s first organic certificate in 1967 and now certify 80% of the UK’s organic food. They are strong advocates for better conditions for farm animals and for the greater use of organic farms.

Fairfood International ♦ Fairfood it a small seven-strong charity based in the Netherlands working towards a food production and supply system ‘in which people live and work in dignity, the environment is respected, and there is social and economic value for all.’ Within that, they work more specifically on living wage, occupational health and safety, and fair price - all campaigns with strong social emphases. They work with supermarkets and national agencies around Europe to help encourage the ethical sourcing of their products.

Forum for the Future (FFF) ♦ FFF are a UK-based charity, working towards sustainable futures in many areas. Transforming the food supply chain is one of their priorities and they are currently running a large international project The Protein Challenge 2040 on the future of global protein supply206. They describe this as ‘The first global coalition exploring how we feed nine billion people enough protein in a way which is affordable, healthy and good for the environment’.

Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP) WRAP are a UK-based charity committed to sustainable food resource use and waste reduction. WRAP has done relevant research quantifying the environmental impact of food waste and looking at future food systems. It has campaigned in the past about reducing the environmental impact of food (see their 2013 report An initial assessment of the environmental impact of grocery products)207. Meat production was

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

pinpointed as having a high environmental impact.

Greenpeace International ♦ Greenpeace International is committed to focusing on the ‘symptoms’ resulting from meat production and makes efforts to halt environmental degradation that allows the meat industry to grow. While they advise reduced meat consumption on US and international websites), they focus more on deforestation, mostly in the Amazon Basin (see their 2009 Slaughtering the Amazon208 report). That work has led to campaigns against cattle ranching and the call for a soy moratorium in the Amazon, which has subsequently been realised. Such work has widened in recent years to include the idea of producing food within ecological limits - see Greenpeace’s 2012 report Ecological livestock: options for reducing livestock production and consumption to fit within ecological limits.

Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) ♦ Although the primary objective of CIWF is animal welfare, they regularly publish reports, and campaign, on the environmental benefits of lower meat consumption - see their 2009 report Eating the Planet209 and 2005 report The global benefits of eating less meat210. Their current director, Philip Lymbery, is a powerful speaker on both the animal welfare and environmental aspects of livestock farming and is author of the book Farmageddon. CIWF are based primarily in the US and UK and they run campaigns on: • Antibiotics in meat production (they are the key founder of the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics) • Animal welfare (for egg production, chickens, pigs and intensive dairy) • Food labelling (working at the European level together with the RSPCA, Eurogroup for Animals, and Soil Association, they are demanding that industrial meat production is transparent) • Investigations (they have a special investigation unit that works undercover to document tragedies of industrial farming).

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

EEB is one of the biggest European federations of NGOs. They represent more than 150 member organisations from over 30 countries with a membership base of more than 15 million individuals/households. They are also a member of Green 10 and several other organisations. Together with BirdLife Europe they are the key organisation that works

on reform of the EU’s CAP. The last reform was aimed at the so-called ’greening of the CAP’ through changing the way that agricultural subsidies are distributed in Europe from the historical basis of production, to a new methodology based of respect for biodiversity and environmental services of the land. They are currently working on the negotiations around the EU’s Effort Sharing Decision, under which the emissions from agriculture will have to be addressed.

BirdLife Europe BirdLife Europe is a European office of BirdLife International and their members are organisations working to protect birds all over the world. Their biggest member is the UKbased organisation The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), with over 2 million members. BirdLife works a great deal on sustainable agriculture and is also one of the key organisations working on CAP reform and agricultural emissions. RSPB is currently working on a report looking at the mitigation options for European agriculture and analysing the European Commission’s current proposal on the Effort Sharing Decisions’ negotiations. It will also be engaged in the next stage of CAP reform and is working in coalition with other European NGOs on how to address that.

FERN Created in 1995, FERN is a UK-based NGO (with offices also in Brussels) that works on European and world forestry policy. Their work covers both the environmental and social aspects of forestry and aims to mitigate their impacts. In their own words, FERN’s mission is to achieve ‘greater environmental and social justice, focusing on forests and forest peoples’ rights in the policies and practices of the European Union.211 FERN focuses a great deal on the European land and forest footprint. In 2016 they published a report on the drivers of deforestation Financing Land Grabs and Deforestation: the role of EU banks and investors 212. Currently FERN are working on a study that looks into how European agricultural subsidies are driving forest destruction around the world. It is also working a great deal on the EU ESD negotiations on emissions from agriculture.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

of health aspects. It believes reducing meat consumption as having massive health benefits for Europeans (who, as we have set out above, usually over-consume meat and animal products); being a solution to climate change; and also reducing anti-microbial resistance caused by overuse of antibiotics in farming. EPHA also works on the upcoming CAP reform and EU ESD negotiations213.

Eurogroup for Animals Eurogroup for Animals represents issues of animal welfare in many EU advisory committees. Originally set up by the UK-based RSPCA in 1980, today it represents animal welfare groups from across the EU and its work has influenced the writing of EU policy and law. Eurogroup for Animals’ work on animal welfare includes running campaigns against castration of pigs and transportation of live animals. Its members often develop labels that assess more animal welfare-friendly ways to produce meat and then give these labels to retailers. Its ultimate objective is to reduce the use of animals in farming through more people adopting vegan diets.

Slow Food ♦ A global movement started in Italy in 1989, Slow Food now has with offices in the UK, US, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands and Brussels, as well as supporters in over 150 countries. It aims to re-engage people with the food that they eat, raising awareness and reducing the impact of the global food industry on local cultures and politics. Alongside Slow Fish and Slow Cheese, they have been operating a dedicated international Slow Meat campaign for the past 10 years. That aims to support small-scale farmers by encouraging people to eat less meat, but of better quality. The campaign also focuses on sustaining rarer farm animal breeds and supporting local food traditions. That is showcased every two years at the Slow Meat event (the next meeting is in Denver, Colorado in 2017) at which various stakeholders assemble to share their views.

European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) EPHA is an alliance of European NGOs advocating for improvements in health practices and policies. Its membership is made up of public health NGOs, patient groups, disease groups, and health professionals. Created in 1993, it has now grown to a network of over 90 members. EPHA comes to meat production issues from a health perspective. Their work covers environmental dimension

The Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity is an arm of Slow Food that specifically focuses on sustaining small-scale farming operations with the aim of preserving biodiversity. It promotes local food markets, rare or declining food varieties and traditional farming methods, and creates networks of chefs and producers.

IFOAM EU IFOAM - Organics International ensures that the organic voice is heard at both a regional and global level. Its vision is the worldwide adoption of ecologically, socially and economically sound systems that are based on the organic agriculture principles. At the European level, they work together with the NGOs in the Sustainable Farming Coalition. They are also working on a report on how we can produce meat in a sustainable, organic way.

Medact ♦ Medact it a UK-based public health NGO that has its own project on Sustainable Diets and Health. Medact works to promote sustainable diets - those that do not source products that negatively affect the environment in which they are grown or made. Reducing meat consumption is one of their recommendations for this.

British Dietetic Association (BDA) The BDA is a trade union for dieticians in the UK. It works primarily with the NHS and represents over 8,000 professionals in this field. It campaigns on all areas of malnutrition in the UK, including dietary and social aspects of healthy living. Their Policy on Sustainable Food214 recommends meat reduction as a means of achieving healthier living and they often run seminars on this topic.

Food Ethics Council (FEC) ♦ FEC is a small UK-based charity working with business and non-profits on all aspects of food system reform. Its three-pronged approach, People-Planet-Power, covers most environmental and societal aspects of food production. Working closely with WWF UK, FEC has recently produced many reports on the issue of over-consumption of meat, including: Prime Cuts: Valuing the Meat We Eat (2013) and Livestock Consumption and Climate Change: Progress and Priorities (2010).

Biodiversity International This is an Italian-based research organisation that has a longrunning focus on sustainable diets. Biodiversity International is committed to restoring food biodiversity and eradicating industrial farming practices. Its reports on sustainable foods (such as Healthy People Healthy Planet: linking diets to food production landscapes in 2015) do not stress the reduction of meat consumption above other solutions, but do suggest it within a range of other measures.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Sustainable Food Trust / Sustainable Food Alliance

6.2 United States

Worldwatch Institute

This is a recently-founded UK-based NGO, led by organic farmer Patrick Holden (former director of the Soil Association). It is focused on convening events and communications, and recently hosted a large, high profile event in San Francisco, The True Cost of Food, that showcased their concept of needing always to keep in mind external factors relating to food production. It a strong advocate of the role of grazing ruminants in increasing soil carbon storage.

My Plate My Planet†

This is a US-based organisation that analyses environmental data and writes reports on the need to live sustainably. It provides ideas for solving world sustainability for governments, enterprises, and citizens.

