We’re well aware that farmed animals are all too often raised in confinement. But is it possible to imagine that the entire food system – crops, livestock, farmers and all – is itself confined and caged? Locked-in and constrained. Not able to deliver what it was meant to and restricted in what it can achieve.

This might seem an unusual way to think about food. But it’s how Feedback has been analysing the multiple connected problems in our food system – and it’s proving to be transformative in how we analyse problems and advocate for solutions.

We’ve been exploring how the system is unfairly weighted towards the industrialised model of food production. Our conclusion is that we are ‘locked-in’ to a system that is harmful for people and planet.

In our latest webinar on the Meat-Soil-Energy Nexus – outlining the connections between industrialised livestock production, the man-made fertiliser industry, and biomethane – we showcase this emergent thinking.

Industrialised livestock production

Feedback demonstrates that big corporations and governments in the global north are shaping food and energy systems around industrialised livestock production.  For example, an estimated 80% of the EU Common Agricultural Policy money supports emission intensive animal agricultural products.[1]

Fertiliser

This industrialised system also relies on damaging inputs via fossil fertiliser and the overuse of synthetic fertiliser is used to grow feed for animals not people. 80% of the nitrogen harvest in European crops provides feeds to support livestock.[2]

Biomethane

And these two industries are actively promoting the rush for biomethane as a response to the energy crisis. Biomethane from manure is one of the drivers growing industrial livestock production. Herd sizes at dairy facilities with digesters that produce biomethane grew 24 times the growth rate for overall dairy herd sizes.[3]

These industries are intertwined. They feed off each other, they are connected, it is a nexus. For example, industrial meat and dairy produces manure, manure is promoted as an energy source (biomethane), which can also be used to produce fertiliser, which is applied to soils, which in turn are used to feed livestock. According to industry voices this is a win-win – but it is in fact a vicious circle that locks us into a food system of continued and multiple harms.

And this system runs counter to peer-reviewed climate science that clearly outlines the adverse impacts of intensive livestock production on planetary boundaries, the negative impact of overuse of fertiliser on our soils, rivers and public health, and the indisputable evidence that we should be moving towards renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar, not incentivising the production of biomethane way beyond its ‘sustainable niche’.

It also reflects a disastrous example of policy incoherence, with current UK and EU policies on food production and consumption, climate targets, public health and animal welfare working against one another.

But by shining a spotlight on how these industries are connected, we can unlock the positive levers for change.

How can this be done? Through redirecting financial flows of private and public finance away from industrialised livestock towards lower meat and dairy production and consumption, reshaping public policy towards a just rural transition that allows land use and diet change, and dismantling corporate power through targeted regulation and divestment in the sector. Our webinar set out some positive examples of these changes.

If we break this cycle, we can feed the estimated world population of 10 billion in 2050. But we do need to change what we grow and what we eat.

By understanding how the system operates as a whole, we can ‘unlock’ the cage and deliver a food system that is fit for people and planet.

References:

[1] Kortleve, A., Mogollon., J., Harwatt, H., Behrens, P. (2024) ‘Over 80% of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions intensive animal products’ Nature Food 5 (4), 288-292

[2] Sutton, M., Howard, M., Erisman J, et al. (2011), The European Nitrogen Assessment: Sources, Effects and Policy Perspectives. Cambridge University Press

[3] Waterman, C. & Armus, M. (2024). Biogas or Bull****? The Deceptive Promise of Manure Biogas as a Methane Solution. Friends of the Earth

The planning application for an industrial megafarm in Norfolk has been unanimously rejected in a landmark decision that could shape the future of industrial farming in Britain and bolster councils and rural communities in their fight against harmful environmental practices in their areas.

Failure to include information on full direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions in the application was considered grounds for rejection by King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council’s planning experts, in what will be a significant boost for climate campaigners but a damning indictment for UK megafarms. The outcome follows widespread public outcry, over 15,000 objections to the development going ahead and growing concern about the damaging impacts of industrialised farming on the environment, animal welfare, and rural communities.

In rejecting the application, the committee followed the recommendations of the council’s planning experts, who last week advised that the facility should not go ahead, and that the council could face legal challenges if approved. As part of their 200-page report, the council’s planning officers advised that a landmark climate change ruling was applicable to the Methwold megafarm application, meaning the full direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions must be assessed transparently and taken into account when making this planning decision. They advised that failure to include this information in the application was grounds for rejection.

In doing so, the planning officers agreed with legal testimony provided by environmental charity Feedback and Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, as part of the consultation process. The organisations argued that the polluting emissions from the facility would be significant, unnecessary, unacceptable and incompatible with the UK’s legally-binding climate targets, and that without comprehensive emissions information the application is unlawful.

The planning officers also recommended rejecting the application on the grounds that it failed to provide clarity on how waste (especially pig manure) would be disposed of to prevent pollution to the air and water. The committee was also further advised that the facility risked impacting sites protected for nature conservation.

Lily O’Mara, Climate Campaigner at Sustain, said: “Local authorities are waking up to the reality of industrial farming: a damaging and extractive system of food production that poses a serious threat to human health and our country’s future, both economically and environmentally. King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council has rightly put nature and communities first by saying no to a development that would have sent us in completely the wrong direction.”

