Economic, political, and futurist agendas

The widespread adoption of a 'plant-based' dietary transformation away from livestock, as has been promoted in the past by religious sects [cf. elsewhere], animal rights groups, and some of the radical environmental activists, is unlikely to gain acceptability in policies and mainstream discourse [cf. elsewhere] without significant involvement of powerful interests. In this article, we argue that whether a new dietary paradigm can move beyond being a temporary trend or fad not only depends on the societal 'conditions of possibility' but also, and especially, on the support it receives from political, journalistic, academic, and industrial stakeholders [see also Leroy et al. 2023]. 
 
This article identifies eight key actors pushing for a radical food transformation:
  • Situating the problem: profitability, ideology, and technocracy
  • Key actor 1 - transnational corporations
  • Key actor 2 - investors and vegan tech companies
  • Key actor 3 - capitalist power centres
  • Key actor 4 - philanthrocapitalists
  • Key actor 5 - non-governmental organizations
  • Key actor 6 - ecotopian futurists
  • Key actor 7 - global management institutions
  • Key actor 8 - public-private partnerships
_________________________________

  • Situating the problem: profitability, ideology, and technocracy

The current surge in media and political attention toward a food system moving away from livestock, despite limited popular support for vegetarian diets, can be partially attributed to contemporary mass media culture. Additionally, it is influenced by 'white-hat bias' among journalists, academics, and public officials. However, these factors alone cannot fully account for the extent and persistence of this phenomenon. In contrast to historical forms of vegetarianism that remained marginalized, a substantial portion of the current anti-livestock discourse at high levels is the result of a symbiotic convergence of profitability, ideology, and technocracy. Below, it is explained how some radical dietary change initiatives, like the EAT Foundation's 'Great Food Transformation', are fervently championed by influential vested interests and ideological agendas. 

Further reading: 

Both dietary status quo and change rely on instrumental (e.g., lobbying), discursive (i.e., shaping of norms, values, and beliefs), and structural (i.e., controlling choice) power play [Sievert et al. 2020]. There are various explanations for the current mediatized and political interest in a food system that would radically move away from livestock, despite limited support in worldwide electorates for vegetarian diets [cf. Wikipedia; Allen 2021; Morisson 2021]. For a part, this disconnect is driven by (1) the peculiarities of contemporary mass media culture and its situation within the 'attention economy' [Leroy et al. 2018], and (2) by zealotry and white-hat bias among some journalists, academics, and public officials [see elsewhere]. This is, however, insufficient to explain the scale and persistence of the phenomenon. 
 
In contrast to historical and marginalized forms of vegetarianism, much (if not most) of the current high-level trend of anti-livestock discourse is caused by a symbiotic convergence of profitability, ideology, and technocracy. Below, it will be documented how grand schemes for dietary change, such as a Great Food Transformation [see elsewhere], are aggressively endorsed by powerful vested interests, based on a rationale of 'sustainable development', market expansion, societal design, and resource control. The main supporters of this Transformation/Transition to a new food system that is low in animal source foods (ASFs) will be identified as clusters of (1) transnational corporations, (2) investors and vegan tech companies, (3) capitalist power centers, (4) philanthrocapitalists, (5) non-governmental organizations, (6) ecotopian futurists, (7) global management institutions, and (8) their public-private partnerships.

Each of the above-listed actors will be addressed separately. Yet, it is important to have in mind that what is essentially an alignment of self-interests should not be mistaken for a monolithic conspiracy (whether or not as an attempt to destabilize criticism) [Rothkopf 2009]. Power networks are fluid and 'messy' constellations. Some of the agendas involved are divergent if not contradictory, although think tanks indeed allow for the streamlining of strategies. Furthermore, not all outcomes are to be categorically dismissed as harmful, but a distinction is needed between what is beneficial (e.g., innovation) and what is not (e.g., the further erosion of food resilience, livelihoods, and public health).
 
  • Key actor 1 - transnational corporations
 
Prominent food corporations and their lobby groups, such as WBCSD, are promoting 'plant-based' products as nutritious and eco-friendly alternatives to animal source foods, despite these often being highly processed products designed for fast food consumption (e.g., imitation burgers, nuggets, and sausages). Even major meat companies are entering the plant-based market, presenting themselves as 'protein companies'. The process of transforming plant-derived materials, such as starches, oils, and protein isolates, into imitation foods relies on advanced technology, giving food processors a competitive advantage. In many respects, this involves technological and marketing strategies reminiscent of the low-fat trend.

Further reading:  

As a traditional stronghold within global food systems, the livestock sector (and companies that are processing its materials) can look back at decades of lobbying activities, marketing, and rhetorical strategies [Hannan 2020; Sievert et al. 2020; Lazarus et al. 2021; Vallone & Lambin 2023]. These actors are now focusing on emerging markets shaped by Gen Z and Millennials [Bruell 2017] and the re-branding of traditional beef [Southey 2020] and pork [Chafea 2016]. In contrast to the past, however, many transnational food corporations are now actively supporting the 'plant-based' rhetoric [Cohen & Leroy 2019]. Even powerful actors from the meat sector (e.g., JBS, Smithfield, and Tyson) have acquired their own production lines [Yaffe-Bellany 2019; Sorvino 2020; Askew 2021], rebranding themselves as 'protein companies' and investing in vegan tech, such as Memphis Meats, Beyond Meat, or New Wave Foods [Piper 2019; Tyson Ventures 2021]. The category is seen as a necessary one for future business extension [Mitchell 2021].
 