Chatham House Chatham House (otherwise known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs) is a UK-based think tank, which aims to engage governments and decision-making members of society in debate and discussion on leading international topics. Aside from organising discussion events, it conducts analysis of leading issues, including on the topics of climate and global health. Is it extremely engaged in the ideas of meat reduction and has highlighted that in its reports Livestock - Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector (2014)215 and Changing Climate, Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption (2015)216. It has also hosted events on this topic. Alongside Glasgow University, Chatham House also plans to conduct a global survey of dietary awareness - with particular emphasis on the meat and dairy industries - and attitudes towards dietary change217.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) PETA is a charity dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. It is the largest charity of its kind with 5 million members and supporters worldwide218 and operates from the US and the UK. PETA works through public education, research, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement and protest campaigns. It is a pro-vegan organisation and has conducted some of the most shocking and therefore most media-attracting campaigns against the consumption of animal products. Those include human meat packages219, smoking baby antimeat campaign220 and blood leather bags221, etc. More recently, PETA has been calling for a 10% tax to be introduced on meat products222.

This is a US-based online campaign to make global diets more sustainable. Like Eating Better, this campaign has attracted a significant following and is currently supported by over 200 environmental and health organisations (marked with †) It was involved in lobbying the US government change dietary guidelines and encouraged citizens to lobby their governments directly by posting comments on government websites. That was taken up by 29,000 people, 75% of whom advocated less meat production. So far, My Plate My Planet has not met with success in changing dietary guidelines. However, it had good press coverage in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and online on Politico.

Food Tank† Food Tank - a supporter of the My Plate My Planet campaign - is a US-based organisation, designed to promote innovative ideas to help improve food production and distribution system worldwide. It reports on successes and failures in this arena and gives coverage to food news. While it does not have a dedicated meat campaign, its website features a number of blogs and posts on the topic of meat and environmental impacts including Meat, Paris, and Next Steps (2015) and Lowering Meat Consumption, Reducing the Impacts of Climate Change (2016). Their president, Danielle Nierenberg, is also personally interested in the topic and authored numerous reports in she previously worked for Worldwatch.

Sierra Club† This large, high-profile US-based environmental conservation organisation has over two million supporters. Primarily involved in the designation and protection of America’s national parks, it has now expanded its campaigns to include issues such as climate change and clean water. Although it does not have a campaign on meat production, Sierra Club is widely in favour of reducing meat in diets and from time to time publishes blogs or articles on this topic. It also commits within its policies to reducing the carbon footprint of food consumption by encouraging more vegetarian and vegan diets.

It has a Food and Agriculture programme, within which the impacts of animal agriculture have been a major focus. Most recent of its relevant reports are Peak Meat Production Strains Land and Water Resources (2014) and Global Meat Production and Consumption Continue to Rise (2011).

World Resources Institute (WRI) WRI is a global research organisation that spans more than 50 countries, with offices in the US, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and more. Their 450 experts and staff work closely with leaders to turn big ideas into action to sustain our natural resources as the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. Their work focuses on six critical issues at the intersection of environment and development: climate, energy, food, forests, water, and cities and transport. On food, they have commissioned a report looking at food futures or how we can feed over 9 billion people without destroying the Earth’s ecosystems. One of the key conclusions of this report is that we should reduce the excessive consumption of animal products by the global upper and growing middle classes.

The Union of Concerned Scientists† Started in 1969, the Union of Concerned Scientists is a USbased coalition of scientists and citizens that tries to provide practical solutions to the world’s problems, most in the scientific/environmental arena. It publishes an in-house magazine, the Catalyst and Earthwise, three and four times per year respectively. The Union also often writes blogs that look at the science behind various claims, such as Cowspiracy and the science that underpins its numbers. It does a fair amount of work on drivers of deforestation focusing on corporations, such as palm oil sourcing, and in recent years have been keen to address meat consumption as one such driver.

Centre for Biological Diversity† This group is one of the most well-known and visible conservation organisations in the US.

This US-based NGO has a membership of 25,000 that works on the protection of endangered species, mostly within the US. It is a supporter and cofounder of the US My Plate My Planet campaign (see above). Its full-time Population & Sustainability programme runs dietary change campaigns to

reduce impact on wildlife. In addition to that, it runs a fulltime Take Extinction Off Your Plate campaign, advocating for reduced meat consumption in order to reduce the meat industry’s impact on wildlife. The group have several dedicated members of staff working on food consumption, meat reduction and agriculture.

Humane Society International (HSI) HSI is the international branch of The Humane Society of the United States and as such works across the world on broad issues of animal welfare. It is the largest animal welfare organisation in the world, with over 12 million members. It supports governments and NGOs in their efforts to create change in this sector, and gives policy recommendations to international bodies (International Whaling Commission, International Union for Conservation of Nature, etc.). Its Animal Agriculture and Climate Change campaign explores the negative impact of farming for global climates - see its 2014 report The Impact of Animal Agriculture on Global Warming and Climate Change 223. It also has a Humane Eating campaign, which advocates the reduction of meat in diets.

WildAid WildAid is a US-based conservation charity, most well known for its campaigns into illegal wildlife trade. It has campaigned for reduction in consumption of animal products in China. However, given the high likelihood of consumption of rare and endangered species in China, its past campaigns have stemmed more from conservation anxieties than those of public health. Nevertheless, WildAid has recently founded the ‘5 to do today’ campaign, fronted by James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger - an outreach to people in China to cut down on their resource and energy use in order to combat climate change. The campaign is focused primarily on transportation and food choices, and promotes the eating of less meat as an environmentally-friendly food option.

Rainforest Action Network US (RAN) RAN is a US-based environmental NGO committed largely to tackling corporate power and protecting forests. Its motto is ‘Environmentalism with Teeth’ and it is regarded widely as effective in mounting pressure and organising protest movements against companies and governments. Though not specifically involved in meat reduction campaigns, RAN looks at this topic through the lens of habitat destruction. Its first rise to prominence came from campaigning successfully for Burger King to drop beef contracts from Central American rainforest regions.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Environmental Working Group (EWG) EWG is a US-based environment & health non-profit that campaigns on a range of issues such as energy, food and farming, and water. It creates consumer guides helping people to make conscientious choices on a number of topics. Is has successfully created its own eco-label ‘EWG Verified’, which covers personal care products that conform to wideranging socio-environmental criteria224. EWG is primarily an awareness-raising group, but is joined by its sister company, EWG Action Fund, for lobbying activities. In 2011, EWG partnered with environmental analysis firm CleanMetrics, to cross-analyse the GHG emissions from different types of animal products with the health impacts of these food choices. This resulted in the 2011 report The MeatEaters Guide to Climate Change and Health 225 with the slogan ‘Reduce your impact. Improve your health’.

Greenpeace USA† Within Greenpeace USA’s Promoting Sustainable Food campaign, they have a dedicated ‘More Meat’ page that gives fact about the meat industry and highlights the dangers of increasing meat production on natural environments. Part of this campaign therefore is based on meat-reduction, alongside other issues such as protecting bees, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) & pesticides, and the impacts of corporate interests in farming. It also runs a side campaign I knew who grew it! which encourages global discussion and updates on local food initiatives.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) The PCRM is a non-profit research/advocacy organisation and a long-term campaigner for healthy diets. It is based in Washington D.C. but has 150,000 members around the world, including 12,000 physicians. Coming at this issue from the perspective of human health, PCRM is a strong advocate for vegetarian and vegan dietary choices. Its recent 21-Day Vegan Kick-start campaign is a means for citizens to engage with sustainable recipes, ideas and other resources.

National Resources Defence Council (NRDC) The NRDC is an international non-profit environmental advocacy group. Based in New York City, is also has other offices across the US and in Beijing. A wide-ranging group, it reports on topics such as health and food, as well as oceans conservation, climate change and energy.

Although it has not campaigned specifically for meat consumption reduction, NRDC is broadly supportive of

improving the meat industry, writing blogs on reducing antibiotic-use in animals and the creation of sustainable beef standards.

Brighter Green Brighter Green is a New York-based policy think tank focused on a three-pronged philosophy: ‘Equity, Sustainability, Rights’. It has a dedicated Food Policy and Equity campaign, through which it explores many facets of meat production. Its China Program looks at the increasing demands for meat in China (and its associated environmental impacts), culminating in a 30-minute documentary-film What’s for Dinner?226

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

sets out to educate children about healthy and sustainable ways of eating, both for themselves and the planet.

Less Meat Less Heat This Australian NGO sets out to encourage people to sign on to a ‘Climatarian Diet’ - an outlook that requires its followers to eat while being conscious of the carbon footprint of different foodstuffs. Although not advocating vegan diets directly, in practice, that is what this NGO proposes.