Phil Holtam, Programmes Manager at Feedback, said: “The firm rejection of the proposed megafarm is undoubtedly the right decision. The council has recognised the climate-wrecking impact of this kind of mass production of meat, which should not be the direction of travel for rearing livestock in the UK. Cranswick’s plans would have caused environmental impacts we simply cannot afford if we are to meet Net Zero targets. Factory farming is not the answer – there is a better way to provide food security and decent agricultural livelihoods in the UK.”

Jan Palmer, local resident, said: “These multi-billion food giants simply cannot be allowed to continue bulldosing their way into rural areas, bringing nothing but pollution and the destruction of nature with them.”

The developer, Cranswick PLC, is one of the UK’s largest intensive chicken and pig producers and behind a number of the UK’s livestock ‘megafarms’, whose number has increased by one-fifth since 2016, according to Compassion in World Farming. The growth in intensive livestock farming has been accompanied by a decline in the health of the UK’s rivers, and intensive agriculture is now the main source of river pollution in the UK. Cranswick has been the subject of complaints and enforcement in action, including extreme ammonia pollution. In February, an investigation revealed that several farms owned by Cranswick trading entities had breached environmental regulations at least 90 times in the last seven years in East Anglia.

Objectors to the application noted that the increase in this kind of automated intensive livestock system, which is replacing smaller and more traditional family farms, is estimated to have already cost 14,000 jobs in the UK. Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX) has reported widespread use of insecure, seasonal migrant labour in the poultry sector, as well as trafficking, and risks of infringement of employment rights. In 2024, over 100,000 people called on the government to support a campaign led by UK family farmers to halt the intensification of farming, which they said was risking the livelihoods of farmers for the benefit of agribusinesses.

When you think of the food system, I imagine the image that comes to mind for most people is a vision of fields of crops and sheep, a few tractors or maybe even your local supermarket.  But an aspect that tends to be left out of the conversation is seafood and more specifically fish farming fish (a.k.a aquaculture).

Many people are amazed to learn that aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production system in the world with the farmed salmon industry being the most profitable. Since the 1990s the production of farmed salmon has grown by over 1,000%.

But this rapacious growth comes at a cost.

The salmon farming industry is plundering our ocean and extracting food from communities living in some of the poorest parts of the world. Precious wild fish populations are being squandered to feed farmed salmon, while wild salmon populations facing collapse are plagued by sea lice infestations passed on from salmon farms.  Our ecosystems are drowning in plastics, chemicals, and fish faeces. As the industry has grown, it is communities, wild fish populations and nature around the world that are paying the price.

This catastrophic growth does not happen in isolation and would not have been possible without significant financial backing.

After months of detailed and rigorous research, with financial analysis conducted by Profundo, we set out to expose industrial salmon farming’s biggest financial backers through our new report, Fishy Finances, published in partnership with the Global Salmon Farming Resistance.

What did we uncover?

1. Industrial salmon farming is receiving BILLIONS of dollars from big banks and investors around the world.

From January 2015 – November 2024, industrial salmon farming received $18.8 billion in credit and, as of November 2024, financial institutions had nearly $12 billion invested in some of the world’s biggest salmon farming companies, with the Government Pension Fund Norway topping the chart as the largest single investor ($1.7 billion).

The top 5 creditors we identified were Scandinavian banks Nordea, DNB, Danske Bank and Dutch banks Rabobank and ABN Amro.

The top 5 investors we identified were Government Pension Fund Norway, BlackRock, Storebrand, Vanguard and Nordea.

2. Even ‘sustainable’ banks are getting a fin in the game.

Our research also reveals that even so-called ‘sustainable’ banks are fuelling salmon farming. As of November 2024, Triodos had $16 million invested into Bakkafrost, one the world’s largest salmon farming companies. Triodos recently asked, “Your money isn’t just sitting in your bank account – it’s being used to fund something. But is it funding what you believe in?”.  Very few of its customers would support industrial salmon farming given the toll it is extracting from the environment and communities around the world.

3. Mowi, the world’s largest salmon farming company, is reeling in BILLIONS from financiers.

The biggest benefactor of all these fishy finances is the global salmon farming giant Mowi – which made €5.6 billion (US$5.9 billion) in revenue in 2024.  From January 2015 – November 2024, it received over one-third of all credit combined ($7 billion) and had received over half of all investment as of November 2024 ($6 billion).

All of this is giving Mowi the heft to continue on its course of global domination. From 2015-2024 Mowi’s farmed salmon production grew by nearly one-fifth, from 420,000 tonnes to 502,000 tonnes, and it more than doubled its feed production from 282,000 tonnes to 582,000 tonnes.

4. As if this wasn’t enough, MILLIONS of pounds of taxpayer money are also pouring into this industry.

The UK and Scottish government have funnelled MILLIONS of pounds of taxpayer money into some of the world’s biggest salmon farming giants. At a time of increasingly squeezed government finances, this is a shocking use of public money.

The UK government provided £7 million to Mowi Scotland (yes, Mowi again…) through the UK Seafood Fund between 2022-2023 – five times the amount Mowi paid in UK taxes in 2022 (£1.3 million).

The fund also handed out £5 million to Scottish Sea Farms (co-owned by Lerøy Seafood Group and SalMar) between 2022 – 2023 – nearly double what the company paid in taxes to the UK treasury in 2023 (£2.8 million).

