.png)
Food Sector Emissions: Organizational Shallow Dives
This report was last updated in December 2022.
Our “shallow dive” investigations focus on understanding an organization’s general level of promise across Giving Green criteria (e.g., evidence of effectiveness) and topic-specific criteria (e.g., alignment with strategy-specific theory of change). We publish our shallow dive reports to promote research transparency. These reports represent our initial research output on each organization, which we use to determine whether our team should prioritize investigating an organization in greater depth. For more information on our research process, please see “2022 updates to Giving Green’s approach and recommendations.” Donors specifically interested in reducing food sector emissions may want to consider the below organizations as part of a portfolio of organizations supporting the development of alternative proteins.
This page includes shallow dives on the following organizations:
New Harvest
Who are they and what do they do?
Overview
New Harvest is a nonprofit research institute founded in 2004 that advances open research into cellular agriculture, including cultivated meat and dairy products.[1] It funds research in cellular agriculture and convenes stakeholders. It also conducts public and media outreach.[2] To the best of our knowledge, it is among the very few nonprofits that advocate for cellular agriculture. New Harvest conducts work in the US, Canada, and the Netherlands.[3]
Catalytic research grants
According to New Harvest, funders have historically neglected research into cellular agriculture because as an interdisciplinary discipline, it does not fit neatly into many traditional funding agencies’ research priorities.[4] New Harvest said that funding early-stage research could be catalytic if it helps researchers collect initial data and be better positioned when applying for larger subsequent grants from other sources.[5] New Harvest’s fellowship program also develops a pipeline of talent for companies working on cellular agriculture. Building a talent pool fills a capacity gap because it has been challenging for some cellular agriculture companies to recruit employees with the niche technical skills that they require.[6]
Community alignment
New Harvest creates bridges between its research fellows, industry, government, and philanthropy.[7] For example, it facilitates group meetings between its research fellows and runs a yearly conference.[8] By aligning stakeholders, New Harvest aims to identify unmet needs and encourage collaboration.
Emphasis on research transparency
New Harvest defaults to open access in its work to encourage transparency in cellular agriculture.[9] Its intellectual property, including its research and images, is free to use and distribute. For example, an ongoing project for New Harvest is its open-source bioreactor, which is meant to enhance global access to cellular agriculture. New Harvest’s openness is intended to create new norms in cellular agriculture and could accelerate research by lowering barriers to information.
Public engagement
New Harvest’s work on public engagement includes its podcast series, active social media outlets, and various talks (e.g., a TED Talk on cultured meat that has more than 2M views as of July 2022).
What have they accomplished or claim to have accomplished?
New Harvest’s history of accomplishments includes the following:
Research grants and programming – New Harvest disbursed 46 grants to 31 universities, totaling $3.2M in research funding.[10] It estimates that this funding helped researchers secure a further $17M in follow-up grants from nonprofits and government agencies.[11]
Community development – New Harvest has helped launch two companies: Perfect Day and The EVERY Company.[12]
Policy engagement – In 2020, New Harvest worked with the National Engineering Biology Steering Committee and consulted with Ontario Genomics to develop a report on cellular agriculture in Canada.[13] This report gave the Canadian government instructions on capitalizing on cellular agriculture. New Harvest has also worked with 50 cellular agriculture companies to create a peer-reviewed article on food safety considerations in producing cell-cultured meat.[14] Our understanding is that this article is intended to inform the US Food and Drug Administration of research priorities within cellular agriculture.
What potential do they have for impact?
