Author: Monica Piccinini

Monica Piccinini

11 April 2025

As Brazil prepares to host COP30 in the city of Belém, it stands before the world as a self-declared leader in clean energy. The Amazon rainforest, often described as the lungs of the planet, has been at the heart of this vision, seen as a source of nearly limitless hydropower potential. For decades, Brazil has promoted hydroelectricity as a clean, sustainable, and cost-effective solution to boost economic growth and fulfil its climate commitments.

But while hydropower now constitutes over 60% of Brazil’s energy matrix, this narrative of progress has come at a deep and often irreversible cost, one paid by ecosystems and communities that have long existed in harmony with the rivers now being harnessed for power.

The Brazilian government, energy companies, and mainstream media have long presented hydropower as a national achievement, a keystone of development and environmental responsibility. Yet, beneath the surface, scientific research and the lived experiences of countless displaced people tell a different story.

Since the 1960s, Brazil has invested heavily in dam construction, increasingly targeting the Amazon basin, one of the most ecologically rich and water-abundant areas on Earth. These gigantic projects have not only disrupted sensitive ecosystems but have also led to the mass displacement of Indigenous and traditional communities, disrupted their food sources, such as fishing, triggered widespread deforestation and environmental pollution. Worse yet, these dams contributed to the release of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, the influx of workers to dam sites often drives rapid urbanisation, placing stress on existing infrastructure and contributing to a surge in violence, crime, and both mental and physical health issues, leaving deep scars on communities that are already struggling to survive.

Belo Monte – a monument loss

One of the most impactful projects, with significant irreversible socio-ecological consequences, was the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric complex in Pará, the host state for COP30.

Igor Cavallini Johansen, professor in the demography department of the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), said:

We must reckon with the persistent inequalities created by large hydropower dams – both in the Altamira region and across the Amazon basin. This legacy of uneven development, where local communities bear the environmental and social costs while distant urban centres reap the energy benefits, demands urgent redress.

Built between 2010 and 2015 during Dilma Rousseff’s administration, and completed just before her impeachment, Belo Monte has a capacity of 11.2 GW and a cost of around $13 billion. It stands as Brazil’s second-largest hydropower plant, operated and managed by Norte Energia.

In June 2022, prior to his election, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, stated that he had no regrets about supporting Belo Monte in the past, and that he would make the same decision to build the dam again if given the chance. He has consistently expressed his strong support for the Belo Monte project.

Belo Monte is made up of two dams: an upper dam, Pimental, which diverts water to the canal, and lower dam, Belo Monte, where the powerhouse is located, along a 130-km river stretch of the Xingu River, known as Volta Grande.

For many, Belo Monte symbolises tragedy, rather than triumph

The construction of Belo Monte forcibly displaced around 40,000 people, including riverside communities (Ribeirinhos) and a quarter of Altamira’s population, who were relocated to remote resettlements on the city’s outskirts.

For those who stayed, the consequences were equally devastating. Indigenous people and Ribeirinhos lost access to their primary food source – fishing – as fluctuating water levels led to the extinction of fish species. The river’s flow was reduced by an alarming 80%, all due to the diversion of its natural course.

Maria Francineide Ferreira dos Santos lost her paradise to silence. Her home in Paratizinho was taken from her after she dared to speak against the destruction caused by the Belo Monte dam. She was forced to move into the city, but never stopped fighting. Today, she lives in Volta Grande do Xingu, not just as a survivor, but as a fierce guardian of the river and its people.

Francineide spoke out about the lasting harm Belo Monte has brought to her life and the lives of countless others:

All the impacts we’ve had are irreparable. The first impact was the biggest crime that Belo Monte committed in the Xingu, the death of the fish and with the displacement of its people who were born and raised in this region, who lived on the islands, without rights, without being heard, without respect, having their houses ripped out and burned, violating our rights.

Another impact was seeing our people, who didn’t understand anything, lose their homes, being moved to the city where land had exorbitant prices, not giving us the conditions to survive. The government does what it wants. This has been a losing fight. No justice has been done.