Since 2021, the Marine Fund Scotland has awarded nearly £5 million (£4.8 million) to salmon farming companies including Bakkafrost subsidiary the Scottish Salmon Company, Mowi and Cooke Aquaculture.

This seems like a great deal for a profit-hungry foreign corporations benefitting from the Scottish coast and less so for the UK taxpayer.

What’s the consequence of all this financial backing?

The significant financial backing of this destructive industry has fuelled the unsustainable growth of an industry that urgently needs to be rolled back.

Total global production of farmed salmon increased by nearly one-third, from 2.3 million tonnes in 2015 to nearly 3 million tonnes in 2024, considerably outpacing the growth of global meat production. The explosive rise of salmon farming companies in the space of mere decades would not have been possible without the billions in financial support provided by banks, asset managers and governments.

Far from being passive bystanders, financial institutions are actively driving an industry that values profits over everything else.

What can we do?

Our call to action is simple. It’s time to #DefundBigSalmon.

Share our Instagram post far and wide and read our full report here.

New research released today [25 March, 2025] shows the burden of damaged, out of date or nutritionally inadequate food is being unacceptably passed on by supermarkets and retailers to food aid organisations to deal with – and, often, dispose of.

The new data – based on the experiences of food aid workers in the UK – found 91% have had to discard donated food, with the most common reason the food was damaged or inedible. While 85% reported feeling frustrated, angry or sad when they received donated food items that they can’t use or redistribute.

The research from food experts at environmental charity Feedback Global comes with clear recommendations for tackling the significant problems with the UK’s food distribution model, including a whistleblowing mechanism for workers to report when bad quality food is repeatedly passed onto them and mandatory reporting of food waste for large and medium businesses.

Link to the report: Used by: How businesses dump their waste on food charities or www.feedbackglobal.org/used-by

This comes at a time when food aid usage is at a record high with more than 3million people in the UK accessing food aid organisations last year – a huge increase from the 26,000 people who did so in 2008/09. While food bank workers and volunteers go above and beyond every day to try to get decent food to people in need.

But today’s new report – Used By: How businesses dump their waste of food charities – exposes that food redistribution isn’t the answer to either food waste or food poverty. The food experts say businesses must take responsibility for the time and cost of disposing of their own food waste – rather than passing it on to volunteers and community organisations.

The experience of dealing with businesses’ food waste led 98% of food aid workers to say government needs to do more to prevent food waste arising in the first place. While 84% said it was essential larger businesses should be legally required to report their food waste and 71% said government should introduce legally binding targets to reduce food being wasted.

The food aid workers also reported bizarre items being donated that are hard to incorporate into meals or didn’t provide nutritional value. This includes six turkeys frozen together, brandy-flavoured cream in the summer, 10kg of crème fraiche, tiny miso sachets and new experimental flavours of mayonnaise. While one worker said they spent £375 on carpet cleaning after a donation of rotten bananas.

Smaller organisations felt the burden of managing businesses’ food waste most acutely. For example, the majority of food aid organisations which had to throw away 10 per cent or more of donated food items were smaller ones lacking in the resources to quickly process and store donations.

The charity behind the research says the redistribution model fails to take account of the burdens placed on food aid organisations. It’s calling for mandatory reporting of food waste for large and medium businesses throughout the supply chain, national targets to halve food waste by 2030 and a levy retailers must pay in relation to the food wasted in their supply chain. It also endorses the establishment of a real living wage, universal free schools meals and the removal of the five-week wait for Universal Credit.

The new report – Used By: How businesses dump their waste on food charities – is being launched today in the House of Commons.

Jessica Sinclair Taylor, Deputy Director at Feedback Global, said: “The redistribution of food is quite clearly not the answer to tackling either food waste or food poverty in the UK. Our research shows that – despite the heroic efforts of food aid employees – food donated by businesses is often damaged, expired, nutritionally inadequate and ends up never being eaten. We need to stop kidding ourselves that food poverty can be solved by food waste and vice-versa, and start addressing the root causes of both to the benefit of people and planet.”

Sheila Dillon, food journalist and presenter, said: “This report sheds light on the lived experience of food aid workers, revealing the frustration, anger and exhaustion of those working at the sharp end of our food system. Their voices make one thing clear: we need systemic change. Businesses must be held accountable for their waste, policymakers must ensure fair wages and social protections, and we must move beyond the short-term fix of redistribution to build a food system that works for everyone.”

Quotes from food aid organisation workers:

“I think it is wrong that supermarkets can record zero waste when actually we, as a food bank, are having to dispose of their waste.”

“Veg comes to us mouldy and we have to sort/clean before we start.”

“We are lucky in that we have facilities to deal with bigger packs for portioning and cooking.”

“I’m cross that the supermarket has not already checked this [food] – leaving it to us to dispose of it.”

REVEALED: UK and Scottish governments giving millions to wealthy salmon farming corporations at the expense of wild fish populations and communities

Destructive salmon farming companies are benefiting from government money despite access to billions in financing from global banks and asset managers over the past decade – new report reveals.

New data released today [12 March, 2025] reveals billions from big banks and asset managers is driving enormous growth of industrial salmon farming – making huge profits for shareholders at the expense of wild fish populations and communities around the globe.

