Sustainability

The Consumer Goods Forum was created in 2009 to bring together manufacturers and retailers around the globe to combat issues affecting people and the planet — including deforestation, food waste, human rights and employee well-being.

Today, the CEO-led organization has pledged to move faster to enact change through its nearly 400 members, which include Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Walmart. The goal of the CGF is to tap into the diverse nature of its membership base — including the different pressures, priorities and regional factors facing each company — to identify the best strategies and to benefit from the massive scale created by the organization.

In 2023, the CGF named Frans Muller, the CEO of grocery giant Ahold Delhaize, and Dirk Van de Put, the head of Oreo and Ritz manufacturer Mondelēz International, as its newest co-chairs through June 2025. The executives sat down with Food Dive to discuss the role of the CGF, the responsibility consumer goods companies have in tackling issues affecting the planet and challenges that complicate efforts by the group to follow through on its mission.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

FOOD DIVE: What do companies gain from taking an active role in issues such as deforestation, plastic waste or human rights?

DIRK VAN DE PUT: The main driver is the consumer. The consumer is more and more interested in this. And as you go to the younger generations, they are more interested in health. They're more interested in sustainability. They want to make decisions based on what the company stands for.

There are also some countries where there is taxation and regulation coming related to some of the subjects discussed here at CGF, like the new [Regulation on Deforestation Free Products in the EU] where companies have to prove that their supply chain is deforestation-free. 

On top of this, I think investors are increasingly wanting to invest in companies that do the right thing. So if I look at that full spectrum, I can probably sell more and be seen as a better company by [appropriately managing] taxation and regulation, and my investors are happy. That is a pretty strong incentive to work on these subjects.

FRANS MULLER: It’s not so much charity. It's also about strengthening our own individual businesses. ... How can we work together because this is super complex? We all have quite the ambitions as individual companies so how can we do this in a more efficient way?

Scope 3 emissions — those not produced by the company itself, such as consumers disposing of food products — have been a challenge for some businesses because they don’t have as much control over them. How do companies deal with Scope 3?

MULLER: I think for all companies, Scope 1 and 2, within your own operations, are of course more overseeable — which makes it easier to assess what needs to be done. But we know that Scope 3 is super necessary to complement the whole thing, to have an impact on the total value chain. 

And that's exactly why this forum is so important because I will partner up with other retailers. I will partner up with manufacturing partners. We've had good discussions already, bringing together companies across different geographies, and with different perspectives, from various different categories

So that's why we said let's measure where we are and let's make sure that we have good progress. And every company will have its own journey, some are a little bit further than others, but to talk about these kinds of things, about uncertainties and what we don't know yet, that is already very revealing and very, very helpful. And it's not only about the big companies, but also midsize, smaller domestic companies there. If we can help each other to get there then you can develop the critical mass.

With members of different sizes, goals and strategies on how to make progress when it comes to people and the planet, how do you get companies to work together?

VAN DE PUT: In some of these areas, the solution still needs to be defined. If you talk about Scope 3, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to understand Scope 3 better, to start talking about deforestation, how to get a deforestation-free supply chain. The coalition works to collectively advance these discussions. It’s sort of like a think tank and they work on what is the solution, what's the theory of change that we can jointly come up with. We've got some of the best experts in the different companies working together to think this through. What do we need to do on health and wellness and in human rights and so on?

Particularly for mid- and small-size companies that collaboration is very helpful, because we sort of show the way and as everybody does it, then you start to get real progress.

MULLER: Another good thing is that in most of those initiatives, to have a better performance on the coalition, in most of the cases you also get a better business. If you can avoid food waste, if you can work on your plastic and recycling, if you can align between industries and retailers on specs on packaging, and you can do this in a harmonized way, that will also save a lot of cost at the same time apart from an environmental benefit.

In recent years, more companies have chosen to work together through partnerships or a coalition like yours. Why do you think that is the case?

