SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
unilever
Ben & Jerry's Co-Founder Wants Help Designing Ice Cream for Gaza That Corporate Bosses Wouldn't Allow
"Revolutions are creative," said Ben Cohen. "Let's see some of that creativity!"
Oct 28, 2025
One of the co-founders of Ben & Jerry's is asking fans to help design a new ice cream flavor to show support for the people of Palestine, after the company's corporate owners refused.
The ice cream brand's founders, lifelong political activists Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, have long been at odds with the company that now owns their product, Unilever/Magnum, which they say has stifled efforts to use their platform to advocate against Israel's occupation of Palestine and its genocidal war in Gaza.
In a video posted to social media on Tuesday, Cohen—armed with a masher and a plate of watermelons, an international symbol of Palestinian solidarity—said he was taking matters into his own hands.
"A while back, Ben & Jerry's tried to make a flavor to call for peace in Palestine, to stand for justice and dignity for everyone, like Ben & Jerry's always has," Cohen said. "But they weren't allowed to. They were stopped by Unilever/Magnum, the company that owns Ben & Jerry's. Just like when Ben & Jerry's tried to stop selling ice cream in the occupied territories, they were blocked again by their parent company."
"So I'm doing what they couldn't," he continued. "I'm making a watermelon-flavored ice cream that calls for permanent peace in Palestine and calls for repairing all the damage that was done there."
Since October 2023, more than two years of genocidal war and siege have left at least 248,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, hundreds of thousands of others starving, and the vast majority of Gaza's more than 2 million people forcibly displaced. As a result of Israel's punishing bombing campaign, 92% of residential buildings have been destroyed, according to the United Nations.
Despite the ceasefire agreement signed between Israel and Hamas earlier this month, the violence in Gaza has continued. On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced new "powerful strikes" on Gaza after alleging that Hamas violated the ceasefire. Gaza officials have alleged that Israel has violated the truce 125 times.
"The scale of suffering of the Palestinian people over the last two years has been unimaginable," Cohen said. "They deserve dignity, safety, and the same rights that every human being should have."
Unilever purchased Ben & Jerry's from Cohen and Greenfield in 2000, but allowed Cohen and Greenfield to remain on as brand ambassadors and members of its board, with what the pair said was a commitment that the company would give them the "independence to pursue our values."
However, in September, Greenfield stepped down from the board of Ben & Jerry's, alleging that Unilever had routinely used threats and intimidation to stop the pair from calling for "peace" and a "ceasefire" in Gaza.
Cohen said that he is producing his new product—a watermelon sorbet—independently from the company's owners.
"I'm doing this to shine a light on the experience of Palestinian people and children in particular. So the world does not look the other way," he said.
He asked viewers for suggestions to help determine what other ingredients should be included, a name for the flavor, and to create a design for the container.
Many viewers have already offered their ideas: One suggested naming the flavor "From the River to the Seed." Others suggested using components of Palestinian desserts like pistachios and pomegranates.
"Revolutions are creative," Cohen said. "Let's see some of that creativity!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ben & Jerry's Co-Founder Steps Down in Protest of Corporate Owner's Attempts to 'Silence' Duo's Gaza Activism
"Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power," said co-founder Jerry Greenfield.
Sep 17, 2025
Jerry Greenfield, the lifelong political activist and co-founder of the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry's, is quitting the company in protest against what he says are efforts by parent company Unilever to "silence" his advocacy for progressive causes, particularly for Palestinians amid Israel's genocidal war in Gaza.
"I can no longer, in good conscience, and after 47 years, remain an employee of Ben & Jerry's," Greenfield said in a statement posted Tuesday by his longtime partner Ben Cohen. "This is one of the hardest and most painful decisions I've ever made."
The Vermont-based ice cream company was acquired by Unilever, a British conglomerate, in 2000, at which time Greenfield says the company "guaranteed" him and his partner the "independence to pursue our values." Though the pair no longer had a financial stake in the company, which they founded in 1978, they remained on as board members and brand ambassadors.
"For more than twenty years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry's stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice, and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world," Greenfield said. "That independence existed in no small part because of the unique merger agreement Ben and I negotiated with Unilever, one that enshrined our social mission and values in the company's governance structure in perpetuity."