Shockingly, the massive cash injection into the devastating industry also includes millions of pounds of public money from the UK Seafood Fund, which is managed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and from Scottish government’s Marine Fund Scotland. This is revealed in today’s new analysis from environmental charity Feedback Global and Global Salmon Farming Resistance (GSFR).

The numbers include the UK government providing Mowi – the world’s biggest salmon farming company – with £7 million and Scottish Sea Farms (co-owned by Lerøy Seafood Group and SalMar) with £5 million through the UK Seafood Fund between 2022 and 2023 [1]. The £7 million is five times more than the amount of tax Mowi paid to the Treasury in 2022 (£1.269million)[2], while last year the company’s annual revenue was EUR5.6billion [3].

Government money Mowi received included £2 million to buy equipment to rapidly process fish, which is projected to increase throughput from 65,000 to 95,000 tonnes of fish annually [4]. Mowi also received £5 million to establish a new broodstock farm for breeding fish, which will result in 25-30 million fertilised fish eggs per year [5].

Since 2021, the Scottish government’s Marine Fund Scotland has awarded nearly £5 million (£4.8 million) to salmon farming companies including Bakkafrost subsidiary the Scottish Salmon Company, Mowi and Cooke Aquaculture [6].

Scottish government money was used by companies to increase production, including £2 million to Scottish Salmon Company for a land based recirculating aquaculture system and £105,000 to Aquascot to increase processing capacity [7].

The new figures also expose that over the last decade (January 2015- November 2024) more than $18.8 billion in credit and nearly $12 billion in investment financing has been provided by global financiers to some of the world’s largest salmon farming companies. Over the same 10-year period, salmon produced from industrial farms has soared by almost a third (from 2.3 million tonnes in 2015 to nearly 3 million tonnes in 2024) [8] – considerably outpacing the growth of global meat production.

These vast sums of money from public and private finance – revealed today in Feedback Global and GSFR’s report Fishy Finances – have played a central role in the consolidation and growth of industrial salmon farming corporations. This has rapidly transformed the way fish is produced and what is eaten in the high-income markets targeted by salmon farming companies. According to the Marine Conservation Society, farmed salmon is now the single most popular fish consumed in the UK [9]. Meanwhile, regions which provide fishmeal and fish oil to the salmon farming industry suffer from chronic food insecurity. The report cites the example of West Africa, where Norwegian salmon farming’s demand for fish oil is depriving up to 4million people of fish.

Community resistance to industrial salmon farming

More and more communities are rising up to oppose the worldwide expansion of salmon farming, many of them under the umbrella of the Global Salmon Farming Resistance (GSFR), an international alliance comprising more than 100 NGOs, activists, scientists, and individuals from 19 different countries. From Scotland, Norway, Iceland, France, Canada and the USA in the Northern Hemisphere, to Argentina, Chile and Australia in the Southern Hemisphere, salmon farming is encountering fierce resistance wherever it goes.

Salmon farming causes huge damage to the environment and natural ecosystems. It has been identified as a key threat to wild salmon populations, already imperilled by the climate crisis and poor water quality. In 2023 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified global wild Atlantic salmon populations as ‘near threatened’ and reclassified UK populations as ‘endangered’.

Mowi’s shocking track record

Mowi has a shocking track record. The new report details how in recent years it has breached environmental laws in Scotland, used banned chemicals on salmon sold to UK supermarkets as organic, been implicated in a ‘price-fixing’ scandal  and seen mass mortalities at its farms. For example, last year more than a million fish died at two adjacent Mowi Scotland sites – the biggest mass die-off of farmed salmon in Scotland in a decade.

The data, commissioned from independent research organisation Profundo, shows that between January 2015 and November 2024, Mowi was the largest recipient of all credit from global financiers, receiving US$7 billion, more than one-third of the total identified credit awarded to salmon farming companies. According to Feedback Global’s calculations, this has helped boost Mowi’s production volumes by around one-fifth, from 420,000 tonnes in 2015 to 502,000 tonnes in 2024 and more than double its feed production from 282,000 tonnes to 582,000 tonnes over the same period.

Natasha Hurley, Director of Campaigns at Feedback Global, said: “It’s truly shocking that public money is being given to wealthy salmon farming corporations whose shareholders are netting big profits at the expense of wild fish populations and communities around the world. For years global financiers have helped fuel the stratospheric growth of this destructive, extractive industry while using their power and influence to push misinformation about salmon farming. This cannot go on – it’s high time to listen to local communities and stop finance to industrial salmon farming.”

Agustina Copello, from Global Salmon Farming Resistance, said: “All over the world communities are rising up to defend their waters, cultures, and livelihoods from the destruction caused by open-net salmon farming. Through the GSFR, we are uniting this resistance into a powerful global movement—not just to fight back, but to create a future where food systems truly respect nature and people.”  

Rachel Mulrenan, Scotland Director at WildFish, said: “Open-net salmon farming is one of the key threats facing our iconic wild Atlantic salmon populations. From the dispersal of sea lice parasites, which can prove fatal to migrating smolts, to the impacts of escaped farmed fish on genetic fitness – the growth of open-net salmon farming in Scotland has coincided with a catastrophic decline in the wild salmon population. There is no doubt that salmon farming has been a significant contributory factor to this decline.”

