Concern Among Indigenous Leaders, Relief For A Few, As Amazon Soy Moratorium Falters – Analysis


Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon. Photo Credit: POLÍCIA FEDERAL/DIVULGAÇÃO

March 5, 2026 
 Mongabay
By Rubens Valente

Indigenous leaders and researchers in Brazil say an end to a key zero-deforestation agreement, the Amazon Soy Moratorium, will increase deforestation around Indigenous lands and encourage the invasion of their territories for soy farming. Already, some are pointing to forest loss advancing near one Indigenous land following efforts to curtail the agreement.

Meanwhile, a few Indigenous leaders are seeing an economic opportunity as companies pull out of the agreement. Members in communities that sell soy farmed on their lands say they already do so sustainably and that the agreement unfairly penalizes their product.

Mongabay spoke with stakeholders across various sectors, from Indigenous leaders and corporate entities, to conservationists and government officials — people across Brazil’s political spectrum — to get their take on what the possible dissolution of the moratorium may mean for Indigenous peoples and their lands in the Amazon.

The moratorium is a voluntary pact between companies, public agencies and NGOs to reduce deforestation in the Amazon. Participants agree to ban from their supply chains any soy produced in areas of the Amazon deforested after July 2008. While the expansion of soy farms grew by 361% from 2006 to 2023 as farmers prioritized converting already cleared lands, fresh deforestation in the Amazon for soy farms dramatically dropped to 1% in the first 10 years after the agreement came into force in 2006.

The results had been hailed by various sectors as one of the most positive experiences in combating deforestation in the country by protecting forests while allowing agriculture expansion.

However, over the past two years, right-wing political leaders started pushing for an end to the moratorium through legal proceedings. This political pressure gained support from the National Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (CNA), a powerful agribusiness lobbying group, under the assertion that rural producers in the Amazon already produce sustainably.

Earlier this year, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove), which represents 18 companies including commodities giants such as Bunge, Cargill, Cofco and Amaggi, announced its withdrawal from the pact. Abiove, along with another signatory, the National Association of Cereal Exporters (Anec), “account for approximately 90% of the soybean market in the Amazon,” according to a report by the agreement’s monitoring group. Anec has not yet announced its departure from the agreement, but 13 of its 24 members are also part of Abiove.

A study by the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) suggests that if the moratorium collapses, cumulative deforestation by 2045 could be 30% higher than the total recorded up to 2024. Two of Brazil’s Amazonian states, Amazonas and Acre, would be the most impacted, with deforestation there rising by 114% and 70%, respectively.


Most Indigenous leaders say they view the abandonment of the moratorium with concern. Chief Taú Metuktire, a Kayapó Indigenous leader and grandson of the famed Indigenous leader Raoni Metuktire, told Mongabay that the possible end of the moratorium “is worrying.”

“We, the leaders, don’t want this … nowadays, there are many soybean plantations around our territories. And there are rivers that come from our territories, pass through farms, pass through soybean plantations, corn and other plantations,” he said. “The poison [pesticides] they are spraying on the plants, during this rainy season, will enter the river. We, Indigenous people, consume water that comes from farms, we [will] have diarrhea [and] various types of diseases.”

Last June, Taú went to Paris on a campaign to defend the moratorium with campaign groups the Earthworm Foundation, Mighty Earth and Planète Amazone.

For Alessandra Korap Munduruku, an Indigenous leader from Pará state and recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2023, the dissolution or possible end of the moratorium is linked to other actions in the rural sector pushing to clear more rainforest for soy farms.

According to Alessandra, three initiatives — the end of the moratorium, dredging and privatization of the Tapajós River, and the construction of the Ferrogrão railway to transport grains — should provide an unprecedented boost to soy production across a large swath of the Amazon.

A giant in the soybean industry, Cargill built a soy terminal on the banks of the Tapajós River in Santarém, Pará, to export soybeans produced in southern Pará and northern Mato Grosso state. In 2018, an expansion project undertaken at the port more than doubled its shipping capacity to 4.9 million metric tons per year.


In a demonstration against a decree — now revoked — allowing dredging and privatization without properly consulting Indigenous communities, about 1,000 Indigenous people protested in Santarém and occupied part of the Cargill terminal. Alessandra, who participated in the occupation, told Mongabay by phone that the end of the moratorium is part of the same “death project” and makes Indigenous lands more vulnerable to unsustainable agribusiness.

“They [soybean farmers] already invade, but now they will be very clear, they will invade even more,” she said. “When they leave [the moratorium], they don’t even care. They want land, they want to deforest, they want to kill. The important thing is to profit from the traditional peoples.”

Another point of concern for Indigenous leaders and environmentalists with the end of the moratorium is the possibility of other Indigenous peoples, such as the Paresi, Nambikwara and Manoki of Mato Grosso, embarking on soy cultivation themselves or expanding plantations in the Amazon where soy farming is already normalized.

Paresi leader Arnaldo Zunizakae told Mongabay that his community already cultivates 17,800 hectares (44,000 acres) of soy on the 564,000-hectare (1.39-million-acre) Pareci Indigenous Territory. Another 2,200 hectares (5,400 acres) are planted in lands neighboring the Nambikwara and Manoki peoples. He said that “more than 3,000” Indigenous people benefit from soy farming in the region.

Unlike most Indigenous leaders who have spoken publicly on the issue, Zunizakae said he considers the end of the moratorium a good thing.

“The soy moratorium, for us, is an obstacle because it hinders — despite us having all these [government] authorizations — the legal commercialization of our product. So, even though we have all these regulated activities, it makes us look like criminals when it comes to selling our product,” he said. “And this prevents us from accessing the international market.

“We are forced to sell our soy clandestinely here, even putting at risk the companies that buy our production. Although we meet all the social and environmental requirements, we are forced to plant only conventional soy; our production is sold here clandestinely, to crushers, to feed producers.”

Zunizakae said the moratorium, though it made soy more valuable to foreign traders, penalized small producers, including Indigenous people who depend on this production for a better quality of life. The government, he said, only provides a meager assistance.

The Paresi leader said he believes there’s no environmental risk from increased farming on their territory because they have a territorial management plan that’s valid for 40 more years.