MULLER: You see the collaborations going up, you see that [CGF] members are more committed. You see the people come to conclusions. You see the people come to the next generation of solutions. We share all the solutions with our members so everyone has access to these kinds of things. And a lot of companies learn a lot.

At the most recent Consumer Goods Forum in June, we talked together with people about what's working, what's not working yet and how can we learn from this. You're very much together on this because we enrich it together with your product, your assortment, your categories and your retailers and you can make a big impact if you coordinate here. There's an even higher level of collaboration and there's an even higher ambition to make things work now because a few things are not in good shape, like human rights.

VAN DE PUT: If you start to drill down in some of the areas we work in, you start to realize that in most of these areas, not one company can drive a big change.

If you start to go deeper, you can see why it makes sense to collaborate. Also on the solution side, I would say that with some of the thinking, like that around Scope 3 and around how to tackle plastic waste, we really need the best minds in the industry to get together and work towards a solution.

Issues such as climate change and social inequities have received a noticeable increase in attention recently. Have they impacted the urgency with which you or your members are acting?

MULLER: I think we all understand that for certain areas, we have to accelerate and that's why obviously acceleration areas are meant to be where everybody can chip in and can participate.

We are pretty clear now that for the planet, climate change does not wait for us, unfortunately. We have to speed up and there's more urgency now to get those metrics right and this we can do ourselves. We don’t have to wait for governments, this is an industry topic. We take more of that destiny in our own hands to make that impact.

Has the food industry moved quickly enough to respond to some of the issues we are seeing globally?

VAN DE PUT: I think certainly there's an acceleration taking place, things getting clearer on what the solutions are. And you can see some big companies are leading the way, taking some bigger steps. So yes, I feel that the industry is clearly declaring that they want to solve some of these problems. These are not easy-to-solve problems, and I think sometimes there is this belief that we can just snap our fingers and it's done.

This is going to take years to solve and a concerted effort with many companies around the world. So it is not an easy path. But if I look at the attendance here with companies that are becoming members of the organization, the type of work that's taking place, I would say there is a very serious approach to things and there is a sense of urgency that we need to move.

What are the biggest challenges for your members when it comes to making meaningful progress?

VAN DE PUT: It's not necessarily the agreements between companies on the financials. I would say most companies are understanding that it will take a certain financial effort, but as Frans was explaining a little bit before,if you approach sustainability in the right way, you will see multiple benefits; for example, with food waste, tackling it isn't just the right thing to do for businesses. It also means reduced CO2 and less cost. It makes sense to do it, you just need to put forth the effort.

So I would say that the biggest issue, at least, and I'm talking more for us as a company, but I think it's the same for everybody, is to do all these things, while at the same time being faced with a difficult economic climate. It's how do I push all these subjects forward with the sometimes limited means that we have as a company. So as a consequence, I think people are trying to prioritize.

General Mills plans to reduce dairy emissions by 40% by 2030 through manure managements, rotational grazing and feed optimization and cow health initiatives, the company said in its Climate Transition Action Plan.

The company said it is over halfway to its goal of 1 million acres enrolled in its regenerative agriculture plan, a goal it set in 2019, with over 500,000 acres as of its 2023 fiscal year.

The regenerative agriculture goal is part of the company’s project to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and decrease its carbon footprint by 30% by 2030. The company has decreased its emissions 7% on a 2020 baseline, it said in the report.

As CPGs face increasing pressure from activist groups and shareholders, the maker of Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Trix cereals, General Mills aims aims to reduce its carbon footprint by improving its existing operations before the end of this decade.

The company said its sustainability transition will also include shifts in its approach to transportation, energy and packaging. The company said it sources 97% of its electricity from renewable sources, and has a goal to reach 100% by 2030. Its net zero carbon footprint goal also includes cutting out deforestation from its palm, cocoa and fiber supply chains by next year.

