Yves here. While the turmoil caused by Trump’s disregard for international norms and domestic laws continues to make headlines, our climate and environmental emergencies persist with unyielding momentum. This article delves into a critical factor: our contemporary food system, which is heavily skewed towards large corporations that consume excessive resources, plays a significant role in these crises. It explores how agricultural practices threaten the vital systems upon which we all rely, with an alarming prediction that 90% of the Earth’s topsoil could be at risk of severe degradation by 2050.
The typical remedy would be to hold producers accountable for the full environmental costs of their actions through “producer pays” levies aimed at curtailing short-sighted exploitation. However, the agricultural giants would likely assert that they would need to pass these expenses onto consumers, who are already grappling with rising food costs amid an “affordability crisis” plaguing many advanced economies. Factors contributing to these heightened food prices include poor agricultural yields due to climate impacts and outbreaks, like bird flu, and the added burden of energy costs in Europe linked to sanctions against Russia. The challenge lies in finding a way to encourage consumers to make more ecologically responsible choices, aside from confronting them with the true environmental impact of their diets. I have consistently advocated for a shift towards a more sustainable food chain. Additionally, this article offers further essential recommendations for mitigating the environmental toll of farming, yet such changes would necessitate careful planning and consistent resource allocation—qualities often lacking in our leadership.
By Alex Crisp, a freelance journalist focusing on the environment, animal welfare, and emerging technologies. He has a background in law, journalism, and education, and is the host of the “Future of Foods Interviews” podcast. Produced for the Observatory by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
The “polluter pays” principle serves as a foundation of environmental regulation. It generates billions annually and has been pivotal in motivating energy companies to transition to cleaner, more efficient energy sources. Initially formalized in 1972 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it faced initial pushback from energy firms, who argued that internalizing environmental costs would hinder competitiveness, elevate consumer prices, and suppress innovation. Many in the energy sector cautioned that acknowledging environmental costs would lead to layoffs—claims that circulated widely in the media and industry. Despite these challenges, the principle gradually evolved from being deemed “radical” and “punitive” to becoming a cornerstone of environmental and economic law.
Today, we encounter a similar urgency for our food systems.
The crux of the issue is agriculture. The very system that supports us has morphed into a catalyst for environmental degradation. It consumes 70 percent of freshwater resources, occupies half of all habitable land, produces around a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and is the leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. With a predicted global population increase of 2 billion by mid-century, the demand for food is set to rise by 50 percent, with protein demand alone projected to double, as asserted in a 2017 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report. The pressing question is: how can we produce more food without jeopardizing our planet, and where would the funding for this transformative shift originate?
The Challenges in Food Production
Decades of intensive agricultural practices have left many fields exhausted, compelling farmers to increase fertilizer usage just to maintain yields. In his 2022 book Sixty Harvests Left, Philip Lymbery emphasizes that humanity’s food system is rapidly heading towards collapse. His title resonates with a dire warning from the United Nations, indicating that, without a significant shift in practices, 90 percent of the Earth’s topsoil could be in peril by 2050.
Globally, we consume around 350 million tons of meat each year, akin to the weight of nearly a thousand Empire State Buildings, as noted in Michael Grunwald‘s book, We Are Eating the Earth. Livestock occupies nearly 80 percent of agricultural land yet contributes less than 20 percent of global caloric intake. Furthermore, they are responsible for approximately 32 percent of global methane emissions, while beef production requires over 15,000 liters of water per kilogram. The disproportionate environmental impact of meat production is troubling, especially as global demand continues to escalate and innovations in protein production become critical.
The intensifying climate crisis is evidenced by floods, droughts, heatwaves, dwindling fish stocks, and increasing species extinction—all warning signs that agriculture, while crucial, is at the heart of systemic challenges. Nevertheless, if approached innovatively, agriculture could also become a part of the solution, helping mitigate the escalating climate crisis. The decisions we make today will impact our food security and the planet’s resilience for years to come.