6.4 Global Initiatives World Meat-Free Day

Brighter Green has also looked at the effects of the growth of industrialised dairy production in Asia, resulting in a report Beyond The Pail227. It also supports the NYC Foodprint Resolution - an initiative to get local citizens to sign pledges to reduce their food carbon footprint. Meat reduction is a central focus for Brighter Green.

Small Planet Institute† Following publication of her bestselling book Diet for Small Planet (1971), Frances Moore Lappé, founded this organisation, alongside her daughter Anne. It focuses on world hunger, as well as issues of democracy in the developing world and covers meat consumption issues.

This UK-led initiative seeks to raise awareness of the negative effects of meat production on the environment by proposing that the world goes without meat for one day per year. It has membership support from many restaurants, chain brands, and celebrities and gets significant media attention.

Food Day A US-led equivalent to World Meat Free Day, Food Day raises awareness of healthier food practices for the US consumer by dedicating one day every year to better eating. It is run by CSPI (see above) and takes places on 24th October each year. The theme of the 2015 event was Towards a Greener Diet, and drew upon meat reduction as part of the sustainable diets section of the campaign. The campaign otherwise focused

on issues including access to healthy food, fair working conditions and hunger eradication. Food Day has a strong membership of over 120 partner organisations.

Meatless Mondays This is a US-based campaign created in 2003 in collaboration with the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It is now active in 36 countries, with cases of whole cities around the world pledging to become ‘meatless’. The campaign has adapted its campaign outreach to work with different sectors of society. As such, it looks to work with restaurants, food service companies, elementary schools, and universities. It also provides downloadable toolkits and resources for people who want to bring Meatless Mondays to their own community, school, etc. It has a large following of US brands.

Meat Free Mondays Run by Paul, Stella and Mary McCartney, Meat Free Mondays is a UK-based campaign set up in 2009 in response to the US’s Meatless Mondays (see above), to raise awareness of the impact of meat-production and eating meat. It uses its celebrity contacts to advertise the ideas of reduced meat eating, and works to persuade restaurants to provide more vegetarian options. Additionally, it creates teaching resources for schools to implement and teach students about the benefits of reucing meat consumption.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) CSPI is a US-based non-profit consumer advice organisation that campaigns for healthier and safer food policies. Founded in 1971, it has ongoing campaigns on eliminating junk food in schools, food labelling, and improving US food safety laws. CSPI comes at the issue of meat-reduction strictly from a health perspective and provides consumers with advice on healthy diet options. Meat reduction is only one part of a wider Healthy Diet campaign228.

6.3 Other parts of the World JUCCCE The Joint US-China Collaboration on Clean Energy is a China-based organisation primarily focused on sustainable energy in China. Though not focused specifically on meat consumption reductions, it has a programme of work focussed on sustainable diets’ called A New Way to EAT. That

Veganism and popular culture Vegetarianism, and especially veganism, is also largely driven by the popular culture and famous personalities, who became vegan and openly talk about it, often in their own capacity or as ambassadors for different environmental or animal rights organisations. Documentaries and other types of (social) media are also very important in awareness raising and behavioural change, as many people are shocked, when they find out about the negative impacts or ethical dimensions of meat and dairy production. In this box we briefly address these trends, which are becoming more and more common, as veganism is becoming more mainstream and losing its hippy edge. According the survey by the UK-based Vegan society the number of vegans in the UK has increased from 150,000 in 2006 to 542,000 in 2016, which is more than 350% growth over the decade, although most of the growth has happened over the last few years*.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Famous vegans**** They have given up meat for different reasons ranging from health and good looks to animal welfare. Many of them are ambassadors of PETA and other environmental or animal rights organisations and they come from all ranges of public life: from politics, movies to music. Famous vegans are often very outspoken and they have a lot of influence over the public – especially over young people. Many of them are also opening vegan restaurants (for example Moby opened Little Pine restaurant in New York*****), while others started their whole food brands, such as Linda McCartney’s vegetarian and vegan food company, with the same name.

Cowspiracy Cowspiracy is a 2014 documentary film directed by Californians Kip Anderson and Keegan Kuhn that investigated the impact of animal agriculture on the environment and why many environmental organisations are scared to start campaigns on this issue. The film had been featured on Netflix and widely watched. It presents scary statistics about the impacts of meat consumption on the planet as a personal journey of one of the directors, while he is uncovering the power of the farm lobby and conspiracy by environmental NGOs. The Union of Concerned Scientists and several other environmental organisations disputed the factual basis of the film’s claim that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by the meat industry, as this is not based on the peer reviewed science, but on the paper written by two former World Bank employees Jeff Anhang and Robert Goodland for the Worldwatch Institute**. The authors made several factual errors, when calculating their high figure (for more details see UCS’ blog). Nevertheless, the film had made a big impact and it is still inspiring numerous individuals to cut meat out of their diets and several NGOs to look into how they can take this issue more seriously. According to one blogger***, “all over the internet, there are stories of teenagers forcing their parents to watch it, and of whole families turning vegan, or at least vegetarian, as a result.” The organisation behind the film continues with screenings around the world, organises events and has a campaign on the internet to encourage people to take the one-month vegan challenge. They also have over 250k likes on Facebook. Despite the problems with their science, the Cowspiracy “phenomena” has had a very large impact on the debate and shows how the issue could “tip” with little warning.

*https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/vegans-veganism-fit-machosexy-beyonce-ufc-fighters-wellness-bloggers ** http://blog.ucsusa.org/doug-boucher/cowspiracy-movie-review *** https://newint.org/blog/2015/09/24/cowspiracy-documentary-vegan/ ****http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/celebrity/celebrity-galleries/2011/05/celebritieswho-are-vegan/viewgallery/1678280 ***** http://www.littlepinerestaurant.com

The ever growing list includes actors and directors such as Joaquin Phoenix, Brad Pitt, Alec Baldwin, Woody Harrelson, Natalie Portman, Pamela Anderson, Demi Moore, Michelle Pfeifer, Alicia Silverstone, James Cameron, etc.; musicians such as Brian Adams, Moby, Thom Yorke, Alanis Morissette, Stevie Wonder, Miley Cyrus; TV stars Ellen DeGeneres, politicians Bill Clinton, Al Gore and royals such as Spanish Ex-Queen Sofia.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

7. Campaigning approaches Based on our analysis of the NGOs working in this space, or considering doing so, this chapter looks at the campaigning approaches we think will unfold over the coming years. We break this into three areas: behavioural change, policy change and corporate campaigns targeted at big market players. Most of these campaigns are likely to aggregate around the theme of what we call “eat less, eat better”. There seems to be stakeholder consensus that this is the most successful campaigning approach because it aligns with the medical science and so does not alienate the target audience or provoke too much backlash. All the approaches described have enormous potential to build coalitions and to bring about transformative change, which will reach beyond the borders of individual countries, companies or regions.

7.1 Considerations for driving change

7.1.1

Behavioural change campaigns

At the moment, many NGOs are focused on convincing consumers to switch to more sustainable diets and on raising awareness about the damaging impacts of meat on the environment, health and the suffering of animals. A Chatham House study229 has shown that there is a significant lack of awareness globally about the negative impacts associated with current meat and dairy production and consumption levels. That is thought to be caused by low government interest in most countries, which has in turn led to low media interest. The study recommends that to avoid such messaging being met with resistance and scepticism, a stepwise approach, focusing first on issues of direct interest to the consumer such as health and potential cost savings from a diet richer in plant-based alternatives is implemented first. Ultimately, it concluded that changes needed to be introduced gradually, based on robust information and framed strongly around arguments about the public good. This gradual approach is incompatible with the rapid transformational needs outlined earlier, suggesting there will be more hard hitting and direct campaign emerging.

7.1.2

The gap between beliefs and actions

Many people state that they feel empathy for animal suffering and care about preserving the environment. Studies also show that even among meat eaters, those that limit meat consumption are often viewed admirably. Yet very few people worldwide actually take steps for ethical reasons to limit their meat consumption230. This discontinuity has been labelled the ‘meat paradox’ by social psychologists. Many attempts to explain it have tended to centre around the idea of ‘cognitive dissonance’. That is a psychological theory about how a person’s beliefs, attitudes, and their actions interrelate, and especially, how it can be so that a person can consistently act in a way contrary to their beliefs231. Cognitive dissonance theory states that holding inconsistent beliefs and actions is physiologically uncomfortable for humans and that as a result there are, broadly speaking, two courses of action that are then followed to resolve such discomfort: one can reject an action (in this case, meat consumption) in order to bring behaviour in line with moral ideals; or one can change challenging moral beliefs or attitudes to be in line with behaviour, either in actuality,

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

or through various psychological tactics and strategies that minimise the perceived discrepancy between beliefs and behaviours. One important such psychological strategy is the process of rationalisation232, involving the deployment of ‘reasonable justifications’ by meat eaters to defend their behaviour against moral criticism, either to themselves or in response to others. Research has shown that many different rationalisations exist, but that they can broadly be categorised into four interrelated archetypes - representing socially reinforced beliefs that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice - that when believed, reduce feelings of guilt in relation to meat consumption233. • • • •

Natural: our species evolved to eat meat; the body craves it; animals’ natural role is to be eaten. Normal: it’s what most civilized people do; our culture and tradition require it. Necessary: our bodies need meat in order to be healthy and strong. Nice: meat tastes great and the flavour is irreplaceable; eating meat is socially enjoyable.