“It includes [designated] hunting areas, fishing areas, gathering areas, sacred areas, traditional areas, and areas for mechanized farming. We have a plan within a maximum of 50 years — if we have the financial means to expand — to reach 50,000 hectares [or about 124,000 acres, of protected land inside the territory]. So, there is no danger of environmental imbalance due to the end of the [Amazon] Soy Moratorium.”


Last year, through IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental protection agency, the federal government granted the Paresi people an operating license for “agricultural activities to be carried out by cooperatives of Indigenous peoples, within the established conditions,” according to a statement sent by the agency to Mongabay.

The case of the Paresi is frequently highlighted by right-wing politicians as an example other Indigenous peoples should follow. In late February, Mato Grosso Governor Mauro Mendes, a supporter of former president Jair Bolsonaro, said in video on Instagram that the Paresi are “an example that we need to follow with other ethnic groups, including all Indigenous people in Brazil.” He added that “besides liking asphalt, they [the Paresi] like to work.”

In parallel with the political movements aimed at weakening the moratorium, in 2024 the Mendes state administration sanctioned a law approved by the state legislature that made it more difficult for companies participating in the moratorium to access tax incentives.

But Greenpeace Brazil underlines that potential impacts on Indigenous lands and the environment indeed exist. The NGO denounced the state law as “a defense of deforesters, tarnishes Brazil’s image, and undermines the federal government’s efforts toward zero deforestation,” a commitment announced by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for the beginning of 2030.

Ana Clis Ferreira, spokesperson at Greenpeace Brazil, told Mongabay that the end of the moratorium expands grain production already driven by supporting infrastructure projects in Mato Grosso and Pará.

“It is very clear from the rural lobby the attempt to open Indigenous lands to private capital and, in some cases, especially the Indigenous lands of the Cerrado and Lavrado, which are the natural savanna areas,” she said.

Maurício Voivodic, executive director of WWF Brasil, said that experts “are already seeing deforestation increase” in Mato Grosso, following the enactment of the tax incentive law that undermines the moratorium. He said he believes the moratorium will come to an end.

According to Voivodic, the federal government’s satellite monitoring system, PRODES, detected that deforestation decreased in the Amazon last year, “except in the state of Mato Grosso, which was the only one that registered an increase.”

This deforestation is consuming areas surrounding Indigenous territories, such as Xingu Indigenous Park, a frontier of soybean deforestation, he said, while under the moratorium such deforestation was largely interrupted.

“If deforestation increases there, in the forests that still exist outside the Xingu Indigenous Park, in the headwaters of the Xingu River, [it] directly affects the villages and Indigenous territories of the Xingu,” he told Mongabay. “Because it affects the headwaters, it will compromise the quality and volume of water in the Xingu River downstream.”

In a statement to Mongabay, Brazil’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change said it recognized the end of the moratorium may generate greater pressure on already deforested areas in the Amazon; shift farming to new areas; and expand deforestation vectors. Given these potential impacts, “monitoring will continue to be intensified with reinforced territorial enforcement and control actions.” For Indigenous lands, “environmental enforcement and credit control mechanisms remain active and strengthened.”


The ministry stated that the eventual end of the moratorium will not weaken “public policies for command and control of deforestation and the promotion of sustainable production.” (Because the moratorium is a voluntary pact, the federal government doesn’t have the authority to enforce it.) The ministry also called for economic instruments that discourage deforestation, encourage the use of already cleared lands for farming, and add greater value addition to soy.

“The experience of the moratorium demonstrated that it is possible to reconcile agricultural expansion and environmental conservation,” the ministry said. “The agreement contributed to consolidating Brazil’s image as a reliable supplier of soy produced without deforestation and without socio-environmental violations.”

In a statement to Mongabay, the government of Mato Grosso said the moratorium creates a “parallel law” that goes beyond Brazil’s Forest Code, which is the highest authority on what constitutes legal land use, and punishes producers who don’t comply with Brazilian legislation.

The Mato Grosso state environmental department, or SEMA, said an end to the moratorium “should not generate impacts” and that “strategies that segregate those who comply with the law are not socially just, nor do they consistently strengthen environmental governance.”

“The strategy adopted by the Government of Mato Grosso to ensure compliance with existing regulations, with robust oversight, accountability, and firm action against environmental crimes, has proven effective in controlling deforestation,” SEMA said.

Regarding potential impacts on Indigenous lands, the department said that “the State of Mato Grosso has no jurisdiction over Indigenous lands; federal agencies are responsible for operations in these areas.”

In a statement to Mongabay, Abiove said the moratorium consolidated Brazil as a global reference for sustainable production. But the industry association didn’t provide an official response to a question about potential impacts on Indigenous lands.

Abiove also said it trusts the existing legislation and guidelines will ensure that Brazilian soy maintains its high socioenvironmental standards.

“The legacy of monitoring and the expertise acquired over almost 20 years will not be lost,” an Abiove spokesperson said. “There will be individual attention given to the rigorous demands of global markets, with equal confidence in the Brazilian authorities for the full implementation of a new regulatory framework.”

Meanwhile, many Indigenous leaders are celebrating the revocation of the decree that would have allowed dredging works in the Tapajós River for year-round transportation of soy. According to Alessandra Korap Munduruku, Indigenous peoples show that they can produce very well, without additional deforestation.

“For us, the Munduruku, there’s no way to deforest, kill the river, doing what the non-Indigenous people want because profit is good,” she said. “We are fighting to keep the forest standing. We still guarantee water to drink, we guarantee the forest is standing.”

Mongabay contacted Cargill, the Brazilian president’s office, the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples and the federal Indigenous affairs agency (Funai) for comment, but none had responded by the time this story was published.

About the author: Rubens Valente is an award-winning investigative journalist based in Brasília, Brazil. He has written for Folha de S.Paulo, O Globo, Intercept Brazil, Agência Pública, UOL and others. He is the author of Operação banqueiro and Os Fuzis e as Flechas.

Source: This article was published by Mongabay

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CARGILL

 

Barge Defaced at Cargill Terminal in Protests Over Amazon River Dredging

Apoema Cultural Collective / Amazon Watch press handout

Published Feb 22, 2026 6:49 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

Indigenous protesters and environmental activists in Brazil are showing resolve in their push to stop government projects which they believe will destroy Amazonian rivers and the rainforest, with U.S grain-trading giant Cargill caught in the middle of the controversy.