Ailsa McLellan, oyster farmer and campaigner, said: “It is so difficult for communities to fight salmon farms, it’s always David versus Goliath, and the farms have literally billions of pounds at their disposal. But more and more people are waking up to the truth that the ever-increasing negatives hugely outweigh the benefits of industrial-scale salmon farming. We are a growing movement, we have a voice that is getting louder and we will continue to fight against the scourge of industrial salmon farming.”

ENDS

For more information please contact Fraser Wilson, Media Manager at Feedback, on fraser@feedbackglobal.org or 07931783084.

References

[1] gov.uk, “UK Seafood Fund: Infrastructure Scheme – Projects,” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-seafood-fund-infrastructure-scheme-projects.

[2] https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/mowi-scotland-2022-annual-report/higher-costs-halved-mowi-scotlands-operating-profit-last-year/1602485

[3] Mowi, “Mowi Quarterly Report Q4 2024,” 2024, https://mowi.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Mowi_Q4_2024_Report.pdf

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-seafood-fund-infrastructure-scheme-projects/uksf-infrastructure-scheme-projects-grants-awarded-in-round-1-of-the-scheme  

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-seafood-fund-infrastructure-scheme-projects/uksf-infrastructure-scheme-projects-grants-awarded-in-round-2-of-the-scheme

[6,7] Marine Fund Scotland: grants awarded – gov.scot

[8] Based off yearly global production of farmed Atlantic salmon worldwide, Feedback calculated production increased by 29% from 2015-2024. (Using: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1179062/global-atlantic-salmon-production/

[9] https://www.mcsuk.org/ocean-emergency/sustainable-seafood/seafood-buying-guides/spotlight-on-salmon/

About Feedback

Feedback is an environmental campaign group working for food that is good for the planet and its people. To do this it challenges power, catalyses action and empowers people to achieve positive change. For more information visit www.feedbackglobal.org.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Government’s attempted block on environmental justice over its UK-Australia trade deal to be heard in court

The Government is attempting to block an environmental legal challenge to its much-feted UK-Australia trade deal by appealing the £10,000 cost cap on legal fees granted to environmental campaigning charity Feedback.

The appeal will be heard on Friday 7 March at the Royal Courts of Justice, with the decision crucial in determining whether the environmental group can proceed with its challenge. While the ruling could also have a significant impact on the future of access to environmental justice and scrutiny in the UK.

Feedback has raised serious concerns about the trade deal’s environmental impact saying its environmental assessment was deeply flawed. This includes overlooking the global emissions consequences of increased imports of meat and dairy from Australia. Now it says the Government’s appeal shows it is “hellbent on suppressing access to environmental justice”.

The trade deal was signed by the Conservative Government, which also contested the charity’s legal challenge. It was expected that the new Labour Government would drop the attempted block on environmental scrutiny – but this hasn’t happened.  Despite its criticism of the Conservatives’ trade policies while in opposition, including the impact on British farmers.

The cost cap was put in place when the High Court confirmed in June 2024 that the legal case met the definition of an Aarhus Convention claim and access to environmental justice by ensuring litigation is not prohibitively expensive.

The charity argues it could risk reducing the scope of the Aarhus Convention in other cases if the Government’s appeal is upheld, as well as potentially hampering future environmental challenges.

While the government says that Feedback’s judicial review claim should not be covered by the £10,000 costs cap on environmental cases for NGOs on the basis that the claim is not a challenge relating to the environment.

Leading environmental charity WWF has been granted permission to intervene in the appeal in support of Feedback’s challenge. WWF’s submissions draw on its prior experience in international processes concerning issues around access to justice in environmental matters.

Carina Millstone, Executive Director at Feedback, said: “It’s deeply worrying that the new Government is persisting with its predecessor’s attempt to block our scrutiny of the UK-Australia trade deal on environmental grounds. This is a huge waste of time, energy and money, and a clear sign that the Government has no intention of breaking with the damaging policies of the last Conservative government when it comes to the environment and climate.

“If we lose and the cost cap is removed, it’s very unlikely we will be able to move forward with our judicial review despite its importance and validity. It’s disappointing that we’re having to fight this in court and that the new Government is hellbent on supressing access to environmental justice.”

Jake White, Head of Legal Advocacy at WWF, said: “Trade is vital for our economy. But the government is in danger of sleepwalking into poorly designed and unscrutinised trade agreements that will drive environmental destruction overseas and undermine British farmers.

“Public consultation and Parliamentary engagement should be a minimum requirement to ensure a fairer, more sustainable approach to trade deals that protect our planet and provide a better and greener path to growth for the UK.”

Liz Webster from Save British Farming, said: “With an India trade deal now on the table, this legal challenge is crucial to ensure future deals are subject to proper parliamentary oversight and comply with international law. The Australian trade deal, in particular, never underwent the necessary impact assessment required under the Paris climate accord.”

Leigh Day environment solicitor Carol Day said: “The result of this appeal is not only relevant for Feedback’s case, but could also have an impact on future environment cases seeking costs cap protection under the Aarhus Convention. These caps were brought in to support the public’s access to environmental justice, stopping funding from becoming a prohibitive factor in bringing forward a claim. Our client is concerned that the government’s appeal over costs on this case could have wider ramifications by potentially reducing the scope for environmental claims to be protected by the costs cap.”

