A group of healthcare organisations are asking the UK government to withdraw a campaign that they say spreads misinformation about the benefits of eating meat and dairy.

As restaurants, retailers and consumers prepared for Veganuary last December, a livestock farming group was working on its own campaign in response.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) – which is funded by farmers and food suppliers – launched a drive to promote beef, lamb and dairy consumption in the UK, which included three TV commercials as well as magazine and online ads.

A meat industry backlash to a campaign promoting alternatives to its products isn’t anything new – but what set this one apart was that it was backed by the UK government. AHDB falls under the wing of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The Let’s Eat Balanced campaign launched in January was part of its annual efforts targeting people attempting to reduce their meat and dairy intake.

The messaging contained nuggets proclaiming that British meat and dairy are “amongst the most sustainable in the world” and that it was helping consumers “adopt a sustainable, healthy and nutritiously balanced diet”. On its website, one line reads: “Did you know that beef, pork, lamb and dairy are natural sources of vitamin B12, an essential vitamin not naturally present in a vegan diet?”

But now, doctors’ associations from across the UK are hitting back at these claims, warning that these are “disingenuous” and “at odds with established scientific evidence on healthy and sustainable diets”.

In an open letter penned by Dr Matthew Lee, sustainability lead at Doctors Association UK, and Dr Shireen Kassam, co-founder of Plant-Based Health Professionals UK, the group is asking the UK government to retract the campaign. The effort is endorsed by organisations like the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, the BDA Renal Nutrition Specialist Group, and Green at Barts Health, among others.

“We call on the AHDB to wholeheartedly embrace this difficult, but necessary step, by retracting the campaign to promote increased consumption of meat and dairy using misleading and un-evidenced marketing,” the letter states.

Suggestive ‘health benefits’ ignore meat reduction guidance

To the AHDB’s point, the letter acknowledges that meat is a source of protein, zinc, iron and vitamin B12, but adds that these can also be obtained by a well-planned plant-based diet. Similarly, dairy is a source of calcium, but this is a mineral in the soil and can also be obtained from beans, green vegetables, and fortified dairy analogues and tofu.

Illustrating this point, the medical experts point out how vitamin B12 is made by microorganisms and that cows are supplemented with cobalt to support sufficient production by gut bacteria. “Many farm animals are also supplemented directly with vitamin B12. Given that fortification of either animal or human food is required for B12 intake, direct fortification of human food or supplementation would be a more efficient use of resources,” it reads.

On the contrary, it points to the cancer risk presented by processed and red meats, which have been classified as class one and two carcinogens, respectively, by the World Health Organization. Moreover, it cites studies that have shown strong links between red meat and type 2 diabetes. Plant-based diets, however, are “not only nutritionally adequate”, but also present better health outcomes, the doctors argue.

“Encouraging a higher consumption of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds whilst limiting or avoiding animal-sourced foods reduces the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity and certain cancers. Replacing animal protein with plant sources of protein is associated with significant improvement in health outcomes, including reduced risk of premature death,” the letter reads.

“Yet the Let’s Eat Balanced campaign has links to suggestive ‘health benefits’ whilst ignoring the guidance to limit meat intake, particularly red and processed meat.”

Meat is not sustainable

The AHDB’s campaign had stated that “sustainability isn’t just about carbon”, and there are “many other things to consider”. It mentioned data showing that transport and energy emissions are higher than livestock in the UK, while the animal agriculture industry accounts for 7% of national GHG emissions.

However, the livestock group left out methane in all of its communications, which is a shorter-lived gas, but 80 times more potent than carbon. The same government report it cited for carbon emissions revealed that agriculture accounted for 48% of the UK’s methane emissions – and while that figure has fallen by 16% from a 1990 baseline, it has largely been at the same level since 2009.

The AHDB is also a supporter of GWP* (global warming potential star), a new metric to measure methane emissions proposed by meat and dairy producers and certain governments. The idea is to replace the current GWP100 system to measure the warming potential of total GHG emissions over a 100-year period with a focus on changes in the rate of emissions between two points in time (usually over a decadal timescale). Critics argue that this is nothing more than a greenwashing tool to allow the industry to understate its impact and avoid climate action

The UK has been heavily hit by climate-change-induced extreme weather, with the recent record amounts of rain leaving the agricultural industry “on the brink”, according to the AHDB itself. It has left many farmers considering quitting the profession altogether, with their confidence at a 14-year low.

Currently, 85% of farmland in the UK is used for animal agriculture, but these foods only provide 48% of the country’s protein and 32% of its calories. “The latest UK-specific research makes it clear that a diet containing animal products is significantly more harmful to the environment than one that does not, with plant-based diets having approximately 25% of the environmental impact of a diet with a high meat intake,” the doctors write.

“In the UK, 70% of our total food-related emissions come from red meat and dairy production. Methane emissions from cows alone will prevent us from limiting global warming to safe levels. Excess consumption of red meat and dairy is leading to 42,000 deaths in the UK annually.”

The financial drawbacks of animal agriculture

The letter highlights a modelling study that shows a ‘plant-based by default’ approach could save the UK’s economically strained and labour-stretched National Health Service (NHS) £74M annually, with significant household savings too if patients are supported in making dietary shifts.

Similar research by the Office of Health Economics estimated that if England were to adopt a completely plant-based diet, the NHS would see a net benefit of up to £18.8B a year. “No other intervention can deliver such significant health benefits alongside cost savings and environmental benefits,” the letter reads.

“As health professionals, we recognise the importance of farmers and the key role they play in the production of healthy and nutritious food whilst being stewards of our land. The countryside will always require farmers, and they need support from their governing bodies to adapt their industry in a way that allows for the restoration of nature and acceleration of carbon sequestration, whilst continuing to provide locally produced plant-based foods,” it continues.

“We encourage AHDB and Defra to engage with healthcare professionals in developing policies and campaigns to support the future of the farming industry that encourages the increased consumption of locally grown fruit, vegetables, beans and pulses, alongside a significant reduction in production and consumption of meat and dairy produce.”

In response, an AHDB representative told the Independent: “Let’s Eat Balanced is a fully evidence-based campaign communicating the nutritional and sustainability benefits of British red meat and dairy in a manner that aligns with the government’s dietary guidelines, as outlined in the Eatwell Guide… Anyone advocating a totally global plant-based diet as a panacea to climate change ignores the fact the realities are far more complex. Solutions lie in a balance of sustainable plant and sustainable meat and sustainable fish production along with a balanced plate approach to diets and portion sizes.”

But the AHDB’s campaign doesn’t make room for much plant-based eating at all – it isn’t encouraging a balance, it is pushing people to eat more meat. As for “sustainable meat”, this really isn’t a thing. Analysis by Our World in Data shows that buying imported beef from Central America in the UK versus buying locally barely makes a difference. What farmers really need to do is reduce meat and dairy production by a third if the UK is to meet its climate goals, according to the WWF.

The UK has been criticised for not centring climate change in its election campaigns this year, but if it is to reach its net zero goal by 2050, a food system transformation is necessary. “This would be invaluable to the health of the environment, the UK public, and to safeguard all our futures,” the letter concludes.