On February 19, about 400 activists in four boats intercepted a grain barge that was docked at Cargill’s terminal in Santarém. The protesters approached the barge on the urban stretch of the river while it was docked at the terminal, with the police moving in to impede their boats prompting many to jump into the river and managed to board the barge and inscribe the words “The Tapajós River isn’t for sale” and “Revoke the Decree of Death.”

The defacing of the barge, which is part of the soy supply chain operating through the Northern Arc logistics corridor, came on the day when a Brazilian court issued a second order to the government to remove protesters who have been staging a blockade at Cargill’s terminal over the past two weeks. 

The indigenous protesters have vowed not to relent in the push to demand the repeal of a decree by the federal government last year that saw the Madeira, Tapajós, and Tocantins Rivers included in Brazil’s National Privatization Program. The protestors are also demanding the immediate annulment of plans to dredge the Tapajós River, which they reckon will have adverse impacts on the Amazonian rivers and the rainforest ecosystem.

According to the protesters - led by non-governmental organization Amazon Watch - the government is using the Tapajós River dredging project as a central piece of a much larger project that is being pushed by agribusiness and global commodity traders, whose aim is to transform Amazonian rivers into industrial export corridors for soy and corn. They argue the project comes when the Northern Arc export corridor is already driving deforestation and eroding socio-biodiversity.

“It is essential to take a critical look at the cumulative impacts of the Northern Arc project. Ferrogrão, the expansion of private grain ports, and the Tapajós waterway together could increase soy volumes by five to seven times, intensifying pressure on traditional territories,” said Renata Utsunomiya, transportation policy analyst at GT Infraestrutura, a coalition of civil society organizations.

Utsunomiya added that the consequences of the project go beyond impacts on the Tapajós River because it will likely accelerate deforestation and threaten Brazil’s own climate commitments to reduce forest loss. The project could instigate land speculation and grabbing, soy expansion deeper into the Amazon, water contamination, changes in river flow dynamics and escalating violence along the soy transport routes, Utsunomiya warned.

Brazil remains as the world’s largest soybean exporter with record-breaking shipments in 2025 totaling 109 million tonnes, a 12 percent increase from 2024. China remains the dominant buyer, purchasing nearly 70 percent of the country’s total exports.

Sustainable Soy: When Collaborating To Protect The Amazon Backfires – Analysis

February 13, 2026 
By SwissInfo


Commodity firms working together to source deforestation-free soy in Brazil are being investigated under anti-cartel laws. They also risk losing tax benefits due to pressure from powerful farming lobbies.

By Anand Chandrasekhar

Businesses selling prostheses, gas water-heaters, electricity meters, cement and even tech giants like Apple and Meta have recently come under fire from Brazil’s competition watchdog, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), for anti-competitive practices. Also among the alleged offenders targeted by CADE are “do gooding” commodity giants that have signed the Amazon soy moratorium.
Financial software

The moratorium, which has been implemented since 2008, is a promise not to source soy from the Amazon following a 2006 Greenpeace campaign that linked soybean cultivation with deforestation. Switzerland is the European trading hub of the biggest commodity firms like Cargill, ADM, Bunge, Louis Dreyfus Company and COFCO that have signed up to the soy moratorium.

According to Greenpeace, the moratorium has brought the share of new soy cultivation in logged areas down from 30% before the agreement to 4% as of July 2025 even though Brazil has tripled its soy production during this period. Given the results, Greenpeace calls the Amazon soy moratorium as “the world’s single most successful zero-deforestation policy”.

However, this moratorium is now under pressure due to the investigation of commodity firms by CADE after a complaint was filed last year by the Agriculture, Livestock, Supply, and Rural Development Committee (CAPADR) of Brazil’s lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies. The committee’s president, Rodolfo Nogueira, is a cattle rancher himself. Nogueira and the three other members of CAPADR are all pro-agribusiness and belong to the ruralist political bloc that favours the expansion of agriculture.

According to CADE, the fact that competing firms were working together to establish conditions for the purchase of soy in Brazil is anticompetitive and harms the nation’s soy exports. In 2020, Brazil exported almost 83 million metric tonnes of soy. In 2024, exports totalled roughly 98.8 million metric tonnes, mainly fuelled by demand from China.

In August 2025, CADE issued an interim measure against the moratorium’s Soy Working Group to stop all audits of soy sourcing, cease publication of reports and remove any documents on the soy moratorium from the website. An appeal was filed against the measure and Brazil’s supreme court has granted a stay while it assesses the accusation against the commodity companies.

“Currently, CADE’s administrative proceeding is suspended due to a decision by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), which will ultimately determine whether the conducts by the soy moratorium are antitrust violations,” says Débora Alvares, spokesperson for CADE.

If CADE succeeds in convincing Brazil’s supreme court, commodity firms will no longer be able to work together to prevent deforestation at a landscape level. Each company will be reduced to preventing deforestation in its own soy supply chain risking a doubling of effort and covering a much smaller area. Environmental lobby groups like Greenpeace claim that applying anti-cartel regulations against commodity firms in this manner could jeopardise progress made in reducing deforestation of the Amazon for agriculture.

“Greenpeace warns that the various attacks against the soy moratorium put at risk the gains achieved by this agreement over nearly two decades. Ambitious voluntary environmental commitments like the moratorium have proven an essential complement to public policies aimed at preventing deforestation,” says Lis Cunha, a campaigner at Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace Brazil is participating in the case before Brazil’s supreme court in an advisory capacity (amicus curiae), presenting legal and technical arguments to demonstrate the risks of dismantling the moratorium and to help support the court’s final assessment of the matter.

Soy farmers complain of overreach

Among the soy moratorium’s detractors is the powerful Brazilian Association of Soybean Producers (Aprosoja Brasil), a lobby representing 16 state associates located in the main soybean producing states of the country.

Aprosoja argues that the soy moratorium was an interim measure to protect Brazil’s forests in the absence of a specific law against deforestation. According to the industry association, the introduction of the Forest Code law in 2012 should have spelled the end of the moratorium. The Forest Code requires farmers in forest areas to set aside 80% of their land for native vegetation cover.

