If food company bosses thought the anonymous whistleblowers behind bombshell claims about the industry’s climate change failings would quietly disappear having made their point, they were in for a rude awakening.
Today, with just one week to go before COP30 kicks off in Brazil, the authors of that memo are back with more damning claims. This time, they’re accusing supermarkets and major manufacturers of deliberately pressurising UK farmers to lower animal welfare standards in order to keep meat prices down.
Inside Track, as the group calls itself, is not a group of radical, leftwing firebrands, the kind normally expected to challenge the food industry and especially the supermarket giants which dominate its supply chains.
The group includes leading executives from a raft of major food companies – insiders who, despite fearing repercussions, felt compelled to come together and demand change.
The impact of climate change on supply chains
The idea that the food industry is actively pushing farmers and manufacturers toward using mass production methods – and away from lower-impact, higher-welfare practices – is alarming enough in itself.
But it feels particularly jarring just weeks after industry leaders gathered at the IGD conference in London, where the spotlight was firmly on the need for both the sector and government to confront the growing threat of climate change and the fragility of UK food resilience.
At the event, IGD unveiled a report warning that, on its current trajectory, the industry will face additional costs of £2.6bn a year by 2050. That’s equivalent to an almost 15% spike in spending on key commodities, driven by a combination of factors including water stress, soil erosion, the impact of rising temperatures on fish stocks, and pollinator losses due to climate change.
Deprioritising food security
Yet today’s report claims the UK’s food security is being “deprioritised” and sacrificed in favour of “cheaper and more highly processed” practices as supermarkets and major manufacturers look for ways to keep prices down.
The claims that cheaper processed meat is being prioritised comes at a highly sensitive time, with a separate row raging over whether the UK government is doing enough to protect consumers from the risks posed by processed meat products.
Last week the authors of a WHO report into the cancer risks associated with products such as bacon and ham accused minsters of neglecting their duty to safeguard public health.
And while the FSA has continued to deny the risk posed from nitrites, it has, nevertheless, reacted to the potential scandal with a strong message to the public that they should be eating less processed meat.
Exactly the opposite strategy, if today’s memo is to be believed, of the UK food industry.
An attack on cheap meat
Inside Track’s latest intervention doesn’t just keep the spotlight on processed meat, it also raises questions about the group’s broader strategy. How far is it willing to go in challenging the role of meat in the UK food system, whether cheap or premium?
The “insiders’ guide” published today includes some pretty contentious claims on the subject, going far beyond the pressure on farmers. It also suggests that food bosses are personally biased towards meat as a food group.
“At a personal level, those who lead major food companies tend to see meat as a core, critical and central part of diet,” the report states.
“This feeds into how meat is treated within businesses. Personal tastes inform what senior leaders think people would or should want, and lead to ‘meat primacy’ within industry.
“While industry is not explicitly briefing agencies to disproportionately centre meat and dairy products within adverts, putting meat products at the heart of advertising is considered a norm within industry and is what is repeatedly defaulted to.”
The report also accuses food companies of maintaining long-standing relationships with powerful influencers from the meat lobby.
But where should the fight over meat be focused – climate impact, animal welfare, or the health risks of processed products? And what about growing concerns over ultra-processed alternatives?
Inside Track has undoubtedly succeeded in getting its message heard. But navigating these complex, overlapping issues will be challenging, especially when the conversation is happening behind a cloak of secrecy.
One thing’s certain: this is shaping up to be a fascinating and unpredictable battle.
No comments yet