The relationship between Ben & Jerry's and its parent company began to fracture as Cohen and Greenfield became increasingly outspoken advocates against Israel's human rights abuses in Palestine.
In 2021, the duo announced that it would stop selling its ice cream in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in protest of Israel's occupation of those territories, which is widely recognized as illegal under international law. Several US states with laws punishing boycotts of Israel began to pull their investments in Unilever, which rushed to reaffirm that it was “firmly committed” to Israel.
In order to bypass the pair's boycott, Unilever sold the Israeli portion of Ben & Jerry's to a distributor in the country, which promptly resumed distribution in the Occupied Territories. The duo launched a lawsuit against their parent company in hopes of stopping the deal.
The rift would intensify further after October 7, 2023, when, following Hamas' attack against Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government responded with a crushing military onslaught against the Gaza Strip that has now resulted in at least 220,000 casualties according to one former Israeli general.
Ben & Jerry's would file another lawsuit in 2024 alleging that Unilever, on several occasions, used threats and intimidation to stop them from speaking out on the conflict, which they referred to as a "genocide."
They said Unilever threatened to dismantle the company's board if it issued statements calling for "peace" and a "ceasefire," imposed restrictions on their statements in support of pro-Palestine student demonstrators, and stopped them from donating company funds to human rights organizations. Ben & Jerry's would later claim that Unilever fired its CEO, David Stever in March 2025 in retaliation for the brand's activism.
This past May, Cohen was arrested, along with six others, for disrupting a US Senate hearing in protest of Washington's continued sale of weapons to Israel, which at that point had begun outlining plans to fully remove Palestinians from Gaza with support from President Donald Trump.
Unilever distanced itself from Cohen's actions, saying they were "on his own as an individual and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's or Unilever."
Greenfield's departure comes as Unilever plans to fold Ben & Jerry's into a new entity known as the Magnum Ice Cream Company, which is set to be listed on the stock market in November. In response to the merger, Ben & Jerry's called for its brand to be "freed" from the conglomerate.
"They're ripping the heart out of Ben & Jerry's," Cohen said last week while brandishing a picket sign. "All we're asking is for them to sell the company to a group of people who support the values of Ben & Jerry's."
Magnum rejected this request, saying, "Ben & Jerry’s is a proud part of the Magnum Ice Cream Company and is not for sale."
"It's profoundly disappointing to come to the conclusion that that independence, the very basis of our sale to Unilever, is gone," Greenfield said in his resignation note. "And it's happening at a time when our country's current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community."
"Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important," he continued, "and yet Ben & Jerry's has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. It's easy to stand up and speak out when there's nothing at risk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Corporate Takeover of the Global Food System Should Not Get UN Approval
The U.N. should address issues such as land concentration, so that peasant agroecology can have a real chance to flourish and make a significant contribution to tackling hunger, climate change, and biodiversity loss.
Jul 23, 2023
A U.N. summit on global food systems should be an opportunity to address structural inequalities and tackle hunger. It should be a chance to learn from small-scale producers whose sustainable food practices feed 70% of the world. Instead, next week’s conference in Rome will be a festival of greenwashing, allowing Big Agriculture corporations to tighten their grip on food systems.
This will be the second Food Systems Summit (UNFSS). The first, in 2021 was supposed to address the lack of progress towards the U.N.’s sustainable development goals. It was dubbed a “people’s summit” by the organizers, but caused an outcry among local producers when their calls to roll back the power of transnational corporations were cynically ignored.
Corporations that dominate global food systems, such as Bayer and Nestlé, used the summit to promote greenwashing initiatives rather than address pressing problems such as food speculation and the impact of Covid-19 on world hunger.
The U.N.’s special rapporteur on the right to food Michael Fakhri described it as “inviting the fox right into the henhouse.”
Discussions on eradicating hunger were hosted by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), a foundation partly funded by processed food and consumer goods giant Unilever, while transnational corporations were invited to discuss solutions to problems they had largely created. The whole event was an excellent opportunity for them to identify new profit-making ventures and to “capture the global narrative of ‘food systems transformation.’”
More than a thousand small-scale food producer associations and Indigenous Peoples’ groups, academics, and social movements boycotted the event, which was also widely criticized by U.N/ human rights experts and others.