Climate benefits of cultured meat
Our take is that New Harvest could positively impact the climate by reducing demand for conventional livestock products, especially beef and dairy. Namely, displacing conventional livestock products with cellular agriculture could curb food sector emissions by lowering direct emissions from cattle and reducing deforestation and land-use change related to animal agriculture. Additionally, farmers could potentially use some of the land they would have used for animal agriculture for carbon sequestration instead.[15] We focus this section on cultivated meat over cultivated dairy products and eggs because beef has a larger carbon footprint than dairy and eggs.[16]
Uncertainties on cultured meat’s ability to reduce emissions
Cultivated meat will not necessarily have a positive climate impact. Uncertainties on cultivated meat’s ability to reduce emissions include the following:
Whether people produce cultivated meat with clean or dirty energy sources – Cultivated meat production is highly energy-intensive because it must replicate the biotic processes inside of animals (e.g., disease prevention, temperature regulation, nutrient delivery) at an industrial scale in bioreactors.[17] Unless lower-carbon energy sources power cultivated meat production, it will lead to carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere.[18]
Whether cultivated meat can be produced cost-effectively at scale – Cultivated meat production’s ability to scale is unclear because it faces significant technical challenges, such as the high cost of producing growth factors, shortcomings in existing bioreactor designs, and the risk of contamination.[19]
Whether people will substitute conventional meat with cultivated meat – We believe that cultivated meat’s acceptability and ability to displace conventional meat are open questions. Our understanding is that consumers may view cultivated meat as inferior to conventional meat, unnatural, or unsafe, especially if campaigns by meat companies and interest groups reinforce this view.
What foods people will substitute with cultured meat – Some livestock products are more highly-emitting than others. If people substitute cultivated meat for conventional beef, emissions would likely decrease. However, this may not be true if consumers substituted cultivated meat for conventional chicken.
As one of the few nonprofits working on cultivated meat, we believe New Harvest has probably advanced cultivated meat’s development timeline. However, New Harvest’s impact on climate emissions is currently uncertain, since it remains unclear whether cultivated meat will transform industrial agriculture.
Cost-effectiveness
As a rough plausibility check, we developed a back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) to estimate New Harvest’s cost-effectiveness (in terms of dollars per metric ton of CO2-equivalent reduced/avoided). This BOTEC includes highly subjective guess parameters and should not be taken literally. In particular, we guessed cultivated meat production between 2025 and 2029, how much of the cultivated meat would substitute for conventional beef, how many tons of CO2-equivalent each ton of cultivated meat would reduce, and the impact that funding one year of New Harvest’s operations would have on the timeline of at-scale cultivated meat production.[20]
We tested a range of emission scenarios based on different estimates for conventional beef and cultured meat emissions.[21] Overall, we guess New Harvest could plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation.[22] However, given the number of guesses in our BOTEC, we have low confidence in the ability of our BOTEC to estimate New Harvest’s cost-effectiveness.[23]
How strong is the organization, and what are their risks?
As of December 2022, New Harvest has seven staff members, including full-time and part-time employees and contractors.[24] Overall, we do not see any major organizational risks at New Harvest.
What is their financial need?
In 2022, Animal Charity Evaluators recommended New Harvest as a Standout Charity for its potential for improving animal welfare.[25]
As of December 2022, New Harvest has an operating budget of $2.2M and a fundraising goal of $2.3M.[26] Its 2023 budget will likely be smaller because it will give out less grant money.[27] New Harvest has set a goal of raising $18.5M between 2022 and 2025.[28] It would spend $10.1M on advancing open research, $3.4M on fostering policy engagement, $3.1M on community alignment, and $1.9M on sustaining organizational growth.[29]
Our take
Because New Harvest focuses only on cellular agriculture, its long-term climate impact will depend on whether this technology becomes cost-effective at scale by using zero-carbon energy and displacing demand for conventional livestock products. Donors specifically interested in reducing food sector emissions may want to consider New Harvest as part of a portfolio of organizations focused on alternative proteins.
Endnotes
[1] “New Harvest is a nonprofit research institute that supports open, public cultured meat research. Founded in 2004, we are the world’s longest-running organization dedicated to advancing the field of cellular agriculture.” “Who We Are” n.d.