The post Doctors Urge UK Government to Retract ‘Misleading’ Campaign Asking Brits to Eat Meat & Dairy appeared first on Green Queen.

The first large-scale study to analyse the effects of the Planetary Health Diet has found a lower risk of premature death and a lighter impact on the climate.

Eating a primarily whole-food plant-based diet has tremendous benefits for humans and the environment, according to a new study led by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.

Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the research was inspired by the EAT-Lancet Commission’s Planetary Health Diet, which was designed in 2019 as a way to feed 10 billion people and keep the planet healthy by 2050. The diet advocates for more plants and whole foods, and less meat and dairy, with ample room for flexibility for different cultural and culinary preferences.

Ideally, the diet should comprise half a plate of fruits and vegetables, and the other half should contain mainly whole grains and plant protein sources, with optional modest amounts of animal protein.

The Harvard study is the first large-scale assessment of the impacts of the Planetary Health Diet, using the health data of 206,604 Americans over a period of 20 to 34 years. Participants were free of major chronic diseases at the start of the study, and completed questionnaires every four years.

The researchers found that the top 10% of people most closely adhering to the Planetary Health Diet represented a 30% lower risk of premature death than the bottom 10%. Meanwhile, those with the highest adherence also had significantly lower climate footprints, with a 29% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

“The findings show just how linked human and planetary health are. Eating healthfully boosts environmental sustainability – which in turn is essential for the health and wellbeing of every person on Earth,” said senior author Walter Willett.

Plant-forward diets lower risk of all causes of death

The participants were enrolled in long-term government studies, namely the Nurses’ Health Study I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. The researchers scored their diets based on the intake of 15 food groups. Planet-friendly and resource-light foods included whole grains, tubers, vegetables, whole fruits, legumes, soy-based products, and unsaturated plant oils (like olive oil).

Meanwhile, foods that require much more land, like those derived from cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry, were also assessed, as was the intake of added sugar.

The researchers suggested that, while other studies have also reported plant-based diets’ human and planetary benefits over animal foods, most have used one-time dietary assessments, which produce weaker results than when you look at diets over a longer period, which is what the team at Harvard did.

People following the Planetary Health Diet were found to have a lower risk of death from every major cause, including cancer (10% lower), cardiovascular diseases (14%), lung disease (47%), and Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative disorders (28%). Additionally, women who closely adhered to the diet had a 38% lower risk of death from infectious diseases.

Essentially, participants who followed the diet closely ate larger amounts of fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes, whole grains, unsaturated fats and poultry, while reducing their intake of red and processed meats, eggs, soft drinks and fruit juices, as well as sugary processed foods like candy, cakes, breakfast cereals, and desserts.

In terms of animal foods, this diet recommends up to two servings per day. This could mean a typical week would entail a daily serving of a dairy product, a weekly serving of red meat as well as eggs, plus two weekly servings each of poultry and fish. This is much lower than the current consumption levels in the US – according to the USDA, Americans eat nearly 102kg of meat annually (excluding seafood), 6.5 times higher than the EAT-Lancet Commission’s recommendations.

USDA dietary recommendations ‘refuse to consider’ climate change

In terms of the environmental gains, the study revealed that the Planetary Health Diet requires 21% fewer fertilisers, 51% less cropland, and 13% less water and irrigation. Land use reduction is particularly vital to facilitate reforestation, which the authors said is “seen as an effective way” to reduce greenhouse gases – although the efficacy of reforesting programmes to offset emissions is sketchy at best.

That said, the results chime with existing literature about the climate impacts of animal-derived and plant-based foods. Livestock farming is responsible for up to 20% of all emissions – and, within the food system, meat accounts for 60% of emissions. Meat and dairy, meanwhile, emit twice as much CO2e as plant-based foods.

A previous study has similarly shown that swapping half of our meat and dairy consumption with plant-based analogues can reduce agricultural and land use emissions by 31%, lower water use by 10%, and effectively halt forest and natural land degradation.

“Climate change has our planet on track for ecological disaster, and our food system plays a major role,” said Willett. “Shifting how we eat can help slow the process of climate change. And what’s healthiest for the planet is also healthiest for humans.”

The Harvard study was observational, which meant its findings were based on correlations between people’s consumption habits and the risk of major diseases, instead of a cause-and-effect relationship. But the research did factor in the intake of alcohol, smoking, exercise, as well as family histories with medical conditions.

“What this study shows is that we can both shift our diets to be far healthier than the average American diet and also at the same time have a substantial impact on slowing down climate change,” Willett told the Washington Post. “We don’t have to trade off planetary health for human health. We can have both – it’s a double win.”

Willett went on to take aim at the USDA for its ignorance of climate change in its dietary recommendations, which are due to be updated next year. “Our study is noteworthy given that the US Department of Agriculture has refused to consider the environmental impacts of dietary choices, and any reference to the environmental effects of diet will not be allowed in the upcoming revision of the US Dietary Guidelines,” said Willett.

It must be noted that the current guidelines do urge Americans to avoid saturated fat, cholesterol, and red and processed meat, and focus on carbohydrate-rich plant-based foods. The document also mentions fortified soy-based dairy and meat products. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an independent non-profit organisation, has criticised the inclusion of animal-based dairy, recommending water instead.

The post Planetary Health Diet Linked to 30% Lower Risk of Premature Death & 29% Fewer Emissions appeared first on Green Queen.

Nadia Schilling, director and chief marketing officer of Australian infant nutrition brand Sprout Organic, talks the lack of vegan formula, seed oils, policy barriers, carbon neutrality, and its UK launch.

As plant-based infant formula goes, the options are few and far between. With 90% of offerings being dairy-based, the category has long been a victim of monopolistic practices by giants like Abbott and Danone, leading to issues like shortages and anti-competitive investigations.

But there are some brands catering to mothers who opt to use formulas, but don’t want to feed their toddlers dairy – which could trigger allergies and intestinal bleeding. One of the pioneers in this space is Australia’s Sprout Organic, which has been selling plant-based formula since 2021.

“The regulatory framework for infant formula is primarily designed for dairy, making it challenging to develop a vegan alternative,” Nadia Schilling, director and chief marketing officer of Sprout Organic, tells Green Queen. “We had to navigate uncharted territory and establish new standards. Many companies are intimidated by this complex process and are led to believe that creating a vegan infant formula is not feasible, as many people tried to tell us along our journey.”

The company stands out from other alternative formula makers in that instead of using soy, its formula is made up of rice and pea protein. “Pea protein has a high Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIASS), which measures the quality of protein digestibility. Additionally, the pea protein we use is sprouted and fermented, enhancing its digestibility even further,” explains Schilling.

“When combined with rice protein, it forms a complete amino acid profile, comparable to soy or animal proteins. This makes it an excellent choice for creating a nutritious and easily digestible formula,” she adds.

Contending with seed oils

Speaking of ingredients, Sprout Organic uses a blend of coconut, canola and safflower oil. Seed and vegetable oils have come under a lot of scrutiny across the globe lately, with concerns over oxidisation, fatty acid content, and ultra-processing driving many away from these fats.

A major criticism comes due to the presence of omega-6, which contains linoleic acid. Some say this oxidises 40 times faster than saturated fat, and can become ‘toxic’ and cause a host of diseases, including inflammation.