The U.N.’s special rapporteur on the right to food Michael Fakhri described it as “inviting the fox right into the henhouse.”
Agribusiness vs Small Farmers
Food is a common good and access to healthy and nutritious food is a basic human right enshrined in U.N. covenants. These are the issues that governments and the U.N. should focus resources on, and next week’s summit provided a perfect opportunity.
Sadly, it looks set to simply consolidate corporate control over food and natural resources.
Hundreds of grassroots groups have called out the U.N., saying they are still being excluded and claiming the summit is “poised to repeat the failures” of two years ago and want to see fundamental change in food systems.
Here’s the picture as it stands. A handful of agribusinesses control more than 70% of the world’s farmland. Smallholder farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists, and Indigenous peoples, who use agroecology and other sustainable practices, feed 70% of the world’s population with just 10% of global farmland.
In just the last five years, the world’s nine largest fertilizer companies—with nearly 40% of global synthetic fertilizer sales— have tripled their profits.
Agriculture is responsible for nearly 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions, almost 90% of deforestation, and 80% of biodiversity loss, the bulk of which can be attributed to industrial agriculture and agribusiness operations.
The disruption of global fertilizer supply chains has been a major focus of the U.N.’s response to the global food crisis. But the dangers of market concentration, which make food systems extremely fragile to shocks, have been largely ignored.
In just the last five years, the world’s nine largest fertilizer companies—with nearly 40% of global synthetic fertilizer sales— have tripled their profits. Rocketing fertilizer prices have less to do with disrupted supply chains than quasi-monopolies.
Despite all this—and the growing global obesity pandemic, for which consumption of ultra-processed industrial food bears a major responsibility—the U.N. continues to empower corporations. What it should be doing is addressing issues such as land concentration, so that peasant agroecology can have a real chance to flourish and make a significant contribution to tackling hunger, climate change, and biodiversity loss.
Industrial Agriculture Has Failed
A dystopian future where a handful of corporations control everything we eat is just around the corner, if we do not resist now.
About 60% of all calories consumed worldwide come from just four crops: rice, wheat, corn, and soy. Everyone is vulnerable if we are over-dependent on global corporate-controlled supply chains. Industrial agriculture has failed to address rising levels of hunger and malnutrition across the world, which are now at an estimated 828 million people.
We are facing a stark choice between unsustainable, exploitative, corporate-controlled food systems and diverse, locally sourced ecological food.
The global governance of food is being hijacked by corporate interests. The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization receives less than a third of its $3.25bn budget from the world’s governments, making it dependent on “voluntary contributions”—including from corporations and their proxies—for the rest.
We are facing a stark choice between unsustainable, exploitative, corporate-controlled food systems and diverse, locally sourced ecological food that prioritises the needs and rights of those most affected by the hunger, climate, and health crises.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Real Americone Dream': Ben & Jerry's Scoopers Organizing for a Union
"Our goal in this action is to create a better-working and equal partnership between our community and yours," organizers at the flagship store wrote to the ice cream giant's corporate leaders.
Apr 17, 2023
Ben & Jerry's workers at the ice cream company's flagship shop in Burlington, Vermont on Monday filed for a union election amid a wave of organizing efforts at Amazon, Apple, REI, Starbucks, Trader Joe's, and other major employers across the United States.
Organizers in Burlington are calling themselves Scoopers United and are backed by Workers United, a Service Employees International Union affiliate that has gained national attention for winning union votes at 300 U.S. Starbucks stores since late 2021.
"Our goal in this action is to create a better-working and equal partnership between our community and yours," Scoopers United organizers wrote Sunday to company leaders and co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, who started the business in 1978.
The multinational Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000. The parent company has not commented on the Burlington effort but its website says that "workers are able to form and/or join trade unions of their choice, and to bargain collectively," and around 80% of the company's total workforce is covered by independent trade unions or collective bargaining agreements.
Both the co-founders and Ben & Jerry's, as a company, have a long history of activism. The ice cream giant's site states that "we seek in all we do, at every level of our business, to advance human rights and dignity, support social and economic justice for historically marginalized communities, and protect and restore the Earth's natural systems."