Rodolfo Salm, ecologist, activist, and lecturer at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), who lives in Altamira, spoke about some of the impacts of the project:

The Belo Monte hydroelectric project stands as a clear example of environmental, social, and economic failure. While presented as a symbol of progress, it has instead triggered widespread destruction in the eastern Amazon. The social consequences have been equally severe, marked by displacement, violence, and unfulfilled promises. Despite the billions spent on compensation, these efforts fall far short of addressing the loss of livelihoods, natural beauty, and vital ecosystem services once provided by the preserved Xingu River.

Far from bringing prosperity, the project has left the region economically weakened and environmentally damaged. Energy production at Belo Monte is unreliable, with the Xingu River running too low for most of the year, a flaw that was well understood before construction even began.

Food insecurity

A study published in the Environmental Research and Public Health highlights concerning levels of food insecurity in the region impacted by Belo Monte. Rather than enhancing quality of life, the project triggered a series of negative outcomes: displacement, loss of homes, and the disruption of essential food sources like agriculture and fishing. As a result, food security deteriorated, contributing to increased poverty.

Johansen, one of the authors of the study, explained:

The long-term food insecurity faced by communities displaced by Belo Monte is one of the most alarming consequences of the dam’s construction. Our research shows that, nearly 70% of households reported increased difficulty accessing enough food or the types of food they wanted after Belo Monte was built. For more than half of them, this struggle began even before the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning the dam’s impacts – not just external crises – are a relevant driver of this problem.

One of the most revealing findings is that people officially recognised as ‘impacted’ by Belo Monte – and thus relocated to government resettlement neighbourhoods – were significantly more likely to face hunger. This suggests that the resettlement process itself, rather than improving lives, has maintained or deepened vulnerabilities.

The resettled communities were stripped of a fundamental human right: access to adequate, nutritious food.

Miquéias Freitas Calvi, professor of forestry engineering at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), and one of the authors of the study, said:

The disruption of the river’s natural balance deeply affects the Indigenous and riverside communities whose lives are rooted in it. Fishing, their primary source of sustenance and income, is under threat, placing food security, health, and cultural survival at risk. As the river fades, so does their self-reliance. More families are forced to abandon their ancestral lands, relying on government aid to survive. Traditional diets give way to ultra-processed foods, compromising their health and identity. What begins as environmental damage quickly becomes a social crisis, eroding generations of sustainable living in harmony with the river.

In just two years, the city of Altamira’s population (urban area) doubled as thousands arrived from across Brazil, drawn by the promise of work, not only on the Belo Monte dam, but in the web of opportunities it created. With such rapid growth, the most basic human need, food, became a pressing challenge. Yet instead of preparing to sustain a growing city and strengthen the local economy, the region scaled back its food production and deepened its dependence on distant supply chains.

Johansen explained some of the impacts that go far beyond nutrition:

The loss of traditional food sources like fish has had devastating impacts that go far beyond nutrition – it’s severed a vital connection to cultural identity and community health. For Indigenous and riverine populations around Belo Monte, fish weren’t just protein; they anchored entire systems of knowledge, social bonds, and spiritual practices.

Generations developed intricate fishing techniques tied to the Xingu’s seasonal floods, passing down this wisdom through stories and shared labor. The act of fishing itself was communal – a space where elders taught youth, where myths were retold, where social ties were reinforced. With the dam’s disruption of river ecology, we’ve seen not just declining catches but a rupture in this intergenerational transmission.

Perceptions

A study published in the Energy Research & Social Science journal explores how communities living near major hydropower dams perceive this form of energy, in sharp contrast to the broader national population. Focusing on the Altamira region, deep in the Amazon and heavily impacted by the Belo Monte dam, the study offers a glimpse into the lived reality behind Brazil’s hydropower narrative.

Although Altamira is not located directly beside the dam, it served as a central hub for its construction. As a result, the city experienced significant negative impacts, including the rise in crime, prostitution, drug use, public health challenges such as increased dengue fever cases, and social disruption.