“A lot of the controversy stems from concerns over chemical solvent extraction methods, but this is largely irrelevant when it comes to organic seed oils, where the use of such chemicals is prohibited,” says Schilling, nodding to the presence of trans fats in some highly processed oils. “Being a certified organic product, our oils are cold-pressed, ensuring they are extracted without the use of any heat or chemicals.

“Some customers ask why we can’t simply use coconut oil alone to avoid seed oils. Legally, all infant formulas sold in Australia must contain all essential fatty acids. When blended with coconut oil, safflower, and canola oil, it completes the required fatty acid profile, which supports brain and retina development and brings many beneficial properties to a healthful formula,” she adds.

“Once we have the opportunity to explain this to our customers, they are very supportive.”

Pricing, regulations and hospitals

As Schilling alludes to, unsupportive regulation is a major reason why we don’t see too many vegan formula makers. “Historically, dairy farmers in Australia relied heavily on government subsidies, with up to 60% of their income coming from these supports,” she says.

But the industry has been deregulated since 2000, and that has helped Sprout Organic reach price parity with organic dairy formulas (A$39.95 or $26.65 per 700g tin). “In fact, we are often more affordable than many other organic infant formula brands, allowing us to offer a high-quality, plant-based alternative that is accessible to more parents,” outlines Schilling.

She explains that formula brands are not permitted to partner with hospitals in Australia, a policy aimed at protecting breastfeeding. “We support this stance as voluntary signatories to the Australian MAIF [Marketing in Australia of Infant Formulas] agreement,” she says.

However, she believes there’s a need for legislative change in Australia to help mothers and caregivers make informed choices: “We strongly oppose the alienation and bullying of mothers who have made the personal or medically required choice to feed their child formula. It is a delicate balance that must be approached with the utmost respect and sensitivity.”

Going carbon-neutral, and dealing with offsets

This week, Sprout Organic announced it was the first Australian kids nutrition company to obtain carbon-neutral certification under the Climate Active standard, a public-private partnership that aims to drive voluntary climate action.

Since most infant formula contains dairy, there is a carbon cost to it. While estimates vary, one study from 2019 suggests that infant formula has twice the carbon footprint of breastfeeding (although contradictory research suggests otherwise). Having the option of using formula is the most crucial element for mothers, but more sustainable versions are only a good thing.

So how has Sprout Organic managed to become carbon-neutral? “Thankfully, the impact of our ingredients at a baseline level was relatively low being 100% plant-based,” says Schilling. “We have diligently measured the impact of each ingredient in our formula, including its packaging.”

“We worked on ways to further reduce our emissions, including sourcing from suppliers closer to our manufacturing site to reduce transportation, in addition to working with our suppliers to improve their environmental practices to ensure alignment,” she explains.

Climate Active advocates for carbon offsets for any emissions that companies can’t eliminate, and Sprout Organic also opts to do so by “investing in Australian projects that actively reduce or remove carbon from the atmosphere”.

However, carbon offsetting can be highly problematic, and often ends up doing more environmental harm than good. Many investigations have shown that some of the world’s most popular carbon credit and offset schemes are ineffective, with one study classifying several as ‘likely junk’. The practice is now more associated with greenwashing than being green, and has prompted legislators to put safeguards against it.

“We’re well aware that there are some shady offsetting schemes out there, which is why we have been very selective about the projects we support. Our offset projects adhere to the strict integrity framework for Australian Carbon Credit Units, as outlined in the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011,’ says Schilling. “These principles ensure that each unit used to offset emissions represents a genuine and credible reduction, guaranteeing the integrity of our carbon-neutral claims.”

Climate Active also supports businesses hoping to put carbon-neutral logos on packaging. Will Sprout Organic display its climate footprint on its formula? “Due to incredibly strict regulations for infant formula labelling in Australia, we’ve reached out to the relevant authorities to see if this is permitted. We’re waiting for their response and are hopeful we can make this information available soon,” Schilling says.

International expansion on the cards?

Sprout Organic’s popularity has transcended its home country, with Schilling revealing that the brand has been “overwhelmed” by global demand through e-commerce, which now “dramatically surpasses” demand from domestic customers. “It’s an ongoing challenge, and we’re doing everything we can to scale in line with this demand,” she says.

“We receive e-commerce orders from over 60 countries worldwide,” she adds. Asked about the regulatory barriers, she explains: “Generally, purchasing for personal use is permitted. However, some countries enforce restrictions on quantity, weight, and commercial value per shipment.”

While the company’s products are available in New Zealand and Malaysia, regulatory challenges have impeded retail expansion into other countries. “In the US, the USDA approval process takes a long 24-36 months and is also designed in a way that can be financially prohibitive for foreign competitors, which played a major role in the recent formula shortages seen in 2022,” suggests Schilling.

“With the right investment partner, we are prepared to tackle this challenge and scale our operations to meet the demands of this vast market,” she adds.

However, things are more encouraging if you’re in the UK. “We are actively developing an e-commerce strategy with in-country warehousing to accelerate our market entry,” Schilling says of the company’s British plans. “The rollout will be within the next 12 months.”

The post Sprout Organic Outlines UK Launch Plans & Why There’s A Lack of Vegan Infant Formula appeared first on Green Queen.

The University of Essex has built a new facility to develop crops that can adapt to a hotter and drier planet, which features a vertical farm and is backed by AI-assisted research.

Researchers at the University of Essex will leverage AI, robotics, vertical farming and imitation suites to create crops for “tomorrow’s atmosphere today” in a new flagship facility.

Slated to officially open later this year, the £3M Smart Technology Experimental Plant Suite (STEPS) lab builds on the work of the Essex Plant Innovation Centre (EPIC), which brings together farmers, technologists and scientists to improve crop resilience to drought, increase yields, and enhance food security during extreme weather events.

“This state-of-the-art facility will help the world cope with a growing population by ensuring future food security by developing climate resilient plants,” said project lead Tracy Lawson, a biologist whose expertise lies in plant productivity, improving photosynthetic processes, and boosting crop water use. She suggested that the lab “places plant research at Essex in a unique position” to grow and select future-facing plants.

Leveraging AI, vertical farms and warming suites

The lab features a commercially standard vertical farm (claimed to be the UK’s first for a university), an indoor field that can simulate real environments from anywhere on the planet, and suites that replicate a warming world (researchers can raise both temperature and CO2 levels). According to the University of Essex, this is the only lab in the UK that combines all these facilities.

The team will also use plant scanning technology to monitor plants as they grow, and pick out precise changes in photosynthesis. The research, meanwhile, will be facilitated with AI and robotics, which will develop new ideas, technologies and strategies to predict changes in agriculture and the atmosphere.

The STEPS lab will develop strategies to optimise plant performance whilst working towards net zero. The UK has committed to reaching net zero by 2050, although, based on its current policies, it lags behind the 2030 internationally agreed target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 68% (from 1990 levels).

It was partly funded by the Wolfson Foundation, which pledged £1M to support the development. It will help the researchers foster connections with agriculture, horticulture, and technology businesses to progress their crop development efforts.

