Yves here. It should come as no surprise that large food companies, even ones that sport organic product lines, care more about cost minimization than farming conditions. This of course is typical neoliberal short-sightedness and corporate short-term return incentives writ large.
The reason this matters is food, more so than ever in the modern era, is set to become a flash point for political and geopolitical conflict. At least in the US, ample farm output meant that the big controversies were mainly about subsidies, such as to milk producers. There’s only been the occasional media bleat about consolidation of farm ownership and how small family farms have been badly squeezed.
Climate change is shifting growing patterns and producing erratic weather patterns that are producing more and more crop shortfalls around the world. This is happening as nations and investors have been snapping up productive land. I know a hedge fund that was buying farmland in Africa in the early 2000s, and China has similarly bought farms in Africa to help assure food supplies. Some US billionaires have also been buying up large swathes of arable land.
Some optimists contend that climate change will make land in further north regions more productive, compensating for climate-change-induced yield reductions in now prime regions. This is misguided. Those parts of the planet get less sunlight over the year, which limits agricultural productivity. As a result, they also have much less accumulated organic material in the soil, again lowering output potential. In other words, “more productive” is not likely to be “productive enough”.
This is a long-winded way of pointing out that food production and supply is set to become more politicized as scarcity increases.
By Shannon Kelleher. Originally published at The New Lede
Major food corporations are failing to effectively support farming practices that protect human and environmental health, according to an assessment of 20 companies released Thursday by a corporate watchdog group.
The report scored corporate programs and policies related to regenerative agriculture – a type of farming that prioritizes healthy soil – determining that, on average, the companies deserved a near-failing grade of “D”.
The nonprofit group As You Sow, which said it based its analyses on industry reports and other publicly available data, assigned the lowest grades to W.K. Kellogg Co., known for popular cereals including Frosted Flakes and Rice Krispies, and B&G Foods, Inc., whose brands include Crisco and Cream of Wheat.
Companies earning the highest scores included PepsiCo, the global snack and beverage giant, as well as McCain Foods and Lamb Weston, both known for their French fries and other potato products.
Regenerative farming practices have been surging in popularity in recent years, driven by concerns that industrial agricultural practices are contributing to global warming, polluting waterways, degrading soil health, harming delicate ecosystems and endangering human health and the health of many important species with widespread use of toxic chemicals.
Leaders of the regenerative agriculture movement encourage farmers to reduce and eventually eliminate pesticide use, diversify crops, incorporate livestock into their operations, and to make soil health a top priority to better sequester carbon, protect waterways from chemical runoff, and grow healthier crops.
Promoting regenerative practices is one of the stated goals of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again movement.
Several large corporations are embracing the movement, offering an array of programs and incentives to farmers, and touting their support for the regenerative movement to shareholders and customers.
Over half of the companies assessed in the report have adopted some type of regenerative agriculture program with “general goals, measurable by acreage or percentage of supply chain,” the authors found. More than half also provide regenerative farmers with financial support, a major barrier to transitioning to the sustainable farming style.
However, most of the companies are not collecting field-level data from their suppliers, highlighting an “important blind spot …. [and] areas for improvement across the food industry,” according to the report.
On average, the companies are failing to provide farmers with the support needed to scale up regenerative farming, the authors concluded. And only six of the companies require their suppliers to follow three or more specific practices, which can include planting cover crops that control erosion and suppress weeds, cutting back on soil-disrupting tillage and boosting crop diversity.
“Engaging in a full range of regenerative practices is essential to improving soil health, biodiversity, farm resilience, and other outcomes,” the authors write. “Companies requiring two or fewer practices as part of their regenerative programs … may fail to regenerate healthy soils and be at risk for greenwashing claims.”
Lamb Weston and Conagra were the only companies in the assessment to both collect and publicly report pesticide use by their suppliers, setting “a standard for peers to follow,” the authors wrote. Two other companies, McCain Foods and Post Holdings, collected pesticide use data but did not publicly report it. While reducing pesticides is “essential to achieving regenerative outcomes, particularly with regard to maintaining soil health,” according to the report, regenerative programs generally permit the use of such chemicals.
In addition to significantly reducing or eliminating pesticides, the authors recommend that companies develop clear indicators to measure their suppliers’ progress, such as soil organic matter and water quality, and that they provide financial incentives to farmers to support using regenerative techniques. They also note that almost all of the companies scored in the report use limited remoting sensing technologies to track soil health, which can provide unreliable data.
“The benchmarks outlined in this report can assist investors in evaluating the degree to which companies are moving to proactively reduce risks in their supply chains through regenerative agriculture,” the authors write.
Nate Powell-Palm, a first-generation regenerative farmer in Montana, was initially enthusiastic about the prospects for regenerative farming, but has since become disappointed.
“What I found was that mostly the word ‘regenerative’ became synonymous with ‘no-till’ systems,” said Powell-Palm during a July 10 webinar hosted by As You Sow, referring to a farming practice in which crops are grown without plowing the soil. While the technique can reduce soil erosion, it has also been associated with heavy weedkiller use.
Such farming systems fail to live up to visions of a more sustainable agricultural system, mostly maintaining the status quo, said Powell-Palm.