ENDS

For more information please contact Fraser Wilson, Media Manager at Feedback, on fraser@feedbackglobal.org or 07931783084.

About Feedback

Feedback is an environmental campaign group working for food that is good for the planet and its people. To do this it challenges power, catalyses action and empowers people to achieve positive change. For more information visit www.feedbackglobal.org.

Lawmakers in the EU reached a provisional agreement that could help prevent millions of tonnes of food from ending up in the bin, marking the introduction of its first legally binding food waste reduction targets.

Take a walk round your local supermarket and you may think that we have salmon in abundance. The shelves are flooded with salmon fillets, smoked salmon or sushi. You may even find a salmon sandwich in your meal deal.

But the reality is wild salmon are facing an existential crisis.

At the end of January, Feedback was lucky enough to attend Wild Salmon Connections – hosted by the Missing Salmon Alliance at Fishmongers’ Hall to learn more about wild salmon conservation and how sustainable and just food systems can play their part.

At the event we heard from a range of voices including children, Indigenous peoples, scientists, activists, politicians, artists, businesses: the list goes on.  All confirmed the undeniably critical state our wild salmon populations and the importance of us taking action to protect them.

90% of salmon populations in England are at risk of collapse and in the last 25 years the number of salmon that have returned to Britain’s rivers has decreased by around 70%. These heartbreaking stats point to the reality that we could be facing the extinction of wild salmon in the UK in our lifetime.

But how come we have so much salmon available in our supermarkets, I hear you ask?

The majority of this salmon produced around the world is farmed. The salmon you find in your supermarket has lived a life far removed from its wild counterpart, condemned to spend its days swimming around in an open-net pen in the sea rather than thousands of miles through open water. But this way of producing salmon is also a key driver for the decline in wild salmon populations.

Excess food, faeces and chemicals used on farmed salmon seep out of these open net pens polluting local waterways. Diseases and parasites such as sea lice infect farmed salmon and pass onto wild salmon as they undertake their natural migrations. Farmed salmon escapees get loose into our oceans and rivers, breeding with wild populations and weakening their genetics as a result. Combine this with the increase in sea temperatures due to climate breakdown and the fate of wild salmon becomes increasingly challenging.

But we can change this.

If we end salmon farming, then pollution, disease and escapee risk will all decrease, improving wild salmon’s chances of survival.

During the conference there was lots of talk about creating ‘closed containment’ salmon farms to prevent pollution from seeping into our seas. However, this tech solution does not solve the systemic issues baked into salmon farming.

The animal welfare implications of these systems are grave, and technological issues have brought about devastating mass mortality events where thousands of fish die. For example, Sustainable Blue, the ‘poster child’ Canadian company, supposedly leading the charge on land-based aquaculture, announced that it is facing financial difficulties and entering receivership following the death of almost 100,000 market-ready salmon worth CAD $5 million due to a disastrous equipment failure.

Plus, these systems do not solve the ‘food-feed’ competition inherent in farming salmon. Research published in 2024 has shown it takes up to 6 kilograms of wild fish to produce just 1 kilogram of farmed salmon.  Even if closed containment systems did improve pollution, they would still be perpetuating a deeply inefficient food production system, driving the extraction of wild fish around the world which could be eaten by people directly.

At Feedback we are continuously challenging the salmon farming industry which is driving the extraction of wild fish from around the world and damaging wild salmon populations. By calling out their greenwash, wasteful practices and social injustices, we are protecting our oceans and creating food systems that are good for people and the planet.

Fawn Sharp, former President of the National Congress of American Indians, reminded us at the conference that salmon cannot get out of the rivers to defend themselves. It’s now over to us all to raise our voices and protect these precious species.

You can learn more about the Wild Salmon Connections event here.

Industrial-scale livestock farms across East Anglia have breached environmental regulations more than 700 times in the past seven years, freedom of information (FoI) data has revealed.

Industrial-scale livestock farms across East Anglia breached environmental rules hundreds of times in recent years, internal government records released by environmental groups reveal.

This comes as King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council considers its decision on the expansion of a climate-wrecking, US-style megafarm in Norfolk following last week’s closure of a public consultation which attracted thousands of objections.

The documents – copies of inspection and enforcement reports obtained by the investigative group AGtivist following Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the Environment Agency [1] and released today by environmental campaign groups Feedback Global and Sustain – show how intensive poultry and pig farms across Norfolk and Suffolk, as well as elsewhere in East Anglia, have violated environmental regulations at least 776 times since 2017 [2].

This means breaches occurred at least twice a week or nearly ten times a month, on average, during the period (2017-2024) [3].

Among the breaches documented by inspectors were water, ground and air pollution incidents, including waterways being contaminated with slurry and excessive odours, dead animal carcasses being left outside rather than in sealed containers, farms being overstocked with more livestock than allowed, and irregularities relating to the transport and disposal of farm waste.

The shocking new data comes just a week after Chancellor Rachel Reeves called for watchdog bosses to ‘tear down regulatory barriers that hold back growth’ – despite evidence that companies cannot be trusted within the current system.

Many of the violations related to the management of intensive farms, record keeping, the condition of livestock buildings and other infrastructure, as well as ammonia emissions.