Scoopers United wrote that "we have seen the positive impact of community within our scoop shop. The support and comradery this store has cultivated are rare and unique. Collectively, we have come to embody Ben & Jerry's slogan of 'peace, love, and ice cream.'"
"We are taught from the beginning of our employment that equality and justice are integral rights of ours as people," organizers continued. "Despite record-breaking profits, incredible bounce-backs post-pandemic, and unwavering smiles, our staff is exploited within our work environment."
According to The Washington Post:
The workers' push to unionize began around April 3, the annual Free Cone Day, when the company gives away free scoops of ice cream. According to union organizers, management took away the tip jar that day.
Ben & Jerry's later returned it after workers protested, the organizers said. But the move to unionize quickly caught on throughout the store. In Burlington, organizers said all 37 scoopers have pledged their support. That's well above the typical threshold in the United States, where at least 30% of eligible employees must sign on to qualify for a federally recognized union election.
Union leaders said their primary motivation is to have a seat at the table with management. Also at issue is management's handling of multiple instances of drug use in the store bathroom, including an overdose last summer, as well as adding job duties without increasing pay, workers say.
"Workers need a voice on issues that affect us. Forming a union will ensure that present and future scoopers have irrefutable rights. To this end, we want to acknowledge the efforts made by current management. The work you have done has not gone unnoticed and provides us hope for future cooperation where we can collaborate as equals," organizers wrote, asking Ben & Jerry's leaders to recognize their right to unionize and sign a dozen fair election principles.
Rebeka Mendelsohn, a 22-year-old shift manager and University of Vermont student, said in a statement that "we're a company that stands for social justice rights and equity, and I want to ensure that this message is translated to all levels of employment."
Mendelsohn told the Post that she wanted to work for the company because of its commitment to social issues such as defending Black Lives Matter and environmental justice. Mendelsohn, who is Jewish, added that she was proud when Ben & Jerry's sued Unilever last year to block ice cream sales in Israeli-occupied West Bank territories—a dispute that was resolved confidentially.
"In the grand scheme of things, my employer is working toward something bigger," Mendelsohn said. "And I see such a potential for a union for employees and staff."
Other organizers and labor rights supporters across the country expressed solidarity with the Burlington workers' push to establish the first union at a Ben & Jerry's shop.
"ICE CREAM UNION," tweeted People for Bernie, sharing the organizers' letter.
Referencing one of the ice cream company's famous flavors, the Fight for $15 campaign declared that a "new Ben & Jerry's union is the real Americone Dream."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Report Reveals How Plastic Polluters Have Avoided Regulation Worldwide for Decades
"This report is a damning exposé of the tactics employed by the plastics industry and shines a welcome light on the shadowy world of corporate lobbying."
Sep 17, 2020
Analysis released Thursday of the world's top 10 biggest plastic polluters in 15 countries reveals how major corporations hide behind the veneer of corporate responsibility while actively working to thwart regulatory legislation around the globe.
"This report is a damning expose of the tactics employed by the plastics industry and shines a welcome light on the shadowy world of corporate lobbying," Natalie Fee, founder of City to Sea, which supported the research conducted by the Changing Markets Foundation, said in a statement.
"For too long," said Fee, "the true cost of plastic production has been externalized, meaning plastic producers continue to get away with ecocide while waste management companies, consumers and marginalized communities around the world are left to deal with millions of tons of toxic plastic waste."
The report--titled "Talking Trash: The Corporate Playbook of False Solutions,"--exposes how Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, Mars Incorporated, Mondelez International, Nestle, PepsiCo, Perfetti Van Melle, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever deploy "tactics to undermine legislation in individual countries are in fact part of a global approach by Big Plastic to ensure that the corporations most responsible for the plastic crisis evade true accountability for their pollution."
According to Changing Markets Foundation Thursday, the investigations found:
- Big Plastic is a well-organized network of organizations that fight against proven solutions to the plastic pollution crisis through similar tactics across the world
- Voluntary commitments and group initiatives from the ten biggest plastic polluters are used to distract consumers and governments, enabling polluters to continue with business as usual
- Corporations work behind the scenes to delay and derail legislation and ensure they can continue flooding the world with cheap, disposable plastic packaging
- Plastic producers have co-opted the Covid-19 pandemic and capitalized on people's fear to call for regulatory rollbacks and delays on environmental legislation
"This report exposes the two-faced hypocrisy of plastic polluters, which claim to be committed to solutions, but at the same time use a host of dirty tricks to ensure that they can continue pumping out cheap, disposable plastic, polluting the planet at a devastating rate," said Nusa Urbanic, campaigns director for the Changing Markets.