The cereal giant’s advancements in its regenerative agriculture strategy come after a significant investment in the method in recent years. In 2023, General Mills announced it is working with Walmart to accelerate the adoption of regenerative agriculture across 600,000 acres of land, funding projects with producers harvesting wheat and other crops in states like Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

In the report, General Mills defined regenerative agriculture as “a holistic, principles-based approach to farming and ranching that seeks to strengthen ecosystems and community resilience” that captures carbon from the atmosphere and sequesters it in soil.

General Mills’ senior leader of global impact initiatives Jay Watson told Food Dive in 2023 the company believes its regenerative agriculture strategy should be determined by the outcomes it is able to produce, and that it has worked with farmers to develop the best techniques to implement into its supply chain.

While many sustainability activists see regenerative agriculture as a worthwhile endeavor for food and beverage companies, some critics are concerned that a lack of cohesion around the practices can lead to muddled results. Still, companies like General Mills believe it is an immediate path toward lowering the carbon footprint of its business within an achievable time frame.

Sustainability is at the root of Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's marketing strategy, with the plant-based meat giants claiming their products are better for the planet than traditional meat. But their proof for these claims are increasingly coming under question from investors and scientists over a lack of independent data and a failure to consider the emissions associated with sourcing soy and other commodities used in plant-based burgers.

To bolster their sustainability claims, companies often draw from self-commissioned analyses called life-cycle assessments (LCAs), which calculate the environmental impact of products and services from production to waste. However, experts have struggled to replicate the findings of Impossible and Beyond's LCAs, raising concerns about the accuracy and validity of certain claims.

It's unlikely plant-based burgers, nuggets and other products are worse for the climate than traditional meat products. Still, accurately quantifying sustainability claims is important as corporate messaging influences policy and investment decisions.

“Investors want to understand this relatively new industry, whether it's having a reduced environmental or social impact compared to animal-derived proteins,” said Abby Herd, a senior analyst with the Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) Initiative, which raises awareness of ESG issues in the food industry.

Both Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat declined multiple requests for interviews.

Lacking data

Major plant-based companies lean on LCAs to determine the climate impacts of their products, a practice that is susceptible to conflicts of interest, said Ricardo San Martin, director of the Alt: Meat Lab at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Any plant-based company, really anyone in the food industry, that produces their own paid data, will always only publish whatever makes them look great,” San Martin said. “If it’s negative, why would they publish that?”

Over the years, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have commissioned a number of LCAs to illustrate the environmental impact of its plant-based products compared to conventional meat. One of the earliest reports came from the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability in 2018.

The findings concluded that Beyond Meat’s burger uses 99% less water, 93% less land, generates 90% fewer greenhouse gas emissions and requires 46% less energy than a typical beef burger.

However, Hannah Ritchie, a researcher at Oxford University, tried collecting data on the claims and found them difficult to substantiate.

“I thought it would be easy to find a clear answer,” said Ritchie, deputy editor at the nonprofit Our World in Data. “But I struggled to find many comparisons based on solid data,” noting that the vast majority of studies were industry-backed.

This can lead to potentially hyperbolic or misleading claims. According to its website, Impossible Foods claims changing diets to include more plant-based foods can be more effective than “getting solar panels, driving an electric car, or avoiding plastic straws.”

“LCA communication and marketing needs to build on scientific evidence and interpret that evidence in a way that's credible,” said Alexi Ernstoff, global science lead at the sustainability consulting firm Quantis, which conducts LCAs for clients. “Saying something like ‘eating our burger is better than driving electric cars’ is not the messaging that we would like to see.”

Researchers who took part in LCAs for plant-based companies have no qualms with how firms are portraying their commissioned data. Greg Keoleian, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems, said there could be a lack of transparency in areas to avoid disclosing sensitive information.

“[Companies] may have confidential data that they do not wish to disclose publicly such as ingredient portions,” said Keoleian, who co-authored Beyond Meat’s LCA from 2018. “Life cycle analysts are given access to such data and can aggregate them in published reports so as not to disclose such proprietary information.”