Capitalizing on this trend, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has set up a partnership (FReSH) with the EAT foundation [EAT; WBCSD] in support of a Great Food Transformation [see elsewhere]. WBCSD is an industry lobby platform and its President sits on EAT's Advisory Board [EAT 2020]. Multinationals affiliated with FReSH have been promoting a 'plant-based' transition [e.g., Pointing 2017; Wood 2018; Hyslop 2019], sometimes with strong anti-meat overtones [Kowitt 2019]. Unilever, e.g., aims to achieve €1bn sales from vegan products by 2027 [Smithers 2020], collaborating with the World Wide Fund for Nature and academia [WWF 2019; Askew 2020].
 
Broad support from corporations otherwise invested in selling ultraprocessed products, is less paradoxical than may seem at first. Through intensive marketing campaigns, these companies are able to present 'plant-based' imitation foods [see elsewhere] as 'healthy' and 'sustainable' solutions to consumers. Despite the name, however, the 'plant-based' sales argument mostly refers to highly processed bulk materials derived from monocultured crops (starches, protein extracts, oils), rather than to wholesome plants. Partnership of Beyond Meat with PepsiCo, to produce 'sustainable' plant-based snacks (PLANeT) [PepsiCo 2021] or with McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and KFC [Ellis 2021], is more about markets than about the planet or nutrition [cf. Durden 2021]. Such inversion of nutritional common sense is nonetheless compatible with the post-modern industrial paradigm, in which a predictable flow of cheap substrates is able to generate 'added value' based on lifestyle branding [Baudrillard 1970; Ulijaszek et al. 2012; Scrinis 2013]. 
 
In addition, the transformation of amorphous and untasty (often bitter) plant-derived materials into palatable foods that mimic the animal-sourced originals requires specialized high-tech interventions, an expertise in which the sector excels and has a competitive edge. Due to the now limited innovation potential of conventional processed foods, such ‘greenwashing’ holds the largest potential to revive the food market, ever since the low-fat craze triggered a profitable model for light products via tech-fixing. In today's Western upper-middle classes, previous anxieties about body weight are now overshadowed by existential climate angst and its implications for 'moral eating' [see elsewhere]. 

  • Key actor 2 - investors and vegan tech companies
 
The 'plant-based' trend offers market prospects for a corporate system in need of expansion, with transnational companies and vegan startups attracting substantial investments from Silicon Valley and other major investors. This shift has broad geopolitical implications as it involves (natural) resource control, carbon credit trading, and international trade, drawing the interest of global power centres. Investors are also influenced by forecasts of technology-driven market disruptions, such as the prediction of animal agriculture's decline in the coming decades. Moreover, some influential investors have ideological agendas and connections to animal rights organizations (e.g. FAIRR, KBW, and Open Philanthropy).

Further reading: 

Financial speculation has become key to overcome the stagnation tendencies of global markets [Shoup 2015]. Global money management can be narrowed down to 17 financial giants, collectively managing >$40 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital [Phillips 2018]. This vast amount of capital is overseen by +/-200 managers who are interconnected through networks of association and within global capitalist power centers [see below]. Over-accumulation of wealth in the hands of elites causes capital to have limited safe investment opportunities, leading to more risky investments. As described above, the 'plant-based' option promises a new market horizon to a corporate system that is urgently in need of expansion. In addition to the novel product lines developed by transnational companies, business operations focus on vegan startups producing imitations and lab-generated ASFs [see elsewhere], thereby attracting funds from Silicon Valley and other large investors [Luneau 2020]. Some of these startups even begin resembling major food companies (e.g., Beyond Meat being valued at nearly $9 billion in 2019) [Yaffe-Bellany 2019]. In turn, this model for a future food system will activate supply chains, market speculations, and trade wars over what are expected to be the resources of the future.
 
This evolution comes with geopolitical implications related to resource control and international trade, triggering the interest of global power centers [e.g., CFR and WEF; see below]. Most of what goes into vegan burger patties, for instance, is now produced by Chinese processors (85% of Beyond Meat's pea protein, up to 79% of soy protein isolate, 50% of textured soy protein, and 23% of soy protein concentrate used worldwide) [Weiner 2020]. The plant-based milk imitation product Oatly also depends heavily on China, with China Resources being its major shareholder [Kwok 2021]. Others wish to conquer that same market, such as the company Verdient intending to become North America's largest organic pea protein plant [BusinessWire 2017; Perspective 2018]. One of the investors in Verdient is the producer of the pro-vegan movie 'The Game Changers', James Cameron [Ng 2019]. In the last decade, >$90 billion has been invested for buying up >74 million acres of farmland in 78 countries, leading to mass corporate farming for export, to the detriment of indigenous farmers [Phillips 2018].
 