The findings raise fresh concerns about standards on factory farms – and the negative environmental impacts of such units – and come as planning officials consider proposals from industrial meat producer Cranswick PLC for a controversial megafarm in Norfolk that would rear over six million chickens and 56,000 pigs a year.

Under current regulations, intensive livestock farms above a certain size threshold – 40,000 poultry birds or 2,000 fattening pigs or 750 breeding pigs – must hold a permit to operate, issued by the Environment Agency. Farms holding a permit are inspected to assess livestock housing, slurry and manure storage, and drainage systems. They are also inspected to check farm records relating to animal numbers, feed, energy and water use, and waste disposal.

In a joint submission to the Borough Council’s consultation, Feedback Global and Sustain objected to the megafarm application on a number of grounds, including that a lack of information on greenhouse gas emissions in the application means it is not legally compliant.

The development could increase emissions by more than 120,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent annually, contrary to the Council’s climate strategy and the UK’s legally-binding commitment to achieve net zero by 2050.

Natasha Hurley, Campaigns Director at Feedback Global, said: “The finding that industrial farms in East Anglia are committing the equivalent of two environmental breaches every single week starkly underlines why King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council must firmly reject the current proposal for a climate-wrecking megafarm near Methwold.

“This newly revealed data clearly shows this kind of US-style industrial farming is absolutely no way to rear livestock, as it leads to a litany of consequences from water, ground and air pollution through to animal welfare issues and foul odours. This is all in addition to factory farming’s colossal climate impact, which jeopardises both local and national climate targets. What more proof does the Borough Council need that expanding emissions-intensive factory farming as the climate crisis intensifies is total madness?”

Lily O’Mara, Climate Justice Fellow at Sustain, said “Time and again, big agri-businesses claim to care about sustainability while routinely failing to meet even the most basic regulations. The government should strengthen enforcement on vital safeguards for our soils, rivers and air and not weaken planning policy where there is mounting evidence of environmental violations and unsustainable practices.

“The Chancellor and Environment Secretary should recognise that rural communities paying the price while corporate agribusinesses reap the rewards is not the kind of economic growth the country needs. The government must commit to a just transition out of the exploitative and damaging system of intensive livestock farming to a sustainable, fair and nature-friendly food model.”

ENDS

For more information contact Fraser Wilson, Communications Manager at Feedback Global on fraser@feedbackglobal.org or 07931783084.

Notes to editors

References

[1] Records were obtained from the EA via two separate Freedom of Information requests spanning 2017-2022, and 2022-2024 (the most recent records available).

[2]  Farms are officially classified by the EA as intensive if they house more than 40,000 poultry or 2,000 fattening pigs or 750 breeding pigs, under current regulations.

[3] At least 776 breaches were recorded across 2017 to 2024 (exact timespan Monday 24 April 2017 to Friday 26 April 2024).  776 divided into 84 months or 365.5 weeks or 7 years 2 days (7 years) = 9.2 (almost 10) breaches a month, on average or  2.1 (2) breaches a week, on average  or 110.8 (110) breaches a year, on average.

Environmental campaigners are urging King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council to reject controversial plans for a US-style ‘megafarm,’ saying a lack of greenhouse gas emissions information in the application is not legally compliant.

The proposed development – which would produce over six million chickens and 56,000 pigs a year – could increase borough-wide emissions by a huge 6%. This would jeopardise both local and national climate targets.

In a joint submission to the planning application made today (24 January, 2025), environmental campaign group Feedback Global and Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, detail serious flaws in the application. This comes on the final day of the consultation, which has generated thousands of objections on a range of grounds including waste, odour, traffic, water and air quality, and climate harm.

The campaign groups’ objections include the absence of an assessment in the application of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions the site would generate, as is required by law in planning decisions for major developments following a Supreme Court ruling last year.

The development could increase emissions by more than 120,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent annually, contrary to the Council’s climate strategy and the UK’s legally-binding commitment to achieve net zero by 2050.

The groups’ objections relate to the following seven areas:

1. The application is unlawful, therefore should be rejected
2. The application will cause significant climate impacts
3. The application will cause wider environmental impacts
4. The application risks the delivery of legally binding climate and nature emergency targets, plans and policies
5. The application threatens the delivery of local and national planning policy
6. There are no options for mitigating the significant climate impacts of the projects
7. Negative economic impacts of intensive livestock farming

The application for the Methwold megafarm has drawn widespread opposition as demonstrated by the thousands of objections submitted during the consultation period. Cranswick Plc, the applicant and one of the UK’s largest livestock producers, has faced complaints and enforcement actions over ammonia emissions and river pollution in the past.^[1]

Feedback and Sustain have received legal advice on Cranswick’s planning application indicating that the direct and indirect climate impacts of industrial livestock units must be considered by councils when deciding on factory farm planning applications.

Council’s climate commitments at risk

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council declared a climate emergency in 2021 and adopted a strategy aimed at reducing emissions across transport, industry and housing. Approving the Methwold megafarm would directly contravene these commitments.

In addition, the UK Government’s net zero commitment is enshrined in law, and national planning policy for England includes an objective to move to a low-carbon economy. The Methwold application would threaten the delivery of both policies. To meet national climate change targets, the Committee on Climate Change recommends a 20-50% reduction in meat consumption by 2050.