Sustainable sourcing concerns

While beef is a key driver in emissions and land conversions, plant-based products contribute to the impact of deforestation in the carbon-rich tropics, including for key ingredients cacao butter, soy and coconut oil. Due to a lack of sourcing traceability within Impossible and Beyond's LCAs, the companies cannot fully account for the potential environmental and social impacts of their products.

The climate impacts of these ingredients can vary depending on where they are grown. Some may be from a certified sustainable farm, while others may be from recently deforested land in the Amazon, Africa or Southeast Asia.

However, neither Impossible Foods nor Beyond Meat specifies which farms or land areas they rely on for high-risk ingredients in tropical countries. They also have not publicly released plans to partner with major food companies or sourcing initiatives to expand their tracing efforts.

That's concerning to Sophia Carodenuto, an interdisciplinary scientist focused on forest governance at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. She worries the expansion of the plant-based food industry could be linked to deforestation in cacao farming regions.

“If you look at where plant-based meat brands are sourcing from, probably a lot is coming from the same big traders,” Carodenuto said. “So at the end of the day, it's the same thing and it'll be the same issues that [companies like] Hershey are dealing with.”

A lack of sourcing information is part of the reason experts believe the reports are merely a snapshot based on several assumptions, making them "easy to discredit, according to Ritchie.

“It shouldn’t be this way," she said. "Every claim that a brand makes should be backed up with transparent, publicly available data, and ideally, these analyses would be done by academics and independent evaluators.”

The use of science to push an agenda can go both ways. Some of the harshest criticisms of plant-based burgers and nuggets come from entities or individuals supported by the meat industry, which is also potentially misusing data.

“It’s complex. It’s not black and white,” San Martin said of corporate sustainability data. “It depends on where you’re coming from or what you care about.”

Nestlé is launching Sustainably Sourced chocolates, the food and beverage giant said in a statement. The new confectionery brand will be available this summer in airports around the world.

The chocolates contain cocoa certified by the Rainforest Alliance and sourced through the Nestlé Cocoa Plan, the CPG giant’s sustainability program.

Sustainability is one of the primary tools large food and beverage companies are using to not only connect with consumers who value the attribute in the products they buy, but to reduce their own environmental footprint.

As travelers head to airport gift shops, a key part of Nestlé’s sustainability efforts will be on full display. Targeting airports around the world provides Nestlé, which has a global presence, with an opportunity to educate more consumers about its sustainability push rather than inundating one specific country. 

The launch comes as consumers increasingly seek out products that are sustainably sourced. In travel retail, the sustainability agenda is also gaining momentum, with 71% of travelers stating that it influences their purchasing decisions, Nestlé said, citing ForwardKeys 2022 M1ndset research.

Nestlé Sustainably Sourced chocolate will contain visuals to encourage customers to learn more about the Nestlé Cocoa Plan and its collaboration with the Rainforest Alliance. The Nestlé Cocoa Plan was established 15 years ago to improve the livelihoods in communities, better social conditions for families and increase product sustainability. It has engaged with more than 170,000 families so far, the company said.

Nestlé’s Sustainably Sourced Cocoa will be available in a recyclable paper pouch. It’s a strategy used by other Nestlé confectionery brands such as Smarties, which have transitioned to paper packaging. The pouch will help Nestlé build on the Sustainably Sourced Cocoa mantra as better for the consumer and the environment. 

“Through creative branding, we can provide transparency on the origin of the cocoa used in our chocolate,’ said Aura Sanchez, the head of marketing at Nestlé Travel Retail. “It enables us to raise awareness about our longstanding commitments to supporting cocoa-farming families and the long-term sustainability of cocoa production.”

The new chocolate brand is the latest sustainability announcement from Nestlé. In 2022, Nescafe, Nestlé’s largest coffee brand, announced plans to spend more than $1 billion to help the food and beverage giant source coffee more sustainably. And in January 2024, Nestlé launched the first KitKat made with fully traceable cocoa ingredients sourced from farming families it supports.