“We are in a race against time to futureproof agriculture against climate change, not just in the UK but globally,” said Paul Ramsbottom, CEO of the Wolfson Foundation. “The University of Essex is leading the way in critical research and development to support innovation and sustainability in food production, and we are delighted to be funding the technology platforms that will help them achieve this.”

Future-friendly crops vital in a climate-threatened country

The climate-resilient crop lab will put students at the forefront of its work, who will help develop and conduct experiments with the University of Essex’s researchers. It means young scientists can begin their careers in the facility.

“This cutting-edge lab will put us at the forefront of research into how we can help plants change and adapt to climate change – helping secure everyone’s future,” said Lawson.

The project also involves vertical farming tech provider Innovation Agritech Group (IAG), which installed the vertical farm unit and deployed a full-scale GrowFrame 360 solution – this system is said to produce a healthier root system, superior crop growth, and higher yields with no climate dependency.

“Our innovative GrowFrame360 technology will empower scientists and students alike to tackle the complexities of a changing climate on future crop production, aiming for future food security,” explained Kate Brunswick, business development director at IAG. “This milestone collaboration embodies our collective dedication to driving positive change in agriculture.”

The UK has been dealing with climate-induced food shocks and price hikes for a while now. A recent study by World Weather Attribution found that the relentless rainfall and storms during the autumn-winter period of 2023-24 were 10 times more likely to happen and 20% wetter because of climate change. And separate research by Lynx Purchasing warns that such wet weather can cause an 8% price hike for in-demand produce – for context, headline inflation rates in the UK were 2.3% in April, and that was after a decline from previous months.

Extreme weather is further causing food shortages in Britain, with many areas unable to grow staple crops like potatoes, wheat and vegetables in the spring – and those that have been planted are of poor quality, and some are rotting in the ground. All this has made the UK more reliant on imports, just as the country battles growing food insecurity. In January, 15% of households went hungry.

With a population set to increase by nearly 10% by 2036, solutions like the ones being developed by the University of Essex’s new lab might be vital.

The post UK University to Create Climate-Resilient Crops in £3M AI-Powered Plant Lab appeared first on Green Queen.

As part of its Champions Innovate initiative, UEFA has introduced a slew of sustainability measures for the 2024 Champions League final, which includes carbon labelling and plastic-free packaging.

Fans watching Real Madrid and Borussia Dortmund battle it out for the 2024 Champions League tomorrow will be eating carbon-labelled food in seaweed packaging, as UEFA – European football’s governing body – aims to amp up its sustainability credentials.

As part of its Champions Innovate initiative (announced in September), all menu boards at Wembley Stadium and food trucks at other Champions Festival sites across London will feature carbon labels from UK startup My Emissions. It’s an extension of the latter’s ongoing partnership with Dutch food delivery giant Just Eat Takeaway.com, a UEFA sponsor since 2021.

“Partnering with UEFA and Just Eat for the Champions League Final is an incredible opportunity to showcase our carbon labelling solution on a global stage,” said My Emissions co-founder Matthew Isaacs, who was selected for Forbes’ 30 Under 30 Europe Class of 2024 alongside his co-founder Nathan Bottomley. “Through Champions Innovate, we’re bringing our solution to one of the largest sporting events in the world.”

UEFA’s Champions Innovate sustainability initiative

Champions Innovate is UEFA’s collaborative programme to address key challenges around the 2024 final beyond just what happens on the pitch. It was created by the UEFA Innovation Hub in collaboration with English governing body the Football Association, the Greater London Authority, and its media house London & Partners.

The goal for the Wembley final (June 1) is to enhance the ESG impact of the competition, according to UEFA, which partnered with three of its sponsors, each of whom worked on different challenges with the selected startups.

PepsiCo – responsible for the six-minute kickoff show – is working on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of the show, with the long-term goal of organising a net-zero show by 2030. For this, it was teamed up with kinetic energy startup Pavegen, which generates electricity from people’s footsteps. UEFA aims to use this smart flooring tech to power the pre-match show.

Meanwhile, Mastercard is working alongside sports sustainability charity Pledgeball to boost the adoption of the former’s carbon calculator, and create a league for fans who can most effectively reduce their carbon consumption.

Just Eat Takeaway has been working with UEFA to reduce single-use plastic packaging over the last two years, bringing in Notpla’s seaweed packaging at several matches and reusable packaging as part of a circular initiative. Now, its collaboration with My Emissions, which began in September last year for businesses to put emissions information on their in-app delivery menus, has become part of the UEFA Champions Innovate portfolio too.

As part of this, My Emissions will calculate and communicate the carbon footprint of food offerings with a simple A-E rating system on all menus at UEFA sites.

Two days before the Champions League final, each startup demonstrated their pilot at a showcase event at London’s City Hall. An expert jury then awarded an additional €45,000 to the competition’s winner.

Carbon labelling a good step, but UEFA’s climate footprint is enlarging

My Emissions’ carbon labels will be displayed across all concession boards at Wembley Stadium, in partnership with caterers Delaware North. “Given the results, Delaware North will use My Emissions to create the carbon ratings for the UEFA Champions League final and season menus into 2025 and beyond,” revealed Andrew Wilkinson, procurement systems manager at the catering company.

All food trucks at the Champions Festival sites – Regents Street, Somerset House, Potters Field and Trafalgar Square – will also sport the labels. They’ve been open to the public since Thursday, and will remain so until Sunday.

Meanwhile, packaging at all these sites will be provided by Notpla, and will include a QR code to a landing page on Just Eat Takeaway’s website. This page will aim to educate fans about the environmental impact of food, providing them with an opportunity to win tickets to matches in next year’s UEFA Champions League.

“We’re able to talk to fans about the carbon footprint of food on a scale that we’ve never achieved before and encourage consumers to make more conscious choices,” said Isaacs. My Emissions has previously also added carbon labels to Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium for World Earth Day, working directly with the same caterer.

“In addition to Wembley Stadium and the Emirates Stadium, Delaware North also cater food at the London Stadium (West Ham), as well as other sites across the UK,” he said. “Due to the success of labelling, Delaware North is already looking to make carbon labelling a permanent fixture on menus at Arsenal and other stadiums for next season.”

Football has a major impact on the climate crisis, with the global industry generating over 30 million tonnes of CO2 per year, about the same as Denmark. UEFA, meanwhile, aims to cut GHG emissions in half by 2030, and reach net zero by 2040. In March, it launched a carbon calculator for football stakeholders to help reduce the sport’s climate impact.

That said, the organisation is also changing the format of its club competitions from next season, which will see teams play 177 more matches across the three tournaments. It means teams and fans will be flying two billion air miles in 2024-25 (33% higher than 2022-23), equating to 4,000 journeys to the Moon and back. Travel alone will be responsible for over 480,000 tonnes of GHG emissions (a 30% increase).

So while it uses carbon labels and taps into kinetic energy for a one-off final, UEFA’s emissions are continuing to increase, taking it further away from its 2030 goal. Football and its stakeholders need to do a lot more.

The post UEFA Champions League to Roll Out Carbon Labelling at Wembley & Other Sites for 2024 Final appeared first on Green Queen.

