The increasing use of wind and solar energy in the US is driving massive economic benefits and emission reductions in the US, according to a new study.

Lower emissions, better air quality, and greater health benefits – these are the headline gains from the rise of renewable power in the US. Between 2010 and 2020, the country’s wind and solar generation capacity quadrupled from 40 gigawatts to 166 gigawatts – and for the first five months of last year, these sources generated more electricity than coal, following a trend from 2022.

This has driven significant climate benefits, according to a new study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and green energy consulting firm Clean Kilowatts. Published in the Cell Reports Sustainability journal, the research focuses on wind and solar energy from 2019 and 2022, and the accompanying impact on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

“From 2019 through 2022, wind and solar generation increased by about 55%,” LBNL scientist Dev Millstein told the Guardian. “By 2022, wind and solar provided roughly 14% of total electricity needs for the US.”

The study estimates that by reducing the need for fossil fuel electricity generation, the US avoided 915 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, which is equivalent to taking over 217 million gas-powered vehicles off the road for a year. Additionally, wind and solar energy use also removed 525,000 of SO2 and 468,000 tonnes of NOx from the atmosphere – both of which are produced during fossil fuel combustion and linked to greater asthma risk and a host of other conditions.

Wind and solar energy are saving lives

The researchers calculated economic benefits based on three factors: the change in gas or coal generation, the emissions rate of the generator type, and the damage caused by emissions changes. Over the four-year period, the hike in renewable energy brought about $249B in climate and health benefits to the US.

In 2022 alone, wind and solar energy provided $62B and $12B, respectively, in combined climate and air quality benefits. This is equivalent to $143 per MWh of wind energy, and $100 per MWh of solar power. When accounting solely for air quality, wind and solar energy provided $16B and $2.2B worth of health gains.

The latter figures are derived almost entirely from a reduced risk of premature deaths across the US. In 2022, the increased solar and wind capacity led to 1,200 to 1,600 fewer deaths, thanks to the removal of over 250 million tonnes of CO2 (a number that steadily increased over the period covered in the study).

To contextualise this, the authors point to research suggesting that improvements in the prevention and treatment of heart disease and cancer can reduce 21,000 premature deaths per year in the US until 2030. While wind and solar benefits are comparatively small, but “not negligible”. It also tackles a highly concerning trend – each year, the premature deaths of 350,000 Americans are attributed to fossil fuel pollution.

“These findings can help us target future wind and solar development to provide the greatest climate and health benefits,” said Johnson.

US investment in renewable energy at all-time high

There is a major disparity between the benefits of wind and solar energy – the former is responsible for much greater emission cuts and economic potential. But this gap makes sense when you consider that wind power has penetrated the US energy mix much more than solar installations. In 2023, wind energy generated 430 billion kWh of electricity in the country, versus 163 billion kWh from solar power.

The report also outlines how many areas that rely more heavily on wind are also more dependent on coal. So greater wind power use leads to a higher level of coal pollution being avoided.

Differences in the location of renewable energy plants also highlight the contrast in impact. For example, solar power primarily benefitted Western US, Texas, the Southeast, and the Carolinas, while wind energy aided Texas, Central US, and the Midwest. The latter two have a relatively higher amount of coal generation, and vice versa for the Western US region. This is consistent with the fact that most wind emission benefits come from offsetting coal power, and solar benefits are derived from offsetting gas generation.

Johnson said he hoped the research would help showcase the already-tangible advantages of solar and wind energy. “It is also important to recognise when something is working,” he said, particularly since people are “often focused on the challenges we face” with the climate crisis.

The US has been bolstering its clean energy investments in recent years, with financing from private and government sources reaching a record $239B in 2023, a 38% rise from the year before. These have been supported by legislations like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provide R&D grants and tax incentives for clean energy. The latter made up the vast majority of federal renewable power investment last year (which reached $34B).

The focus on renewable energy is in line with a recent report that suggests governments stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences, since there are enough fossil fuel projects planned to meet global energy demand forecasts for 2050. A transition away from fossil fuels was the major talking point of the UN’s flagship climate conference in Dubai last year, though the final text avoided the mention of a ‘phaseout’. But COP28 did call on governments to speed up the transition to renewable energy in their next round of climate commitments (or nationally determined contributions) due next year.

The post In 4 Years, Renewable Energy Has Yielded $250B in Health & Climate Benefits in the US 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.

Canada and the EU lead the way in terms of public funding for alternative proteins, while Asia is a region to watch for this year, according to a new policy-centric report.

Governments are investing more capital and implementing more supportive policies for alternative proteins as they recognise their potential as a solution to climate change, food security, public health, and employment – but they still have “plenty of ground to cover”, according to a new report.