Interestingly, new high-tech start-up companies such as Impossible Foods, that are trying to replicate accurately and replace the animal-based food eating experience using high-tech synthesis of ‘meat’ from plant-based ingredients - are deliberately challenging the notion that eating meat is necessary and that one has to forgo the nice aspect of meat eating, in order to be an ethical consumer. On the other hand, start-ups looking to produce so-called ‘lab meat’ avoid challenging at all the rationalisations that meat eating is normal, necessary, nice, or natural, but may in turn have problems with the perceived ‘naturalness’ of their product.

7.1.3

Meat and identity

Taking a wider perspective, meat consumption is intimately connected to issues of moral judgement, personal and group identity, as well as social status, where meat’s scarcity until recent history, established it as the preserve and indicator of elite persons, most often men234. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that positive attitudes towards meat consumption have been correlated to people’s worldviews, as defined by endorsement of social inequality and hierarchy235. In short, meat consumption is a complex issue that goes beyond technocratic notions of simply eating it on the basis of good nutrition or agricultural systems. It is an issue that is also deeply personal, cultural, and political236.

Different strategies to influence meat consumption are therefore likely to encounter limitations related to these

social and psychological factors. A good example is the decades of campaigning by animal rights activists, which has made relatively little impact on overall dietary trends despite relatively high recognition. Such campaigning has been shown to be polarising, seen by omnivores as a form of moral condemnation. That has been shown psychologically to lead to rejection of both the arguments and those making them, thereby making terms such as vegan and vegetarian more than just dietary labels, but polarising badges of identity237. A survey looking at current and former vegetarians and vegans in the US provides a good illustration of this phenomenon: 84% were found ultimately to have switched back to being omnivore, and of those, 65% said they disliked how their diet had made them ‘stick out’, while 58% said they could not conceive their new diet as part of their identity238. Conversely, studies have shown that those who stick with vegetarian and vegan diets in the longer term are more likely to have become part of diets-related social networks and to have come to see their eating pattern as part of their self-identity239. In response to this ‘identity issue’, there has been considerable recent diet-related social innovation. Terms such as ‘flexitarian’, ‘reducitarian’ and ‘plantbased’ are all now used to identify those adopting low or no-meat diets, but with softer or indeed, no specific connections to perceived absolutist moral positions on meat which have typically been associated with veganism and vegetarianism240. On the other hand, there is still considerable movement, often led by celebrities as seen in the previous section, to make veganism more “sexy” and more mainstream. A classic example of the connection between meat and identity is the long-standing cross-cultural relationship between meat consumption, gender, and conceptions of masculinity3. In addition to gender, many other demographic factors such as ethnicity, nationality, class, urban proximity, and educational attainment, have also been shown to be connected to both the level and types of meat consumption241.

7.14

What motivates consumption change?

Of people who actively choose to reduce their meat consumption, most do so for some combination of: concern for animal welfare; concern for the environment; concern for health; concern over cost; or disgust at meat’s sensory properties242,243. In general, factors that are perceived to impact personal well-being directly are found to be stronger motivators than those with more indirect, intangible benefits244. That is illustrated by a 2014 survey covering 18

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

countries, which found that environmental reasons ranked last (17%) behind cost (56%), health (51%), food safety (31%), and animal treatment (29%), as an ‘important’ reason for those reducing meat consumption245,246,247. Studies looking at environmental impacts as a motivating factor for reducing meat consumption have consistently shown that their impact is limited, even among those with high concern about environmental issues such as climate change. In part, that may be because awareness and understanding of the connection between meat consumption and environmental issues such as climate change, is very low compared to other issues. Focus groups have also found that people struggle to understand how meat consumption connects to environmental impacts248,249. That leads us to three initial conclusions. Despite this having been one of the key areas of work for NGOs to date, there is still little awareness among consumers about the impacts of their choices. Second, most NGO’s campaigns are being conducted under the umbrella formulation of ’eat less and better produced meat’. This messaging seems to have been useful in rolling out many initiatives which are starting to gain traction. The campaigns that result from this are Meatless Mondays, World Meat-free Day and campaigns for animal welfare, such as Turn Your Nose Up, which is working with celebrities to encourage consumers to buy organic pork250.

issues of animal agriculture are the very close ties between the farm lobbies and policy-makers in most countries. Farmers in rich countries are very reliant on subsidies. In the EU, farmers receive around €200 of taxpayers’ money per hectare of land251. Subsidies annually cost the EU some €58 billion and l represent almost half of the EU budget252. In the US, similar subsidies amount to US$20 billion per year253. On both continents most of the money goes to rich big farmers, producing staple commodities and meat. Such money and power makes them a potent political force, which has resulted in environmental reforms being unsuccessful both in the EU- where greening of CAP has failed - and in the US, where public policy has become a major driver for unsustainable practices - such as extensive fertiliser use and subsidised meat-based diets- with little hope for a change in the near future. Although farmers are few, they are loud and very well organised to push successfully against unpopular reforms. Many smaller farmers feel the pain of this system as well, but it remains to be seen whether they will be willing to break ranks in future rounds of reform. Nevertheless, policy change is an area that has not been neglected. We believe that future campaigns will be based around a combination of existing or new possible approaches:

Our most important conclusion however is that all current approaches are designed for a gradual rate of change which is quite incompatible with the rapid transformational needs outlined earlier. This will, in our view, inevitably lead to more hard hitting and direct campaigning with a corporate focus. This shift was observed on the broader climate campaign as well.

7.2

Policy change campaigns

Campaigns directed at policy advocacy are very attractive to NGOs, because they usually result in legislative change that has to be applied across a country or a region (in the case of the EU) and is considered relatively permanent. Legislation also has a certain spill-over effect: if an important market, such as the EU or US, adopts a progressive policy, that will affect any company and farmer that wants to export to those markets and the benefits will largely influence supply chains and raise standards across the globe. The opposite is also true: if a big market puts in place a damaging policy, that will have trigger impacts around the world. An interesting example is the EU biofuels policy, which triggered global land-use change, land grabbing and food price changes. A major difficulty with running policy campaigns on the

• • • •

campaign to start a meat tax; campaign to address climate and environmental impacts of agriculture; labelling campaigns; campaigns aimed at changing dietary guidelines and health recommendations about the consumption of meat and dairy.

In the UK, alternative campaigns may be focused in influencing post-Brexit agricultural policy, as a new farming support scheme will need to be developed254.

7.2.1

Campaign on meat tax

Taxing negative environmental practices or health habits has a clear precedent (for example tobacco) and it is also proven that it delivers. According to a book Meatonomics by Robinson Simon255 the total external cost of US animal food production is US$414.8 billion. Taxing meat would internalise part of this externality, providing more accurate price signals to consumers and leading to an important shift in consumption patterns. He calculated that a 10% increase in prices results in a 6.5% decrease in consumption due to elasticities on animal products (as set out in earlier chapters). In addition, it would bring a significant amount of revenue,

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

with a 3% tax generating around US$7.4 billion256. In that context, Robinson Simon envisaged a meat tax as being applied at a fixed rate to all foods that contained any animal product. However, the approach could be applied in different ways, with the tax applying equally to all animal containing products or proportionally to the final animal content. The former approach is most likely to lead to the replacement or elimination of animal ingredients in processed foods where these are not the main ingredient. Exemptions or reductions could be applied to the most sustainable production schemes and the revenue collected could be redistributed amongst taxpayers to make sure that their ability to purchase food overall is not compromised. Society already taxes many harmful items, such as cigarettes, alcohol and fuel. For example, the average cigarette tax in the US is 72%257. In some countries such as the UK a sugar tax is also starting to be levied. There is a body of evidence that taxation works in shifting consumption patterns and that it is a good policy decision in areas where there are many externalities. Such an approach can be sold to governments, as a package that reduces labour taxes and introduces taxes on environmentally harmful activities. In most countries, meat is a relatively small employer and farmers can shift to production of other crops, if meat demand goes down as a result of taxation. Although PETA is currently calling for the introduction of a 10% tax on meat, activities under this approach seem to have had more traction in the EU where this issue has already been discussed in light of the climate crisis. In Denmark, for instance, one of the biggest meat producers in the EU, the government think-tank Danish Council of Ethics has already called for it.258 In the UK, Parliamentary petitions on this issue have been introduced in the past.