Researchers in Hong Kong have developed a fungi-derived fat alternative that can decrease the fat content of a product and improve gut health and metabolic benefits.

The alt-fat world has been blossoming lately. Microbes, microalgae, carbon, you name it – startups all over the world are using techniques like fermentation to come up with fats that are better for you, and better for the Earth.

These also hold a key to the progress of an Ozempic-hit food industry, which has contributed to and coincided with a rising awareness of gut health and metabolism.

Joining this list of innovations is AkkMore, a fungi-derived fat designed to replace animal fats while preventing obesity and metabolic diseases, enhancing gut health and immunity, and relieving anxiety. That is the promise of its creators from Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s (PolyU) Research Institute for Future Food (RiFood) and Department of Food Science and Nutrition (FSN).

“Our research team has completed three rounds of animal trials on AkkMore. The results show that the formula can effectively improve metabolism and aid in weight management,” said project co-lead Gail Jinhui Chang, a research assistant professor at FSN. “Moving forward, we are focusing on exploring applications of AkkMore in the development of healthy food.”

Hitting health and sustainability touchpoints

The PolyU researchers have been working on AkkMore since 2022, finding a way to extract the functional component from natural fungal sources. While conducting animal trials puts a question mark over the welfare aspects of the product, mice that had been administered the AkkMore formula were found to have a healthier gut microbiota, indicating better weight management, gut health, immune and metabolic system, and anxiety management.

The research won a Silver Medal at the 2022 International Exhibition of Inventions in Geneva, and its applications for health benefits are being evaluated for patent filings.

“This collaboration is testament to the successful translation of a research outcome,” said Chang. “Moving forward, we will further explore the application of AkkMore formula in innovative health foods and put greater efforts into identification of mushroom strains with better functions and standardisation of the cultivation process.”

In addition to lowering the calorific content of food, AkkMore is also said to extend the shelf life of cream products, and have thickening, emulsifying and stabilising properties. Leveraging these attributes, the PolyU team developed Cream Mate, an alternative cream that can be used in conjunction with conventional cream to reduce the latter’s content in desserts.

This, the researchers argue, could help cut dairy consumption and food waste in the long run, contributing to lower greenhouse gas emissions and higher manufacturing productivity.

AkkMore’s potential for the foodservice industry

To demonstrate AkkMore’s viability for restaurants and the foodservice industry, RiFood and FSN have teamed up with Hotel Icon, which is owned by PolyU, whose fine-dining eatery Green has been using Cream Mate to develop reduced-fat soft serve and desserts.

Hotel Icon commissioned a lab test to assess the nutritional components of the soft serve, which revealed that the fat content of the ice cream using Cream Mate was under 3%, and reduced by over 80% when compared to regular soft serve. Meanwhile, the total calories were also cut by more than half.

Since May 1, the Green restaurant has been running a forest-themed afternoon tea offering with Japanese fruits and AkkMore. The tasting menu includes two Cream Mate soft serves in Japanese hōjicha and Hokkaido milk flavours. Guests can also opt for an Akkmore ‘special drink’ instead of tea or coffee for an additional price.

While this is a limited-edition run, it’s part of a growing roster of alt-fat ingredients targeting sustainability and health in the food sector. In the US, GLP-1 agonist drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy are already making people eat fewer calories and fats as they look to manage their weight. Meanwhile, Roughly 30% of Hong Kong’s residents live with obesity, while another 20% are overweight. Meanwhile, 8.5-10% of people in the city live with type 2 diabetes.

PolyU’s development aims to address these issues, while also lowering the foodservice industry’s climate footprint. The shelf life aspect will also help Hong Kong’s food sector reduce waste – 30-40% of Hong Kong’s municipal waste is made up of food waste, only 4% of which is recycled.

The post AkkMore: Can This Fungi Fat Help Restaurants Tackle Obesity and Enhance Gut Health? appeared first on Green Queen.

Denmark is considering a proposal that would see it introduce a carbon tax on agricultural production, but it has raised concerns about farmers’ livelihoods. Could it really happen?

In late February, an advisory group commissioned by the Danish government suggested the implementation of a carbon tax to meet the country’s climate goals and EU commitments.

The experts told lawmakers that a levy of 750 krones ($109) per tonne of emitted CO2e would be the most effective way to curb agricultural emissions, which make up 22.4% of the country’s total climate footprint.

This could help the country achieve its legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030 (from a 1990 baseline), helping it cut 2.4-3.2 million tonnes of CO2. The variation depends on the taxation model adopted by the government – the advisors also considered lower taxes of 375 and 125 krones per tonne.

But the proposed measures have also generated fears of unemployment and food price hikes, with 2,000-8,000 jobs said to be at risk, based on the tax threshold. Beef, for example, could see markups of 1.4-4.5 krones (20-65 cents), given it is the food group associated with the highest emissions.

“It is crucial that we implement the green transition of the agricultural sector in a way that ensures that we have a competitive food industry in the future, with business potential and job opportunities,” Stephanie Lose, Denmark’s minister for economic affairs, tells Green Queen.

“Denmark must set an example and show the world how an economically sustainable green transition of the agricultural sector can be successfully carried out,” she adds.

If the government adopts the proposal into law, it would make Denmark the first country to introduce a carbon tax. But could it actually go through? And what will it mean for farmers and the food industry?

Why Denmark needs a carbon tax

Denmark is a major exporter of pork and dairy, both industries that have a high carbon footprint. Its citizens also eat too much meat – three times as much as the latest dietary guidelines recommend (350g per week).

This is detrimental to the country’s climate goals, which include reducing emissions by 110% from 1990 levels by 2050, and reaching net zero by 2045. The emissions from beef consumption alone make up 45% of the country’s emissions reduction target – and agriculture itself is expected to balloon to account for 46% of its total emissions by 2030.

It’s why the aforementioned dietary guidelines recommend a plant-rich diet. In fact, in October, the country became the first in the world to introduce a national action plan to transition towards a plant-based food system. The strategy includes training chefs in both public and private kitchens on the preparation of vegan meals, a greater focus on plant-based diets in the education sector, expanding exports of locally produced vegan food, and investing more in R&D for this sector.

Denmark’s relationship with meat is complicated. A large EU-wide survey last year revealed that two-thirds of Danish consumers eat meat, while another quarter are pescatarians or flexitarians. And, while 48% had reduced their meat consumption over the previous year, this was the lowest among the 10 countries covered in the survey. For those who did cut their intake, health was the major motivator (chosen by 39%), followed by the environment (37%).

However, 63% said they’d support campaigns to reduce meat and dairy consumption, 54% would back a farmer transition towards plant-based food, 48% would be happy to see meat and dairy subsidies reduced (the joint highest in the survey), and 61% felt reducing taxes on low-emission foods is a good idea.

A carbon tax would take things a step further. “Our government has set up a ‘Green tripartite’, which consists of the government and relevant parties representing different interests regarding climate, environment, businesses in the agricultural sector, labour market parties, etc.,” explains Lose. “The setup draws on inspiration from the tripartite agreements in the Danish labour market. The Green tripartite will discuss the design of a carbon tax on the agricultural sector, amongst other things.”