Published by industry think tank the Good Food Institute (GFI), the State of Global Policy presents a snapshot of governments’ views on alternative protein across the planet in 2023. Its analysis estimates that public funding in the sector reached $523M last year, though this represented a 12.6% decline from the $599M poured into the industry in 2022.

Breaking this down further, $190M of this figure went to R&D, and another $163M was earmarked for commercialisation efforts. The remaining $170M was for mixed purposes. As for which alternative protein was most popular, it was a close call between plant-based ($189M) and fermentation-derived ($181M) innovations. Cultivated meat trailed behind with just $40M in government investments, while $112M was set aside for a combination of these proteins.

That said, GFI outlined that countries need to invest $10.1B annually for the industry to realise its full potential – this marks a nearly 30-fold increase from the actual investments that were disbursed in 2023 ($348M). But it’s just a fraction of the world’s spending on EVs, renewable energy and other climate-friendly technologies.

“By making public investments on par with other strategic priorities, policymakers can greatly accelerate the pace and scale of protein innovation and position their governments as leaders in a future industry,” the report states.

Here are the countries championing alternative proteins across different segments.

Who were the stars of 2023?

The report picks out Germany and the UK as the stars of 2023 for their dramatic increase in spending on alternative proteins. Germany surpassed its all-time funding into alternative proteins ($35M) with $44M in investment last year. The country is investing up to $20.4M in alternative proteins between 2023 and 2028, which includes a $547,000 grant to Kynda, as well as a new research project for cultivated seafood.

Germany has also set aside €38M ($41.3M) in its federal budget for 2024 to develop alternative protein production capacity and help farmers transition to plant-based agriculture. And, in March this year, it adopted a national nutrition strategy recommending that plant-based foods should make up at least 75% of people’s diets.

The UK, meanwhile, announced a $15.3M cellular agriculture research hub, funded over 20 research projects, and included cultivated meat and fermentation in a $2.2B national biotechnology plan. It also received its first two cultivated meat applications from Aleph Farms and Ivy Farm Technologies in 2023 (followed by Vital Meat last month), and is now overhauling its pre-Brexit regulations to clear the path for novel food companies. Cultivated pet food company Meatly is expecting the greenlight and a market launch imminently.

The public investment leaders

While the UK and Germany may be becoming major players, their investment is far eclipsed by a few others. Canada tops the charts with $129M invested in alternative proteins in 2023 (versus $174M in all-time funding before then). This is largely thanks to the allocation of $112M from Protein Industries Canada, a public-private partnership for novel proteins and one of the country’s economic clusters.

It was followed by the EU ($113M) and the US ($82M). Before 2023, Denmark was the leader on this list, investing a total of $223M in the sector – but it fell off last year, with just $891,000 in alternative protein financing.

The regulatory winners

Singapore has always been a flagbearer of progressive regulation when it comes to alternative proteins, but last year the US joined it as the only other country to approve the sale of cultivated meat, with Eat Just’s Good Meat and Upside Foods both launching their cultivated chicken products in restaurants.

The two countries had already given the go-ahead to precision fermentation company Remilk for its recombinant whey proteins, and its home country Israel joined that list, granting approval in April. Israel also became the third country to clear cultivated meat for sale at the start of this year. And Singapore followed its 2020 approval of Good Meat by giving the greenlight to Australia’s Vow.

The plant-based pioneers

GFI pinpointed three countries championing plant-based proteins by boosting local agriculture and manufacturing. Australia, which rescinded a grant for pulse protein factories after delays in enactment made the projects ineligible, saw four of its six states invest in alternative protein. One of them was Western Australia, which poured $3.3M into a factory producing oat milk enriched with lupin protein.

Neighbouring New Zealand, meanwhile, allocated $7M for a project developing alternative proteins from local crops like green peas, oats and hemp.

And in France, the government put restrictions on plant-based meat labels, but also led a $35M Series A fundraise of whole-cut vegan chicken producer Umiami. This was followed by its $8M grant for the company’s commercial-scale factory in 2022, which opened three months ago.

The cellular agriculture supporters

Six countries were highlighted by the GFI report for their biotech, research and infrastructure support for cultivated and fermentation-derived proteins. Two of the four pillars of Singapore’s $117M Food Story 2.0 programme are relevant to alternative protein, with a heavy focus on cultivated meat.

Israel awarded its previously announced funding of $13M for a precision fermentation contract development manufacturing organisation, while in the US, the Cornucopia programme seeks to create microbial foods, with $10.4M given to one of four fermentation projects over four years.