“The Soy Moratorium no longer has a reason to exist. Almost 20 years later, it remains thanks to the institutional support of the ministry of the environment, which uses it according to its whims,” Pedro Lupion, a Federal Deputy and President of the Parliamentary Agricultural Front wrote on the Aprosoja website.

Aprosoja’s branch in the western state of Mato Grosso, where soy accounts for half of GDP, had also filed a complaint to CADE in 2024 against the soy moratorium. According to the complaint, the moratorium had cost Mato Grosso state about 20 billion reals ($3.8 billion, CHF3 billion) in lost income.

Tax benefits at risk

The state of Mato Grosso also launched another line of attack against commodity firms’ efforts to source sustainable soy from Brazil. In 2024, the state’s lawmakers introduced a law that strips tax benefits of companies that participate in voluntary environmental agreements that go beyond national legislation like the Amazon soy moratorium. Politicians and soy producers argued that even though soy farmers were adhering to Brazilian environmental law, they were being unfairly punished by private, foreign‑influenced standards. Aprosoja’s Mato Grosso branch estimated that soy from 4,000 rural properties, or 3.5% of all farms in the state, was being excluded by commodity firms that had signed up to the soy moratorium.

It is estimated that these commodity traders had received tax incentives worth about 4.7 billion reais ($890 million) between 2019 and 2024 with ADM and Bunge the largest beneficiaries, receiving roughly 1.5 billion reais each.

The new law applies from 2026 and has succeeded in scaring away commodity firms. The Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries, known as ABIOVE, announced in December 2025 that it was withdrawing from the soy moratorium. Among ABIOVE’s members are Cargill, ADM, Bunge, Louis Dreyfus Company and COFCO International.

This is a U-turn from ABIOVE whose president, André Nassar, had defended the soy moratorium at a public hearing on the moratorium in July 2024 held at the behest of parliamentarians opposed to it at the Agriculture, Livestock, Supply and Rural Development Committee of the Chamber of Deputies.

Nassar had tried to get soy producers on board by offering Aprosoja a seat on the soy moratorium’s working group. He had even warned that the end of the soy moratorium could lead to a boycott of Brazilian soybeans abroad.

The opportunity cost to commodity firms from the soy moratorium has not been quantified. However, a study estimates that surplus land legally available to soy producers in the Amazon since the Forest Code was introduced in 2012 is below 50,000 hectares. This represents about 1% of the area already under soy cultivation in the Amazon. The authors of the study claim that the financial benefits of transforming these forested areas into soy farms are low when compared to the export markets for sustainable soy.

According to Greenpeace, ABIOVE’s decision was based on political and economic incentives rather than a legal obligation. “This was a business choice, not a legal necessity, and it is ABIOVE and its members who must take responsibility for the environmental and reputational consequences of that choice,” says Cunha of Greenpeace.

ABIOVE underlined that even though it was withdrawing from the soy moratorium, Brazil’s supreme court still recognises the legality of the voluntary agreement. Along with Forest Code and the September 2025 National Environment Council (CONAMA) Resolution (which laid down the ground rules for clearing native vegetation in rural Brazil), Brazilian soy will continue to maintain its high socio-environmental standards.

“The legacy of monitoring and expertise acquired over almost 20 years will not be lost. Individually, the strict demands of global markets will be met, while also relying on Brazilian authorities to fully implement a new regulatory framework,” said the ABIOVE statement.
Domino effect?

The combination of the anti-cartel investigation and removal of tax benefits could also threaten another sustainable soy sourcing initiative by ABIOVE that is hosted in Switzerland by the Geneva-based World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The Soft Commodity Forum (SCF) comprising Cargill, ADM, Bunge, Louis Dreyfus Company and COFCO International is a pilot project to source soy without deforestation in the Cerrado.

The Cerrado is a tropical savanna that occupies a little over 20% of Brazil’s landmass and is South America’s second-largest biome after the Amazon. The region also accounts for half of all soy grown in Brazil. The SCF started out as a pilot project in 2018 to trace soy sourced from 25 municipalities in the Cerrado biome. By the end of 2025, the collaboration has expanded traceability to 93%-99% of the soy sourced by members from the Cerrado, representing monitoring of over 200 million hectares.

According to SCF senior manager Matt Inbusch, the partnership is about getting the five commodity firms to align on a common deforestation and land conversion reporting methodology.

“SCF membership does not imply any collective sourcing agreements or cutoffs,” he says.

While CADE does not yet have the SCF in its sights, it doesn’t rule out the possibility of an anti-cartel investigation in the future.

“Thus far, CADE has not ultimately decided whether the alignment of transparency standards and metrics among companies, such as the ones conducted in the Soft Commodity Forum, can be defined as antitrust violations or not, since every assessment depends on the actual analysis of the conduct and its potential competition effects,” says Alvares of CADE.



SwissInfo

swissinfo is an enterprise of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SBC). Its role is to inform Swiss living abroad about events in their homeland and to raise awareness of Switzerland in other countries. swissinfo achieves this through its nine-language internet news and information platform.

Brazil mine disaster victims in London to ‘demand what is owed’

By AFP
February 4, 2026


Marilda Lyrio de Oliviera, one of the Indigenous leaders of the Boa Esperanca village in Aracruz, Espirito Santo - an area affected by the 2015 Mariana dam disaster, is pictured outside Britain's High Court in London - Copyright AFP ADRIAN DENNIS

Victims of a 2015 dam collapse in Brazil, for which Australian mining giant BHP has been found liable, attended a London hearing on Wednesday ahead of a trial to determine damages.

In one of Brazil’s worst environmental disasters, an iron-ore mine run by a firm co-owned by BHP unleashed a deluge of toxic mud into villages, fields, rainforest, rivers and the ocean, killing 19 people.

In November, the High Court in London found BHP “strictly liable” for the disaster following a mammoth trial, which could lead to billions of dollars in damages shared among 620,000 plaintiffs.

“We are demanding what is owed to us,” Marilda Lyrio de Oliveira, from Aracruz in the state of Espirito Santo, told AFP on Wednesday.

“We hope for a just outcome, because the impact was enormous, the crime was enormous.