Natasha Hurley, campaigns director at Feedback Global, said: “The stakes couldn’t be higher. This megafarm would lock in emissions increases for years at a time when urgent action is needed to reduce them. Local councils have a responsibility to lead the way on climate action and that is why King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council must listen to the huge opposition by firmly rejecting this application which would be an environmental disaster.”

Lily O’Mara, climate justice officer at Sustain, said: “Allowing this megafarm to proceed without properly assessing its climate impact would be deeply irresponsible and fly in the face of the Council’s declared climate emergency. Approving this application would cancel out the Council’s entire emissions reduction efforts since 2009. What we really need to see is both local and national government investing in healthy and sustainable food.”

After the public consultation for the application closes at midnight on 24 January 2025, the Council will then consider all information submitted before reaching a decision on whether or not to grant planning permission in spring.

ENDS

For more information or to arrange an interview please contact:

Lily O’Mara, Climate Justice Officer– Sustain lily@sustainweb.org

Fraser Wilson, Communications Manager – Feedback fraser@feedbackglobal.org 07931 783084

Notes to editors:

• King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council’s latest Local Carbon Audit report and district emissions report shows that total gross emissions from council activities are 3,574 tonnes and transport emissions are 389,000 tonnes. The proposed development was estimated by Sustain to be capable of producing up to 120,000 tonnes CO₂ equivalent per year.

• Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, environmental impact assessments must include greenhouse gas emissions and the project’s vulnerability to climate change. Despite this, planning applications for industrial livestock units do not currently include a detailed GHG assessment as the norm.

• Cranswick supplies most of the UK’s grocery retailers and has a strong presence in the wholesale and food service sectors as well as a “substantial export business.”
• Planning Application Documents Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Planning Portal
  • 22/00866/FM: Demolition of existing poultry sheds, construction of 20 new poultry sheds, 4 workers dwellings and associated infrastructure
  • 22/00860/FM: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings in connection with pig finishing provision and other associated works

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-66375309; https://elflaw.org/past-cases/cranswick-pig-finishing-unit-causing-ammonia-and-dust-pollution-in-norfolk/ ; https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/22654554.norfolk-food-firm-fined-75-000-releasing-polluted-liquid-brook/

Feedback, Dale Vince OBE, Chris Packham, Greenpeace, Plant-Based Health Professionals and more join forces to call for action. 

A letter signed by more than 40 environmental, health, dietary and animal protection organisations and campaigners has been sent to the Government today, calling for an end to the “Let’s Eat Balanced” meat marketing campaign by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB). Instead, the Government should be investing in and promoting the consumption of fruit, veg and healthy plant-based foods.

The letter reveals new research which has found that only 29% of respondents in a representative nationwide poll could correctly identify the daily limit of 70g of red and processed meat recommended in official dietary guidance, the Eatwell Guide. Of those who said they understood the guidance, only 35% correctly identified the 70g limit.

Campaigners note that an estimated 38,500 deaths were associated with excessive meat consumption in the UK in 2021, while the government’s official advisory body on Net Zero, the Climate Change Committee, has called for a 20% cut in meat and dairy consumption in the UK by 2030 and identified the AHDB campaign as inconsistent with those goals.

Liam Lysaght, campaigner at Feedback, said: “Ludicrously, current government policy involves spending millions promoting meat on TV and social media, without taking any action to reduce meat and dairy consumption 20 per cent by 2030. This clearly shows the government has its priorities completely the wrong way round and why it must urgently halt its multi-million pound campaigns promoting meat and dairy. With a new food strategy incoming, the government has a pressing opportunity to take diet change seriously – it must take it or lose the trust of the environmental movement.”

Chris Packham, environmentalist and Springwatch presenter, said:  “The AHDB has become little more than an advertising company for the meat and dairy industry – despite retaining the word ‘horticulture’ in its name. The government should be supporting the farmers who are growing the nutritious pulses, fruits and veg that we should all be eating more of, instead of ignoring the expert scientific advice that says if we want to cut emissions we need less meat on our plates. Countries such as Denmark already have strategies to help people to eat more of these foods. Why don’t we?”

Environmentalist Dale Vince, who has signed the letter, said: “This new research shows clearly that most people don’t understand the dangers of eating meat. So, it seems pretty crazy for a government-sponsored body to be promoting meat and dairy when actually the country needs to be informed of the risks and encouraged to eat plant based foods instead. This is a serious breach of the government responsibility to give proper health advice when it comes to food – rather than allowing an official agency to advertise foods that we urgently need to reduce consumption of for the health of people and planet. Our new government should step into the information gap on food, health and sustainability, and tell the people of Britain what the science says about our food choices.”

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) is an arms-length, government-sponsored body of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which signed off its multi-million pound “Let’s Eat Balanced” promotional campaign. Television and social media advertisements forming part of the campaign previously have not made reference to the recommendations on limiting meat consumption.

Dr Shireen Kassam, an NHS consultant and director of Plant-Based Health Professionals said: “Neither red meat nor dairy provide essential nutrients. It is abundantly clear from decades of research that getting protein from plant sources is better for health resulting in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers and dementia. The government has announced it intends to develop a food strategy this year. That strategy must embrace the science and promote plant-based diets.”

Other letter signatories include Caroline Lucas, Dr Amir Khan, the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, Compassion in World Farming and Professor Hugh Montgomery, Co-chair of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change.

Full text of the letter is available here.