Having lived through these changes, Altamira’s residents perceive the social and environmental consequences of hydropower far more critically than the general population. Still, 60% of residents continue to express support for hydropower, a complex and conflicted relationship with a project that has profoundly altered their daily lives.

This contradiction reveals the harsh reality of “sacrifice zones”, areas like Altamira and its neighbouring communities that are left to absorb the full cost of national development while receiving little in return. The psychological cost is profound: some residents appear to cope by believing their hardship is a necessary contribution to the nation’s progress.

Perhaps most heartbreaking is the widespread frustration over energy costs. A staggering 84% of Altamira’s population say they are dissatisfied with the affordability of electricity, despite living in the shadow of one of the world’s largest hydropower projects.

Johansen further explained:

There’s the powerful narrative of progress and modernity that dominates media coverage and political discourse. Hydropower is consistently framed as “clean energy” and a driver of national development, with stories appearing almost exclusively in economic sections of newspapers. This selective coverage emphasises job creation and energy security while minimising reports about displacement, ecological damage, and cultural loss. The result is a skewed public perception where the benefits feel abstract and national, while the costs remain hyper-localised.

In addition, there’s the entrenched notion of sacrifice zones – the idea that certain regions must bear the burden of development for the greater good. Many in Altamira express a resigned acceptance that “someone has to pay the price” for Brazil’s energy needs. This sentiment is reinforced when they see the electricity from Belo Monte, which is connected to the national grid, primarily powering distant urban centers in the southeast while there are local communities in the Amazon facing energy poverty.

The stark reality of Altamira – sitting in the shadow of one of Brazil’s largest hydropower plants yet struggling with expensive electricity – exposes a fundamental injustice in our energy system. This isn’t just poor planning; it’s a systemic failure that treats local communities as infrastructure sites rather than equal beneficiaries

As Brazil prepares to welcome the world at COP30, it faces an urgent question: can a nation truly claim climate leadership while ignoring the voices of those sacrificed in the name of energy?

Johansen’s shared a powerful message to Brazil and the world about the irreversible consequences of hydropower dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon:

The construction of hydropower dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon has taught us several hard lessons that should fundamentally reshape future energy planning. First and foremost, these projects cause irreversible ecological damage – flooding vast areas of pristine rainforest, destroying unique habitats, and potentially driving species extinction.

Equally troubling is the consistent pattern of human rights violations. Indigenous and traditional communities repeatedly face displacement without proper consultation or fair compensation, as starkly demonstrated by the Belo Monte project. These aren’t isolated incidents but systemic failures in how such projects are approved and implemented.

The climate calculus for tropical dams has also proven flawed. Rather than being clean energy solutions, their reservoirs become methane factories as submerged vegetation decomposes – in some cases making them worse climate offenders than fossil fuel plants. This challenges the very rationale for prioritising hydropower in rainforest regions.

Perhaps the most crucial lesson is that we can no longer justify sacrificing the Amazon’s ecological and cultural wealth for questionable energy gains. The evidence clearly shows that in biodiversity hotspots, the costs of large dams nearly always outweigh the benefits – a reality that demands a fundamental shift in energy policy.

Right of reply

When asked for comment, Norte Energia issued to following statement:

Monica Piccinini

28 March 2025

Since European colonisers set foot in Brazil, Indigenous people have fought a relentless battle to protect their lands and preserve their way of life. Centuries of oppression have forced them to alter their cultures, traditions and beliefs, yet their resilience remains unbroken. Today, they still endure violent invasions by farmers, loggers, miners, and organised crime, keeping their communities locked in a constant fight for survival.

The protection of Brazil’s Indigenous lands is crucial for the survival of the Amazon rainforest. However, multiple projects – including oil and gas exploration, agribusiness expansion, cattle farming, biofuel production, legal and illegal mining, logging, and organised crime – threaten this vital ecosystem.