Few ingredient industries have been thrust in the spotlight in recent years as much as cocoa production. The industry has faced a number of challenges, including fluctuating prices, low farmer incomes, persistent child labor and ongoing impacts from climate change. These challenges have forced cocoa users across the industry to respond.

Earlier this month, Hershey announced it’s looking to expand on its already 100% independently verified cocoa supply chain by establishing full sourcing visibility for its cocoa volume in both the Ivory Coast and Ghana by 2025. Hershey introduced its Cocoa For Good strategy in 2018 to improve cocoa communities and help tackle systemic social and environmental challenges.

Other companies, including chocolate ingredients leader Barry Callebaut and Snickers maker Mars Wrigley, also have cocoa sustainability programs in place.

A majority (54%) of consumers are willing to take on the responsibility of helping the environment through their food purchases, according to packaging giant TetraPak’s 2023 Nutrition Index. This could include tradeoffs like switching to plant-based foods and alternative proteins, the report said.

While nearly 49% of respondents said they are financially struggling, only 17% indicated a desire to sacrifice food and beverages that are environmentally friendly, organic or healthier based on their higher cost.

Consumers are also increasingly associating healthy eating with sustainability. Half of respondents indicated that nutritious food is also more sustainable for the planet, and 65% believe that environmental factors cause negative health impacts.

As more people consider consider the environmental consequences of their food and beverage purchases, they simultaneously value health and wellness more than ever.

At the same time, large CPG companies are revamping their supply chains to meet their desired environmental goals.

A group of 170 food companies — including Nestlé, Danone, PepsiCo, Unilever and Bayer — committed to a framework to implement regenerative agriculture practices within their supply chains. The SAI Platform said it focuses on outcome-based approaches to boost soil health while also supporting the business development of farmers. It comes after criticism from environmental groups about failed promises and a lack of consistency about the term “regenerative agriculture.”

Despite the desire for environmentally friendly and healthier foods, consumers are still aware of the threat food insecurity poses. Two in five respondents to TetraPak’s survey (42%) said they are concerned they won’t be able to purchase the food and beverage items they want in the near future.

The use of technology to solve the food industry’s sustainability woes saw broad support within the group TetraPak surveyed, with 62% signaling optimism about the prospect. But 69% of those surveyed said unprocessed food is the most important metric to reach their desired level of nutrition, according to the report.

“When it comes to future innovations, we need to ask: is this a solution that is further distancing us from our environments or reconnecting us?” Philip Long, the Nature Conservancy’s director of human dimensions science, said in the report. “I think the solutions that are going to stick are the ones that remove some of the steps, strengthening the connection with the ecosystems we’re eating from.”

TetraPak CEO Adolfo Orive said in the report that food formulators must continue to innovate to find sustainable solutions. The world must produce 60% more food by 2050 to feed a growing population. This can include technologies that explore new sources of nutrition, like foods made using precision fermentation and biomass.

A climate rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission announced in March 2024 could enable food and beverage manufacturers to move closer to their environmental goals despite initial concerns, according to a spokesperson at a sustainability research firm.

The rule exempted companies from reporting indirect “Scope 3” emissions — those that are not produced by the company itself, such as consumers disposing of food products - in their regulatory filings. These account for up to 87% of the food and beverage industry’s carbon footprint.

Environmental groups are concerned the SEC’s rule has left gaps that could result in food companies overlooking Scope 3 emissions. Sustainability investor group FAIRR, which represents $70 trillion in assets, said in a statement the SEC disclosure ruling leaves the industry vulnerable to climate risks, particularly in livestock.

“This also diverges from key markets looking to enforce Scope 3 disclosure — such as the European Union, California and Singapore — with regulatory fragmentation posing an additional business risk,” said Lucrezia Tincani, the acting policy director of FAIRR.