“Many people are dying of cancer, something that didn’t exist before,” added Lyrio de Oliveira, representing the region’s Indigenous people, as she stood alongside about a dozen other victims attending court.

“We have physical and mental health problems because we can no longer carry out our former activities,” she added.

The two-day hearing aims to set the timetable for the compensation trial, which could begin in October or the first half of 2027, the law firm Pogust Goodhead, representing the plaintiffs, told AFP.

Dissatisfied with the proceedings in Brazil, the victims turned to the British courts two years ago, seeking £36 billion ($49 billion) in compensation.

At the time of the disaster, one of BHP’s global headquarters was in Britain.

“The suffering was so immense that it shattered our lives and interrupted our dreams,” Ana Paula Auxiliadora Alexandre, who lost her husband in the tragedy, told AFP on Wednesday.

“For ten years, we fought for justice. The fact that a mega-corporation has been convicted here in England makes me think that the British justice system is more diligent than the Brazilian one,” she added.

The mine was managed by Samarco, co-owned by BHP and Brazilian miner Vale.

The trial at the High Court in London ran from October 2024 to March 2025.

Indigenous Brazilians protest Amazon river dredging for grain exports


By AFP
February 4, 2026


Auricelia Arapiun, pictured during the COP30 UN climate talks in 2025, was one of several Indigenous leaders protesting plans to dredge rivers in the Amazon

 - Copyright AFP Pablo PORCIUNCULA

Fran BLANDY

Hundreds of Indigenous people have been protesting in northern Brazil for two weeks outside the port terminal of US agribusiness giant Cargill, angered over the dredging and development of Amazonian rivers for grain exports.

Brazil’s Indigenous communities have raised the alarm for months about port expansion on rivers they see as vital to their way of life, a grievance they protested at COP30 climate talks last November.

“The government is opening up our territories to many projects … to boost agribusiness,” Indigenous leader Auricelia Arapiuns told AFP in a video message from the Amazon port city of Santarem, in the same state that hosted COP30 in Belem.

“We have been here for 14 days, but this struggle didn’t start now. We occupied Cargill to draw attention so that the government would come up with a proposal.”

By Wednesday, some 700 Indigenous people from 14 communities were taking part in the demonstration, according to the Amazon Watch advocacy group.

The protesters have blocked trucks from “entering and leaving the terminal,” Cargill said in a statement sent to AFP, adding it has “no authority or control” over their complaints.

The Minnesota-based multinational has agricultural logistics operations across Brazil, where it employs 11,000 people.

Protesters on Wednesday demanded the cancellation of a decree signed by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in August which designates major Amazonian rivers as priorities for cargo navigation and private port expansion.

They also want the cancellation of a federal tender issued in December worth 74.8 million reais ($14.2 million) to manage and dredge the Tapajos River — a major Amazon tributary.

“This infrastructure that is coming is not a space for us, and it never will be. It is a project of death to kill our river and our sacred places,” Indigenous leader Alessandra Korap of the Munduruku people said in a statement.

The ports ministry said earlier in January that the contract of a company for maintenance dredging was necessary to “increase navigation safety… and ensure greater predictability for cargo and passenger transport operations.”



– ‘Serious environmental risks’ –



The protesters criticized the government for only sending mid-level officials to meet with them and breaking a COP30 promise not to carry out projects on Amazonian rivers “without prior consultation.”

Brazil’s Ministry of Indigenous Peoples said in a statement Monday it recognizes the “legitimacy of the concerns raised” and that no dredging or other projects can take place on the Tapajos river without the consent of those affected.

Fed up, the protesters were no longer in the mood to negotiate.

“We don’t want a consultation. We want this decree revoked,” Indigenous leader Gilson Tupinamba, wearing a large headdress of blue and orange feathers, told a meeting with government representatives on Wednesday.

Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of soybeans and corn, and in recent years has switched to northern river ports to export grains more cheaply.

Critics see plans to boost barge traffic on Amazonian rivers as yet another project where economic development is clashing with Lula’s much vaunted commitment to the environment.

“What did the government do after the COP? They launched the dredging tender,” Arapiuns told the government representatives.

After the meeting, the protesters blocked the road leading to the Santarem international airport — a popular hub for tourists.

Brazil’s Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) — which has taken legal action against the dredging efforts — on Tuesday pointed to “serious environmental risks” for the river.

In a statement, the MPF referred to the release of heavy metals such as mercury into the water, and destruction of crucial habitats for threatened species of dolphins, turtles and aquatic birds.

 

First Kamsarmax Methanol-Fueled Bulker Delivered for Cargill Charter

The Tsuneishi-built bulker is the first methanol-fueled Kamsarmax and will provide information on methanol operations (Tsuneishi)

Published Jan 16, 2026 8:14 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

While the industry has seen a slowing in the orders for methanol-fueled ships, the efforts are continuing as shipowners and operators look to understand the segment and the role it can play in sustainable shipping. Cargill, which calls itself one of the world’s largest charters of dry bulk freight, highlights that the vessel will provide critical data as it pursues a multi-solution strategy that also includes wind-assisted propulsion, voyage optimization technologies, energy-efficient retrofits, and a range of alternate fuels, including biofuels and ethanol.

“Technologies like green methanol or wind-assisted propulsion come with uncertainty,” said Jan Dieleman, President of Cargill’s Ocean Transportation business. “But as an industry leader, we have a responsibility to test these innovations on the water, share what we learn, and help shape the systems and standards that will enable wider adoption.”

The new vessel, named Brave Pioneer (82,000 dwt), is the first of five green methanol dual-fuel dry bulk carriers that Cargill has chartered. The other ships will join the fleet in the coming years. 

Built by Tsuneishi Shipbuilding Co. at the company’s yard in the Philippines, and owned by Mitsui & Co., Brave Pioneer is equipped to operate on both conventional marine fuels and green methanol. At 82,000 dwt, the vessel is larger than the first methanol-fueled bulker, Green Pioneer, which is 62,000 dwt and is operating under charter to NYK Bulk & Projects Carriers.

Tsuneishi highlights that, as a Kamsarmax design, the vessel will be highly versatile. It features a shallow draft and low air draft, which gives it access to a wide range of ports. It is 229 meters (751 feet) in length. It is registered in Panama. 