7.2.2 Campaign to address climate impact of agriculture We have seen in earlier chapters that it is becoming increasingly clear that we cannot meet our climate targets without addressing emissions from agriculture. However, agriculture seems to be something of a forgotten sector and politicians are especially unaware of the “easy” solution to the climate impacts of agriculture: rapidly reducing demand for meat and dairy. We believe that work in this area may emerge as part of the on-going EU legislative process on the Effort Sharing Decision (ESD), which puts in place national targets for sectors that are outside of the Emission Trading Scheme, including agriculture.

This is because the current proposal sets a 30% GHG reduction target from ESD sectors by 2030. However, GHG

reduction trajectories required to meet climate goals agreed in Paris would require a 45% GHG reduction in ESD sectors. In addition, the proposal contains a number of flexibilities and accounting rules (allowing countries to credit excess GHG reduction efforts under traded sectors, land use and afforestation, etc.) that could lead to certain sectors, particularly politically sensitive ones such as agriculture, being let off the hook259. Several NGOs will be working on the EU legislative process of setting these targets and on their implementation at the national level.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

market share. The animal agriculture sector has in the past been the subject of many successful campaigns that have transformed the practices of main companies. For example:

popular meatballs is another example of success268. Similar work includes WWF’s partnership with Sodexo to modify meal recipes in line with nutritional and environmental guidelines, which has led to the replacement of meat with fruit and vegetables.

As a result of NGO campaigns, several major food companies (Subway, McDonalds, Wendy’s) are dropping the use of antibiotics in their meat, or reducing the use of antibiotics important to humans261; Several US companies have also committed to phase out gestation crates (i.e. small metal cages used for pigs) from their supply chains, as a result of animal rights campaigns262; Greenpeace and other NGOs have run a successful markets campaign to end deforestation for soy in the Amazon, which included pressuring traders and consumer-facing food companies263; a similar campaign model is being applied to stopping deforestation from palm oil production264; Most UK supermarkets have or are committed to source their eggs from cage-free hens265.

In addition, this type of work is likely to attract celebrities such as famous vegans and environmentally/health-minded celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver269 - who campaigns on improving nutrition of school dinners, preventing child obesity and introducing a sugar tax - and Hugh FearnleyWhittingstall270- who campaigns on reducing food waste, overfishing, etc.

China recently made headlines by reducing by 50% the recommended meat intake in dietary guidelines for its citizens. If followed, that move would have both health and climate benefits. There has been much talk around the world about sustainable diets and a host of new dietary guidelines – including from UK, Netherlands and Sweden - are raising the profile of sustainable diets among health professionals and the public. Such a campaign is likely to focus on the health benefits of reducing meat consumption and target health professionals, health and environment ministries, and potentially also food safety agencies).

There is much potential in running market transformation campaigns on meat consumption. We envisage campaigns being developed on the following four key approaches: 1. Campaign to reduce consumption of meat by offering meat-free alternatives; 2. Campaign aimed at processed food producers or suppliers to reformulate their foods towards lower meat content; 3. Improve transparency via labelling; 4. Campaigns towards the specific meat or dairy companies.

Campaigners could well target producers, food service providers or retailers of such ’poisonous foods’. There are several angles that may be taken i.e. warning consumers that their meal causes cancer, supply chain investigations for scandals, and influencing consumer’s choice through awareness raising of negative environmental impacts of such meals.

7.3

Such campaigns are likely to focus on retailers, restaurants, catering companies and public authorities and encourage them to increase the share of meat-free options for meals. The messaging would be around positive health and other benefits of vegetable alternatives and may be done in a very engaging way, such as via social media, with celebrity chefs, etc.

7.2.3

Labelling

Several NGOs, especially those working on animal welfare, are very keen to introduce requirements for the labelling of European animal products. That would follow the labelling of free range eggs that has been very successful in shifting demand. More recently, a campaign from CiWF in the UK has led to all major supermarket brands committing to stop sourcing eggs from caged hens in the near future260.

7.2.4

Dietary guidelines and health recommendations

Corporate campaign approaches

Corporate campaigns are aimed at companies and targeted to change corporate behaviour. Regulators are very close to the farm lobby and consequently often very reluctant to propose regulations that would slash farmers’ benefits or oblige them to improve their practices. Therefore, corporate campaigning is a likely way to achieve change in the agricultural sector faster, with less opposition. We’ve seen this happen on climate more broadly with target companies demonised, such as the Exxon campaign by 350.org. Successful corporate campaigns also have wider reaching impacts than behavioural change campaigns. That is because if a big company changes its corporate policy and gets reputation or market benefit from doing so it often leads to wide ranging implications, both on that company’s supply chains and on their competitors, who often feel obliged to follow or lose

•

7.3.1

Campaign to reduce consumption of meat by increasing the share of meat-free alternatives

Ongoing campaigns that fall under this approach include Eating Better’s ongoing work with retailers in the UK to increase the number of meat-free lunch alternatives offered in their shops266. Successful initiatives include the opening of Pret A Manger’s Veggie Shop in London’s Soho267, which resulted in a 70% sales increase, despite predictions of losses. Pret A Manger it now considering turning every fourth of its shops into a Veggie Shop. IKEA’s recent introduction of veggie balls in its restaurants as an alternative to its

7.3.2

Campaigns against the worst meat: processed red meat

Processed red meat is probably the most damaging meat available. As set out in earlier chapters, it has been identified as a carcinogenic; it is ripe with scandals (such as the horse meat fraud); it is often the worst produced meat; and it is used as an ingredient in generally unhealthy meals that contain much salt and other additives.

7.3.3

Campaigns to improve transparency of meat in the supermarkets/food service operators

Such campaigns are aimed at deliver labelling transparency objectives in line with the labelling or certification processes described above, by putting pressure on food retailers and food service providers to make this information public. Food retailers and food service providers have had negative media exposure about the lack of transparency of their meat products. In 2013, big giants such as Tesco had to issue a public apology for having lost sight of their supply chain271, following the adulteration of many processed beef products with horsemeat. More recently, Tesco have been accused of creating fictional English farm names to label imported meat products272. In addition, as a result, KFC changed its marketing strategy, focusing on provenance and traceability. McDonald’s, which was not implicated, launched a nationwide ‘provenance push’, while a number of other food companies also reassessed their supply chains273.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

8. Conclusions

7.3.4

Aggressive corporate campaigns

towards the worst meat/feed processing companies

This has often been the traditional campaigning approach for raising animal welfare issues in the past. Under covered investigations of worst livestock producers, pressure on most customer facing parts of the supply chain, etc. Concentration of influence and power in meat and feed companies is quite high – especially in the US market, where five companies control most of the production – making them particularly vulnerable to campaigning work. Changing actions of a few players can have major implications on the market. So far, this stream of work has been neglected or focused just on animal welfare. This type of campaigning could also build on recent documentary movies and other types of investigations, such as discovery of antibiotic resistant bacteria on meat samples taken in the UK.

A number of key conclusions can be drawn out from this review. There is a growing amount of research highlighting the huge negative impacts associated with current consumption levels of livestock products, and the associated production methods supporting them. The case for change is now so compelling on environmental, climate and health grounds that the question is not whether change needs to happen but when and how it will happen. Concerns around the impacts of livestock production have been known for years. However, telling people to cut down on meat was traditionally seen as a no-go area for many advocacy organisations fearing a backlash of the public and their members. This is fast changing – a growing number of partnerships between NGOs, research organisations and celebrities are breaking this silence. Many initiatives targeted at changing consumers’ behaviour, existing policy and demanding businesses responsibilities are being rolled out and starting to yield results. The message for industry is simple- don’t let a crisis go to waste. Some progressive industry organisations are starting to listen and are taking action by improving their production methods and benefiting from the shift towards alternative products i.e. sales of meat alternatives and organic products continue to increase; innovative products proving solutions are emerging, young consumers are leaning towards moderation, etc. All the evidence points in one direction and so companies have to make one decision – surf the wave or be washed away.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

References 1.