In addition to their interest in new food products and strategic raw materials, financial giants are interested in climate change investing [Phillips 2018]. This results in carbon credit trade, land speculation, and the commodification and financialization of natural resources, such as forests [No Deal for Nature]. Narratives of 'conservation', 'afforestation', and 'protected areas' are developed by corporate-linked non-governmental organizations [e.g., WWF and WRI; see below] and amplified by such global power centers as the WEF in Davos [see below]. Within the global battle for resources, it may be no coincidence that these actors frequently refer to the argument that livestock takes up 'too much land', remaining silent on the real-world complexities of land use and biodiversity [see elsewhere].
 
Investors are sensitive to forecasts of technology-driven market disruptions, such as the predictions that animal agriculture will collapse within the next decades, propagated by certain consulting firms [Kearney 2020] and think tanks [RethinkX 2019; the founder of RethinkX is a member of the advisory board of the influential EAT foundation, EAT 2020]. Some investors have ideological agendas of their own, supporting animal rights groups. 
 
    • The Good Food Institute (GFI) is a lobby group for vegan tech companies, with the aim to mobilize scientists, obtain political support and favorable regulatory frameworks, influence public opinion, and convince investors [GFI 2020]. It was founded by Bruce Friedrich in 2016, using $540,000 originating from Mercy for Animals [Popper 2019], followed by a $2.5-million (2016-2017) [Luneau 2020] and further injections [Naik] by the Open Philanthropy Project (OPP), providing one of the many inter-linkages with philantrocapitalism [see below]. It serves as a front for animal rights activism. Previously, Friedrich was the head of public campaigns at PETA, an organization of which he was a member for 15 years [Popper 2019]. Similar platforms are the Alliance for Meat, Poultry, and Seafood Innovation [AMPS] and the European Alliance for Plant-Based Foods, of which GFI is a member [EAPF].
    • New Crop Capital is a venture capital fund that raised $25m from an anonymous investor when it was established in 2016 to displace animal agriculture [Gunther 2016]. GFI's Bruce Friedrich is its managing trustee and cofounder. New Crop works closely with Stray Dog Capital, a mission-driven fund created by animal welfare advocates [Gunther 2016]. Friedrich is also cofounder of another venture capital firm, Clear Current Capital [Mitchell 2021].
    • Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR) is an investor company of which the membership and wider supporting network comprises institutional investors managing $25 trillion in combined assets [Wikipedia 2020; FAIRR 2020]. It was founded in 2015 by Jeremy Coller, a vegan who wishes to 'end factory farming' [Pointing 2018], with the goal to put pressure on food companies to serve more imitation ASFs [Robinson 2017]. Coller also has a seat on the advisory board of the GFI [GFI 2021]. In 2021, FAIRR organised the 'Rethinking Protein: Accelerating law and policy in the global food system' conference to 'concentrate on legal mechanisms to transition the food system', involving the main actors of Action Track 2 of the UN Food Systems Summit (EAT, GFI, 50by40, UN/WHO) combined with financial actors, animal rights activists, and other vested interests [FAIRR 2021].
    • KBW Ventures and KBW Investments are very supportive of players in the 'plant-based' market [Turak 2020]. In 2020, KBW Ventures invested in the largest funding moment ($161 million) in the history of the cell-based meat industry, together with Richard Branson, Bill Gates, and others [Bridge 2020], after a first injection of $17 million in 2017 [Entrepreneur 2017]. KBW's founder, prince Khaled bin Alwaleed, is the son of a Saudi top investor (prince Alwaleed bin Talal, chairman of Kingdom Holding). As a vegan, he refers to dairy as the 'root of environmental evil' [Halligan 2018] and has a seat on GFI's advisory board [GFI 2021]. Together with several 'vegan leaders' with ties to GFI, he attended the Nexus Global Summit at the UN Headquarters in 2018 to discuss 'Next Generation Solutions for a World in Transition' [Flink 2018] and is influential in policy-advising circles such as EAT [EAT 2020].
    • BlackRock (BR) is the world's largest investor. The 'shadow bank' has $9 trillion assets under management but directly influences several more [Phillips 2018; Kalappatt 2020; Salmon 2021]. As a predatory form of financial gambling, shadow banking produces vast wealth for a few. BlackRock is a key corporate member at 'President's Circle' level  within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)  [Shoup 2015; see also CFR below]. It was also among the 20 top managers of alternative investments for pension funds in 2012, having alternative assets of almost $1.2 trillion under management together with 11 other CFR corporate members [e.g., Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase]. Interlocking of global capital is common practice, as JPMorgan Chase and 14 other trillion-dollar giants are invested directly in BlackRock [Phillips 2018]. BlackRock has also begun to vote his shares against companies that fail to show 'significant progress' in their transition to the Paris Agreement targets [Fink 2021]. With respect to its interest in the food system, a BlackRock director seats on the advisory board of EAT [EAT 2020].
    • Generation Investment Management (GIM) was co-founded in 2004 by Al Gore and David Blood [Wikipedia], a former Asset Management director of Goldman Sachs' and co-chair of the World Resources Institute [WRI; see below]. Gore's climate groups have invested $200 million in Beyond Meat, while a shift to meat alternatives is promoted by organizations to which he is connected (such as WRI, of which he is ex-member of the board of directors) [Morano 2020; WRI 2020]. GIM is aligned with Kleiner Perkins [BusinessWire 2007], one of Beyond Meat's largest investors [Schubarth 2019] with Gore as a partner. 
    • Happiness Capital, Hanaco Ventures, alternative protein investor CPT Capital, and other venture capital firms, have raised $29 million in support of Redefine Meat, a faux-meat 3D printing company [Everett 2021].
    • TCI: hedge fund run by British billionaire Chris Hohn, the biggest individual donor to Extinction Rebellion (XR). The fund is known as one of the most aggressive activist investors, whereby its $44bn of investments will be used to “force change on companies who refuse to take their environmental emissions seriously”. [Neate 2020] 
    • The Good Food Finance Network [GFFN] is a multi-stakeholder platform combining EAT, FAIRR, Food Systems for the Future, UNEP, and WBCSD, in close collaboration with the World Bank, GEF, Just Rural Transition, and others. It aims to take forward the outcomes of the Finance Lever of the UN Food Systems Summit, integrating the previous Good Food Finance Initiative and Finance Network for Food Systems into a 'single platform for finance leaders'.
    • The Food Systems Economic Commission (FSEC) aims to influence political and economic decision-makers with respect to food system interventions. Two of its main funders are the Rockefeller Foundation and the Wellcome Trust; its 'Principals' are Jeremy Oppenheim (FOLU), Gunhild Stordalen (EAT), and Johan Rockström (PIK/EAT-Lancet) [FSEC]. Within the Commission Francesco Branca (WHO/EAT-Lancet) is also present.
 