The reconstruction of Amazon’s BR-319 highway, one of the world’s most environmentally damaging projects, serves as a catalyst for these destructive activities. Stretching 885 km, the highway connects the capital of Amazonas, Manaus, to Porto Velho, cutting through pristine areas of the rainforest. A proposed 408 km reconstruction would open a gateway to deforestation, crime, and corporate exploitation, directly impacting over 18,000 Indigenous people.

The Amazon plays a critical role in regulating global climate and generating water vapour that brings rain across Brazil through the “flying rivers.” The reconstruction of BR-319 will disrupt this vital system, threatening the region’s health and overall environmental balance.

Deforestation and degradation along BR-319 will disrupt the “flying rivers,” potentially leading to devastating droughts, food and water shortages, and a collapse of Brazil’s agribusiness sector, including family farming – ultimately destabilising the country’s economy.

Violation of Indigenous Rights Along BR-319

Indigenous territories are not merely land – they are living, breathing places, rich with history, culture, and meaning. These lands hold the heartbeat of traditions, where communities coexist in a delicate, sacred balance with the animals, the water, the forests, and the earth itself. Their bond with nature is deep and sacred, as their very survival depends on its health and strength. It is a bond built on respect and care, a promise to nurture the land that sustains them, ensuring that it flourishes for generations to come.

However, this bond is now under threat. In the areas surrounding the BR-319 highway, Indigenous leaders from Lake Capanã Grande and Baetas have reported serious violations of their rights and growing threats due to the degradation of their territories and the expansion of the highway. There has also been an alarming attempt by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to validate the consultation protocol with the communities.

This concerning situation emerged during an event at the Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), which included the participation of the federal prosecution office, a representative from the ministry of the environment, an NGO, and Indigenous leaders. The meeting was organised by researcher Lucas Ferrante and covered by Revista Cenarium.

The issue was further detailed in the article “BR-319: Narratives, Business and Power”, published by Revista Cenarium in February. According to the article, NGO Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil (IEB) produced a document falsely claiming that the Indigenous community had been consulted and had agreed to the reconstruction of the highway, provided that an extractive reserve was created to protect them. Shockingly, the community only learned of this approval after they had signed the document.

In 2020, Ferrante travelled along the BR-319 highway, interviewing several Indigenous people and leaders impacted by the road. Since then, their views on the highway’s effects have remained consistent. One Indigenous leader from Lake Capanã shared his concerns about the highway’s impact on his village (his name has been withheld to ensure his safety):

I would like to express my indignation in front of everyone regarding the impact of the BR-319 highway on the Indigenous lands of Lake Capanã. This brings us problems, manipulation of rights, violation of our traditional areas, occupation by land grabbers, pollution of our river, destruction of our nature.

And this is causing major problems in the flow of our rivers. Streams are being buried. Here we use the water from the river. The result of this BR will become an open door for the entry of criminals, drug dealers, all types of drugs, as already exists.

The Indigenous population lives off food from nature, the Indigenous population does not live off livestock. The Indigenous people live off traditional objects. They live off the subsistence of nature and subtract nature for itself for their survival and protect their own nature. I am against this paving.

The expansion of BR-319 is driving the rapid growth of agribusiness in the region, particularly on unallocated public lands. Soybean farmers from Mato Grosso do Sul are increasingly moving into Rondônia, buying land from livestock farmers who are then shifting southward within the BR-319 corridor to plant soybeans. These lands are often seized illegally through land grabbing, illegal deforestation, or violent evictions of Indigenous and traditional communities.

This situation brings attention to critical issues like the Soy Moratorium, especially as there have been growing attempts to abolish it, which could have devastating effects on the environment and Indigenous and traditional communities.

Soy Moratorium

Brazil’s Soy Moratorium, established in 2006, is an agreement where signatory companies pledge not to buy soy grown on land deforested in the Amazon after July 2008. This agreement has been a vital tool in the fight against deforestation. Yet now it faces a threat, as Brazil’s powerful agribusiness lobby intensifies efforts to dismantle it. As the world’s largest producer and exporter of soybeans, Brazil’s agricultural policies hold immense global consequences.  

