This morning, The Grocer newsletter included two news stories about the grocery industry and the environment.
The first reported on the British Retail Consortium as it sounded the alarm over biodiversity loss threatening UK supply chains, while the second saw Science for Sustainable Agriculture telling everyone to calm down. Defra’s most recent biodiversity report has it wrong, it says, claiming that the number of birds and insects on Britain’s farmland has remained stable over the past 30 years.
Two headlines, two vastly opposing views – and a perfect snapshot of why the topic of sustainability in grocery is so controversial.
We all know why biodiversity matters. The grocery sector is deeply intertwined with nature: crops, livestock, packaging, transport – every link in the chain depends on natural resources. When biodiversity declines, so does resilience. Supply chains become more vulnerable, yields drop, and costs rise. Sustainability isn’t just a moral imperative, it’s a commercial one.
That’s why today marks the start of the first ever Green Week at The Grocer.
We’ve been spotlighting sustainability topics within the food and drink industry since we launched our first ever Green Issue, focusing on how retailers, brands, and suppliers are tackling key environmental challenges.
Back then, we included features on green packaging targets, environmentally friendly transport innovations and food waste efforts during Covid-19. This week, we’ve got features on insect protein, the IGD Future of UK Food event, and the truth behind ‘flushable’ wet wipes. We’re also gearing up to report on the Eat-Lancet study, continued weather challenges in farming and the opportunity plant-based has as meat prices soar.
In fact, we’re writing more than ever about sustainability. So why is it still so divisive?
Climate contradictions
Climate denial might (thankfully) be fringe, but it’s loud, and that feeds a wider politicisation of sustainability. Even the leader of the free world, President Donald Trump, last week called climate change the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”.
Some see sustainability as essential to future-proofing the economy; others view it as regulatory overreach or greenwashing. Whichever way you look at it, ensuring we have a planet to live on should be a shared mission, and drawing party lines over the future of the planet makes it increasingly challenging to get anything productive done.
This morning’s clash of news stories shows that even experts who are broadly pushing in the same direction can disagree. Where one group sees crisis, another sees stability.
After all, you can prove anything with statistics. And with at least 84% of them entirely made up (or so the old joke goes), how can people know who to trust? Such contradictions muddy the waters for retailers and brands trying to make informed decisions, especially when sustainable practices often require a hefty upfront investment.
The BRC’s flagship report, Planning for Nature, called on retailers to “urgently address” the risk of accelerating loss of nature and biodiversity, revealing that more than three-quarters of retailers have not set any targets on protecting nature. It marks the beginning of the industry’s journey to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, with a target of full recovery by 2050.
For its part, SSA has said there is growing evidence that numbers of farmland birds are not in decline. In fact, it says, overall populations for insects and birds have remained broadly stable over the past three decades, despite government-accredited data from Defra to the contrary.
It is arguing that a longer list of species should be included in the official metrics, adding that putting “high-yield agriculture on our most fertile land and leaving more land for intact nature and biodiversity conservation [is] the most efficient, cost-effective and sustainable way to meet our food needs, achieve conservation goals and mitigate climate change”.
Muddy waters
The RSPB has dismissed the report as “nonsense”, pointing out that the SSA is “not denying that the specialist farmland bird species are declining, just that all the common birds found on farmland and everywhere else should be included to mask the plight of the specialist species.
”They’re basically saying we may have lost skylarks, turtle doves, yellowhammers and lapwings but all the woodpigeons make up for it.”
Richard Benwell, CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, was equally dismissive of the SSA’s claims. “The evidence is clear that farmland bird populations have declined more than 60% since 1970 and declines are stronger for farmland specialist birds than for generalist species.
“Nature-friendly farming is essential for wildlife and the future of agriculture. Many farmers have begun to plan for environmentally positive food production, but delays in support are putting that future at risk.
“Now is not the time to muddy the debate; the science is clear that farming reform is needed. Anyone interested in the future of farming should be campaigning for a faster and more ambitious transition to nature-friendly agriculture.”
Whatever your take on the stories above, the confusion illustrates that whether arguing over insect numbers, scope 3 emissions or if climate change really exists at all, we must have robust data, clearly defined goalposts and an honest dialogue.
The grocery sector doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring sustainability. Whether biodiversity is genuinely in freefall or simply shifting, the risks to farming and grocery supply chains are real.
To move forward, we need a shared understanding of what sustainability truly means – not just for the planet, but for the people and businesses who depend on it.
No comments yet