  • Key actor 3 - capitalist power centres

Transnational corporations and investors operate within an aggressive globalist economy, in which certain think tanks represent the strategic planning and consensus-forming centres of the capitalist elites. Such think tanks, like the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum in Davos, leverage the interconnections between corporate executives, mass media, and global bureaucrats to shape policy frameworks, including a so-called 'Great Food Transformation' towards a 'Planetary Health Diet'. The latter has been initiated and promoted by the EAT Foundation, a 'Davos for food'.

Further reading: 

Both the transnational corporations and investors mentioned above operate within the bulwark of neoliberal capitalism, constituted of such (overlapping) power centers as the Trilateral Commission (TC), Group of Thirty (G30), Bilderberg Group (BG), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and World Economic Forum (WEF) [Shoup 2015; Phillips 2018]. These think tanks represent the strategic-planning and consensus-forming centers of the plutocracy, i.e., the 'transnational capitalist class' [Sklair 2002] or a 'superclass' of about 6000-7000 people [Rothkopf 2009].
 
It goes without saying that those having the intention to control world markets are also keen on setting the agenda for the food system. The interconnection of corporate executives and globalist bureaucrats facilitates the creation of policy frameworks that are favorable to the envisaged Great Food Transformation [see also below], without which mere supply-and-demand mechanisms would appear as insufficient. To do so, transnational power centers also have leverage over the major global media organizations [Phillips 2018; SWPRS 2021].

    • The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is specialized in US foreign policy, serving as 'Wall Street's Think Tank in the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics' [Shoup 2015]. Besides representing transnational banking and industry, with very close connections to global oil corporations, it counts top officials from the governmental, military, and geopolitical spheres among its members. As such, it is able to strategically map out new directions in a rapidly changing context of capitalist globalization. Although the CFR does not have a focus on the food chain, it is indirectly involved with the Great Food Transformation through its closest allies (e.g., BlackRock, WEF, the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Resouce Institute; see below).
    • The World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos is a transnational organization of corporate, political, intellectual, and civil society leaders, with a 'Foundation Membership' limited to 1,000 of the foremost global corporations. Its buzzword-style communication has been described as an attempt to put a 'progressive gloss on the neoliberal world of austerity, exploitation, dispossession, and destruction imposed by the globalized capitalist class on the people and ecologies of our planet' [Shoup 2015]. The WEF is closely affiliated with the CFR (28 out of its 100 corporate Strategic Partners were also corporate members of the CFR in 2010, and many CFR members have had an important role within the WEF). The forum is highly supportive of the Great Food Transformation [Whiting 2019], whereas EAT itself is a self-declared 'Davos for food' [Richert 2014; Turow-Paul 2016]. Its founder [Gunhild Stordalen] was appointed as a Young Global Leader by the WEF in 2015 [Eidem 2015] and the Great Food Transformation seems to have evolved into the dietary arm of WEF's agenda for a Great Reset [see below].

  • Key actor 4 - philanthrocapitalists
 
Philanthropic foundations play a significant role in shaping public perception and promoting corporate agendas. As such, they hold problematic sway over global health policies, pushing for business-friendly models and technological quick-fixes. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, is both a top donor to the World Health Organization and an investor in 'plant-based' products. It wields considerable influence through its funding of various sectors, from media to research. The Open Philanthropy Project has granted millions to animal rights groups and vegan-tech. It has a large influence over media, providing funding to publications like The Guardian to produce content that portrays animal agriculture as harmful.