In October 2024, the state of Mato Grosso, leading soy producer, enacted Bill 12.709/2024, effectively cutting tax incentives for companies that adhere to the Soy Moratorium. On February 19, Brazil’s Legislative Assembly president, Max Russi, made the following statement:

We are all united in defence of one of the most important pillars of our economy – agribusiness.

During the same month, a troubling report from Repórter Brasil revealed that Cargill, one of Brazil’s largest grain exporters, was suggesting distancing itself from the Soy Moratorium rules.

On 11 March, Brazil’s agriculture minister, Carlos Fávaro, arranged a meeting with agribusiness leaders and supreme court minister Flávio Dino, who is overseeing the case concerning the Soy Moratorium. Among the key figures were Blairo Maggi, chairman of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) and Fávaro’s political mentor, as well as representatives from major agricultural giants such as Grupo Bom Futuro and Amaggi, the nation’s largest agricultural trading company.

Concerns emerge from the overlapping roles and connections involved. Maggi’s significant influence in both policymaking and agribusiness, coupled with family ties and Amaggi’s vested interests in the Soy Moratorium, raise questions about impartiality of these discussions.

Fávaro has expressed strong opposition to the Soy Moratorium, calling it “discrepant” and “unprofessional,” and has firmly declared his position:

I tried to demonstrate that the Soy Moratorium is also not constitutional, and I am confident that Minister Dino will act in this sense.

If the Soy Moratorium is lifted, soybean farmers will migrate to the Amazon, triggering rampant deforestation, environmental degradation, pollution, and violation of Indigenous rights, including violence and land invasion. This could also result in a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions, leading to disastrous social and environmental consequences.

In a nation where agribusiness drives the economy, Indigenous territories are seen as obstacles to relentless capitalist growth. With Brazil’s Congress dominated by the powerful rural caucus, the “ruralistas,” there is little concern for Indigenous rights as they push relentlessly for laws that serve their own interests. For them, the survival of Indigenous communities is a mere roadblock in their pursuit of profit.

The future of the Amazon, its Indigenous communities, and our planet is at risk. Rebuilding BR-319 isn’t just about a road – it’s a dangerous move that could destroy centuries of heritage and harm the environment beyond repair. If Brazil takes this path, the damage will be permanent, leaving deep scars on the land, its people, and the world.

As the world prepares for COP30, the urgency for protecting the Amazon and its ecosystems has never been clearer. The decisions made at this summit will have a profound impact on the preservation of the Amazon, and we must ensure that sustainability, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection take centre stage in these discussions.

Monica Piccinini

20 March 2025

Brazil’s current pesticide legislation currently mandates a minimum safety distance of 90 metres during chemical applications to reduce exposure risks. This regulation aims to safeguard both human health and the environment from the harmful effects of pesticides.

However, a new proposal – Bill 1833/2023 – seeks to significantly reduce this buffer zone, allowing just 25 metres for large properties. For small and medium-sized properties, there would be no mandatory safety distance at all. This would enable pesticide applications without any protective distance around traditional communities, rivers, or conservation areas, raising serious concerns about the potential dangers to public health and ecosystems.

This drastic reduction raises alarming concerns among experts, as it could lead to increased contamination risks for ecosystems and nearby communities, amplifying the threats to public health and the environment.

If passed, the proposal would allow farmers to apply pesticides dangerously close to small properties, putting surrounding communities at risk and potentially resulting in severe health repercussions.

The existing regulations in the state of Mato Grosso, which govern the use, production, storage, trade, application, transportation, and monitoring of pesticides, play a crucial role in protecting water resources, soil quality, animals, and the region’s most vulnerable populations – especially small family farmers and residents living near agricultural areas.

A weakening of these protections would open the door to catastrophic environmental degradation and irreversible harm to public health. As one of the world’s largest pesticide users, Brazil – and particularly Mato Grosso – cannot afford to take such a dangerous step backward.