In February 2023, South Korea’s North Gyeongsang Province led a 28-member MoU to advance the cellular agriculture industry. The province also established a regulation-free zone for proof-of-concept prototypes, and a $6.7M Cellular Agriculture Industry Support Center.

The Netherlands, meanwhile, provided $1.1M from its Cellular Agriculture Netherlands programme for research into producing collagen and elastin through precision fermentation. And Finland supported local fermentation startup Solar Foods with the construction of two facilities through investments and grants, while funding a $5.3M research project for microbial fermentation.

The countries to watch

Among the six countries GFI outlined as laying the groundwork for significant investment in the sector, half are in Asia. India’s Ministry of Science and Technology announced a National Biomanufacturing Policy that includes alternative proteins as a key pillar, and created a funding programme to promote millets as a raw material for the plant protein industry, approving a $107,919 project for egg alternatives.

In November 2023, Japan accepted a proposal from three companies for R&D on cultivated wagyu beef, focused on scaling and commercialisation. And China, which included cultivated meat in its 14th five-year plan in 2022, “offered generous incentives to industry players” – while exact investment numbers are not known, its cultivated meat industry has grown as it’s a lower-cost environment than Europe or the US.

Elsewhere, Brazil may not have announced any new funding in 2023, but its new government’s “prioritisation of sustainability, the green economy, and low-carbon agriculture bodes well for the field”, the report suggests.

South Africa became possibly the first country in the continent to make a public investment in precision fermentation, injecting $700,000 into DeNovo FoodLabs’ development of whey protein. Finally, in Spain, the regional government of Catalonia awarded $7M for the construction of a scale-up facility for plant-based and fermented proteins.

The post State of Global Policy: Canada Leads Investment in Alt-Proteins, Asia a Region to Watch appeared first on Green Queen.

Finnish researchers have come up with a way to make cultivated meat without expensive growth factors, relying on stem cell metabolism instead.

As the race to produce cost-effective cuts of cultivated meat continues, researchers at the University of Helsinki are proposing an alternative to one of the most expensive parts of the manufacturing process.

“All companies run into problems at roughly the same point of scaling up production,” said Pekka Katajisto, who is leading the team at the Helsinki Institute of Life Science (HiLife).

The solution, then, lies in the technology developed under its Myocopia project, which relies on stem cell metabolism instead of growth factors. Can it help companies bring costs on par with conventional meat?

Cells grow meat only when instructed

Culture media are an essential part of cultivated meat production, comprising a mix of nutrients to facilitate the growth of animal cells. This accounts for the majority of the costs involved in the entire process, with growth factors – which help the cells differentiate – responsible for the bulk of those.

Companies have been working on ways to bring these prices down – typically, culture media cost hundreds of dollars per litre. Last month, UK company Meatly, which is on the verge of receiving regulatory approval for its cultivated pet food in the country, announced it had reduced the cost of its culture medium to $1.25 per litre by developing a protein-free version.

And just last week, fellow cultivated pet food producer BioCraft Pet Nutrition announced it had reached price parity with premium conventional meat by developing a nutrient medium composed of plant-based ingredients.

At Katajisto’s lab, which is connected to the Centre of Excellence in Stem Cell Metabolism, researchers studied how cell metabolism regulates the division and differentiation of stem cells. This led to an innovation that can keep the cells expanding longer than with current methods, and grow meat only when instructed to do so, enabling precise control in bioreactors.

“The cells can be kept multiplying in a financially viable way until the reactor is full. The cells are then guided to form meat – again using their own metabolism,” said Katajisto.

Myocopia plans to spin out in two years

The idea was first tested using capital from HiLife’s proof-of-concept funding. Once they achieved promising results, the team received state financing from Business Finland to commercialise its technology. Under the latter, Myocopia will validate the tech on “commercially interesting” meat products like beef, pork and poultry.

“We want to increase our understanding of the market and finetune our technology,” said Swetha Gopalakrishnan, scientific lead of the Myocopia project, who made the original observation that led to the innovation.

The goal is to become a B2B provider that can license its technical knowhow to cultivated meat producers. Olga Balakina, commercialisation specialist for the project, is assessing the market for potential partners. “Our top priority is to identify the companies with which we can launch a pilot,” she said.

Technology companies are of particular interest, since they can help the Myocopia team tailor the innovation based on market needs. The team has already begun the patenting process, and aims to speak to VCs and impact investors for financing next year.

“After two years, we can strive to establish a spinout,” said Balakina. As a “tech enabler” of the industry, one of its solutions could be “a cell-growing cocktail” that could stimulate growth effectively in existing bioreactors.

“I believe our innovation is going to be a game changer in the emerging industry as a whole,” added Katajisto.