Further reading: 

For a corporate agenda to gain favourable public reception, mass media control is crucial [see elsewhere], yet insufficient. The business scheme also needs to be perceived as societally benign and progressive. The World Economic Forum [WEF; see above], for instance, has specified in its mission statement that it is 'committed to improving the state of the world'. In doing so, they find an important partner in philanthrocapitalism. Besides tax avoidance, the latter has the purpose to gain recognition for activities of the predatory corporations it represents, to promote reformist 'solutions' that undercut the need for state intervention and more fundamental change, and to create dependency [Shoup 2015]. Moreover, it has a problematic influence over the development of global health policies. The WHO, for instance, is pushed towards adopting its donors' business models and technological quick-fixes [Global Policy Watch 2019], and is targeted by the ultra-processed food industry through coalition management, involvement in policy formulation, and information management [Lauber et al. 2021]. Ultra-processed ASF 'alternatives' constitute typical examples of the high-tech/quick-fix paradigm [see elsewhere]. 
 
    • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is simultaneously a WHO top donor [Cheney 2020], an investor in 'plant-based' imitation burgers [Morgan 2018; Bloomberg 2019], and one of the most influential private foundations (due to its funding of strategic players in all sectors, from mass media to research) [Navdanya Int 2020]. Although incorporated as a charity, the Foundation may be better seen as a political organization, aiming at leverage over public policy (often in line with its financial investments) [Temple 2021]. As an example, the foundation donated millions to The Guardian [$6.5 in 2017-2020, BMGF; $3.5 million in 2020-2023, BMGF], >$3 million to the World Resources Institute (see below) in 2016-2019 [BMGF], and $250k to the vegan tech lobby group the Good Food Institute (see above) in 2018 [BMGF]. Bill Gates has stated that rich countries should move to synthetic beef, either by nudging based on 'green premium' or by using regulation to shift the demand [Temple 2021]. In 2015, Gates started a venture capital fund (Breakthrough Energy) joined by such billionaires as Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Jack Ma, with the aim to invest in technologies that can 'lead the world to zero emissions', including lab-cultured imitation foods [Temple 2021]. Gates also has become the largest private owner of farmland in the US, although it is unclear how this land is used. According to one estimate he has accumulated 270,000 acres accross dozens of states [Marcelo 2022]. In a US system where almost half of the farmland is rented, subsidies are diverted to landowners instead of actual farmers, with the former reaping the benefits regardless of what the latter cultivate. Farmland has yielded returns of >10% for nearly 50 years [Pomranz 2021] and is indeed a lucrative option for investment by global elites [see also above]. Taken together, Gates has been criticized because of his "thin credentials, untested solutions, [and] undemocratic assertion of power" [Schwab 2021], whereas his projects have been described as "epitomiz[ing] conflicts of interest" [Canfield et al. 2021].
    • The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) has billions in assets ($3.5 billion in 2012). Together with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), it is interlocked with the CFR [Shoup 2015; see above]. More than half of its Board of Trustees consist of current or former CFR members. David Rockefeller became CFR chair in 1970 (until 1985) and co-founded the Trilateral Commission with Brzezinski and other CFR members in 1972. Moreover, the Rockefeller Foundation founded the Group of Thirty (G30) in 1978. The Rockefeller interest in dietary control traces back to the 1969 'Population Growth and the American Future' report commissioned by Richard Nixon and overseen by John D. Rockefeller III. Focus was on population and resource engineering, similar to 'The Limits to Growth' report by the Club of Rome (co-founded in 1968 by the industrialist Aurelio Peccei and OECD's Alexander King) [Meadows et al. 1972]. However, the authors also urged for a dietary shift 'away from consumption of animal livestock towards vegetables and synthetic meats' and 'a closed system of agriculture - food from factories' [Rockefeller et al. 1969]. Because such ideas are likely to meet resistance, it was said that they would require an 'international economic order, capable of dealing with natural resources and environmental conditions on a world scale', to be implemented by a body with 'assigned central responsibility' and serving as a 'lobby for the future' [Rockefeller et al. 1969]. More recently, the Rockefeller Foundation promotes the Planetary Health concept [The Lancet 2015] and a need for 'Great Transitions', by 'Doubling Down on the Sustainable Development Goals' [Rockefeller Foundation 2020]. Its food system agenda encompasses a 'Reset the Table' program to 'Transform the US Food System' (emphasis added) [Rockefeller Foundation 2020], using the COVID-19 crisis to create a sense of urgency [Steiner et al. 2020].
    • The Wellcome Trust is one of the wealthiest private philanthropies, with $29 billion in assets. It funds research in healthcare and environmental studies, but is controversial due to its problematic links with tax havens (and investments in) fossil fuel companies [Carrington 2015; Piller 2018; Rosa-Aquino 2018]. Its corporate ties are further underlined by its status as 'Health & Health Care' partner of the WEF [WEF 2020]. The Trust is also one of the UK's largest owners of arable farm land [Wellcome 2014]. It is fundamental to the Great Food Transformation; together with the Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC), the Wellcome Trust has founded EAT in 2016 which was then still an initiative within the Stordalen Foundation portfolio (since 2013) [EAT 2020]. The Trust also funds the Food Systems Economic Commission closely linked to the EAT-Lancet network [FSEC], as well as the Oxford University-based LEAP project, which involves various members of the EAT-Lancet network and has the goal to identify strategies to decrease the consumption of meat and dairy [LEAP].
    • The Open Philantropy Project (OPP) was founded by Dustin Moskowitz (Facebook) and has granted millions of US$ to animal-welfare/rights organizations (e.g., Eurogroup for Animals) and providers of 'plant-based' imitations [OPP, AdaptNation 2020]. The OPP has donated $2.5 million to the Good Food Institute (GFI) in 2016-2017, a lobby group for vegan tech (see above) [Luneau 2020]. The OPP also has considerable leverage over media. It donated $886,600 to the Guardian in 2017 to publish a series named 'Animals farmed', representing animal agriculture as harmful [Guardian 2018]. A second $900,000 was provided in 2020 [Guardian 2020]. The Guardian published an Animals Farmed article every four days on average, usually using emotional imagery [AdaptNation 2020], in addition to other anti-livestock articles [e.g., those paid for by the vegan food brand Oatly! in the 'Parenting your Parents' series]. Furthermore, OPP gave $900,000 to Group Nine Media in 2019-2020 to produce videos on factory farming with emotional appeal [OPP 2019; 2020]. Together with other investment funds, incl. Google Ventures and UBS, OPP has invested substantially in the vegan company Impossible Foods (OPP investments) [Business Wire 2019]. The latter attracted $1.3bn in investment over the last 10 years [Greenfield 2021]. 
 