Several  studies have demonstrated that pesticide exposure significantly affects the health of the Brazilian population across all age groups and genders. Health consequences include central nervous system damage, cancer, poisoning, birth defects, and disruptions to the endocrine system.

A study published in the journal Acta Amazônica by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside stresses the importance of maintaining a safety distance of at least 300 meters between pesticide areas and sensitive locations, such as conservation areas, water sources, and rural communities. This recommendation is based on findings that negative effects, including local extinctions, genetic mutations, and deformities in wildlife, were observed more than 250 meters from treated areas, as shown in various studies across Brazil.

Ferrante said:

“Bill 1833/2023 represents a threat to Mato Grosso’s own agriculture by allowing the application of pesticides without respecting adequate safety zones.

“We conducted measurements in the pesticide application area without a safe distance and observed extinctions, mutations, and anomalies. These effects extended at least 250 metres, indicating that a minimum safe distance of 300 metres is necessary”.

The impact of pesticides on wildlife is not only a concern for researchers but is also acknowledged by the industry. Syngenta, on its official website, admits that pesticides contribute to the decline of pollinators, noting that “75% of crops intended for human consumption depend on bees” and that “they are the most important pollinators on the planet. In addition to allowing plants to reproduce, pollination also increases crop productivity levels and results in the production of better-quality fruits and a greater number of seeds”.

Syngenta points out that “the disappearance of bees and other pollinators could eliminate crops such as melon, watermelon, and passion fruit,” highlighting that the decline of pollinators due to pesticide use in sensitive areas directly threatens agricultural productivity and food security.

Approximately 80% of the pesticides approved in Brazil are banned in at least three countries within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the European community.

On average, each Brazilian consumes seven litres of pesticides annually, a staggering figure tied to the 70,000 cases of both acute and chronic poisoning reported across the country. This alarming statistic is highlighted in a dossier compiled by the Brazilian Association of Public Health (ABRASCO).

The proposed Bill 1833/2023 not only dismisses solid scientific evidence but also endangers the sustainability of agriculture in Mato Grosso and puts public health at risk by amplifying the potential for widespread pesticide contamination.

Ferrante warned about the risks associated with this new proposal, stressing the potential implications it may have:

“The approval of Bill 1833/2023 marks a severe regression in environmental and public health protection, sanctioning pesticide use at alarmingly close distances to vulnerable areas such as rural communities, water sources, and ecosystems. This reckless decision not only endangers local biodiversity but also jeopardises global food security.

“Nations that import Brazilian commodities, like soy and other pesticide-reliant agricultural products, must urgently reevaluate these imports. The dilution of environmental safeguards amplifies the risk of chemical contamination and breaches international food safety standards.”

Monica Piccinini

13 March 2025

Despite mounting evidence of the environmental impact of methane emissions, the world’s largest supermarkets are failing to take responsibility for their role in the crisis.

A new report by Changing Markets Foundation and NGO Mighty Earth reveals that 20 major supermarkets – including Carrefour, Lidl, Tesco, Walmart, and Ahold Delhaize – are ignoring the need to track or reduce the methane emissions linked their supply chains. With meat and dairy responsible for at least a third of their total emissions, this alarming failure raises serious questions about their commitment to sustainability and climate action.

The findings expose a troubling lack of transparency, as none of these industry giants publicly report their methane emissions, despite methane being 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the short term.

As global efforts intensify to curb greenhouse gases, the failure of these companies to acknowledge and address their methane footprint puts them under increasing scrutiny. With pressure mounting from regulators, investors, and consumers, these retailers must move beyond greenwashing and take concrete steps to slash emissions before it’s too late.

Gemma Hoskins, global methane lead at Mighty Earth, said:

Food retailers are ignoring the methane problem hidden in the meat and dairy aisles and risk losing consumer trust. Methane is a superheater greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of the heating the planet has already experienced. But it’s short-lived, so rapid cuts would be a win for climate and nature.