The post Myocopia: Can Cell Metabolism Be the Catalyst for Cost-Effective Cultivated Meat? appeared first on Green Queen.

Lobbying from the meat and dairy sector has helped weaken and delay crucial climate policies in the EU, a new report shows.

Six key climate policies in the EU have been the target of intense lobbying by the meat and dairy industry, which receives 82% of the region’s public subsidies and has “largely succeeded” in weakening and stalling such legislation since 2020.

Livestock companies and associations have been using fossil fuel industry tactics to derail policies that aim to slash their impact on climate change and ensure food security in the bloc, according to a new report by InfluenceMap, which assessed how 10 companies and five industry groups engaged with climate-change-related legislation in the EU.

These policies span the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Sustainable Food Systems Framework, the Industrial Emissions Directive Review, the Review of EU Promotion of Farm Products, the EU School Milk Scheme, and the Methane Strategy. The pushback has been spearheaded by groups like Copa-Cogeca and European Livestock Voice, as well as meat and dairy giants like Cargill, Arla, Lactalis and Vion.

The analysis shows that CPG companies like Unilever, Nestlé and Danone have been engaging more positively on the EU policies, in contrast with producer companies. “Meat and dairy producers and the industry associations representing them appear to be borrowing tactics and narratives from the fossil fuel playbook in order to hold back policies to tackle its GHG emissions,” said Venetia Roxburgh, EU program lead at InfluenceMap.

“Following obstructive behaviour from the industry, and the infiltration of industry narratives in the EU Parliament and EU Commission, policies that are fundamental to reducing GHG emissions in line with scientific advice have been significantly weakened or have stalled.”

Meat and dairy driving fossil-fuel-like narratives

The animal agriculture industry has largely relied on two narratives to influence policymakers in the EU. These misleading arguments – and their sub-narratives – featured in consultation responses, public statements, and social media produced by the meat and dairy sector, plus in communication between these entities and EU agricultural commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski.

The first narrative mentioned in the report distances livestock as a driver of climate change. This involves spotlighting positive agricultural impacts, downplaying emissions, emphasising efficiency gains, and denying a need to transition diets. But meat and dairy production account for up to 20% of global emissions, and meat alone is responsible for twice as many emissions as plant-based foods, which is why a transition has been recommended by experts and bodies like the UNEP.

The second argument has to do with the importance of livestock, its benefits for society and health, its affordability, and its potential for food security. This, however, is highly misguided – animal agriculture provides only 35% of calories and 65% of proteins in the EU, but contributes to 84% of its food emissions.

But these efforts have appeared convincing to the European People’s Party and its approach to next week’s election, with the conservative party mirroring these narratives by opposing key policies and efforts to reduce emissions from animal agriculture.

European Livestock Voice and its member organisations the European Livestock and Meat Trades Union (UECBV) and Copa-Cogeca have been emphasising the importance of livestock consumption for human health across multiple channels. Dutch meat producer Vion, for example, has called meat “an essential food”. German meat manufacturer Tönnies Group, meanwhile, has played down the impact of methane emissions, suggesting that its products “maintain natural cycles” and that methane emissions are part of a “continuous cycle”.

The report likens these narratives to the tactics employed by the fossil fuel industry, which has been found to follow strategies promoting positive sentiments among key stakeholders and emphasising the social acceptance of gas as a societal need. Both industries are dangerously downplaying the impact of their practices on climate change, despite being the source of nearly all greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, none of the meat or dairy producers analysed in the report are aligned with the IPCC’s science-based recommendations on policy engagement, with meat companies even more misaligned than dairy. Consumer-focused companies like Unilever and Nestlé, on the other hand, appear to be more actively supportive of such policies. “Without science-based policies tackling the sector, it does not seem likely that European agricultural GHG emissions will reduce in line with 1.5°C,” said Roxburgh.

Industry associations lead the charge against EU climate policies

The research found that industry associations were much more engaged on land use policies than their member companies, particularly those that reckoned with a transition to plant-based diets and a scaling up of carbon sequestration.

Copa-Cogeca, which has been in bed with the EPP to push back against the EU’s Nature Restoration Law and Sustainable Use Regulation (with the aim of halving pesticide use), was “five times more engaged” than its member companies. The group has previously been accused of promoting industrial agriculture over smallholder farmers. The UECBV, meanwhile, was “around three times more engaged” than their members.

These associations are the primary mechanism through which meat and dairy companies have been influencing climate policies in the EU. “This trend could indicate that companies are relying on their industry associations to engage on their behalf, rather than carrying out their own active advocacy,” the report said.