 

(Tsuneishi Heavy Industries)

 

By adopting methanol as a propulsion fuel, Tsuneishi says the vessel will achieve a reduction of approximately 10 percent in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 80 percent in nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 99 percent in sulfur oxide (SOx) during operations compared with conventional vessels. The use of green methanol further enhances the vessel’s potential to reduce environmental impact and promote environmentally responsible shipping.

The Brave Pioneer was launched on July 17, 2025, in Balamban, Cebu, by Tsuneishi Heavy Industries. The completion of the vessel also marked a key milestone for shipbuilding in the Philippines. The yard is operated in partnership with Aboitiz Group and has now completed 381 ships. 

The President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. attending the naming ceremony on January 15. He described the event as “a historic milestone for Philippine shipbuilding,” hailing the project as “a showcase of Filipino craftsmanship, ingenuity and competitiveness.”

The ship departs the Philippines and is proceeding to Singapore, where it will bunker green methanol. It will then proceed to Western Australia before sailing onward to Europe. 

Cargill reports it will conduct a series of operational trials designed to evaluate green methanol bunkering readiness, understand how environmental attributes can be traced and verified through carbon accounting systems, and assess market appetite for low-carbon freight services. 

“We know the road to low-carbon shipping will require a mix of solutions and green methanol is one part of that portfolio,” said Dieleman. “Our new fleet is about optionality and adaptability. These vessels are engineered to perform at a best-in-class level on conventional fuel today, while allowing us to switch to greener fuels as availability improves. It’s a practical way to future-proof ocean transport.” 

Mitsui ordered two vessels in 2023 that will both be chartered to Cargill. A month later, J. Lauritzen, through its Lauritzen NexGen Shipping division, placed additional orders for Kamsarmax dual-fuel methanol bulkers. They are reported to be building three vessels, which will start delivery later in 2026 and will also be chartered to Cargill.
 

Commercially viable biomanufacturing: designer yeast turns sugar into lucrative chemical 3-HP

CABBI scientists developed a cost-effective, bio-based method to produce 3-Hydroxypropanoic acid, an industrial chemical with a $20 billion market

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

CABBI researcher Teresa Martin of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign assembles the motor on the DasBox bioreactor used for yeast fermentation in the study on cost-effective production of 3-Hydroxypropanoic acid (3-HP).

view more 

Credit: Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (CABBI)

Using a tiny, acid-tolerant yeast, scientists have demonstrated a cost-effective way to make disposable diapers, microplastics, and acrylic paint more sustainable through biomanufacturing.

A key ingredient in those everyday products is acrylic acid, an important industrial chemical that gives disposable diapers their absorbency, makes water-based paints and sealants more weather-proof, improves stain resistance in fabric, and enhances fertilizers and soil treatments.

Acrylic acid is converted from a precursor called 3-Hydroxypropanoic acid, or 3-HP, which is made almost exclusively from petroleum through chemical synthesis — an energy-intensive process. But 3-HP can also be produced from renewable plant material by using engineered microbes to ferment plant sugars into this high-value chemical. Until now, however, the biomanufacturing process has not proven profitable.

In a new study, scientists at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Penn State University developed a cost-effective, bio-based method to produce 3-HP and validated its commercial potential for this lucrative market.

Their new paper in Nature Communications reports on the development of a high-yield strain of Issatchenkia orientalis yeast for 3-HP production, as well as extensive techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment that demonstrated its commercial viability and environmental benefits. The scientists are all part of the Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (CABBI), a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Research Center, which funded the research.

“The high-level production of this chemical from yeast can provide a pathway to acrylic acid production, significantly boosting the agricultural economy,” said CABBI Conversion Theme Lead Huimin Zhao, a lead author on the study and Professor in the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering (ChBE) and the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology (IGB) at Illinois

According to DOE, the commercial potential for 3-HP is huge: The acrylic acid market alone is estimated at $20 billion, with global demand of approximately 6.6 million tons in 2019. And 3-HP can be converted to other valuable industrial chemicals.

Commercial producers — from large companies like BASF and Cargill to smaller biotechnology firms — have been working for decades on bio-based production of 3-HP using various bacteria and yeasts, Zhao said. The problem is that both the amount of 3-HP produced from a given amount of substrate like glucose (yield) and the concentration (titer) have remained very low.

The CABBI scientists tackled this challenge in several ways. They chose I. orientalis for the fermentation process, a yeast that thrives in a low pH acidic environment and has been used to produce other organic acids. That simplified processing by eliminating costly steps required by other yeasts or bacteria that need a neutral, higher-pH environment. 

The team also employed unique metabolic engineering strategies to boost 3-HP production in the yeast, using a genetic toolbox they had previously developed for I. orientalis. First, researchers identified a genetic pathway known as beta-alanine as the optimal target. Genome-scale modeling by Costas Maranas, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Penn State, showed that it offered the highest theoretical yield and required the least oxygen.

Next researchers found three highly productive gene variants from the beta-alanine pathway that significantly improved efficiency. Co-author Teresa Martin, research coordinator in Zhao’s lab, discovered an active enzyme in 3-HP biosynthesis known as PAND. Harry (Shih-I) Tan, a Postdoctoral Researcher in Zhao’s lab and first author on the study, integrated multiple copies of the PAND enzyme into a new strain of I. orientalis, which boosted 3-HP production. The team then applied other novel engineering strategies to further increase the titer and yield.

Scaling up to lab-level fermentation — where yeasts are fed sugars in batches over seven days — the researchers achieved an overall yield of 0.7 grams of 3-HP per gram of glucose consumed (0.7 g/g), or 70 percent; and a titer of 92 grams of 3-HP per liter. The results exceeded the thresholds for commercial viability laid out in previous studies.

“To the best of our knowledge, our study represents the highest reported yield and titer for 3-HP production among all engineered bacteria and yeast hosts,” Zhao said.

Using the BioSTEAM software developed through CABBI, Professor Jeremy Guest and Postdoctoral Researcher Sarang Bhagwat of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Illinois then simulated a biomanufacturing facility to produce 3-HP using the new process and then upgrade it to acrylic acid, and evaluated its financial feasibility and environmental benefits through techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Their work showed the process is financially viable for bio-based acrylic acid production.