  • Key actor 5 - non-governmental organizations

The corporate strategy for exerting control over dietary choices involves securing formal endorsements from non-governmental organizations to garner societal acceptance. An example of this is the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has faced criticism for aiding corporations in land claims that lead to the displacement of indigenous communities and for its affiliations with companies engaged in greenwashing. WWF lends its support to the 'Great Food Transformation' and is aligned with the EAT-WEF network. Within that same network, the World Resources Institute (WRI) devises plans for shaping dietary preferences towards reduced consumption of animal source foods. Both WWF and WRI thus play a role in advancing the corporate agenda of resource control and shaping the food system. 

Further reading: 

Besides white-washing via mass media discourse and philantrocapitalism, further legitimization of the corporate model for dietary control requires formal support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), especially those with a focus on environmental issues (e.g., WWF). Since the Rio Summit in 1992, this has resulted in the gradual neutralization of leading environmental NGOs [Chatterjee & Finger 1994]. Another class of corporatized NGOs is constituted of 'think tanks' (e.g., WRI). Because the latter play a central role in the development of new policy ideas and the setting of agendas, they are needed to shape key debates and to guide both professionals and the public [Shoup 2015]. 
 
    • The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), formerly the World Wildlife Fund (still so in US), is the world largest conservation group. Its first president, the controversial Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, co-founded the Bilderberg group and established WWF's financial endowment, the elitarian '1001 club'. WWF has been criticized for assisting corporations in laying claims to land that cause the resettlement of indigenous peoples [BuzzFeed; Survival International 2017; Vidal 2020] and for its corporate ties allowing for the greenwashing of such companies as IKEA, Shell, and Monsanto [Pearce 2009; Huismann 2014; Vidal 2014; Molitch-Hou 2019]. WWF is one of the key players within the corporate-driven Natural Capital Coalition [NCC], and is interlocked with global power centers. Its Global Conservation Director (Kavita Prakash-Mani), for instance, has ties to the WEF's Global Agenda Council on Food Security and Nutrition, the WRI, and Unilever [WWF 2019]. Its current President (Pavan Sukhdev) is specialized in international finance, launched the 'Corporation 2020' campaign, and has ties to UNEP, WEF, and the Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC) [i.e., the co-founder of EAT; see below]. WWF has described ASFs as central to humanity's 'Appetite for destruction' [WWF 2017] and supports the Great Food Transformation's 'hard policy' interventions to reduce ASF consumption [see elsewhere], in a report written by an ex-EAT member [WWF 2020].
    • The World Resources Institute (WRI) is a research non-profit founded in 1982 by Gus Speth. Its Board of Directors consists of various CFR members and has close ties to corporate networks (e.g., Goldman Sachs, IKEA, Unilever, Shell, Oxford Analytica, WEF, World Bank) [WRI]. Its funding also depends on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (see above). Its Corporative Consultative Group encompasses some of the world's largest companies, including major players in the food and beverages industry [WRI]. Resource control is at the heart of the hegemonic strategies of corporate elites. Food is one of WRI's seven declared areas of interest, e.g., by developing scenarios for social engineering towards diets that are low in ASFs [Ranganathan et al. 2016]. WRI's co-chair (David Blood) and a former member of its Board of Directors (Al Gore) are active in the 'plant-based' market via their firm Generation Investment Management [see above]. On WRI's board of directors we also find Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC’s ex-Executive Secretary who is in favour of expelling meat eaters from restaurants [Vella 2018]. Her brother is an EAT 'alumnus' and was the first person to become CEO of the World Economic Forum (in 2003), where he strengthened global corporate ties to social and governmental sectors [EAT]. Christiana Figueres has ties with Eni, Unilever, and the World Bank [WRI] and various business fronts such as Nature4Climate and We Mean Business, now part of a 'Global Common Alliance' public-private partnership together with WRI, WEF, WBCSD, and EAT [see below]. Figueres is also on the board of directors of Impossible Foods, together with representatives from investment funds (Khosla Ventures, Horizons Ventures) [Business Wire 2021]. Livestock farming is portrayed by WRI as mostly harmful in its reports, and pleas for the rewilding of agricultural lands are common.  Through its founder, Speth, WRI has a historical connection to the Tellus Institute and its ecotopian mindset of Great Transitions [see below].
 
  • Key actor 6 - ecotopian futurists
 
The concept of a radical shift in dietary patterns, as currently proposed in policy discussions, has been influenced by the field of 'futures studies.' Often criticized for its lack of scientific rigor, this discipline is focused on scenario-building and technocratic control over resources. Think tanks, such as the Club of Rome, Stockholm Environment Institute, Tellus Institute, and Planetary Health Alliance have been actively engaged in promoting a radical shift towards a new utopian model that also includes dietary transformation. Their reductionist 'food system' lens may potentially harm food security, livelihoods, and landscapes. The 'Great Food Transformation' aligns with a broader framework of grand transition schemes, echoing the vocabulary and agendas of the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' and 'Great Transformation.' These similarities suggest a common framework and origin.

Further reading: 

The grand schemes for dietary transformation that are now on policy tables have been partially shaped by the field of 'futures studies'. Often criticized as pseudoscience, the latter discipline is obsessed with 'systems', the building of scenarios, and technocratic control over resources. Some of the Rockefeller-associated think tanks, including the Club of Rome, have been particularly influential [see above]. As for systems approaches in general [Gall 1977; Scott 1998], a reductionist 'food system' mindset risks ending up in a high-modernist expression of top-down control with devastating consequences on food security, livelihoods, and landscapes [Leroy 2020].
 
EAT argues for a 'Great Food Transformation' to a so-called 'Planetary Health Diet', allowing only small amounts of ASFs (if any) and mostly designed by Harvard University [Willett et al. 2019]. It is meant to be imposed through 'hard policy' interventions [see elsewhere]. The idea of a global shift to a Harvard/Willett-designed low-meat diet pre-dates EAT and was already suggested a decade earlier as a 'Healthy Diet' transformation that should be implemented between 2010-2030 [Stehfest et al. 2009]. The 'Planetary Health' concept goes back to New Nutrition Science project conceptualized around 2000 and ending up in the Giessen Declaration of 2005 (already involving EAT's Tim Lang) [Cannon & Leitzmann 2006].  
 
A 'Great Transition' of society to 'Planetary Health' has also been called for in the 'São Paulo Declaration on Planetary Health', published in the Lancet, supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and organized by the Planetary Health Alliance [see below] from Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the academic home of Willett [Myers et al. 2021, appendix]. Some of its signatories have an outspoken anti-livestock agenda, such as 50by40, Beyond Meat, and The Good Food Institute [see above]. Other signatories include WWF, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the True Health Initiative (THI, with Willett on its Board of Directors). The document itself is a New Age-ish pamphlet asking 'spiritual leaders of all faiths' to 'expand the mindset of humanity to embrace ancient teachings and wisdom' and 'to utilize religious and spiritually affiliated institutions for Planetary Health education'. Unsurprisingly, 'plant-based' diets are part of the intention [De La Torre 2021]
 
In other words, the Great Food Transformation fits within a mindset of grand transition schemes. Its content and wording not only echo the agendas and vocabulary of the WEF's 'Great Reset' [WEF 2021; see below] and 'Great Transformation' [WEF 2012], they are also reminiscent of earlier 'Great Transformation' and 'Great Transition' projects outlined below. These striking similarities are suggestive of a shared framework that gravitates around the United Nations [especially those fractions going back to UNEP's Maurice Strong; see below] and the Stockholm Environment Institute [SEI]. The latter was pivotal in the establishment of EAT (via its founder, the Stockholm Resiliene Center; SRC).
 
    • The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) was founded in the run-up to Maurice Strong's UN Earth Summit of 1992 [see below]. Its 'Great Transformation' plan involves meat-free days, less livestock, and promotion of insect consumption [WBGU 2011, 2013]. WBGU is influential within certain fractions of the EU, the Vatican, and the UN. Its former chair [Hans Schellnhuber] embraces the idea of global governance through a UN-led Global Council and Planetary Court [Schellnhuber 2013]. He is also founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), where he was replaced in 2018 by the former director [Johan Rockström] of the Stockholm Resilience Center, who co-founded EAT [Turow-Paul 2016].
    • The Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC) is the co-founder of EAT and thus closely affiliated to the Great Food Transformation. Historically, it is to be seen as a joint initiative of Stockholm University, the Beijer Institute, and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), the latter being most clearly situated within the utopian legacy. It was named after Strong's UN 1972 Stockholm Conference and joined the Boston-based Tellus Institute in setting up the Global Scenario Group (GSG) in 1995, arguing for a 'Great Transition' to a 'planetary phase of civilization'. 
    • The Tellus Institute calls for a Great Transition 'to advance a planetary civilization rooted in justice, well-being, and sustainability' [Tellus]. Its founding president [Paul Raskin], a member of the Club of Rome [Club of Rome], is an ecotopian futurist [Raskin 2016], also in charge of the US centre of SEI. One of Tellus' fellows [Gus Speth] is the founder of the World Resources Institute [WRI; see above], now controlled by the CFR/WEF network [see above] and a close ally of EAT. Tellus/SEI's GSG fed the Global Environment Outlook series from UNEP. Its work has been continued by Tellus' Great Transition Initiative (GTI), of which the website often reads as an esoteric Gaian manifest [e.g., Rockefeller 2015; Macy 2018]. Although not directly related, this is reminiscent of the 'Global Consciousness Era', presented in 'Changing Images of Man' of the Stanford Research Institute, a futurist text flirting with the paranormal to avoid 'overshooting the carrying capacity of Spaceship Earth' [Markley & Harman 1982]. 
    • The Planetary Health Alliance (PHA) was launched with support of the Rockefeller Foundation in 2016, is co-housed by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (home of the leading EAT-Lancet Commissioner Walter Willett), and wishes to 'achieve a Great Transition' [PHA]. The Lancet, THI (with Willett on the Board of Directors), the United Nations Foundation, Project Drawdown, WWF, the International Futures Forum, Plant-based Health Professionals UK, and SEI (closely affiliated to the Tellus Institute) are members of the Alliance [PHA].