Each of the five associations – which also included the European Dairy Association (EDA) and FoodDrinkEurope – was opposed to the Review of EU Promotion of Farm Products, which seeks to enhance the sector’s contribution to sustainable production with a shift away from red meat and towards a more plant-based diet.

All groups were unsupportive of the Farm to Fork Strategy too. The EDA and Copa-Cogeca, in fact, were either unsupportive or opposed to all six policies. All this lobbying has meant that the Sustainable Food Systems Framework – which advocated for a transition to plant-based diets – has been stalled, as have the aforementioned farm products review and the EU School Milk Scheme, which supported the supply of plant-based milk in schools.

Meanwhile, the Industrial Emissions Directive and Farm to Fork Strategy have been “severely weakened” by industry advocacy, while the Methane Strategy is the only policy analysed that hasn’t been weakened. “These lobbyists are focused on sowing doubt, when farmers should be sowing crops,” said British climate campaigner Chris Packham, who called the coalition groups “self-serving advocates”.

“Farmers are struggling with extreme levels of rainfall and flooding which will soon be reflected in the costs at our supermarket tills,” he added. “As our fields remain waterlogged, these industry associations are flooding the meeting rooms of policymakers and the public narrative with misinformation.”

Packham called the longer-term climate and economic costs “catastrophic”, unless government policies are influenced by science instead of “an industry with vested interests”. “The issues of livestock emissions and a need to transition to a more plant-based food system requires the farming industry to work boldly and quickly alongside government and scientists to strengthen climate policies, not weaken them,” he said.

The post Meat & Dairy Industry Have Weakened & Stalled Key EU Climate Policies: Report appeared first on Green Queen.

Making modest ingredient swaps could help cut food emissions by 26%, but larger switches – like replacing meat with plant-based analogues – can bring about a 71% reduction.

The food system only trails behind the energy sector in terms of planetary impact, accounting for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Study after study has shown that animal-derived products have a much heavier footprint, with one suggesting that meat alone accounts for 60% of the food system’s emissions.

Now, new analysis – claimed to be the most detailed research into the climate impacts of a country’s food habits – has revealed that switching from meat to plant-based analogues could cut emissions by as much as 71%.

Researchers from Imperial College London’s School of Public Health and the George Institute for Global Health looked into comprehensive emissions data and sales for over 22,000 supermarket products in Australia, which are typical of the western diet of many countries. Covering the annual grocery purchases of 7,000 households, the research calls for significant dietary change in high-income countries to meet global climate targets.

Meat and dairy the biggest GHG emitters

The study used data from the George Institute’s FoodSwitch database from 2019 as well as global environmental impact datasets, assigning foods to 16 major categories, which were further divided into 74 minor categories and 703 sub-categories.

For example, bread and bakery, meat and meat products, and dairy were the main categories, further divided into minor subsets of bread, processed meat, and yoghurt and yoghurt drinks, and then separated by sub-categories like white bread, meat pies, and non-dairy yoghurts.

The research revealed that replacing higher-emission products with “very similar” lower-carbon ones (from high-GHG to low-GHG breads, for example) can reduce emissions by as much as 26%, while more drastic switches to “less similar” foods (from high-GHG garlic bread to low-GHG white bread) could result in a 71% reduction.

The differences are quite pronounced when you analyse animal products like meat and dairy. Meat alone makes up for nearly half (49%) of the 31 million tonnes of GHG emissions analysed, despite only making up 11% of all grocery purchases. Dairy is the second-largest contributor (17%), though these products accounted for 21% of product sales.

Meanwhile, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes contributed to 5.2% of all emissions, despite making up a quarter of all purchases. And meat analogues were the lowest-emitting of all product categories, responsible for just 0.03% of all emissions (albeit representing 0.07% of purchases). This is why swapping from a meat-based lasagna to a vegetarian one can lead to the 71% emissions cut mentioned above.

While the researchers aim to show that even small changes can foster climate-conscious eating habits, a glimpse at the difference between dairy and non-dairy shows how much vegetarianism differs from fully plant-based eating. Going from Aldi’s sweetened Greek yoghurt with honey granola to Coco Tribe’s gluten-free vanilla coconut yoghurt can reduce emissions by 77% (the research excluded brand names, but the product descriptions point to these companies).

Could carbon labelling help consumers make climate-smart choices?

“Consumers are willing to make more sustainable food choices, but lack reliable information to identify the more environmentally-friendly options,” said Gaines. She and her co-authors are calling for on-pack carbon labels on all packaged food products to help consumers make informed choices.

“The results of our study show the potential to significantly reduce our environmental impact by switching like-for-like products,” she added.

The study proves that incorporating sustainability targets in national food policies could directly help reach global climate goals, without burdening consumers, according to Paraskevi Seferidi, a research fellow at the School of Public Health. “This is why we are urgently calling for robust legislation that targets high-emission food products,” she said.