In 2022, a parliamentary majority agreed to implement a 750-krone tax per tonne on industrial companies by 2030, but while it evaluated the possibilities of a similar tax on food, the government concluded that taxing production itself is a “more targeted and cost-effective” way of meeting its climate goals.

Mitigating the impact of a carbon tax on farmers

The carbon tax is now in an extended political negotiation, which is likely to end in an agreement at some point this year, according to Torsten Hasforth, chief economist at Danish green think tank Concito. “That agreement is very likely to have some kind of tax element,” he tells Green Queen. “How [much], exactly, is uncertain.”

So, what of the cattle and pig producers, who stand to lose up to 20% of their production volumes under the harshest tax conditions. “Cows are of course a major source of methane emissions. Therefore, a tax on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions has a large effect on meat and dairy farmers,” says Hasforth.

“The agricultural sector employs a small proportion of the Danish workforce, so the number of jobs affected is small. The Danish economy, in general, experiences a shortage of workers – not the opposite – so the economy-wide effect will be small,” he explains.

“There will of course also be meat and dairy production in the future, but a higher efficiency and consolidation caused by a carbon tax will lead to the loss of some jobs.”

So how can the government safeguard the futures of these farmers? The expert group that came up with the proposal also laid out some measures to curb the effects of the tax, Hasforth explains. “This includes support for extensive reforestation and rewetting of peatlands – measures that will compensate farmers indirectly for their loss arising from a carbon tax,” he says.

The aforementioned EU survey revealed that Danish respondents were the least concerned nationality when it came to price concerns around plant-based meat and dairy analogues. Hasforth suggests that a majority of the population acknowledges the environmental impact of the agricultural sector, and supports a greener transition. “This, of course, is a policy which very directly affects farmers. So, amongst them, there is an understandable concern about the consequences of such a measure,” he adds.

He says it’s important for all nations to set their economies on a path of rapid decarbonisation: “As the agricultural sector and the effect of land use has a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions, it is unavoidable that the agricultural sector starts contributing.”

As for Denmark’s carbon tax, Hasforth feels it would be a boost to an efficient green transition – not just locally, but also for other countries: “Hopefully, it might be an approach which can be copied by other nations.”

The post What Denmark’s Proposed Carbon Tax Could Mean for Farmers & Emissions appeared first on Green Queen.

Land grabs and carbon offsetting schemes have sent land prices soaring, putting a strain on farmers, rural communities and food production, and threatening food security globally.

Since the financial crash of 2007-08, global land prices have doubled, thanks in large part to land-grabbing and carbon-offsetting schemes, which has led to a “tipping point” that endangers farmers’ livelihoods and food security, according to a new report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).

Powerful governments, investors and agribusinesses have appropriated large swathes of farmland in the post-recession period through new forms of land grabs, including carbon offsetting schemes, opaque financial instruments, rapid resource extraction, and industrial food production. It has led to farmers, Indigenous communities, peasants and pastoralists losing their land, culture, livelihoods and rural traditions, says the report, while young farmers now face huge barriers to accessing farmland.

Take the area of Germany, and double it. That’s about the size of land that has been snatched up in transnational deals since 2000. Today, 1% of the largest farms control 70% of the world’s farmland.

Meanwhile, land prices have hiked everywhere – in central-eastern Europe, they have tripled since 2008; in the UK, they doubled from 2010-15; in Canada, they’ve been on the rise for 30 consecutive years, spiking another 8% in 2023; and in the US state of Iowa, land is four times as expensive as it was in 2002.

The ‘land squeeze’ created by these practices is worsening land inequality, rural poverty, and food insecurity. “Imagine trying to start a farm when 70% of farmland is already controlled by just 1% of the largest farms – and when land prices have risen for 20 years in a row, like in North America. That’s the stark reality young farmers face today,” said IPES-Food expert Nettie Wiebe.

“Farmland is increasingly owned not by farmers but by speculators, pension funds, and big agribusinesses looking to cash in. Land prices have skyrocketed so high, it’s becoming impossible to make a living from farming. This is reaching a tipping point – small- and medium-scale farming are simply being squeezed out.”

How land grabs have evolved since the 2008 recession

Land Grabbing 2.0

Governments are facing renewed calls to deregulate land markets and adopt pro-investor policies, as land increasingly becomes a financial asset at the expense of smallholder and medium-scale farmers. Agri-investment funds rose tenfold between 2005 and 2018, and now regularly include farmland as a separate asset class, with American investors doubling their stakes since the pandemic.

Speaking of which, Covid-19 and the Ukraine war have revived ‘feed the world’ narratives, sparking a renewed push to secure land for the prediction of export commodities, with agribusinesses, investors and governments finding new ways to appropriate farmland.

Meanwhile, water and resource grabs – land deals that focus on securing critical resources and extracting value from them (via water-intensive cash crops, for example) – are expanding too. But there’s also been an increase in the number of land grabs that are abandoned during the process and sold to new investors, creating lasting damage to local communities and land tenure systems.

Green Grabbing

Carbon offsetting schemes – already notorious for, you know, not working – have unleashed a new wave of ‘green grabs’. Land is an important carbon sink, but with governments racing to try and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, they’re using environmental targets to justify top-down conversation, carbon removal and offsetting schemes that exclude land users and food producers.

In fact, these green grabs now account for 20% of large-scale land deals, while over half of government carbon removal pledges risk interfering with smallholders and Indigenous populations. Countries have actually pledged to allocate land areas equivalent to the entirety of croplands globally (nearly 1.2 billion hectares) for carbon removal projects alone.

Carbon offsetting – a market that’s set to quadruple by the end of the decade – is facilitating massive land transactions and involving major polluters, including oil giant Shell and UAE-based firm Blue Carbon. Land is also being grabbed for biofuel and green energy production, including ‘green hydrogen’ projects that are water-intensive and threaten local food production.

Expansion and Encroachment

Mining, urbanisation and mega-developments are claiming prime agricultural land in many parts of the world for “rapid and often unsustainable economic expansion”. For example, mining projects alone were responsible for 14% of large land deals in the last decade, leading to displacement, conflicts and environmental degradation.

These land conversations are hurting farmers and local communities. But instead of safeguarding these people’s interests, IPES-Food says “dubious” investment laws are currently protecting the polluters. In Colombia, for instance, several transnational companies have successfully sued the government for trying to halt a large-scale mining project.

Food System Reconfiguration

Agrifood consolidation, the continuing rise of industrial agriculture, and accompanying dietary shifts are further degrading land and farmers’ control over it. The integration of smallholders into corporate supply chains is allowing companies to impose their own conditions and choices on contract farmers’ land, often leading to unsustainable land use.

Soaring land and input costs, and boom-bust cycles can make farmers’ livelihoods financially precarious, effectively forcing them to “go big or get out”. Meanwhile, the rise of “techno-centric, capital-intensive, and chemical input-intensive modes of agriculture” is driving farmland consolidation, and squeezing out smallholders.

Dietary shifts towards more animal-sourced and ultra-processed foods are putting a major strain on land, with factory farming and forest clearance closely associated with animal agriculture – livestock and feed production have made up 65% of global agricultural land use change in the last 50 years.

