New recipes

Boston Bar Owners Accepted Thousands From Beer Distributor to Exclude Competitor Brands

Boston Bar Owners Accepted Thousands From Beer Distributor to Exclude Competitor Brands


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

A number of popular bars and restaurants in Boston accepted money for every designated tap serving beer from one distributor

Thinkstock

The illegal ‘pay to play’ practice allowed major beer producers to control the market, edging out smaller brands

The owners of five popular restaurants and bars in Boston have been accused of entering illegal “pay to play” deals — in which a company pays to keep its product in stock and keep smaller competitors at bay — with Craft Beer Guild LLC, a local beer distributor.

Each bar owner is accused of accepting money — between $1,000 and $2,000 for each dedicated beer tap — from the distributor, totaling thousands of dollars in illegal revenue each year. The case is the first of its kind brought against local businesses by the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.

The bars cited by the regulatory agency are Jerry Remy’s Sports Bar & Grill, Estelle’s, Gather, Game On Fenway, and Coogan’s. Each owner operates other bars and restaurants in Boston in addition to these locations.

“This conduct is not something… that we’re proud of,” J. Mark Dickinson, an attorney for Craft Beer Guild, told The Boston Globe, confirming the payments. A hearing is scheduled for November.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.


Is Big Food and Grocery fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on ESG matters? Lobbying the EU and Brazil!

A group of 40 influential European food industry companies, including major retailers Ahold Delhaize, Aldi, Lidl, Migros, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and some of the big names in UK’s meat sector like Moy Park, Hilton Food Group and Cranswick have written an open letter on the protection of the Amazon to the National Congress of Brazil advising them that if measures are introduced in Brazil that undermine the protection of the Amazon rainforest region they will “have no choice but to reconsider our support and use of the Brazilian agricultural commodity supply chain”. In short, the food businesses are threatening to stop sourcing food products from Brazil. The letter specifically addresses the issue that Brazil’s legislature is considering introducing a bill to legalise the private occupation of public land in the Amazon region. The group believes such legislation would accelerate deforestation. The bill is being considered just months after Brazil pledged to end illegal logging.

The level of deforestation in the Amazon is reported as being the highest since 2008 – 175,000ha has been logged or burned in 2021 so far. Most of the cleared land is destined to grow soy and graze cattle for beef exports. The UK Coop grocery retail group said “it is imperative that the proposed legislation isn’t given any airtime by the Brazilian government”.

Is this just an idle threat or posturing to curry favour with green activists in Europe? Back in May 19th, 2020, essentially the same group of food companies, via an open letter, threatened to boycott Brazil over the same issues, although the link was made in their arguments that biodiversity is a vital factor in safeguarding against diseases like coronavirus that pass from animals to humans. The letter concluded: “We want to continue to source from and invest in Brazil and help ensure that protecting the Amazon can be economically productive for all. We urge the Brazilian government to reconsider its stance and hope to continue working with partners in Brazil to demonstrate that economic development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive”.

Clearly, the world’s largest meat company, Brazil’s JBS, is nervous about how its customers might view “Beef from Brazil” as being unacceptable. Back in September 2020, JBS launched an “anti-deforestation plan” to ensure by 2025 that cows it purchases are not raised on deforested land, financed by a $45m fund with more money to come, and using a blockchain-driven “green” platform. The company has considerable ground to make up as it has been accused of “cattle laundering” – switching cattle from black-listed ranches to ones with a clean environmental bill of health.

Marfrig, JBS’s principal Brazilian and global competitor, is equally active in announcing its commitment to deliver a deforestation-free supply chain and has ambitions to reach net zero emissions by 2030 using, inter alia, extensive regenerative agriculture practices.

Close to half of China’s imports of beef come from Brazil and 70% of Brazilian beef imports to China are from the Amazon region where deforestation risks are highest. Using TRASE, a date-based supply chain tool, these risks can be quantified and influential Chinese trading houses, if minded, can place pressure on Brazilian beef exporters to require that they minimise the environmental and social risks associated with beef destined for China.

It’s unusual for Big Food to stick its head above the parapet and place pressure on governments to up their standards relating to environmental and social policies and regulations relating to food production. However, the practice is becoming more common as social issues are increasingly taken into account by consumers when buying food. Big Food players, including Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Ferrero and Aldi, have written a joint letter to European Members of Parliament asking that they pass legislation to phase out eggs produced from caged hens. The letter states that “Companies moving away from eggs from caged hens have paved the way for changing how EU farmed animals are kept. Cage-free systems are widespread, economically viable and provide better living conditions for hens”. The signees called for support of poultry farmers during the transition.

The European Commission banned battery-caged eggs in 2012. Why would Big Food wish to push the legislators into better bird welfare regulations? After all, Unilever (amongst others) has already committed to eliminate caged eggs from its supply chains by 2025. For Nestlé, it’s simply “the right thing to do” and switching to cage-free eggs is “a central part of our strategy on improving animal welfare”.

Is Big Food fast becoming “Little Goody Two-Shoes” on animal welfare and environmental matters? Yes although it’s with a big dollop of self-interest! Increasingly, society expects big companies to show leadership and “do the right thing”. However, if doing so raises costs (e.g. for free range rather than caged eggs, or sourcing soya and meat from higher cost countries than, say, Brazil), then, it is disadvantaged in the marketplace if other players, perhaps minor brands, do not follow, and consumers just don’t notice! In such cases, big businesses may prefer formal government regulation, even more than informal industry agreements to a standard that can’t be penalised if some firms elect not to follow the agreement. Also, it’s just smart for companies to keep their fingers to the wind and to anticipate food industry changes that will be driven by upcoming government policy changes. Right now, one can observe governments becoming much more active on healthy food regulations – moving from trying to nudge their citizens towards healthier diets and exercise regimes towards harsher regulation – e.g. on fat/sugar/salt content, and advertising “junk” food to children. Better to make the changes before forced to by regulation and harvest the “healthy product halos”!

Big Food is stuck “between a rock and a hard place” as it has to decide on which social issues it might not bend. To continue with another egg example: should Big Food’s eggs be free range and free of male chick culling (the common practice of slaughtering day-old male chicks that are bred for egg production and, unfortunately for them, turn out to be the wrong gender for egg-laying!)? In this case, consumers or consumer activists will set the agenda.

In short, food companies should at least keep abreast of the social issues that consumers consider important when buying food. Being only a follower on such issues can be damaging for corporate reputations.



Comments:

  1. Bakasa

    Certainly. All above told the truth.

  2. Kigajar

    Bravo, wonderful phrase and timely

  3. Taujin

    Sorry, this issue has been removed

  4. Talbert

    I think this has already been discussed.

  5. Wynwode

    Wonderful, very funny opinion



Write a message