"Plastic is now pouring into the natural world at a rate of one garbage truck a minute, creating a crisis for wildlife, the climate and public health," Urbanic continued. "The responsibility for this disaster lies with Big Plastic--including major household brands--which have lobbied against progressive legislation for decades, greenwashed their environmental credentials, and blamed the public for littering, rather than assuming responsibility for their own actions."
Big Plastic jumped at the opportunity presented by the Covid-19 pandemic--which has caused a surge in single-use plastic consumption--to pressure lawmakers to roll back current regulations and prevent new ones, according to the report.
Additionally, Changing Markets noted that plastic pollution has devastating effects on the environment and is a key contributor to the climate crisis.
According to the group:
"The plastic pollution crisis is a deeply interconnected climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis, and a public health crisis all combined... Plastic saturates almost every surface of the planet--from the deepest abysses to the highest mountains and remotest islands--causing an unprecedented crisis for wildlife... Virgin-plastic production is a major contributor to climate change, generating enough emissions--from the moment they leave the ground as fossil fuels, and throughout their entire life cycle--to use up 10 to 15% of our entire carbon budget by 2050 at current rates of growth. Disposal of plastics through incineration and backyard burning also contributes to climate change and creates a toxic fallout undermining human and planetary health."
The industry's contribution to the global climate emergency is nothing new, but progressive legislators continue to face an uphill battle when it comes to regulating these powerful corporations.
President Donald Trump, for example, has called climate change a "hoax," and, despite pleas from environmental advocacy groups and progressive lawmakers, many Democratic lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)--as well as presidential nominee Joe Biden--still do not support the Green New Deal.
Urbanic urged lawmakers to act to protect the planet.
"The voluntary initiatives and commitments by the industry have failed," she said in a statement. "Policymakers should look past the industry smokescreen and adopt proven, progressive legislation globally to create the systemic change that this crisis so urgently needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Top Food Companies Fail to Protect Environmental Activists in Supply Chains
The Deadly Consequences of Defending Indigenous Lands.
Sep 18, 2017
A recent investigation by the anti-poverty advocacy organization Oxfam reveals how the world's top ten food and beverage companies are failing to protect environmental and human rights defenders caught in the companies' supply chains.
The Oxfam report, Pathways to Deforestation-Free Food, demonstrates how Associated British Foods, Danone, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez, PepsiCo, Nestle and Unilever have committed to tackling deforestation caused by their companies, but crucially lack policies to protect local activists and environmentalists within their supply networks from violence, threats, and attacks.
"A glaring policy gap across all the companies analyzed," the Oxfam report found, "is that none have policies to protect human rights defenders, nor require their suppliers to put in place policies of zero threats, intimidation or attacks against human rights defenders and local communities."
Industrial farming of food ingredients such as soy and palm oil, for example, have led to massive deforestation and displacement of rural communities in Indonesia, Brazil, Colombia, and elsewhere throughout the globe. Activists standing up against such industries in defense of forests, rivers, land, and the livelihoods of local communities have been threatened and murdered at an increased rate in recent years.
Four environmental activists were murdered each week in 2016 for defending their communities and environment from the impacts of agribusiness, mining, and logging industries, according to a report from the human rights organization Global Witness.
In Colombia, activists standing up against the impacts of El Cerrejon, Latin America's largest open-pit mine, have faced regular threats and violence.
Jakeline Romero has organized against the water shortages and displacement caused by this mine, which is owned by Glencore, BHP Billiton, and Anglo-American.
"They threaten you so you will shut up," Romero told Global Witness. "I can't shut up. I can't stay silent faced with all that is happening to my people. We are fighting for our lands, for our water, for our lives."
The world's leading food and beverage companies are not doing enough to stem the violence against environmental activists in their own supply chains, the new Oxfam report found.
