Yves here. As Trump’s shredding of the international order and domestic law dominates headlines, our climate and environmental crises keep relentlessly rolling forward. The article below describes a key aspect: the way our modern food system, dominated by large and unnecessarily-resource consuming large corporations, is a major part of the equation and needs to be compelled to adopt better practices. This article describes how food producers are wrecking the system on which we all depend, with 90% of the topsoil in danger of being seriously degraded by 2050.
The normal solution would be to charge producers for the full costs of their conduct, via various “producer pays” levies for short-sighted exploitation. But Big Ag will squeal that they will have to poss on these expenses and consumers will pay the price. The problem is that the “affordability crisis” in many advanced economies includes food costs, and those are affected by fallout from modern commerce, ranging from poor yields due to climate blowback to bird flu. And in Europe, costs are also high due to elevated energy costs thanks to Russia sanctions. But there’s no obvious way to force consumers to make less-climate/environment damaging choices save subjecting them to the true environmental price of their diet. Yours truly has said repeatedly that we all need to be eating further down the food chain. Note that this article makes additional important recommendations as to how to reduce the environmental load of farming. But that would require planning and consistent application of resources, which are skills and behaviors notably absent in our elites.
By Alex Crisp, 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. Produced for the Observatory by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute
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 Earthby 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 landscapein 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.
-1024x683.jpg "Judge Who Helped Violent Illegal Alien Evade ICE Faces New Test")