3. 4.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 58

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/ meat/backgr_sources.html Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, retrieved from: http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/ClimateChange-Ag Bailey, R., Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. (2014). Livestock– Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. Chatham House. Bajželj, B. et al. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 924–929. Earth Overshoot Day 2016. Retrieved from http://www. overshootday.org Foley, J. A. et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. The Guardian, How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction, 20.10.2015. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/ oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction Reiter, E. (2014). Making Fast Food: From the Frying Pan into the Fryer. Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/ international/21594348-lot-can-be-done-make-meat-eatingless-bad-planet-meat-and-greens Thornton, P. et al. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010 365 2853-2867. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Reiter, E. (2014). Making Fast Food: From the Frying Pan into the Fryer. Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from: https://www.foe.co.uk/ sites/default/files/downloads/factory_farming.pdf Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/ meat/backgr_sources.html US Census. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/ popclock/ US Department for Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://apps. fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.PDF Poultry Trends. Retrieved from http://www.poultrytrends. com/#&pageSet=14 Quartz. Retrieved from: http://qz.com/235085/india-75million-dairy-farms-now-make-more-milk-than-all-of-theeuropean-union/ Robinson, T.P. et al (2011) Global livestock production systems. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research

Institute (ILRI), 152 pp. 21. Food Safety News. Retrieved from: http://www. foodsafetynews.com/2012/01/european-union-bans-batterycages-for-egg-laying-hens/#.V7iNy1fw_ow 22. BBC, Housewives celebrate end of rationing, 04.07.1954. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/ stories/july/4/newsid_3818000/3818563.stm 23. Simon, D.R. (2013). Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much–and How to Eat Bette r, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter. Conari Press. Berkeley, CA. 24. ibid. 25. ibid. 26. ibid. 27. Sans, P. and Combris, P. (2015) World meat consumption patterns: an overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011), Meat Science, 109, pp. 106–11. 28. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from https://www.foeeurope. org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_hbf_meatatlas_ jan2014.pdf 29. Weis, T. (2013). The ecological hoofprint: The global burden of industrial livestock. London: Zed Books. 30. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from: https://www.foeeurope. org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_hbf_meatatlas_ jan2014.pdf 31. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/news/ international/21594348-lot-can-be-done-make-meat-eatingless-bad-planet-meat-and-greens 32. FAO (2012). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/ 33. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 34. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1522e/i1522e02.pdf 35. International Egg Commission. Retrieved from: http:// www.internationalegg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ atlas_2013_web.pdf 36. Thornton, P et al. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365 2853-2867. 37. Carbon Brief. Retrieved from: https://www.carbonbrief.org/ why-fossil-fuel-divestment-wont-be-easy 38. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 39. Forbes. Paris Agreement Portends A Reckoning For Meat And Dairy, 01.01.2016, Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/ sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/01/01/paris-agreement-will-impactmeat-and-dairy/#2e0c699b696d 40. Gerber, P. J. et al (2013) Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation

41. 42.

43. 44.

45.

46. 47.

48. 49.

50. 51.

52.

53.

54.

55. 56.

57.

58.

59.

Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. ibid. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/ meat/backgr_sources.html Ranganathan, J. et al. (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA. World Resources Institute. Creating a Sustainable Food Future : A menu of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050. World Resour. Rep. 2013-14 130 (2013). Bajželj, B. et al. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 924–929. European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/ clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm Climate Action Tracker. Retrieved from: http:// climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/ CAT_Bonn_policy_update_jun2014-final_revised.pdf ibid. 49 Gerber, P.’s presentation at “Methane to Markets Partnership Expo”. Retrieved from https://www. globalmethane.org/expo-docs/china07/postexpo/ag_gerber. pdf Foley, J. A. et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Kato, E. & Yamagata, Y. (2014). BECCS capability of dedicated bioenergy crops under a future land‐-use scenario targeting net negative carbon emissions. Earth’s Future, 2(9), pp.421439. Smith, P. et al. (2016). Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6(1), pp., 42-–50. Rogelj, J. et al. (2015). Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environmental Research Letters (10), p., 105007. Stehfest, E. et al. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic change, 95(1-2), pp., 83-–102. Gerber, P. J. et a.lal (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Mulhollem, J. (2015). Feed supplement greatly reduces dairy cow methane emissions. Penn State News. August, 4. Science Daily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2015/08/150804160930.htm Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3288e/ i3288e.pdf Gerber, P. J. et al (2013) Tackling Climate Change Through

60. 61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Ranganathan, J. et al. (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Bajželj, B. et al. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 924–929. Bryngelsson, D., Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F. and Sonesson, U. (2016). How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy, 59, pp.152-164. Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Börjesson, P. (2015). Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production,91, pp.1-11. Heller, M. C. and Keoleian, G.A. (2015). Greenhouse gas emission estimates of US dietary choices and food loss. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(3), pp.391-401. Scarborough, P., Allender, S., Clarke, D., Wickramasinghe, K. & Rayner, M. (2012). Modelling the health impact of environmentally sustainable dietary scenarios in the UK. European journal of clinical nutrition, 66(6), pp., 710-–715. Jones, C.M. and & Kammen, D.M. (2011). Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for US households and communities. Environmental science & technology, 45(9), pp. Environ. Sci. Technol. 4088-–4095.

67. UK Department for Energy and Climate Change. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/398596/Global_calc_report_ WEB.pdf 68. Thornton, P.K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences. 365(1554), pp., 2853-–2867. 69. Machovina, B., Feeley, K.J. and Ripple, W.J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, pp.419-431. 70. Pimm, S. et al. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344 (6187), 1246752–1246752. 71. WWF. (2014). Living Planet Report 2014: species and spaces, people and places. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. 72. 72 WWF. (2015) Living Blue Planet Report. Species, habitats and human well-being. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. 73. 73 Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of The Total Environment, 536, 419– 431. 74. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 75. Westhoek, H. et al. (2011). The Protein Puzzle: The Consumption and Production of Meat, Dairy and Fish in the European Union. European Journal of Nutrition and Food

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Safety, 123–144. 76. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/ meat/backgr_sources.html 77. Smil, V. (2013). Harvesting the biosphere: what we have taken from nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 78. Foley, J. A. et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. 79. Venter, O. et al. (2014). Targeting Global Protected Area Expansion for Imperiled Biodiversity. PLoS Biology, 12(6). 80. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B.L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20260–20264. 81. Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J. & Ripple, W. J. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 536, 419–431 (2015). 82. Alexander, P. et al. (2015). Drivers for global agricultural land use change: the nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Global Environmental Change, 35, 138–147. 83. European Commission (2013) The impact of EU consumption on deforestation : Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. 84. Sandilyan, S. & Kathiresan, K. (2012). Mangrove conservation: a global perspective. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(14), 3523–3542. 85. Van Asselen, S., Verburg, P.H., Vermaat, J.E. & Janse, J.H. (2013). Drivers of wetland conversion: A global meta-analysis. PloS One, 8(11). 86. Gibbs, H.K. et al. (2010). Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16732–16737. 87. Kastner, T., Rivas, M.J.I., Koch, W. & Nonhebel, S. (2012). Global changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(18), 6868–6872. 88. Bajželj, B. et al. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(10), 924–929. 89. Erb, K.H. et al. (2016). Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nature communications, 7. 90. Tuck, S. L. et al. (2014). Land‐-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: A hierarchical meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, J. Appl. Ecol. 51(3), pp., 746-–755. 91. Hosonuma, N. et al. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 044009. 92. European Commission (2013) The impact of EU consumption on deforestation : Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. 93. Persson, M., Henders, S. and Kastner, T. (2014). Trading

Forests: Quantifying the Contribution of Global Commodity Markets to Emissions from Tropical Deforestation. Centre for Global Development. 94. European Commission (2013) The impact of EU consumption on deforestation : Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. 95. Kroes, H., & Kuepper, B. (2015). Mapping the soy supply chain in Europe: A research paper prepared for WNF. Profundo. 96. WWF. (2014). The Growth of Soy: Impacts and Solutions. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. 97. Kroes, H., & Kuepper, B. (2015). Mapping the soy supply chain in Europe: A research paper prepared for WNF. Profundo. 98. WWF. (2014). The Growth of Soy: Impacts and Solutions. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. 99. Powell, T.W. & Lenton, T.M. (2013). Scenarios for future biodiversity loss due to multiple drivers reveal conflict between mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 025024. 100. Ripple, W.J. et al. (2015). Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances, 1(4). 101. Krausmann, F. et al. (2008). Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 471–487. 102. Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. (2008). Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annual review of environment and resources, 33(1), 153. 103. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United (2016). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. 104. 104 Shepherd, C.J. and Jackson, A.J. (2013). Global fishmeal and fish‐oil supply: inputs, outputs and markets. Journal of fish biology, 83(4), 1046–1066. 105. Tacon, A.G. & Metian, M. (2015). Feed matters: satisfying the feed demand of aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 23(1), 1–10. 106. Shepherd, C. J. & Jackson, A. J. (2013) Global fishmeal and fish-oil supply: Inputs, outputs and markets. J. Fish Biol. 83, 1046–1066. 107. Ripple, W.J. et al. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science, 343(6167), 1241484. 108. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (rep.). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 109. Ibid. 110. COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING (2016) Cheap Food Costs Dear. London. 111. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 112. Gerber, P. J. et al. (2014). Nutrient use efficiency: a valuable approach to benchmark the sustainability of nutrient use in global livestock production? Current Opinion in Environmental