The combined health and environmental costs of the global food system are estimated at between $12.7T and $15T. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, “unhealthy dietary patterns” are the major contributor to these hidden costs.

“There is currently no standardised framework for regulating the climate or planetary health parameters of our food supply, and voluntary measures have not been widely adopted by most countries,” said Bruce Neal, executive director of the George Institute Australia and an Imperial College London professor. “This research shows how innovative ways of approaching the problem could enable consumers to make a real impact.”

Based on the research, the George Institute has developed a free app called ecoSwitch, which is currently available in Australia. “Shoppers can use their device to scan a product barcode and check its Planetary Health Rating, a measure of its emissions shown as a score between half a star (high emissions) to five stars (low emissions),” explained Neal.

He added: “EcoSwitch is a much-needed first step, but our vision is for mandatory display of a single, standardised sustainability rating system, on all supermarket products.”

The post Switching to Meat Analogues Could Cut Emissions by 71%, Shows Analysis of 7,000 Households appeared first on Green Queen.

Lower sugar, lower emissions, lower waste – it’s a chocolate bar that can do it all, and uses it all. Can this sustainable indulgence save chocolate and the world?

Switzerland is renowned as one of the chocolate capitals of the world, whether we’re talking commodity, high-end, or a bit of both. So as cocoa crops and chocolate bars face an uncertain and increasingly volatile future, it should perhaps come as no surprise that the home of Nestlé, Lindt, Toblerone, Cailler and Frey is hoping to lead the fight for the industry’s survival.

It may sound like an exaggeration – but just look at the data. Thanks to disappointing harvests, cocoa prices have been on a wild ride over the last year, reaching all-time highs in recent months. In April, a ton of cocoa was priced at over $12,000 – for context, it was under $2,500 in January 2023.

Crop failures have driven a third consecutive year of cocoa shortages, and it’s those on the farm who are the hardest hit – large chocolate companies continue to line their pockets. While investment in the sector is dwindling, the climate crisis is a major culprit. Scientists are warning that a third of cocoa trees could die out by 2050, just as chocolate production continues to decimate the planet.

Dark chocolate is the second-most polluting food (behind only beef), thanks in large part to the widespread use of palm oil, a major source of deforestation. While farmers in Ivory Coast, the largest cocoa producer, are truly feeling the heat, more than 85% of the forest has been lost since 1960. This is why the EU and the UK are introducing bans on importing deforestation-linked cocoa – although these come with their own strings attached.

Suffice it to say: chocolate and our sweet tooth are in trouble. Some startups are developing cocoa-free and lab-grown, with future chocolate bars featuring “less cocoa or none at all”, as one writer puts it. But researchers at ETH Zurich, the public research university in the Swiss capital, are going the opposite route, making chocolate that contains all of the cocoa fruit, and just the cocoa fruit.

It’s part of an Innosuisse (the state innovation agency) project, where a research team led by ETH Zurich professor Erich Windhab worked in tandem with cacao fruit startup Koa and Swiss chocolate manufacturer Felchlin to develop a recipe for the novel chocolate.

Finetuning a game-changing cocoa gel

Consider the honeydew melon. It has a large outer shell, and, when you cut it open, you encounter the flesh, as well as the seeds and pulp. Cacao fruit is similar.

Cocoa beans are the seeds of this fruit, but very little of the plant actually ends up in the chocolate bars we buy. It’s why you see cocoa percentages on packaging, as they’re mixed with some kind of sugar, fat and other flavourings.

But ETH Zurich researchers have managed to tap into the flesh as well as the outer shell – or the endocarp – for its ‘cocoa-fruit chocolate’. This is important because they represent 70-80% of the fruit, and are usually discarded, making it one of the world’s most wasted fruits. Making use of these parts of the plant can open up a new income stream for farmers, revive degraded landscapes, and produce clean energy too.

It’s something startups like Pacha de Cacao, Cabosse Naturals (owned by Barry Callebaut), Blue Stripes and CaPao are already harnessing. However, many of these applications rely on cacao fruit as a byproduct – the team at ETH Zurich is treating it as an ingredient in its own right. This also helps remove the reliance on other industries – like palm oil and sugar – to create end products.

Here’s how they replace everything else to make it an all-cocoa bar. They take the endocarp, dry it, and turn it into a fine powder. This is then mixed with part of the pulp and heated to form a cocoa gel, which is extremely sweet and can replace the sugar used in conventional chocolate. The cocoa mass, meanwhile, is made from the beans – so the only thing left over is part of the thin outer husk, which is traditionally used as fuel or composting material.