"In many countries where agribusiness companies are investing, the rights of community activists are under attack because of their work to defend the rights of their communities--the right to forests and natural resources, to their land and water, their livelihood and their way of life," Oxfam stated.
"From violent crackdowns on protests and criminalization of speech, to arbitrary arrests and assaults or, in some cases, murder of human rights defenders, as well as restrictions on activities of civil society organizations, such attacks seek to delegitimize the voice and interests of communities," Oxfam explained.
Across the world, from Indonesia to Honduras, environmental defenders are facing down multinational corporations and the devastating impacts of their industries on local communities, rivers, forests, and indigenous ways of life.
Honduran activist and social justice leader Berta Caceres was murdered in March, 2016 for her environmental activism and leadership of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH).
In an interview on the legacy of her mother's struggle, Berta Caceres' daughter Berta Zuniga Caceres, explained the vision of COPINH and how it challenges the economic model guiding multinational corporations and their political allies.
"It's a very rich vision and one that exists among many indigenous peoples," Caceres explained. "It has to do with building a logic that's completely opposed to the hegemonic way of thinking that we're always taught. The vision and proposals are defiant, totally different than the academic, patriarchal, racist, positivist vision of the world. They include relations between people that are much more communitarian and collective, and that also have a strong relationship to the global commons and to nature, defying the dominant anthropocentric vision. They relate to spirituality and the relationships we have with all living beings - a holistic vision of life."
"Indigenous people find themselves battling extractivism, companies, mining, because that's the battleground where these different ways of knowing, of feeling, of cosmovision play out," she said. "This is the wealth of indigenous peoples. But it also represents a threat for the economic model that's based on profits and money, and that's developed through repression and exclusion."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global Investors to Big Food: Cut Meat to Avoid 'Protein Bubble'
Greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and growing antibiotic resistance are just a few of risks associated with factory farming
Sep 26, 2016
Citing the environmental and public health risks of factory farming, a $1.25 trillion coalition of multinational investors has called on 16 global food corporations--including Kraft Heinz, Nestle, Unilever, Tesco, and Walmart--to cut their reliance on meat and diversify into plant-based sources of protein.
The campaign launched Monday is backed by a new briefing from the FAIRR (Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return) Initiative and responsible investment organization ShareAction, entitled, The Future of Food: The Investment Case for a Protein Shake-Up (pdf).
Our current food system is unsustainable, the report states, listing greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and growing antibiotic resistance as among the negative consequences of "the factory farming model and the increasing overconsumption of animal products."
In fact, the briefing warns, if livestock production and consumption are not swiftly reduced, it will be impossible to reach the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement. An Oxford University study released in March projected that by 2050, food-related greenhouse gas emissions could account for fully half the emissions the world can afford if global warming is to be limited to less than 2degC.
According to the FAIRR/ShareAction report:
[T]he livestock sector currently accounts for 14.5 percent of global anthropogenic GHG emissions: more than the global transport sector. While there are certainly improvements to be made in production and distribution efficiencies, research indicates that these have only a small part to play; with, for instance, a reduction in food waste likely to lower food-related emissions by just 1 to 3 percent. In contrast, adopting global dietary guidelines with lower meat consumption would cut food-related emissions by 29 percent, vegetarian diets by 63 percent, and vegan diets by 70 percent.
"The world's over-reliance on factory farmed livestock to feed the growing global demand for protein is a recipe for a financial, social, and environmental crisis," said FAIRR founder Jeremy Coller, who also serves as chief investment officer for Coller Capital, one of 40 firms participating in the campaign. "Intensive livestock production already has levels of emissions and pollution that are too high, and standards of safety and welfare that are too low. It simply can't cope with the projected increase in global protein demand."
But while the current meat model is unsustainable, prospects are bright in the plant-based protein market, which Coller said is "set to grow by 8.4 percent annually over the next five years."
In turn, the investors want to know what companies are doing to avoid what Coller dubs the "protein bubble."
The FAIRR/ShareAction report points to strategies ranging from the further development of plant-based protein alternatives to more creative marketing around "less-meat" options--for example, "inspiring a modified dietary approach through appealing on-packet recipe suggestions that do not default to meat."