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

Sustainability, 9, pp.122-–130. (2014). 113. Leip, A., Weiss, F., Lesschen, J. P. and& Westhoek, H. (2014). The nitrogen footprint of food products in the European Union. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 152(S1), pp.20-33. 114. Metson, G. S., Bennett, E. M. and& Elser, J. J. (2012). The role of diet in phosphorus demand. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), p., 044043. 115. Sutton, M.A. et al. (2011). Too much of a good thing. Nature, 472(7342), pp.159-–161. 116. Steffen, W. et al (2015) Planetary Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science Magazine. Published online 15 January 2015. 117. Sutton, M. a et al (2011) Too much of a good thing. Nature 472, 159–161. 118. Wellesley, L., Happer, C. and Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing Climate, Changing Diets. Chatham House. 119. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2015) IARC Monographs Evaluate the Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat. Available at https://www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf. 120. BRITISH NUTRITION FOUNDATION (2016) Healthy eating for vegans and vegetarians. Available at https://www.nutrition. org.uk/healthyliving/healthyeating/vegan-and-vegetarian. html. 121. Treating diabetes costs 10% of the UK National Health Service. Retrieved from https://www.diabetes.org.uk/ Documents/Diabetes%20UK%20Cost%20of%20 Diabetes%20Report.pdf 122. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2015) IARC Monographs Evaluate the Consumption of Red Meat and Processed Meat. Available at https://www.iarc.fr/en/mediacentre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf. 123. Willett, W. (2001). Eat, drink, and be healthy: The Harvard Medical School guide to healthy eating. New York, Simon & Schuster Source. 124. Wellesley, L., Happer, C. and Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing Climate, Changing Diets. Chatham House. 125. COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING (2016) Cheap Food Costs Dear. London. 126. O’Neill, J. et al (2015) Antimicrobials in Agriculture and the Environment: Reducing Unnecessary Use and Waste. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. London. 127. SumOfUs (2015) Bad Medicine: How the pharmaceutical industry is contributing to the global rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/ s3.sumofus.org/images/BAD_MEDICINE_final_report.pdf 128. COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING (2016) Cheap Food Costs Dear. London. 129. ibid. 130. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2016) General Q&A New EU Regulation on transmissible animal diseases (“Animal Health Law”) March 2016. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/ animals/docs/ah-regulation-qanda_ahl_proposal.pdf 131. Steinfield, H. (2010). Livestock in a changing landscape.

Volume 1. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Retrieved from http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord. aspx?p=3317534. 132. ibid 133. Brack, D. et al (2016) Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains: Trade, Consumption and Deforestation. Chatham House: London 134. Steinfield, H. (2010). Livestock in a changing landscape. Volume 1. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Retrieved http:// public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3317534. 135. Brack, D. et al (2016) Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains: Trade, Consumption and Deforestation. Chatham House: London 136. United States Department for Agriculture. Retrieved from http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_ poultry.PDF 137. Brack, D. et al (2016) Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains: Trade, Consumption and Deforestation. Chatham House: London 138. International Egg Commission. Retrieved from http://www. internationalegg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ atlas_2013_web.pdf 139. Brack, D. et al (2016) Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains: Trade, Consumption and Deforestation. Chatham House: London 140. News. Retrieved from https://www.rt.com/business/270463china-russia-milk-farm/ 141. Watt Global Media. Retrieved from http://www.wattagnet. com/directories/81-the-world-s-leading-feed-producers 142. ibid. 143. Brack, D. et al (2016) Agricultural Commodity Supply Chains: Trade, Consumption and Deforestation. Chatham House: London 144. WWF. Retrieved from of http://soyscorecard.panda.org 145. JBD annual report. Retrieved from http://relatorioanual.jbs. com.br/desempenhofinanceiro/en/ 146. Global Meat News. Retrieved from http://www. globalmeatnews.com/Financial/Brazil-JBS-profits-hit-by-rawmaterial-costs 147. The National Provisioner. Retrieved from http://www. provisioneronline.com/2016-top-100-meat-and-poultryprocessors 148. Watt Global Media. Retrieved from http://www.wattagnet. com/directories/79-the-world-s-leading-pig-producers-andprocessors 149. Danish Crown. Retrieved from http://annualreport2015. danishcrown.dk/media/1045/numbers_uk.pdf 150. Archy World News. Retrieved from http://archyworldys.com/ tonnies-sales-stagnated-don-slaughter-rate/ 151. Vion. Retrieved from http://www.vionfoodgroup.com/ fileadmin/_Jaarverslag/VIONB0125_BR_ENG_jvslg_2015_ W1.pdf 152. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/ france-poultry-ldc-idUSL6N0SC3SK20141017

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

153. Canadian Government. Retrieved from http://www.dairyinfo. gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=proc-trans&s3=glo20 154. Great Britain (2014) Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks – Final Report 155. A National Food Crime Prevention Framework. London: H. M. S. O. 156. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from http:// www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/award-winners/ manufacturer/unilever-plc/#RelatedOrgs 157. McDonald’s. Retrieved from http://news.mcdonalds.com/ Corporate/Media-Statements/Response-to-The-Use-ofAntibiotics-in-Chicken 158. Subway. Retrieved from http://www.subway.com/en-us/ aboutus/socialresponsibility/sustainablesourcing 159. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/global2000/ list/23/#tab:overall 160. McDonald’s. Retrieved from http://www.aboutmcdonalds. com/mcd/sustainability/signature_programs/beefsustainability.html 161. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider. com/15-facts-about-starbucks-that-will-blow-your-mind-20113?IR=T 162. Corporate Watch. Retrieved from https://corporatewatch. org/content/whats-wrong-supermarkets-3-encouragingindustrial-agriculture 163. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from http://www. compassioninfoodbusiness.com/award-winners/ Great Britain. Department for the Environment for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2015) Organic Farming Statistics 2015- statistics notice. London: H. M. S. O. 164. United States. Department for Agriculture (2013) Organic Production. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/organic-production.aspx#25762. 165. European Union. Directorate General for Agriculture (2013) Facts and Figures on Organic Farming in the European Union. Brussels. 166. Chander, M. et al (2011) Organic Livestock Production: An Emerging Opportunity with new Challenges for Producers in Tropical Countries. Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties. 30 (3), 969-983 167. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/06/yourfavorite-organic-brand-is-actually-owned-by-a-multinationalfood-company/ 168. Permaculture Research Association (2015). Retrieved from http://permaculturenews.org/category/animals/livestock/ 169. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from http://www. ciwf.org.uk/your-food/know-your-labels/ 170. Food Climate Research Network. Retrieved from http://www. fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/fcrn_lmgo.pdf 171. Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/ life-style/eats/india-changing-appetites-include-meatarticle-1.1255861 172. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3720e.pdf 173. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/pulses-2016/news/newsdetail/en/c/381491/ 174. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/pulses-2016/en/ 175. Mintel. Retrieved from http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/ food-and-drink/number-of-global-vegetarian-food-and-drinkproduct-launches-doubles-between-2009-and-2013 176. White Wave Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www. whitewave.com/investors 177. Hain Celestial Annual report. Retrieved from http://ir.hain. com/phoenix.zhtml?c=87078&p=quarterlyearnings 178. Terravia’s Annual Report. Retrieved from http://investors. terravia.com/index.cfm 179. One Green Planet. Retrieved from http://www. onegreenplanet.org/news/unilever-supports-sustainableplant-based-food/ 180. White Wave Annual Report. Retrieved from http://www. whitewave.com/investors 181. Chronicle Live. Retrieved from http://www.chroniclelive. co.uk/business/business-news/quorn-foods-550m-takeoverwhat-10174609 182. Beyond Meat. Retrieved from http://beyondmeat.com/ 183. Hampton Creek. Retrieved from https://www.hamptoncreek. com/ 184. Impossible Foods. Retrieved from http://www. impossiblefoods.com/ 185. Perfect Day Foods. Retrieved from http://www. perfectdayfoods.com 186. Clara Foods Retrieved from http://www.clarafoods. com/#home-section 187. Modern Meadow. Retrieved from http://www. modernmeadow.com/#home-1 188. Memphis Meats. Retrieved from http://www.memphismeats. com/ 189. Gelzen. Retrieved from http://www.gelzen.com/about 190. The Not Company. Retrieved from http://www. thenotcompany.com/#notco-eng 191. 191 Gold And Green Foods. Retrieved from http://www. goldandgreenfoods.com/ 192. 192 Sunfed Foods. Retrieved from http://sunfedfoods.com/ 193. Kite Hill. Retrieved from http://www.kite-hill.com/ 194. Miyokos Kitchen. Retrieved from http://miyokoskitchen.com/ 195. The Purple Carrot. Retrieved from https://www. thepurplecarrot.com/ 196. A bias towards English-language NGOs must be taken into account. 197. Dibb, S. & Fitzpatrick, I. (2014). Let’s talk about meat: changing dietary behaviour for the 21st century. Eating Better. Retrieved from http://www.eating-better.org/uploads/ Documents/Let’sTalkAboutMeat.pdf 198. WWF (2016) Catering for Sustainability: Making the Case for Sustainable Diets in Food Service. Retrieved from http://