[2] “Pipelines for Talent Development: We fund the research projects and educational opportunities which train students in the unique set of skills required to grow meat from cells. Bridges Between Stakeholders: We forge partnerships across sectors and between disciplines, with leaders in academia, government, philanthropy, and industry. Roads to New Discoveries: We support high-risk, high-payoff ideas—novel lines of research that may seem like science fiction today but could transform our food system tomorrow.” “What We Do” n.d.
[3] US and Canada: “With our other foundations, in the US and Canada, we hope to find ways to create funding and resource synergies across these regions, as well as help find opportunities for those seeking to expand from one location to another.” “Launching Stichting New Harvest Netherland” n.d. Netherlands: “In looking for a launching point for New Harvest’s work in Europe, the Netherlands was an obvious choice given its historical connection with cellular agriculture, and cultured meat in particular.” “Launching Stichting New Harvest Netherland” n.d.
[4] “Scientific breakthroughs in cellular agriculture are limited by a lack of funding for pre-competitive, early-stage research. Typically, the trajectory for biotechnology begins with government-funded, basic research that is too expensive and exploratory for companies to conduct in house. Once that discovery-stage research becomes promising, companies translate the findings out of the lab and into products that change the world. Because it lies at the intersection of food and medical science, cultured meat is outside the scope of existing grants from traditional funding agencies. New Harvest fills that funding gap, providing researchers with the support they need to conduct that crucial, discovery-stage research which precipitates breakthroughs.” “What We Do,” n.d.
[5] Correspondence with New Harvest, 2022-07-18.
[6] “Beyond research is the challenge of building up a talent pool that could staff a thriving cell ag sector. Several companies have had trouble recruiting employees from extremely niche fields like tissue and bioprocess engineering, and as difficult as it is to find people with high-level skill sets, finding people who know how to apply them to food is more challenging still.” “Lab to Table,” 2021-09-29.
[7] “We forge partnerships across sectors and between disciplines, with leaders in academia, government, philanthropy, and industry.” “What We Do” n.d.
[8] Group meetings: “Held approximately 170 group meetings with grantees to provide the opportunity for peer-to-peer support and scientific feedback.” “Program 1: Research Grants and Programming,” n.d. Yearly conference: “New Harvest 2022 is a live, in-person event about the emerging field of cellular agriculture—the growing of animal products like meat, milk, and eggs from cells instead of animals… For a sense of what to expect, check out our past conferences from 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.” “2022 New Harvest About,” 2022-06-09. Number of attendees: New Harvest estimated that 250 people attended its 2022 conference in-person and that a further 200 to 300 people attended the virtual version of the conference. Correspondence with New Harvest, 2022-07-18.
[9] “Our approach is to default to open. To maximize our impact, we ensure our assets are accessible for all to use, re-use, redistribute and build upon. We are building roads to new discoveries by co-creating the shared canon of knowledge needed to drive collective progress in the field.” “Impact,” n.d.
[10] “Since 2015, New Harvest has made 46 grants to 31 universities for a total of over $3.2 million in research funding plus about $3 million in staffing and additional programming costs (figures last updated April of 2022).” “History,” n.d.
[11] “By our estimates, New Harvest’s $3.2 million in research funding has pulled in well over $17 million in follow-up grants from fellow nonprofits and government agencies.” “History,’ n.d.
[12] “These efforts paid off when members of New Harvest’s Facebook group approached Isha with ideas to make cell-cultured milk (Ryan Pandya and Perumal Gandhi) and eggs (Arturo Elizondo and David Anchel). Isha encouraged each pair to apply to synthetic biology accelerators as The New Harvest Dairy and Egg Projects respectively. Fast forward to today and those projects are now multi-million precision fermentation companies Perfect Day Foods and The Every Company with products on the market.” “History,” n.d.
[13] “In early 2020, shortly after returning to Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic, I was invited to join the National Engineering Biology Steering Committee. It was an honor to be invited to this committee to plot a course for the future of bio-manufacturing in Canada. It was assembled by Ontario Genomics, a government-funded non-profit organization which manages genomics research projects and platforms. The first collaborative outcome of the steering committee was this white paper, discussing how engineering biology is a national opportunity to advance Canada’s knowledge-based economy and create high-quality jobs and training opportunities.” “New Report! Cellular Agriculture: Canada’s $12.5 Billion Opportunity in Food Innovation,” 2021-11-30.