As ShareAction campaigns manager Clare Richards declared in a press statement: "Evidence suggests that plant-based protein sources are better for your health, your wallet, and the planet. Consumers increasingly recognize these benefits; and now this coalition of forward-thinking investors are doing the same."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oxfam: World's Largest Food Companies Creating Legacy of Destruction
Corporations relying on cheap land and labor are ruining human lives and the natural world, says campaign
Feb 26, 2013
The world's largest food and beverage companies may be profitable, but according to Oxfam International their practices are helping to destroy not only the natural resources that support a global food system but the lives of the people they depend on most: their employees and their customers.
In a new effort called Behind the Brand, part of their ongoing GROW campaign to fix the broken food system, Oxfam has singled out the ten largest food processing companies--Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, Mondelez, Nestle, Pepsico and Unilever--to make a singular statement about the failure of these behemoths to fulfill their social and environmental responsibilities.
According to Oxfam, these "Big 10"--that together generate $1 billion-a-day in profit--are failing millions of people in developing countries who supply land, labor, water and commodities needed to make their products.
"It's time these companies take more responsibility for their immense influence on poor people's lives," said Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director for Oxfam International. "Eighty percent of the world's hungry people work in food production and these companies employ millions of people in developing countries to grow their ingredients. They control hundreds of the world's most popular brands and have the economic, social and political clout to make a real and lasting difference to the world's poor and hungry."
As The Guardian reports:
The charity's Behind the Brands report compiled a scorecard, rating the "big 10" food companies in seven categories: the transparency of their supply chains and operations, how they ensure the rights of workers, how they protect women's rights, the management of water and land use, their policies to reduce the impacts of climate change and how they ensure the rights of the farmers who grow their ingredients.
The company with the lowest score - just 13 out of 70 - was ABF. It scored just one mark out of 10 in its treatment of land, women and climate change, while the highest scores it managed to achieve was three out of 10, in relation to workers and transparency.
In joint second-lowest place were Kellogg's and General Mills, which owns Old El Paso, Haagen-Dazs and Nature Valley, with both scoring 16 out of 70.
In the campaign's first targeted action, Oxfam will target Nestle, Mondelez and Mars for their failure to address inequality faced by women who grow cocoa for their chocolate products. As part of that effort, the group released a series with first-hand accounts which explore the inequality that women cocoa growers face. And the campaign is urging people to use their own voices and social networks to speak out against the food giants.
"No brand is too big to listen to its customers," said Hobbs. "If enough people urge the big food companies to do what is right, they have no choice but to listen. By contacting companies on Twitter and Facebook, or signing a petition to their CEO, consumers can do their part to help bring lasting change in our broken food system by showing companies their customers expect them to operate responsibly."
The 'Behind the Brands' campaign also released this list of ways that the "Big 10" fail to meet their commitments:
- While some of the "Big 10" have publicly committed to women's rights, none have committed to eliminating discrimination against women throughout their supply chains.
- None of the companies have adequate policies to protect local communities from land and water grabs, despite all of them sourcing commodities plagued by land rights violations, such as palm oil, soy and sugar. Not one company has declared 'zero tolerance' against land grabs in their supply chains.
- All ten companies are overly secretive about their agricultural supply chains, making their claims of 'sustainability' and 'social responsibility' difficult to verify. Nestle and Unilever are most open about the countries they source from, but no company is providing enough information about their suppliers.
- Companies are generally increasing their overall water efficiency but most have failed to put policies in place to limit their impact on local water sources. Only Pepsi has publicly recognized water as a human right and committed to consult local communities. Nestle has developed guidelines for its suppliers to manage water and was ranked top for policies on water.
- All of the companies have taken steps to reduce direct emissions, but only five - Mondelez, Danone, Unilever, Coca-Cola and Mars - publicly report on agricultural emissions associated with their products. Unilever alone has committed to halve its greenhouse gas footprint by 2020. None have yet developed policies to help farmers in their supply chains to build resilience to climate change.
- None have publicly committed to pay a fair price to farmers or fair business arrangements with them across all agricultural operations. Only Unilever - which is top-ranked for its dealings with small-scale farmers - has specific supplier guidelines to address some key issues faced by farmers.
___________________________________________
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy