When we talk about innovations, there are always early adopters (consumers or companies, and sometimes whole countries). They either have real conviction, a need to test everything new (which I can relate to), or they may want to use innovation as a self-promotion and communication tool. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter too much as early adopters help these innovations grow, meet a large public or fail fast. This works well in theory, but there is a gap between early adopters and the majority. This is especially true in an industry such as agriculture and food with high volumes and low margins: you won’t find many early adopters of your expensive product.
In a word, we need external forces to shape this change. As discussed in a previous insight, the transition to sustainable ingredients and alternative proteins could be helped by a regulatory and government-backed financial push, similar to what happened with electric cars and solar panels. The past couple of weeks have given us a mixed bag of examples showing how difficult the road ahead will be.
Consumer backlash in the UK
A month ago, we mapped the different solutions startups develop to reduce methane. Among them, feed additives are the most advanced. Many large companies are experimenting with them to validate their claim to reduce methane emissions by 40% to 80%. That’s notably the case of Arla, the owner of a large dairy coop in the UK. After the announcement of this experimentation on 30 farms, a social media storm, comparable to what happened with COVID vaccines, took off with a wave of videos of consumers pouring their milk into their sinks.
Behind this was the idea that the feed additive used by Arla could have adverse health effects on humans. Spread by a British MP, the rumor has grown into a conspiracy theory (including all the usual ingredients, notably Bill Gates, an investor in some startups developing methane blockers). It should be mentioned that the additive was validated by regulators in 68 countries and that no trace of it has been detected in finished products.
I find this story fascinating as an illustration of the complexities of the transition towards a healthier and more sustainable food system:
- We don’t know yet who will pay for the transition: In the case of these additives, we only know that if you present consumers with the choice to pay more for a greener product, they won’t take it.
- Companies are tempted to work discreetly while regulation moves forward (in the case of additives, they may become mandatory in countries such as the UK). But this creates the risk of such backlash, with consumers being wary of unknown ingredients.
Evolving regulation
As mentioned above, regulators have a role to play, first to create the conditions of the transition, then to find solutions to finance it. We have had some examples of how this can be done in the past weeks:
- Finland has revised its dietary guidelines towards a “mostly plant-based diet”. We often think these guidelines have always been there, but they are recent and have shown that they significantly impact consumer behaviours. These new recommendations are not going incredibly well with local food producers, who feel that they undermine the meat and dairy industry.
- Multiple companies have received regulatory approval for the ingredients made through precision fermentation and cellular agriculture (in Israel, China, Hong Kong, and the US). Having the products on the market is only a first step, but at least it enables some level of experimentation by early adopters.
- Denmark’s parliament passed a measure to tax cow and pig emissions while supporting the growth of the plant-based industry. As a part of the plan, farmers can receive rebates when they adopt practices such as the controversial feed additives mentioned above.
A long road ahead
These recent examples show how complex and contentious the evolution towards a more sustainable food system will be. Doing it in the shadows won’t work, as it can only create the conditions for more conspiracy theories. We must find new ways to explain to consumers (and producers) that change is required and will be messy. That’s maybe the most important point: without damaging food safety, we need to experiment, which means there will be some failures along the way. There is a real urgency for leading companies to understand these innovations, to work with the most meaningful of them, and then to devise plans to engage their workers, clients, suppliers, and shareholders transparently.