While that might sound simple in theory, there was a lot of back-and-forth to find just the right recipe, with various tests assessing the texture of different compositions in the lab. Too much cocoa gel? It’s a clumpy chocolate. Too little? Not sweet enough. Finding the balance between sweetness and texture was hard, something that isn’t an issue when you just use powdered sugar.

Finally, though, they settled on a maximum gel ratio of 20%, which gives you the same amount of sweetness as a bar with 5-10% powdered sugar content. This is still much below the 30-40% threshold of regular dark chocolate, but the perceived sweetness was still palatable to taste testers from the Bern University of Applied Sciences, who tried chocolates weighing 5g each. They contained varying amounts of powdered sugar or cocoa gel.

“This allowed us to empirically determine the sweetness of our recipe as expressed in the equivalent amount of powdered sugar,” said Kim Mishra, lead author of a study based on the research, and R&D lead at plant-based meat pioneer Planted.

Dual benefits of sustainability and health carry mass appeal

Mishra and his team are excited about the health and environmental benefits of their creation. They carried out a life cycle analysis comparing conventional chocolate to their process both at lab-scale and commercial levels, revealing that their cocoa-fruit chocolate would have a lower climate footprint – in terms of global warming potential, and land and water use – if produced at scale.

The nutritional factor is another plus. As new players come up with ways to reduce sugar – either by using novel sweet proteins or by turning it into dietary fibre – the ETH Zurich chocolate boasts a higher fibre content (15g per 100g) compared to average European dark chocolate (12g), thanks to the use of the cocoa gel as a sweetener.

This translates to a 20% increase in fibre, as well as a 30% decrease in saturated fat, at a time when gut health is all the rage. “Fibre is valuable from a physiological perspective because it naturally regulates intestinal activity and prevents blood sugar levels from rising too rapidly when consuming chocolate,” said Mishra.

“Saturated fat can also pose a health risk when too much is consumed. There’s a relationship between increased consumption of saturated fats and increased risk of cardiovascular diseases,” he added.

He argued that small-scale farmers can diversify their offerings and increase incomes if the whole cocoa fruit can be marketed for chocolate production. “Farmers can not only sell the beans, but also dry out the juice from the pulp and the endocarp, grind it into powder and sell that as well,” he said. “This would allow them to generate income from three value-creation streams. And more value creation for the cocoa fruit makes it more sustainable.”

But it may be a while before you see cocoa-fruit chocolate in your local supermarket. “Although we’ve shown that our chocolate is attractive and has a comparable sensory experience to normal chocolate, the entire value creation chain will need to be adapted, starting with the cocoa farmers, who will require drying facilities,” said Mishra.

To that end, ETH Zurich has filed for a patent for its chocolate recipe. “Cocoa-fruit chocolate can only be produced and sold on a large scale by chocolate producers once enough powder is produced by food processing companies.” You can’t help but think that its partnership with Koa and Felchlin will only continue to serve this purpose. And who knows, maybe your Lindor balls will be filled with cocoa gel soon.

The post This Chocolate Is Made With All Parts of the Cocoa Fruit – and Nothing Else 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.

People’s decisions when eating out are heavily impacted by the dining environments they’re in – here’s how foodservice operators can nudge plant-based choices.

A host of trials recently have shown the power of behavioural science in the food system’s fight against climate change. Some foodservice operators have chosen to make plant-based the default option, for example; others have moved away from words like ‘vegan’ or ‘plant-based’.

All these interventions have varying degrees of success, but studying different behavioural science techniques can help outline robust strategies that encourage low-carbon eating habits in restaurants, colleges, offices and hospitals, among other places.

In 2020, the World Resources Institute (WRI) neatly distilled 57 of these strategies into a playbook to help foodservice operators nudge diners to pick plant-based dishes. As part of its Coolfood initiative to help reduce foodservice emissions by 25% by 2030, the playbook was used by companies collectively serving eight billion meals a year annually. As a result, the members of the Coolfood pledge have cut per-plate GHG emissions by 10% since 2020 already.

But as more research has come out, WRI has compiled those insights to update its foodservice playbook, which now has 90 techniques. Of these, 18 are ‘priority’ techniques that have been found defective and feasible in trials, and operators can adapt without hesitation.

The new priority list is shorter than the 23-strong list in the first iteration of the playbook. But the latest strategies are organised into six categories, as opposed to five. Price now joins the “6P framework”, which retains the previous segments of product, presentation, people, promotion and placement.

WRI decided to add the price category because the one focused on promotions was overly long, and a distinct subset of approaches involving price modification had emerged. Price techniques involve redesigning the cost of plant-rich dishes, plus new ways to incentivise diners to choose these options or otherwise disincentivise selection of meat dishes,” the report states.