Additionally, the report suggests that leading food companies have pursued “deliberate research and marketing strategies” to reshape dietary habits, helping drive high meat consumption – which is linked to population growth and urbanisation – in affluent countries, and promote the “meatification” of diets in low- and middle-income nations.

Experts call for improved governance and land reforms

IPES-Food warns that if we don’t address the current trends, the land crisis could deepen inequality, facilitate rural exodus, and permanently squeeze more sustainable forms of small- and medium-scale farming out of business. This could push the agriculture sector towards unsustainable and polluting industrial models irrevocably.

The report highlights three sets of key recommendations to resolve the crisis. First, it’s vital to build integrated land, environmental and food systems governance to stop green grabs, refocus the spotlight on local communities and human rights, and ensure a just transition. Community-managed land systems are cited as the best way to reconcile food production and ecosystem protection, and these should become central to global biodiversity goals.

Second, there needs to be a shift of speculative capital and financial actors from “commodity to community”. Governments need to make the ‘true cost’ of net-zero pledges transparent, and phase out market mechanisms for carbon removals. Capping land acquisitions, giving farmers and local communities first refusal on land sales, and cracking down on bogus land-based offsets are also crucial.

Finally, the report advocates for a new generation of land and agrarian reforms, and bold steps to redistribute land back to its true owners. Better deals for farmers and rural communities are key to addressing poverty, securing livelihoods, and achieving land equality. Fair prices, adequate social security and pensions, and incentives to adopt agroecological practices will go a long way.

“Land isn’t just dirt beneath our feet, it’s the bedrock of our food systems keeping us all fed. Yet we’re seeing soaring land prices and grabs driving an unprecedented ‘land squeeze’, accelerating inequality and threatening food production,” said Susan Chomba, an expert at IPES-Food. “The rush for dubious carbon projects, tree planting schemes, clean fuels, and speculative buying is displacing small-scale farmers and Indigenous peoples.”

Sofía Monsalve Suárez, another IPES-Food expert, added: “It’s time decision-makers stop shirking their responsibility and start to tackle rural decline. The financialisation and liberalisation of land markets are ruining livelihoods and threatening the right to food.

“Instead of opening the floodgates to speculative capital, governments need to take concrete steps to halt bogus ‘green grabs’ and invest in rural development, sustainable farming and community-led conservation. Bottom line, we’ve got to make some serious changes to democratise land ownership if we want to ensure a sustainable future for nature, food production and rural communities.”

The post Land Grabs & Carbon Offset Schemes are Threatening Farmers & Food Production: New Report appeared first on Green Queen.

Czech media outlets are vastly underreporting the link between food and climate change, despite the sector contributing to 7.6% of the country’s emissions.

The food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, but this is hardly discussed in the media’s coverage of climate change. One analysis, for example, found that 93% of press articles about the climate crisis don’t mention animal agriculture, even though that industry is responsible for up to 20% of all emissions.

Now, a similar – albeit more specific – analysis of Czech media has found a significant disparity in the coverage of environmental issues. Conducted by non-profit ProVeg Czechia, which based the assessment on data from media insights platform Mediaboard, the research shows that media outlets in the country vastly overlook the climate impact of food and agriculture, especially when compared to the energy sector.

Of the 5,993 articles assessed, only 595 (10%) mentioned food, while 2,727 (45.5%) discussed the energy sector. Things are even worse when you look at agriculture – particularly meat and dairy – which accounted for just 1.3% of all climate coverage in Czech media. But a drastic shift in messaging and awareness is needed, considering that Czechia is the seventh-largest EU country in terms of per capita meat consumption.

Animal-based foods are twice as polluting as plant-based foods, with meat alone responsible for 60% of the food system’s emissions globally. Ignoring this impact is detrimental to country’s climate plans and the global fight to limit warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century – but the results of this study are also all too familiar.

“It is vital to acknowledge that we have never consumed more meat than we do now. This overconsumption is taking its toll on both human health and that of the planet,” said Eva Hemmerová, communications manager for ProVeg Czechia. “The media needs to investigate and report on the profound impact that our dietary choices have on the environment.”

Climate-food gap exacerbated by ‘feedback loop’

ProVeg chose stories from 23 print and online outlets, based on keywords related to climate change, agriculture, meat, dairy, energy and food. But what made the non-profit explore the underreporting of food and agriculture? “We had this assumption when looking at the Czech media coverage, and it made us think that it would be interesting to have some data to back our opinion, which turned out to be quite accurate,” Martin Ranninger, co-director of ProVeg Czechia, told Green Queen.

“We noticed that agriculture wasn’t covered as much as energy and other environmental issues. This concern grew from our regular monitoring and past observations of media trends,” he added.

According to one estimate, agriculture makes up 7.6% of all emissions within Czechia. Nearly half of this share (49%) comes in the form of methane from livestock farming. And this is before you account for total consumption emissions in the nation.

So why does the gap exist in the press? Ranninger ascribes it to a “feedback loop”. “People (including journalists) know little about the connection between food and its impact on the climate crisis, so the media cover this topic less, and people know little about it.”

Reducing the number of livestock and the consumption of meat and dairy would help bring down these emissions considerably. And it seems there is some awareness about this link – a separate survey from last year reveals that 40% of Czechs would be in favour of limiting or capping the amount of meat and dairy people can buy, and 67% woud support carbon labelling for all food products.

ProVeg Czechia is calling on local media outlets to adopt a more balanced and comprehensive approach to reporting on climate issues. This stands to serve not just Czechia’s own climate goals – as of 2022, its per capita GHG emissions were three tonnes higher than the EU average – but the EU’s targets too.

Research has found that 82% of its common agriculture policy budget goes towards livestock farming (four times more than what it spends on plant-based foods). But animal agriculture makes up 84% of the EU’s food emissions, despite only supplying 35% of calories and 65% of proteins consumed in the region.

Czechia’s position on alternative proteins

Next month, EU citizens will vote in the latest European Parliament elections, and since 2024 has been described as a year of climate elections, environmental issues should be high on the agenda. But the EU has been infamous for its complex novel foods regulatory framework, which has prevented up-and-coming cultivated meat startups from launching in their home regions and look elsewhere, and kept out products from leading international players like Impossible Foods (whose precision-fermented heme ingredient in its flagship burger is not approved for sale in the region).

In fact, countries have been looking to further restrict these foods from being commercialised in the EU. Italy has already banned cultivated meat, while France and Romania are hoping to do the same. In fact, a coalition of EU member states – including Czechia – presented a case for further regulations against cultivated meat in an Agrifish Council meeting in January.

“The European Commission must work hard to allay concerns expressed by EU agriculture ministers about cultivated meat to prevent the EU from missing out on the huge economic and environmental benefits of the new food technology,” said Ranninger. “We already have a robust regulatory procedure in place that will ensure that all cultivated foods that will appear on the EU market are safe, so we do not need to reinvent the wheel.”

He added that the EU Commission needs to reassure concerned member states that its “world-class regulations mean cultivated meat will be a win-win” for the bloc. For its part, the Czech government has invested in these proteins, awarding €200,000 in grants to local cultivated pork startup Mewery. Fellow Czech producer Bene Meat will soon introduce cultivated pet food too.