As per the Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC), seven out of nine planetary boundaries, which outline a “safe operating space for humanity,” have now been exceeded. Crossing these boundaries increases the risk of triggering irreversible environmental changes, which could have dire consequences not only for all life on Earth but also for the economy, as healthy ecosystems are fundamental to supply chains, global markets, and overall economic stability.
Proposed Reforms for the Food System
In conjunction with the Paris Agreement, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations launched the Food Roadmap at COP28. This initiative marked the first time a climate agreement included food and agriculture, aligning them with climate objectives. The roadmap emphasizes the urgent need to significantly boost investments in low-emission farming practices, alternative proteins, and technologies aimed at enhancing soil health, water efficiency, and biodiversity protection.
This roadmap outlines 120 science-driven actions organized into 10 strategic areas, including soil and water management, livestock, forests and wetlands, and healthy diets. The ultimate aim is for global food systems to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035 and become net carbon sinks by 2050, targeting a 25 percent reduction in livestock methane emissions by 2030 and a halving of food waste.
The international community has been slow to respond, yet Denmark is emerging as a leader in the transition by integrating a widely accepted strategy and incorporating meat-related levies into its climate commitments. Its dual approach, combining incentives for plant-based diets and emission costs, exemplifies a forward-thinking methodology for reducing meat reliance.
Marie-Louise Boisen Lendal, chair of the Danish fund Plant Foundation, which is managing a public investment of around $200 million for innovative solutions and the promotion of plant-based foods, stated, “Denmark is adopting the polluter pays principle as the most efficient route to achieving the Paris Agreement’s objectives.” She shared in a “Future of Foods Interview” podcast that Danish farmers are supportive of this initiative. Countries like New Zealand and several in Scandinavia are showing similar willingness to adapt. The United Kingdom proposed a meat tax in 2024 as part of its National Food Strategy, but eventually backed down after public opposition.
Regenerative Practices vs. Technological Innovations
Regenerative agriculture aims to revitalize soil health, boost biodiversity, and improve water cycles, potentially securing carbon, restoring ecosystems, and enhancing food system resilience. However, some critics contend that claims regarding its effectiveness in carbon sequestration may be overstated. These methods might yield less in the short term, necessitating more land to produce the same amount of food, often encroaching on forested areas.
Concerns also arise that the term “regenerative” could devolve into a vague marketing term prone to exploitation. Sajeev Mohankumar from the FAIRR Initiative, a sustainability investment network managing $80 trillion in assets, notes that while many investors prioritize regenerative agriculture, its practical application remains limited. Although 50 of 79 agri-food firms reference regenerative practices in their strategies, merely four have implemented financial incentives for farmers.
Simultaneously, innovative agritech solutions are emerging as supplementary methods that could expedite this transition when used alongside regenerative techniques. Biofertilizers and biopesticides present more sustainable alternatives to chemical fertilizers, although their efficacy remains under scrutiny.
Gene editing is already in practice, yielding crops that resist diseases, endure drought, or are enriched with nutrients—advancements that could lessen pesticide reliance, despite facing political opposition. Progress continues in precision fermentation, which uses microbes to create dairy proteins, egg whites, and fats without animal involvement. Several products using this process are currently on the market, though substantial scaling is necessary to compete with traditional farming. Finally, cellular agriculture, or cultivated meat, also shows promise, with approvals granted in Singapore, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Australia. However, scaling remains a major hurdle.
The Financial Implication of a Food Transition
The Food System Economics Commission (FSEC) estimates that a complete overhaul of the food system would require around $500 billion in annual investments. In a Future of Foods Interview in October 2025, a representative from Cargill reported that the company invests roughly 10 percent of its annual profits into the development of alternative proteins. Discussions indicate that Nestlé does the same. Major food corporations—including Nestlé, Cargill, Unilever, Tyson Foods, Danone, Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, JBS, and Mars—are increasingly investing in or collaborating with alternative protein enterprises as part of their innovation and sustainability initiatives, resulting in a multi-billion-dollar investment landscape for plant-based, cultivated, and fermentation-derived proteins.
During COP28, the UN and philanthropic sectors pledged over $7 billion for food and agriculture initiatives—$200 million from the Gates-UAE initiative for innovation and $57 million from the Bezos Earth Fund for climate-smart agriculture. Additionally, a public-private initiative SAFE Initiative in Africa and the Middle East has mobilized $10 billion. However, global agricultural subsidies amount to approximately $700 billion annually. Most of these funds perpetuate existing practices, primarily benefiting intensive industrial agriculture aimed at producing animal feed or processed foods. Current government incentives predominantly support monocultures, large-scale livestock farming, and heavy reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
Media Influence and Public Perception
Few issues resonate as personally as food. Growing calls to reduce meat consumption clash with rising meat intake driven by increased incomes in emerging nations, alongside deeply ingrained habits in wealthier regions. Resistance to lowering meat consumption run deep—it’s not merely food, but part of culture. Steak dinners, Sunday roasts, and festive feasts connect animal protein to tradition and identity.
While plant-based substitutes may seem less appealing and often face skepticism, confusion around nutritional information, coupled with targeted misinformation campaigns, exacerbates the situation. In the UK, headlines in October 2024, such as “Lab-Grown Meat Is Proving to Be a Grotesque Misadventure,” reflected the skepticism surrounding the sector, pointing out high costs, technological obstacles, and public reluctance against terms like “Frankenmeat.” Complementarily, the Washington Post reported concerns linking plant-based alternatives to health risks, neglecting methodological nuances by grouping meat substitutes with other ultra-processed foods known to increase heart disease risk—asserting that healthy plant-based options shouldn’t be compared to junk food.
The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom, backed by the meat industry, launched full-page newspaper advertisements in 2020 portraying plant-based burgers negatively as “ultra-processed imitations” or likening them to pet food. Similarly, a campaign by the Center for the Environment and Welfare labeled cultivated meat cells as akin to “tumor” cells.
Proposals for meat taxes or calls for dietary shifts in response to climate change are often portrayed by conservatives as assaults on culture, national identity, and personal freedoms. In Germany, pushback has emerged against proposed meat tax increases or VAT on meat, arguing such levies would hinder consumers and threaten livelihoods. Similarly, discussions around potential meat taxes in the Netherlands prompted resistance from coalition parties and meat industry groups, asserting that such taxes would inflate grocery bills for average consumers. In France, politicians positioned steak and charcuterie as part of cultural heritage, resisting initiatives for plant-based school meals. Media outlets like the Telegraph in the UK labeled attempts to discourage red meat consumption as an attack on the Sunday roast, capitalizing on working-class anxieties.
People continue to view meat as a more flavorful, convenient, and reliable protein source than available alternatives. Unless substitutes can effectively compete on these parameters, the upward trend in meat consumption is likely to persist.
A Necessary Transformation
The polluter pays principle isn’t a levy on consumers—it’s a charge for environmental damage, needless harm to animals, and rampant deforestation. It is a cost borne by corporations and manufacturers profiting from environmental degradation, raking in vast sums.
Food systems must reflect their true ecological costs, marking the end of an era of subsidized industrial meat production. By incorporating agriculture into the polluter-pays framework, we shift from mere rhetoric to actionable climate initiatives, transitioning from compensation to meaningful change. Clean energy must be complemented by clean food. As articulated in a 2023 Guardian article, “Similar to the fossil fuel lobbyists who assert that eliminating oil and gas compromises energy security, Big Ag lobbyists advocate for a status quo that intensifies climate change in the name of food security.”
While populist and political pushbacks present challenges, a more significant test lies in the ability of companies to produce meat alternatives appealing to consumers, providing engaging substitutes for what they currently enjoy. The calculations are daunting. Yet, the costs of inaction—ranging from climate catastrophe and biodiversity loss to food insecurity—are far greater. The most astute investment humanity can make is mobilizing the half a trillion dollars annually required for a just transition in food systems by 2050.