[14] “This diagram serves as a framework to identify potential manufacturing hazards, and was developed in consultation with 87 industry representatives from 50 cell-cultured meat and seafood companies and cell-cultured meat and seafood researchers, who substantiated the accuracy and validity of the diagram.” Ong et al., 2021.
[15] “Extensive land uses to meet dietary preferences incur a ‘carbon opportunity cost’ given the potential for carbon sequestration through ecosystem restoration.” Hayek et al, 2021.
[16] Beef has a carbon footprint of about 100 kg of CO2eq per kg of beef. In comparison, cheese has a carbon footprint of about 24 kg of CO2eq per kg of cheese. Eggs emit about 5 kg of CO2eq per kg of eggs. For more information, see “Environmental Impacts of Food Production,” 2022.
[17] “While uncertainty ranges are large, the findings suggest that in vitro biomass cultivation could require smaller quantities of agricultural inputs and land than livestock; however, those benefits could come at the expense of more intensive energy use as biological functions such as digestion and nutrient circulation are replaced by industrial equivalents.” Mattick et al, 2015.
[18] CO2 accumulation: “Under continuous high global consumption, cultured meat results in less warming than cattle initially, but this gap narrows in the long term and in some cases cattle production causes far less warming, as CH4 emissions do not accumulate, unlike CO2. We then model a decline in meat consumption to more sustainable levels following high consumption, and show that although cattle systems generally result in greater peak warming than cultured meat, the warming effect declines and stabilizes under the new emission rates of cattle systems, while the CO2 based warming from cultured meat persists and accumulates even under reduced consumption, again overtaking cattle production in some scenarios. We conclude that cultured meat is not prima facie climatically superior to cattle; its relative impact instead depends on the availability of decarbonized energy generation and the specific production systems that are realized.” Lynch and Pierrehumbert, 2019. Tracking climate impact: We have not heard of cultured meat companies that have committed to using low-carbon power. Additionally, New Harvest does not track climate-related metrics.
[19] “Low growth rate, metabolic inefficiency, catabolite inhibition, and shear-induced cell damage will all limit practical bioreactor volume and attainable cell density. Equipment and facilities with adequate microbial contamination safeguards have high capital costs. The projected costs of suitably pure amino acids and protein growth factors are also high. The replacement of amino-acid media with plant protein hydrolysates is discussed and requires further study. Capital- and operating-cost analyses of conceptual cell-mass production facilities indicate economics that would likely preclude the affordability of their products as food.” Humbird, 2021.
[20] Our model used CO2-equivalent to estimate emissions instead of evaluating the warming effects of different types of greenhouse gases over time. According to Lynch and Pierrehumbert (2019), cultivatedcultured meat may have lower emissions than conventional meat over the short term, but this gap will likely narrow over the long term due to CO2 from cultivatedcultured meat production accumulating in the atmosphere. However, this analysis relies on the assumptions that cultivated meat production will use the same energy production methods that we currently rely on and that this will continue to be true for 1,000 years. Both assumptions seem unlikely to be true.
[21] We used values from “Environmental Impacts of Food Production,” 2022 and Lynch and Pierrehumbert, 2019. There is uncertainty on emissions from cultivated meat production because it is still in its early stages of development.
[22] As a heuristic to guide our research prioritization, we consider something to plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation if its BOTEC-estimated cost-effectiveness is within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e).
[23] We describe our confidence as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods our takeaway (i.e., [not] plausibly within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider recommending) is correct. Low = 0-70%, medium = 70-90%, high = 90-100%.
[24] We counted the number of employees listed under “Staff.” “People,” n.d.