Here are the highlights from WRI’s low-carbon foodservice playbook 2.0.

Blended meat, flavour focus and chef support

Some of the highest-ranking techniques in the new playbook fall into the product category, which involves techniques that involve modifying the food being served. Increasing the variety and ratio of plant-rich dishes on offer has been found effective in over two dozen trials collectively, while enhancing the appearance of these options and arranging them so that the most appealing ingredients are visible are highly effective too.

Improving the flavours and texture of dishes is crucial, too. For most people, while health has become an important consideration, taste still drives consumption habits. “Products tasting great is, I would say, a necessary condition for change to happen,” says Sophie Attwood, senior behavioural scientist at WRI, and one of the report’s authors.

WRI suggests that blending plant-based ingredients into conventional meat to reduce the animal content could deliver some key gains. This is an approach that is becoming increasingly popular in the foodservice sector – Disneyland is using 50/50 Foods’ Both Burger, while US meat purveyor Pat LaFrieda has incorporated Mush Foods’ 50Cut mycelium meat into a beef burger.

“One common option is to replace a portion of the beef content with mushrooms, with the ratio of 70% meat to 30% mushrooms already trialled with success in food service,” the report suggests. “Meat will remain the main focal taste of the dish, and diners will likely not notice the difference, all while a significant reduction in GHG emissions can be achieved.”

One of the highest-rated suggestions comes from the people category (which targets foodservice employees), and involves giving chefs access to tools and ingredients that can help them prepare appealing plant-based dishes. This received a 12.44 expert score out of a maximum of 14 – but it wasn’t one of the promising techniques as there have been no trials to support this theory.

However, there have been two studies where chefs have been trained to cook and prepare plant-rich dishes, which has high potential. “It’s in recognition of the importance of chefs to the sustainable food movement by creating healthy and sustainable dishes the diners actually want to buy,” says Attwood. “This is really the cornerstone of the whole movement.”

Carbon labels and the importance of language

How dishes are labelled and communicated to consumers is a key theme of the playbook. This is highlighted by the promotion category, which includes communication, marketing, advertising and campaign approaches. Using marketing materials to promote the benefits of plant-rich diets across flavour, environment and local touchpoints has high potential, as does creating social media groups for diners to share ideas and reviews.

The messaging focus continues with the presentation techniques too (which involve modifying the language, imagery and layout of menus, signs and labels). One of the most trialled and successful interventions is to add carbon labels on foodservice menus.

“Key considerations when adding environmental labels to menus include ensuring that the labels will be understood by diners, communicate relevant information, and do not misrepresent the true impact of different foods across multiple environmental outcomes (e.g., biodiversity, GHG emissions, land use, water use, etc.),” the report suggests. “At present, there is no frontrunner in terms of optimal label design, although certain characteristics, such as the colour green, are received positively by customers.”

Meanwhile, there’s a spotlight on the type of language used on menus, with WRI advocating to remove unappealing terms like ‘meat-free’ or ‘vegetarian’, and instead use indulgent and selective language to describe plant-based dishes (such as ‘chef’s special’ or words describing umami flavours). Multiple studies have shown that people are discouraged from labels like ‘vegan’, and the foodservice playbook confirms their inefficacy.

“The language that we use to describe food can have a powerful influence on how we subsequently experience it. Research shows that certain language works particularly well to evoke mental simulations (or ‘mental images’) of what a dish will be like to eat. If these simulations are positive, they can tempt diners to change their choices by creating desire for plant-rich options,” says the playbook.

Terms like ‘healthy’, ‘light’ or ‘low-calorie’ aren’t too effective either, but flavour descriptors and indulgent wording go a long way. “Enjoyable, figurative language (i.e., use of wordplay, idioms, rhymes, or metaphor) can also have a similar, positive effect.”

The other two Ps of the framework are placement (food displays and physical environment) and price. In the former category, integrating plant-based meat into the same sections as conventional meat is an effective strategy – but so is introducing a dedicated section for plant-rich foods. In terms of price, the most effective way to nudge low-carbon behaviours is to run cross-product promotions involving plant-forward dishes with drinks, sides or desserts.

“Chefs, culinary directors, marketers, and nearly anyone involved in shaping a dining environment has a big hand in also shaping what foods customers choose to buy, everywhere,” says WRI president and CEO Ani Dasgupta. “In the grand scheme, that can make a significant contribution towards accelerating our transition to a healthier and more sustainable food future.”

The post The Foodservice Playbook: How to Nudge Diners Into Picking Sustainable, Plant-Based Dishes 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.