Rooting for change: the future of food and beverage in the US

As food and beverage brands and policy makers grapple with complex challenges in transforming the food system, there was a recurring theme across the two days of the future of food and beverage forum in Minneapolis – the need for alignment and collaboration across various stakeholders.

To address this and dive deeper into what’s needed to make progress in delivering sustainable food, industry leaders, policy makers and experts at the forum split into smaller groups to debate. Focused on topics such as food policy, living income, scope 3 emissions and more, the biggest question marks within the industry were addressed and potential pathways forward were revealed.

Businesses are struggling with engaging at a policy level despite good intentions to engage. The patchwork of state-level legislation is creating challenges, with unrealistic imposed timelines and lead to unintended consequences.

The consensus of the discussion was the need for improved advocacy and better communication between industry stakeholders and policymakers to bridge this gap. This will enable various industry perspectives to be represented and considered in policymaking.

The complexities of defining and verifying living incomes and wages were a focal point. Participants shared industry-specific nuances that exists such as challenges around accounting for regional cost of living differences and integrating living income/wage commitments into business practices. 

There was a recognition that addressing persistent poverty and underpayment is core to achieving sustainable livelihoods and landscapes. There is also a need to better integrate sustainable livelihoods into the cost of production and business negotiations, rather than treating it as a separate issue. Whether the US is ready to address living income at scale for farmers and workers remains a question mark.

A lot of “existential” questions were raised in the discussion: are we putting too much effort into the measurement and not enough effort into the impact? How do we execute landscape approaches within accounting rules? Discussions on scope 3 emissions accounting revealed a range of perspectives, such as the urgency of action, growing intricacies of standards and reporting requirements. From accounting practices, standards, to norms and certifications, scope 3 is all too complex for business to grapple with.

The importance of transparency about the uncertainties was highlighted, especially for greenhouse gas accounting. Other recommendations were adopting a more flexible approach to qualifying practices and considering whole-farm performance rather than focusing solely on individual crop-level data. These measures could help streamline emissions accounting and promote more effective climate action.

Nature-based solutions were identified as a promising area, though challenges remain in accounting and impact measurement. Emphasis was placed on taking a landscape-approach that considers the interconnectedness of natural systems.

Barriers in scaling nature-based solutions were mentioned such as finance and policy, and participants suggested creating a stronger financial case for investing in nature, potentially by leveraging the linkages between climate and biodiversity. This could drive substantial investments and broader adoption of nature-based solutions. There was also resounding agreement that creating an enabling environment that supports farmers in the transition, and policies that repurposes the subsidies to create a legal claim for investors or corporates to be able to investment money in this space, could be useful.

The discussion on greenhushing underscored the critical need for clear definitions and standardisation that differs from greenwashing. Ambiguities and lack of clear standards around terminologies such as biodegradable can mislead consumers and erode trust in sustainability claims. There was a debate around the role of regulation versus incentives in driving sustainability, with the EU’s more regulatory approach contrasted with the US focus on incentives.

There was a demand for greater transparency, regulation and accountability to ensure consumers can make informed decisions about the environmental impact of products, and companies are held accountable for greenwashing in their environmental marketing and progress reporting.

Discussions on biodiversity revealed a divide, with some participants feeling there has been enough focus on definitions and targets, while others were concerned about the lack of a common framework. Despite differing views, there was broad agreement on the need for a systems-based approach that aligns various initiatives, such as nature-based solutions and sustainable water management, rather than treating them in siloes. There were concerns about an overemphasis on carbon and emissions at the expense of other critical outcomes.

Underlying these conversations was a recognition of the complex, interdependent nature of the food system. Engaging diverse perspectives and addressing policy barriers are essential for developing cohesive and effective biodiversity strategies to unlock a more sustainable and equitable future.

Amid growing requirements for impact reporting and disclosures on one hand and data privacy and protections on the other, how to strike a balance was at the core of the conversation. The key issues raised were building trust to enable data collection, determining who pays for data infrastructure and balancing data use and privacy.

The importance of making data more valuable for farmers was highlighted. Currently, farmers are not seeing enough value; beyond cash value, greater appreciation and having control over telling their story. Transparency, again, was deemed essential and regulation can play an influential role in driving progress on data sharing and adoption. A suggestion included having a HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-like law for how information is shared and clearer communication from downstream on a commitment to protect the data under data-holding laws could be helpful.

Participants explored various solutions to approach the current incentive models to uncover farmer-friendly financing. The biggest issue was the lack and balance of power and inequity within the supply chain. Suggestions included developing financial mechanisms such as improved access to capital and insurance, and people-centred approaches that address mental health and community-level benefits. The need for better alignment across the value chain, policy support, and risk-sharing was also emphasised to enhance the effectiveness of these incentives.

There are exciting innovations in the future of feed, such as repurposing food waste, exploring novel feed additives and diversifying crop sources. Key themes emerged around enhancing animal health, reducing emissions and aligning feed production with sustainable farming practices. Participants emphasised the importance of improved data collection, traceability and supply chain integration to enable these advancements. There is also a need to better align the financial incentives across the value chain to enable sustainable feed solutions. 

This was a wildcard roundtable discussion with a topic chosen by the attendees and the need to bring industry alignment was discussed. Current financial incentives are insufficient to drive necessary behaviour changes among producers, compounded by misaligned objectives, complex measurement processes and systemic inequities. There is also uncertainty for producers with limited support mechanisms.

There were areas of hope with new financial, farmer and policy incentives such as improved access to capital, community support, flexible marketing options and tax credits. Producers also emphasised the need for greater support from the value chain to mitigate risks and enhance their willingness to contribute to broader industry goals.