[25] Standout charity, 2022: New Harvest is listed as one of Animal Charity Evaluators’ (ACE) standout charities. Additionally, “New Harvest was selected as an ACE Standout Charity in both December 2015 and November 2021.” Animal Charity Evaluators – Recommended Charities, 2022.
[26] Correspondence with New Harvest, 2022-12-05.
[27] Correspondence with New Harvest, 2022-07-18.
[28] "Through an unprecedented $18.5 million campaign, we will identify and address critical, neglected issues that stand in the way of cellular agriculture’s progress.” “Cellular Agriculture for the Public Good,” n.d.
[29] “Campaign Breakdown. Advance Open Research: $10.1M. Foster Policy Engagement: $3.4M. Align the Community: $3.1M. Sustain Organizational Growth: $1.9M.” “Cellular Agriculture for the Public Good,” n.d.
Plant Based Foods Institute
Who are they and what do they do?
Background
The Plant Based Foods Institute (PBFI) is the 501(c)(3) nonprofit arm of the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), the first and only trade association representing over 300 US plant-based food companies and affiliates.[1] PBFA has over 300 member companies and affiliates.[2] PBFI, which was launched in 2022, conducts research and creates opportunities for plant-based food companies and US farmers.[3] PBFA can use its funds to support PBFI, but PBFI funds cannot be used the other way around.[4]
As Giving Green is part of IDinsight, which is itself a charitable, tax-exempt organization, we are only offering an opinion on the charitable activities of PBFI, and not on PBFA.[5]
Research on plant-based foods
Sustainable Sourcing Initiative
According to PBFI, the organization “[identifies] gaps in research to illuminate and prioritize partnerships and strategies needed to drive change towards a plant-based food system."[6] A direct outcome of this work has been its Sustainable Sourcing Initiative (SSI).[7] PBFI said SSI encourages US plant-based food companies to source domestically-grown ingredients, adopt regenerative agriculture practices, and support diverse and historically marginalized farmers and actors in the plant-based supply chain.[8] PBFA’s work in 2020, which feeds into SSI, included identifying and mapping key ingredients used in plant-based foods and learning where companies are having issues with sourcing their inputs.[9] PBFI is working on identifying state and federal policy levers that could support this initiative.[10]
Strategies that promote environmental benefits of plant-based foods
PBFI said it will leverage existing data and life cycle assessments to evaluate plant-based foods’ environmental benefits from their development to disposal and identify research gaps.[11] It also said it will identify and share opportunities for sustainable and equitable business practices including packaging selection, ingredient sourcing, processing, and manufacturing.[12] PBFI’s research is meant to inform work related to helping companies set and achieve Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) targets. In particular, PBFI will work with major corporate buyers to include plant-based foods as part of their ESG goals. For example, PBFI will help companies measure their environmental impact and advocate for offsetting animal-based products with plant-based products.[13]
Creating opportunities for plant-based food companies and farmers
PBFI has developed several strategies to better position the plant-based food industry. These strategies include but are not limited to the following:
Advocating for plant-based foods through policy – PBFI advocates for policies that promote plant-based diets. One of its objectives for 2022 to 2024 is to influence the US government’s updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which will be updated in 2025.[14]
Building an international ecosystem for plant-based food companies – PBFI said it has been collaborating with similar organizations elsewhere in the world to advance plant-based food systems.[15] For example, it is involved in the International Plant-Based Foods Working Group, which includes trade associations and other convening bodies from eight countries.[16] Also, PBFI is establishing an international regranting initiative for grassroots advocacy against restrictive labeling regulations for plant-based foods.[17]
What have they accomplished or claim to have accomplished?
As a newly launched organization, PBFI is still in the initial stages of developing its model and implementing its programs. We note a few early outputs that PBFI has shared with us.[18] We look forward to reviewing its accomplishments in the future when the organization is more established.
Sustainable Sourcing Initiative – As of December 2022, PBFI has four domestic supply chain pilot programs underway with plant-based food companies Lupii, Upton’s Naturals, Oatly, and Country Crock.[19] PBFI said that industry interest in SSI enabled it to present the program at seven public events and that it has shared information about its initiative to about 40 organizations and institutions, 18 non-PBFA member companies, 19 farmers across the U.S, 31 PBFA Member companies, and over 15 policy supporters.[20] PBFI has also worked with a sustainability consulting firm to develop a methodology for measuring climate impact associated with SSI pilots.[21]
Plant-Based Migration Analysis Report – PBFI collaborated with Kroger and 84.51°, a retail data analytics company, to analyze the behavior of around eight million plant-based consumer households between 2019-2021.[22] The research measured changes in plant-based customer spending in animal-based and plant-based foods across five categories and explored plant-based consumer motivations for these shifts. PBFI said, “These insights can inform decision-making within the dynamic plant-based foods sector and help the entire food retail industry understand best practices in merchandising and promotion that can influence strategies for action.”[23]
What potential do they have for impact?
PBFI’s work could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by shifting some of America’s meat consumption to plant-based meats. We describe several possible levers below:
Sustainable Sourcing Initiative – SSI could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and/or allow the industry to substantially increase in competitiveness and scale if it tackles a major ingredient supply issue that the private sector does not address. However, we are unsure whether this is the case. This is not an objective of SSI and we do not believe this is an issue.
Increasing the availability of plant-based products in institutional settings – We are under the impression that revisions to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans could result in increased plant-based food purchases and reduced meat purchases by any government or corporation that follows dietary guidelines when making food purchases (e.g., school lunches).
Cost-effectiveness
As a rough plausibility check, we developed a back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PBFI (in terms of dollars per metric ton of CO2-equivalent reduced/avoided). This BOTEC includes highly subjective guess parameters and should not be taken literally. In particular, we guessed PBFI’s budget from 2022 to 2024, a target number of meat consumers, the impact of plant-based meat on reducing meat consumption, and how much of that reduced meat consumption could be attributed to PBFI. Additionally, we did not analyze the possibility of donations to PBFI reducing donations to PBFA, and what impact that would have on overall emissions. Overall, we guess PBFI could plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation.[24] However, given the number of guesses in our BOTEC, we have low confidence in the ability of our BOTEC to estimate PBFI’s cost-effectiveness.[25]
How strong is the organization, and what are their risks?
As of December 2022, PBFI has eleven employees, including two consultants.[26] All of PBFI’s employees also work at PBFA.[27] PBFI has developed a board independent from PBFA and is now governing independently of PBFA.[28] Overall, we do not see any major organizational risks at PBFI.
What is their financial need?
PBFA’s 2022 budget is $2.3M while PBFI’s budget is $1.2M.[29] PBFA’s revenue is roughly half membership dues and half donations. PBFI’s budget is entirely reliant on major gifts. PBFI and PBFA plan to have a budget of $5.3M across the two entities by the end of 2024.[30] It seems likely that PBFI has room for more funding in the future.
The Open Philanthropy Project has previously funded PBFA as part of its farm animal welfare focus area. This includes a two-year grant made in September 2021 of $3.5M to provide general support.[31] PBFI has also secured funding to advance its international regranting work.[32]
Our take
Because PBFI is still in the early stages of setting up its work, we have limited information on how well PBFI can carry out its mission. We may reinvestigate PBFI in the future when its work becomes more developed and it has a clearer track record of accomplishments. In particular, we view PBFI’s work on increasing the availability of plant-based products in institutional settings as potentially promising. Donors specifically interested in reducing food sector emissions may want to consider PBFI as part of a portfolio of organizations focused on alternative proteins.
Endnotes
[1] 501(c)(3) status: Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14. Relationship to PBFA: “We are a sister organization to the Plant Based Foods Association.” PBFI – About, n.d. First and only trade association: “As the first and only trade association representing the nation’s leading plant-based food companies, PBFA works to champion, strengthen, and elevate our members and the plant-based foods industry.” PBFA – Homepage, n.d. Giving Green note: PBFA is a 501(c)(6) organization. Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[2] “300+ member companies and affiliates” PBFA – Homepage, n.d..