The SEC paused the rule in April 2024. It came following a lawsuit filed by two oil companies that claimed the rule would cost them a collective $4 billion in compliance costs. The SEC argued last week the measure won’t harm companies because it contains extensions on compliance through March 2026.

In order to track how they are accruing emissions throughout their supply chain, some food and beverage companies choose to use third-party auditors. In 2022, sustainability research company HowGood launched a measurement platform for companies to track their Scope 3 emissions. This allowed businesses to more accurately evaluate the amount of carbon used in their supply chains by analyzing more than 33,000 ingredients.

Eva Clark, director of communications at HowGood, said the new ruling won’t prevent companies from moving closer to their Scope 3 goals. She said many firms with sustainability targets are leaning heavily into reporting their emissions and won’t halt their progress.

“Leaders across the industry are looking for more accurate data and looking for more automated ways to bring that data to scale so that they can design their reduction initiatives in the most efficient ways possible,” Clark said.

She added that companies HowGood works with, including dairy giant Danone, are interested in getting granular, accurate data about the emissions from their supply chain. She also pointed to big box retailer Walmart and e-commerce giant Amazon which require full carbon footprint reports from the food and beverage companies they work with. In addition, California also requires Scope 3 reporting for companies that do business in the state.

The Scope 3 shakeup

Several major food and beverage companies have set goals to lower their Scope 3 emissions. CPG giant Unilever, which owns brands like Ben & Jerry’s and Knorr, announced in March 2024 a goal to reduce its Scope 3 emissions from energy and industrial operations by 42% and agriculture by 30.3% before 2030.

PepsiCo also has set a target to reduce its Scope 3 emissions by 40% by 2030. In its ESG report released in 2023, the beverages and snacks maker reported its Scope 3 emissions had increased by 7% in 2022. PepsiCo attributed the jump to sales growth for its products.

The SEC chose to scrape Scope 3 reporting from its final rule because of concerns about the cost of compliance and the reliability of data. One issue with tracking Scope 3 emissions raised by experts is that it is often hard to track. This is an issue third-party groups like HowGood aim to solve.

Clark pointed to HowGood’s work with Ingredion, which it partnered with in 2022, as an example of how the tech company helps CPGs assess their downstream emissions using its platform.

“What Ingredion has done with us is using our database, which is not going to be totally specific farm-level data, but consists of crop and location-based emission factors, so a far more accurate estimate of the actual impact of an ingredient,” Clark said.

Eighty-five percent of consumers consider ingredients to be a significant factor in their food purchasing decisions, according to the Trend to Table report from ingredients producer Ardent Mills. Additionally, 83% of consumers consistently check food labels, with three-quarters of them examining both the ingredient lists and nutrition profiles of food products.

“Information has never been more available to consumers,” said Matt Schueller, director of Marketing Insights at Ardent Mills in an interview with Food Dive, and food companies should use that to their advantage, he said.

Despite the desire for ethical purchasing, 57% of consumers struggle to access information on sourcing and product origins.

Ardent Mills’ report looked to help CPGs gain further access to the minds of consumers, and how they are thinking about their purchasing decisions when it comes to food options. 

“There’s a great opportunity to understand food, with a capital F, and for us to help food manufacturers get smarter,” Schueller said. “You can call it a little bit of an awakening, that consumers are starting to realize that their decisions made today have an impact for future generations. That’s the definition of a trend, there's a very strong foundation for an earnest movement among consumers.” 

Ardent Mills, a Denver-based ingredients supplier, conducted the recent report based on 10,000 consumer responses to help manufacturers understand consumer behavior.

Schueller sees sustainability as encompassing three areas: products, people, and processes. 

“Oftentimes, the food industry can nudge out the people aspect, but for consumers, that's a critical piece,” and this leads them to develop a lack of confidence that the decisions they make actually have the impact they are looking to achieve, he said. 