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_catering_full_report.pdf 199. WWF. Retrieved from http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/ forests/forest_conversion/cerrado.cfm 200. WWF. Retrieved from http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_ news/?269032/WWF-Soy-Scorecard-shows-that-too-manyEuropean--companies-are-hiding-their-soy-use 201. FAIRR. Retrieved from http://www.fairr.org/the-fairr-network/ 202. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from https://www.foe.co.uk/ sites/default/files/downloads/healthy_planet_eating.pdf 203. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from https://www.foe.co.uk/ page/meat-free-may 204. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from https://www.foeeurope. org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_hbf_meatatlas_ jan2014.pdf 205. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from https://www.foe.co.uk/ sites/default/files/downloads/measuring_resource_use.pdf 206. Forum for the Future. Retrieved from https://www. forumforthefuture.org/project/protein-challenge-2040/ overview 207. WRAP UK. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/ files/wrap/An%20initial%20assessment%20of%20 the%20environmental%20impact%20of%20grocery%20 products%20final_0.pdf 208. Greenpeace. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/ international/Global/international/planet-2/binaries/2009/7/ slaughtering-the-amazon-part1.pdf 209. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from http://www. ciwf.org.uk/media/3817668/eating-the-planet.pdf 210. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from https://www. ciwf.org.uk/media/3817742/global-benefits-of-eating-lessmeat.pdf 211. FERN. Retrieved from http://www.fern.org/about-us 212. FERN. Retrieved from http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/ files/Financing%20land%20grabs_0.pdf 213. European Public Health Alliance. Retrieved from http://epha. org/press-release-effort-sharing-for-the-climate-meanscutting-meat-consumption-and-production-with-a-triplebenefit-for-health/ 214. British Dietetic Association. Retrieved from https://www.bda. uk.com/improvinghealth/healthprofessionals/sustainable_diet 215. Bailey, R., Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. (2014). Livestock– Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. Chatham House. 216. Wellesley, L., Happer, C. and Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing Climate, Changing Diets. Chatham House. 217. Chatham House. Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse. org/about/structure/eer-department/diet-and-climatechange-project 218. PETA. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/about-peta/ 219. http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2010/08/07/human-meatpackages-from-peta/ 220. Food Navigator (2013) PETA relaunches anti-meat smoking baby campaign. Retrieved from http://www.foodnavigator. com/Policy/PETA-relaunches-anti-meat-smoking-baby-

campaign 221. PETA. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=XUGd8g354D4 222. PETA. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/features/taxmeat/ 223. Humaine Society International. Retrieved from http://www. hsi.org/assets/pdfs/hsi-fa-white-papers/HSI_The_Impact_of_ Animal_Agriculture_on_Global_Warming_and_Climate_Change. pdf 224. Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from https://static. ewg.org/ewgverified/docs/EWGVERIFIEDcriteria.pdf?_ga=1.7 7026640.49784685.1470847701 225. Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from http://static. ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/report_ewg_meat_ eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf?_ga=1.72399318. 49784685.1470847701 226. What’s for dinner? Retrieved from http://wfdinner.com/home/ 227. Brighter Green. Retrieved from http://brightergreen.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/beyond_the_pail_brighter_green_ final.pdf 228. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest. Retrieved from https://cspinet.org/eating-healthy/what-eat/days-worth-food 229. Wellesley, L., Happer, C. and Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing Climate, Changing Diets. Chatham House. 230. Ruby, M.B. and Heine, S.J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56(2), 447–450. 231. ibid 232. Allen, M. W. & Ng, S. I. K. H. (2003) Human values, utilitarian benefits and identification: the case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology 33, 37–56. 233. Piazza, J. et al. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128. 234. Katz, S.H. and Weaver, W.W. (2003). Encyclopaedia of food and culture. Scribner. 235. Allen, M. W. & Ng, S. I. K. H. (2003) Human values, utilitarian benefits and identification: the case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology 33, 37–56 (2003). 236. Nestle, M. (1993). Food lobbies, the food pyramid, and US nutrition policy. International Journal of Health Services, 23(3), 483–496. 237. Stuart, T. (2006). The bloodless revolution: A cultural history of vegetarianism from 1600 to modern times. WW Norton & Company. 238. Asher, K. et al. (2014). Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans. Hum. Res. Counc. 1–10. 239. Haverstock, K. and Forgays, D.K. (2012). To eat or not to eat. A comparison of current and former animal product limiters. Appetite, 58(3), 1030–1036. 240. For example see http://reducetarian.org/ or https:// theflexitarian.co.uk/ 241. Gossard, M.H. and York, R. (2003). Social structural influences on meat consumption. Human Ecology Review, 10(1), 1–9.

Eating the Planet - An analysis for DSM Nutritional Products on global trends in sustainability and animal agriculture

242. Globescan. (2014). Greendex 2014: Consumer Choice and the Environment - A Worldwide Tracking Survey: A Focus on Food and Behaviour Change. 243. Allen, M. W. & Ng, S. I. K. H. (2003) Human values, utilitarian benefits and identification: the case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology 33, 37–56 (2003). 244. Bailey, R., Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. (2014). Livestock– Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector: Global Public Opinion on Meat and Dairy Consumption. Chatham House. 245. Ruby, M.B. and Heine, S.J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56(2), 447–450. 246. 246 Wellesley, L., Happer, C. and Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing Climate, Changing Diets. Chatham House. 247. Globescan. (2014). Greendex 2014: Consumer Choice and the Environment - A Worldwide Tracking Survey: A Focus on Food and Behaviour Change. 248. Wellesley, L., Happer, C. and Froggatt, A. (2015). Changing Climate, Changing Diets. Chatham House. 249. De Boer, J., Schösler, H. and Boersema, J.J. (2013). Climate change and meat eating: An inconvenient couple? Journal of Environmental Psychology,33, 1–8. 250. Allen, M. W. & Ng, S. I. K. H. (2003) Human values, utilitarian benefits and identification: the case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology 33, 37–56 (2003). 251. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldeurope-21857459 252. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ europe/8036096.stm#start 253. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/ news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-growsubsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers 254. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk37103427 255. Simon, D.R. (2013) Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much- and How to Eat Better, Live Longer and Spend Smarter. Conari Press. 256. ibid 257. ibid 258. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2016/04/28/denmark-hikes-tax-on-red-meat-in-a-bidto-boost-vegetarianism-to/ 259. Carbon Market Watch. Retrieved from http:// carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ Policy-Brief_ESD-after-2020-Ensuring-that-the-EU’s-largestclimate-instrument-is-fit-for-purpose_final.pdf 260. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from https://www. ciwf.org.uk/news/2016/07/tesco-to-turn-their-back-on-cages 261. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/ why-wendys-wont-use-chickens-raised-with-humanantibiotics-anymore/ 262. Just Means. Retrieved from http://www.justmeans.com/ blogs/you-reap-what-you-sow-top-food-companies-bancruel-gestation-crates 263. Greenpeace. Retreived from http://www.greenpeace.org/

international/Global/international/code/2014/amazon/index. html 264. Greenpeace. Retrieved from https://secure.greenpeace.org. uk/page/s/forests-not-fires?source=wb&subsource=201603 03fowb01 265. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved from https://www. ciwf.org.uk/news/2016/07/tesco-to-turn-their-back-on-cages 266. Eating Better. Retrieved from http://www.eating-better. org/blog/78/Meat-filled-sandwiches-leave-consumershamstrung-for-a-healthy-planet-friendly-lunch.html 267. Pret a Manger. Retrieved from https://www.pret.co.uk/en-gb/ veggie-pret-what-next 268. WWF (2016) Catering for Sustainability: Making the Case for Sustainable Diets in Food Service. Retrieved from http:// assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_catering_full_report.pdf 269. Jamie Oliver. Retrieved from http://www.jamieoliver.com/ theplan/ 270. River Cottage. Retrieved from https://www.rivercottage.net/ war-on-waste 271. The Guardian (2013) Every Little Hurts: Tesco’s Battle to Regain Markets and Reputation. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/29/tesco-recoverystrategy-markets-reputation 272. The Guardian (2016) Tesco’s Fictional Farms: A Marketing Strategy Past Its Sell By Date? https://www.theguardian.com/ lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2016/mar/22/tescos-fictionalfarms-a-marketing-strategy-past-its-sell-by-date 273. WWF (2016) Catering for Sustainability: Making the Case for Sustainable Diets in Food Service. Retrieved from http:// assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_catering_full_report.pdf

changingmarkets.com