[3] PBFI’s legal structure has been in place since 2018, which is when PBFA created a 501(c)(3) entity under the name PBFA Research and Education Fund. This structure enabled tax deductible donations to PBFA’s mission and its funds were primarily used for research. In its original form, PBFA Research and Education did not have a separate board or set of goals from PBFA. Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[4] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[5] PBFA is a 501(c)(6) organization. Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[6] “We identify gaps in research to illuminate and prioritize partnerships and strategies needed to drive change towards a plant-based food system.” PBFI – Homepage, n.d.
[7] Although PBFA’s website describes this work as its Domestic Sourcing Initiative, we use the name Sustainable Sourcing Initiative to reflect PBFI’s preferences. Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[8] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[9] For an overview of this work, please see “Connecting Plant-Based Foods with American Agriculture: 2020 Report,” 2020.
[10] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[11] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[12] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[13] Information on PBFI’s ESG goals: Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[14] Objectives: Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14. For more information on PBFI and PBFA’s policy work, please see PBFA – Nutrition, n.d.
[15] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14 and 2022-12-12.
[16] Organizations under this working group include Plant Based Foods Association, European Alliance for Plant-based Foods, Plant Based Foods Association China, European Plant-Based Foods Association, Plant-Based Foods of Canada, Plant-based Food Alliance UK, Plant Based Foods Industry Association, and Asociación de Emprendedores Veganos de México. International Plant Based Foods Working Group, n.d.
[17] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[18] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[19] Lupii: “Through the Domestic Sourcing Initiative, Lupii was connected with Timeless and Deakin Farm, where lupini beans have been added to their diverse crop rotation in an innovative trial program.” DSI In Action, n.d. Upton’s Naturals: “Upton Naturals, a company that specializes in high-protein, seitan-based products, was seeking a high-quality domestic source of seitan’s essential ingredient: Wheat gluten. After years of using imported ingredients—all the while searching for a viable local wheat source—they recently turned to the Domestic Sourcing Initiative to build a sustainable relationship with domestic farmers and ingredient suppliers.” DSI In Action, n.d. Oatly: PBFI’s connection to Oatly is described in “Plant Based Foods Association: Iowa,” 2022. Country Crock: Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[20] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[21] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[22] “To answer this question, leading U.S. retailer Kroger collaborated with the Plant Based Foods Institute (PBFI), sister non-profit to the Plant Based Foods Association, to conduct a broad, two-part research study to understand plant-based shopper behavior and sentiment, leveraging 84.51° data science and insights expertise. The Plant-Based Foods Migration Analysis, part one of the research, measured how plant-based customers changed their spending in animal-based and plant-based foods across five categories – milk, refrigerated and frozen meats, frozen meals, cheese, and yogurt, and reveals plantbased consumer shifts in engagement within each grocery segment. The comprehensive research evaluated purchases by nearly eight million households over two years and categorized shoppers into five segments, ranging from shoppers new to the plant-based category to shoppers leaving the category.” Understanding Consumer Shifts from Animal-Based to Plant-Based Foods in the Retail Environment, 2022.
[23] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.
[24] As a heuristic to guide our research prioritization, we consider something to plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation if its BOTEC-estimated cost-effectiveness is within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e).
[25] We describe our confidence as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods our takeaway (i.e., [not] plausibly within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider recommending) is correct. Low = 0-70%, medium = 70-90%, high = 90-100%.
[26] We counted the number of employees listed under PBFI – Our Team, n.d.
[27] PBFA – Our Team, 2022.
[28] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-21.
[29] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[30] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-07-14.
[31] “Open Philanthropy recommended a grant of $3,500,000 over two years to the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) for general support. PBFA works to promote a competitive market environment for plant-based alternatives to animal products.” Plant Based Foods Association – General Support (2021).
[32] Correspondence with PBFI, 2022-12-12.