In 2023, a study from the Business Research Company revealed that more food manufacturers were focusing on sustainability to develop innovative products and to grow in the market. For example, in Feb. 2023, Elo Life Systems, a U.S.-based biotechnology company that focuses on human health through food raised $24.5 million to scale production of a sustainable, high-intensity sweetener.

In some instances, the problem lies in access to too much information on nutrition labels. For example, some dairy companies go as far as naming the cow your milk is coming from on the packaging, but consumers may be wary as to if that is accurate or not. 

“The other element there is that oftentimes sustainable products are at a premium price. And in today's environment, the consumer needs information so that if they buy that jug of milk that’s 50 cents more, it will have the impact they want,” said Schueller. 

Nearly 60% of consumers are willing to pay more for foods that use whole and/or less processed ingredients, the report said, and 53% believe their food choices can have a positive impact on the planet.

By the end of this decade, many food companies will face deadlines for their emissions reductions goals. The race to invest in sustainable technology in the next few years could significantly decrease emissions, experts at sustainability nonprofit Ceres said.

In a report released in November 2023, the organization detailed how producers can use strategic investments to drive down their carbon footprints, and pointed to industry players already doing so.

Manufacturers are making their supply chains more sustainable, but they aren't investing enough in the growth of these efforts, said Meryl Richards, Ceres’ acting program director.

“We wanted to look at how they are planning for the next phase of emissions reductions, beyond available practices, because there are some sources like enteric methane, like nitrous oxide from fertilizer, that are a little bit more difficult to address and will require technological innovation,” Richards said.

Ceres highlighted The 100+ Accelerator — an accelerator program launched by big names like AB InBev, Coca-Cola and Unilever — to test agricultural solutions that could help the industry meet its climate targets. According to the program’s website, it gives up to $100,000 to startups to implement tech equipment in the food industry.

Technology that lowers methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is a key part of the equation. This could include feed additives that naturally reduce methane, the report said. The Ceres report called attention to Ben & Jerry’s use of additives made with red seaweed, which the company claimed could cut emissions from cows by 82%.

For food producers who work with livestock, Ceres pointed to methane-capturing wearable devices for cattle which convert cows’ gas into water and carbon dioxide. Zelp, a startup that is piloting the tech, has received funding from dairy giant Danone and has a partnership with agriculture giant Cargill. Vaccines for cattle, which could help the animals produce antibodies that target methane-producing microbes, is another solution companies should explore, Ceres said.

Putting their money where their mouth is 

Venture capital investments in food tech, which have stalled in the food space in recent years amid an uncertain economy,can provide manufacturers with new ways to drive down their emissions, according to the report.

Ceres highlighted CPG venture capital arms — such as Tyson Ventures, ADM Ventures and General Mills’ 301 Inc. — as investing in startups that can help provide solutions for the farmers in their supply chain.

The report’s focus on methane emanating from livestock draws attention to the meat sector, but Richards said investing in new efforts in the agricultural space can help producers across the industry lower their emissions.

“There are innovations going on to address emissions from fertilizer, with new green ammonia fertilizer, and then there's quite a bit of research going on around perennial grains, which would require less fertilizer and also have deeper root systems to potentially sequester more carbon,” Richards said.

These nanofertilizers could reduce the application of fertilizers, and the associated lost nutrients on farms, by 20%, Ceres said in the report.

Another effort Ceres detailed in its report is an experimental way of producing renewable energy on farms known as agrivoltaics. It involves planting crops beneath solar panels and incorporating the panels into livestock pastures. The nonprofit said this practice could nearly eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from a farm’s energy use when paired with electric tractors and other equipment.

The potential for greater tech investments should be part of a multi-pronged strategy as food producers tackle their emissions, according to Ceres.

“There’s a number of companies that are connecting in-house R&D, doing pilot tests, or otherwise supporting market development,” Richards said. “There’s also advocacy that they can do, assuring that their lobbying is aligned with research that needs to be happening.”