“We appreciate the efforts to open the discussion and hold informational seminars in the Chamber of Deputies and Czech ministries, in which ProVeg has the opportunity to participate. However, it is necessary to note the absence of specific steps and policies supporting the plant-based sector,” Ranninger said when asked about Czechia’s alternative protein policies.

“There is a need for fair subsidy systems and stopping restrictions on plant-based denominations promoted by the dairy and meat lobbies, which threaten the EU single market and paradoxically may confuse consumers.”

The post Only 1% of Climate Reporting in Czech Media Tackles Animal Agriculture: Study appeared first on Green Queen.

Beef tallow is on a resurgent streak, thanks in part to the apprehension against seed oils. But have we forgotten about the planet?

If you, like me, grew up outside America, but still loved going to McDonald’s as a kid, the fries were probably why. There was something about those skinny, sometimes limp, always-perfectly-golden pieces of potato that would always leave you wanting more.

But I couldn’t – and still can’t – eat these famed fries when I visited their home country. This is because, for decades, McDonald’s in the US cooked its fries in beef tallow, a rendered beef fat. And even though it later switched to vegetable oil, to this day, it uses a small amount of ‘beef flavouring’ – no one really knows what that contains – when pre-frying its potatoes at its factories.

The fast-food giant says this ensures “the great-tasting and recognisable flavour” of its “world-famous fries”. At the turn of the century, McDonald’s was actually sued by customers and ordered to pay out $10M for misleading them about the use of tallow.

In the years since, vegetable oils have dominated the food landscape. In 2022, US imports of these oils reached nearly $11B, and in the last 20 years, the production of vegetable oils has doubled globally.

But then came the seed oil crash. Concerns over specific fatty acid content, oxidisation and smoke points, and ultra-processing have led consumers away from these fats, in pursuit of ‘cleaner’, better-for-them alternatives. This has coincided with the rise of fats like Zero Acre’s fermented oil, but also culminated in a resurgence of beef tallow. In the case of the latter, though, planetary concerns don’t seem to be too high on the priority list for consumers, and that’s a problem.

The nutritional argument

The beef with seed oils has led some brands to proudly display ‘no seed oil’ labels on their packaging. As highlighted by Andrea Hernández’s Snaxshot newsletter, tortilla chip maker Ancient Crunch’s Masa Chips have a neat ‘0g seed oil’ label front-of-pack. Beefy’s Own chooses to go with ‘vegetable oil free’ on its Tallow Chips packaging. Rosie’s Chips, meanwhile, doesn’t want to leave either out. ‘No vegetable or seed oil’ appears bang in the centre of the pack, encased in a golden star so you don’t miss it.

Even new players like Jesse & Ben’s are banking on the seed-oil-free movement, promising customers its fries will be cooked in either avocado oil or grass-fed beef tallow (more on the latter later). What’s the fuss with beef tallow, then? Like McDonald’s, all these brands will tell you that this imparts lots of good flavour to their food products. Because beef tallow has a high smoke point, it also doesn’t oxidise as easily. Plus, it’s solid at room temperature and lasts a long time.

Proponents of beef tallow also say that it contains the ‘good’ kinds of saturated fat and natural trans fat. Going down the rabbit hole of nutrition reserach about fats can be mind-boggling, and different studies will tell you different things. But one thing we do know is that we’re eating too much of it – in the US, one study suggests saturated fat makes up nearly 12% of calorie consumption, despite the national nutrition guidelines recommending Americans to keep this under 10%.

The American Heart Association, meanwhile, has an even lower threshold of 5%. This is because historically, these fats have been linked with an increased risk of heart disease, which kills an American every 33 seconds. But recent research has blurred that link, though even these studies acknowledge that replacing saturated with polyunsaturated fats can reduce the risk of heart disease.

As for trans fats, these have been labelled by many health experts as the worst kind of fat there is – but some argue that naturally occurring trans fats are okay, if in moderation.

Vegetable oils have a much higher concentration of unsaturated fats (around 80%), while beef tallow has only about 40%, according to the USDA. And nearly half of the latter is saturated fat, with the major fatty acid being palmitic acid. This has been known to raise LDL (or bad) cholesterol levels – beef tallow has 109mg of cholesterol per 100g.

Palmitic acid also affects your metabolism negatively, a charge also levelled at seed oils. The argument against these vegetable oils stems from oxidation and the presence of linoleic acid. Some say this acid oxidises 40 times faster than saturated fat, and can become ‘toxic’ and cause a host of diseases, including inflammation. Seed oils are criticised for being overly processed too, which means they sometimes contain artificial trans fats.

Vegetable oils themselves, though, came on the scene as heart-healthy alternatives to animal fats like tallow. Plus, they also have a much higher concentration of micronutrients like vitamins and minerals than beef tallow.

The climate conundrum of beef tallow

So, while people will continue to debate the health credentials of these different oils and fats, the conversation about the climate seems to have gone by the wayside. One estimate suggests that beef tallow generates 11.92kg of carbon per kg, which would place it at the top end of the list of foods with the highest GHG emissions.

Beef itself is the most heavily polluting food group on the planet, emitting twice as many greenhouse gas emissions as the next on the list (dark chocolate). Even the meat from dairy herds, which make up a minority of current beef production, has a massive climate footprint, appearing fourth on the list.

Cattle ranching to produce beef and its derivatives like tallow and gelatine is the top driver of Amazon deforestation (accounting for 80%). And according to the WWF, deforestation from cattle ranching releases 340 tonnes of CO2 annually, making up 3.4% of global emissions.

In its analysis of different fats, Zero Acre – which feeds microbes on rain-fed sugarcane plants to produce its oil – suggests that the environmental impact of beef tallow varies quite a bit. If sourced from factory-farmed beef, it emits high amounts of greenhouse gases and uses a lot of water. But, based on a life-cycle analysis by White Oak Pastures, it claims that regeneratively farmed tallow may be as sustainable as its own fermentation-derived oil.

The food brands mentioned above want you to know that their beef tallow is sourced from grass-fed beef, that term carries its own problems. One study last year revealed that pasture-raised cows that feed on grass actually represent 20% higher GHG emissions than grain-fed cattle. When accounting for soil carbon sequestration and carbon opportunity costs, the total carbon footprint of pasture-raised operations was 42% higher.

Companies that present beef as ‘climate-friendly’ are, frankly, engaging in a bullshit exercise. Beef is terrible for the planet – however you raise it. So are products derived from it, such as tallow. But that is falling on deaf ears. Even Zero Acre is part of a collaboration with Miami eatery Los Felix (a recipient of the Michelin Green star), which combines the fermented oil with beef tallow to make tortilla crisps.

For all intents and purposes, Zero Acre’s oil is definitely planet-friendly, as is the microalgae oil from Algae Cooking Club (which has the backing of a three-Michelin-starred chef, if we’re counting). Many others are working on sustainable alternatives to animal fats – a walking reminder that products like beef tallow, whether they’re factory-farmed, grass-fed, or regeneratively raised, need replacing.

Beef tallow may have a high smoke point, but it’s also a huge reason why there’s smoke coming out from the planet.

The post The Beef Tallow Trend is Bad for the Planet – Why’re We Doing This? appeared first on Green Queen.