“This work establishes I. orientalis as a next-generation platform for cost-effective 3-HP production and paves the way toward industrial commercialization,” Zhao said.

The researchers are now working with other CABBI scientists at Illinois to scale up the process, integrate downstream processing, and incorporate other renewable feedstocks to enhance its economic feasibility.

Meanwhile, CABBI researchers are working on other 3-HP applications as part of the center’s mission to generate value-added chemicals from plants. George Huber, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is incorporating the 3-HP broth from this study into a streamlined chemical process to convert it into malonic acid – an important industrial chemical used to produce vitamins and other pharmaceuticals, biodegradable plastics, and agrochemicals.

Other CABBI co-authors on this study included Patrick Suthers of Penn State; and Vinh Tran, Wuying Tang, and Zia Fatma of ChBE and IGB.

The paper, “High yield production of 3-hydroxypropionic acid using Issatchenkia orientalis,” is available at doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-67621-8.

---

Journal

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-025-67621-8 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

High yield production of 3-hydroxypropionic acid using Issatchenkia orientalis

Article Publication Date

9-Jan-2026

COI Statement

Huimin Zhao, Teresa Martin and Shih-I Tan have submitted a patent application to the US patent and trademark office pertaining to the aspect of the production of 3HP using Issatchenkia orientalis in this work (application number 63/766,638). The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

The Next Frontier Of Climate Accountability: Making Big Food Pay Its Ecological Bill – OpEd

January 9, 2026 
By Alex Crisp

The “polluter pays” principle transformed the energy industry half a century ago. Now, as industrial agriculture drives climate breakdown, deforestation, and water scarcity, experts say it’s time to apply the same rule to our food systems—and make corporations, not consumers, bear the cost of the damage.

The “polluter pays” principle is a cornerstone of environmental regulation. It raises billions of dollars each year and has been fundamental in pushing energy companies to pursue cleaner, more cost-effective energy sources. But when it was first formalized in 1972 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it faced resistance. Energy companies argued that internalizing environmental costs would damage competitiveness, raise consumer prices, and deter innovation. At the time, many in the energy sector warned that internalizing environmental costs would damage competitiveness, raise consumer prices, and lead to layoffs—arguments widely circulated in the media and industry forums. Despite this, the principle gradually moved from being labeled “radical” and “punitive” to becoming a foundation of environmental and economic law.

Today, we face a similar urgency for change. This time, it’s regarding our food systems.

The problem is agriculture. The very system that sustains us has become a driver of environmental breakdown. It consumes 70 percent of fresh water, occupies half of all habitable land, generates around a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and is the primary cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss. With the worldwide population expected to increase by 2 billion by midcentury, demand for food is projected to rise by 50 percent, and protein demand alone is set to double by then, according to the 2017 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations report. So how can we produce more food without harming the planet, and where will the funds to support this transition come from?

The Problem With Food

Years of intensive agriculture mean that crops are being planted on exhausted fields; thus, in an ever-growing cycle of decay, farmers use more fertilizer to sustain yields. In his 2022 book Sixty Harvests Left, Philip Lymbery delivers an important message: that humanity’s food system is careening toward collapse. The title echoes a chilling United Nations warning that, under current industrial farming practices, 90 percent of the Earth’s topsoil is likely to be at risk by 2050.

Humanity consumes approximately 350 million tons of meat annually. That is equivalent to “nearly a thousand Empire State Buildings in carcass weight,” according to the book We Are Eating the Earth by Michael Grunwald. Livestock uses nearly 80 percent of agricultural land, yet provides less than 20 percent of global calories. They account for about 32 percent of global methane emissions, while beef production requires more than 15,000 liters of water per kilogram. The environmental cost of meat is disproportionately high. Global demand is rising, and protein production urgently needs innovation.

Intensifying floods, droughts, heat waves, collapsing fisheries, and accelerating species extinction are early signs of systemic stress. Agriculture is at the heart of this crisis. However, if approached differently, agriculture could also be a solution to the increasingly dire threat of climate disaster. The choices made in the coming years will shape not only our food security but also the planet’s resilience for generations to come.

Seven out of the nine planetary boundaries, as set by the Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC) in 2009, have now been breached. These boundaries were created to measure a “safe operating space for humanity.” The SRC states that, “Crossing boundaries increases the risk of generating large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes.” Breaching these boundaries signals that humanity is pushing Earth’s life-support systems beyond safe limits. This is detrimental not only to all life on Earth but also to business, as supply chains, global markets, and economic stability all depend on a healthy and nurturing environment.

The Proposed Transition of the Food System

As part of the Paris Agreement, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations launched the Food Roadmap at COP28. This was the first time any climate convention put food and agriculture on its agenda—aligning agriculture with climate goals. The roadmap called for a substantial scale-up of investment to develop and deploy low-emission farming methods, alternative proteins, and technologies that enhance soil health, improve water efficiency, and protect biodiversity.

The roadmap outlines 120 science-backed actions, clustered across 10 strategic domains, including soil and water, livestock, forests and wetlands, and healthy diets. The goal is to see food systems worldwide become carbon-neutral by 2035 and to achieve a net carbon sink by 2050. Livestock methane emissions would be reduced by 25 percent by 2030, and food waste would be halved.

The international community has been slow to react. However, by developing and implementing a widely accepted strategy and integrating meat-related levies into its climate initiative, Denmark has become a leading advocate in the transition. Its dual approach of plant-based incentives and emissions costs illustrates a progressive method for reducing meat dependency.

Marie-Louise Boisen Lendal, chair of the Danish fund Plant Foundation, which is overseeing a public investment of around $200 million in innovative solutions and the move toward plant-based foods, says, “Denmark is introducing the polluter pays principle because it is the most effective path to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.” She told me in a “Future of Foods Interview” podcast that Danish farmers are in favor of the idea. New Zealand and other countries, notably those in Scandinavia, exhibit similar signs of movement. The United Kingdom mooted a meat tax in 2024 as part of the National Food Strategy, but ultimately decided against it, citing public pushback.