Retailers are uniquely positioned to urgently drive down agricultural methane emissions in their supply chains. That starts with being honest about the impact of the products they sell and working harder and faster to reduce that impact.

The report reveals that over 90% of European food retailers’ emissions come from their supply chains, with meat and dairy accounting for nearly half. Yet, none of the retailers analysed disclose methane emissions or the footprint of the meat and dairy products they sell.

Food retailers also fail to commit to deforestation-free supply chains for key commodities like beef, soy, and palm oil, despite the 2025 EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) deadline. Livestock farming is a leading driver of the Amazon’s destruction, responsible for 88% of deforestation.

While fossil fuel companies face intense scrutiny, the climate impact of the meat and dairy industry remains largely neglected. Rapidly cutting methane emissions by transforming this sector – alongside phasing out fossil fuels – could be a game changer in the fight against climate disaster.

Methane Alert

Methane levels have more than doubled in the past 200 years, with around 600 million tonnes released into the atmosphere annually – roughly 40% from natural sources and 60% driven by human activity.

As a greenhouse gas, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, responsible for 25% of global heating. Though it remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time than CO2, it is far more effective at trapping heat, earning its reputation as a ‘super-heater’.

Animal agriculture is a major contributor, responsible for 16.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 32% of human-caused methane emissions – largely from a byproduct of livestock digestion process (burps) called enteric fermentation, and manure. Each year, 83 billion land animals are slaughtered for meat production, further driving these emissions.

Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth are calling on food retailers to take responsibility by publicly reporting their emissions, setting science-based climate targets, and reducing methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030, in line with the Global Methane Pledge adopted at COP26. With their vast influence over supply chains and consumer choices, food retailers must lead the shift toward a sustainable food system, rather than placing the burden on consumers.

As key players in the global food industry, major food retailers have the power – and the duty – to pressure dominant meat and dairy producers, including JBS, Tyson, and Cargill, to adopt more transparency and sustainable practices, and cut methane emissions at the source.

Maddy Haughton-Boakes, senior campaigner at the Changing Markets Foundation, said:

Methane emissions are a major blind spot of supermarkets. Our scorecard reveals a complete lack of action, with the most powerful players in the food supply chains completely ignoring their government’s commitments to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This must change urgently.

Some retailers acknowledge the problem and have taken small steps, but none are treating it with the urgency it demands – there are no real leaders here. Cutting methane this decade is our emergency brake on runaway global heating, yet retailers are barely pressing it. The companies that dominate our food system must step up now and take real action to slash their methane emissions.

Health Impact

Excessive meat consumption is a major threat to both the planet and human health. It drives greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and destroys ecosystems rich in biodiversity. But the dangers don’t stop there – scientific studies reveal that high intake of red and processed meat significantly increases the risk of ischaemic heart disease, pneumonia, diabetes, colon polyps, and diverticular disease.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has found compelling evidence that processed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer, a finding further reinforced by research from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS).

Adding to these dangers, the meat industry’s rampant use of antibiotics in livestock farming has accelerated the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a looming public health catastrophe.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) results in higher mortality rates, prolonged illness, the spread of epidemics, and an overwhelming strain on global healthcare systems.

Action

Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth are urging food retailers to urgently develop climate plans to reduce methane from meat and dairy sources, adopt public transparency in climate reporting and disclose methane emissions, and set a target for methane reductions.

The pressure is mounting for food retailers to confront the methane problem head-on. As consumers become more aware of the environmental and health implications of their food choices, the demand for transparency and accountability will only grow.

Food retailers can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of the products they sell. By taking quick and decisive action to reduce methane emissions, they not only have the chance to be at the forefront of the sustainable food movement but also to regain consumer trust and position themselves as true leaders in the fight against climate change.

With the urgency of the climate crisis at an all-time high, it is crucial that these companies step up to the challenge. If they fail to address methane emissions now, they risk locking in further damage to the planet, compromising both our future, our health, and their role in the global economy.