Regenerative Agriculture Versus Technology

By focusing on rebuilding soil health, increasing biodiversity, and enhancing water cycles, regenerative practices aim to sequester carbon, restore degraded ecosystems, and make food systems more resilient. However, critics argue that the impact of regenerative agriculture on carbon sequestration is overstated. Since these systems may yield less in the short term, more land is often required to produce the same amount of food, and the only available land to exploit is often forested.

Some also warn that the term “regenerative” risks becoming a vague marketing expression susceptible to greenwashing. Sajeev Mohankumar from the FAIRR Initiative—a sustainability investment network managing $80 trillion in assets—confirms that although many investors are prioritizing regenerative agriculture, its implementation remains limited. Mohankumar told “Future of Foods” that although 50 of 79 agri-food companies reference regenerative practices in their strategies, only four have provided financial incentives to farmers or producers.

Meanwhile, new agritech solutions are emerging as complementary approaches that could accelerate the transition when combined with regenerative techniques. Biofertilizers and biopesticides offer more sustainable options for soil health and could eventually replace current chemical inputs, though their effectiveness remains under evaluation.

Gene editing is already in use, producing crops that are resistant to disease, tolerant to drought, or enriched with nutrients—developments that could reduce reliance on pesticides despite political pushback. Precision fermentation is also advancing; this process utilizes microbes to produce dairy proteins, egg whites, and fats without using animals. Several products manufactured using this process have reached the market, though significant scaling up is needed to compete with conventional farming. Finally, cellular agriculture—also known as cultivated meat—continues to progress, with approvals already granted in Singapore, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Yet here, too, the challenge of scaling remains substantial.

The Cost of a Food Transition

The Food System Economics Commission (FSEC) estimates that implementing a comprehensive transformation of the food system would require annual investments of approximately $500 billion. In a Future of Foods Interview from October 2025, a representative from Cargill confirmed to me that they now invest around 10 percent of their annual profits into scaling alternative proteins. Conversations suggest that Nestlé invests a similar amount. Major food companies—including Nestlé, Cargill, Unilever, Tyson Foods, Danone, Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, JBS, and Mars—are increasingly investing in or partnering with alternative protein ventures as part of their innovation and sustainability strategies, contributing to the broader sector’s multi‑billion‑dollar investment landscape in plant‑based, cultivated, and fermentation‑derived proteins.

The UN and the philanthropic sector pledged more than $7 billion for food and agriculture during COP28—including $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 SAFE Initiative in Africa and the Middle East has mobilized $10 billion. Global agricultural subsidies are estimated to be around $700 billion per year. The vast majority of this funding goes toward supporting the status quo, including intense and industrialized agriculture, which is often destined for animal feed or processed foods. Current government incentives primarily promote monocultures, industrial livestock production, and a heavy reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

The Media and Public Perception

Few issues cut as close to home as food. Calls to curb meat consumption are growing louder, yet meat intake is climbing with rising incomes in emerging economies, coupled with entrenched habits in wealthier nations, pushing consumption higher. Resistance to reducing meat consumption runs deep. It isn’t just a meal—it’s culture. From Sunday roasts to steakhouse dinners and festive feasts worldwide, animal protein is tied to tradition and identity.

Plant-based alternatives can appear less satisfying and are often viewed with some suspicion. Confusion surrounding nutrition, combined with targeted disinformation campaigns, exacerbates this issue. In the UK, headlines in October 2024 in the Telegraph, such as “Lab-Grown Meat Is Proving to Be a Grotesque Misadventure,” captured skepticism toward the entire sector, citing high costs, technological hurdles, and public unease with labels like “Frankenmeat.” The Washington Post reported on health warnings tied to plant-based alternatives, highlighting scientific studies that grouped meat substitutes with other ultra-processed foods linked to heart disease, glossing over methodological nuances. For example, healthy plant-based foods should not be compared with a box of donuts.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom, funded by interests in the meat industry, launched full-page newspaper ads in 2020 that portrayed plant-based burgers as “ultra-processed imitations” or likened them to dog food. A similar campaign by the think tank, Center for the Environment and Welfare, compared cultured meat cells with “tumor” cells.

Proposals for meat taxes, climate-driven dietary shifts, or calls to reduce livestock farming are often framed by conservatives as attacks on tradition, national identity, and personal freedom. In Germany, farmers and political critics pushed back against proposed increases to meat taxes or VAT on meat, arguing such levies would burden consumers and harm livelihoods. In the Netherlands, discussions about a potential meat tax prompted political pushback, with government coalition parties and meat industry associations arguing that a levy could make grocery bills less affordable for ordinary consumers. In France, politicians have positioned steak and charcuterie as part of the cultural heritage, pushing back against calls for plant-based school meals. In the UK, media outlets such as the Telegraph have described proposals to reduce red meat consumption as an attack on the Sunday roast, tapping into working-class anxieties.

People still perceive meat as tastier, more convenient, and a more dependable source of protein than the alternatives available. Until substitutes can rival meat on these terms, the trend will likely continue upward.

A Necessary Change

The polluter pays principle is not a tax on consumers—it’s a tax on environmental damage, unnecessary harm to animals, and widespread deforestation. It’s a tax on corporations and manufacturers who have profited from the environment, earning billions.

Food systems should pay their actual ecological costs, as the era of subsidized industrial meat is winding down. By integrating this sector into the polluter-pays economy, we move from lip service to climate action, from compensation to transformation. Clean energy isn’t enough; clean food is next. “Much like the fossil fuel lobbyists who argue that the world can’t afford to do away with oil and gas if we want energy security, Big Ag lobbyists defend a current status quo that’s actively heating up the planet in the name of food security,” stated a 2023 Guardian article.

Political and populist pushbacks are a problem, but perhaps the bigger test is whether companies can create meat alternatives that appeal to consumers and serve as an exciting replacement for what people are used to. The math is daunting. But the cost of inaction is climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity. The smartest investment humanity has left to make is to mobilize the half-trillion dollars per year needed for a just food transition through 2050.

Author Bio: Alex Crisp is a freelance journalist focusing on environment, animal welfare, and new technology. He has a background in law, journalism, and teaching. He is the host of the “Future of Foods Interviews” podcast.

Credit Line: This article was produced for the Observatory by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.