  • Key actor 7 - global management institutions
 
Corporate globalization is facilitated through global management institutions like the World Bank and United Nations. These institutions, although with limited liability, have the power to weaken national sovereignty and shift power from governments to investors, financial markets, and international organizations. Ecotopian worldviews have found favour among certain prominent UN figures. Maurice Strong, the founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), was not only associated with New Age centres but also had ties to the corporate world and the Rockefeller sphere. He organized key UN conferences which laid the foundation for the profitable international agenda of 'sustainable development', portraying the environment as a lucrative enterprise. This strategy shifted the focus from major polluters to individuals who were blamed and urged to alter their consumption patterns. Strong's personal network extended to various organizations that are now associated with the EAT Foundation's 'Great Food Transformation', such as the World Economic Forum, Club of Rome, World Resources Institute, Stockholm Environment Institute, WWF, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Further reading: 

Corporate globalization operates through global management institutions, which are hierarchical and bureaucratic, e.g., the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), and United Nations (UN). Such institutions tend to be with limited liability, yet able to severely weaken national sovereignty, leading to a transfer of power from governments to investors, (financial) markets, and international bodies [Sklair 2002; Shoup 2015; Phillips 2018]. As a result, nation states become population containment zones. This setup finds its origin in alliances between the corporate world and technocratic fractions within the UN, which has resulted in public-private partnerships [see below]. Historically, the UN also has cultivated intimate connections with some of the ecotopian futurist organizations mentioned above.
 
Globalist ecotopian (or sometimes even ecospiritual) worldviews have indeed been popular with certain UN protagonists, in particular Donald Keys [Planetary Citizens; Keys 1982], Robert Muller, and Maurice Strong. The latter is known to have played a key role in various New Age centers, such as the Manitou Foundation, Lindisfarne Association, and IONS [Barker 2012; Izzard 2015; Pires-O'Brian 2019; Sourcewatch 2020]. More importantly, however, Maurice Strong was also an oil business man and closely related to the Club of Rome and the Rockefeller sphere of influence, which brings us back to the above-mentioned importance of global power centers, philanthrocapitalism, and non-governmental organizations. By organizing the UN Stockholm (1972) and Earth Summit (Rio, 1992) conferences, Strong laid the foundations of 'sustainable development' as a profitable international agenda (formalized in Agenda 21, the precursor of Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals). 
 
Within the Strong model, the environment was presented as a profitable enterprise, supervised by a global management elite and co-opting the NGOs that originally brought the planetary crisis to public attention. The result was a top-down industrial development ideology, capitalizing on natural resources (masqueraded as 'conservation' schemes), generating inputs (e.g., agrochemicals), managing population growth, and tech-fixing polluting outcomes (which are only of interest if they risk damaging the resource base). Critics have pointed out that, by doing so, the crisis was diluted and shifted from the major polluters to the individual who is blamed and urged to alter his/her consumption patterns [Chatterjee & Finger 1994]. The current focus on individual dietary carbon footprints exemplifies this strategy [see elsewhere].
 
Strong was not only the founder of UN Environmental Program [UNEP] and a dominant figure in the Earth Council, but also an active member of various key organizations of which many now constitute the larger network of actors we have mentioned above with respect to the Great Food Transformation. Besides his relationship with the Rockefeller group (and Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation), Strong was a longtime Foundation Director of the WEF, a chairman of the WRI and SEI, and a member of the board of the Beijer Institute and the advisory council of the WWF [SEI 2015; Pires-O'Brian 2019; Sourcewatch 2020]. With Stephan Schmidheiny, whom he knew from the WEF, he co-founded the industrial lobby group 'Business Council for Sustainable Development' in 1990 [Chatterjee & Finger 1994], which became the WBCSD in 1995. In 1997, Strong introduced the public-private partnership (PPP) concept [see below], but ended up by being involved in financial scandals [Rosett & Russell 2007; Foster 2015]. 

The current emphasis on diets and livestock by UNEP is a relatively recent addition, although Maurice Strong - as UNEP's founder - already referred to meat during the 1992 Earth Summit: 'It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake [...] are not sustainable' [Izzard 2015]. Since, dietary transformation has become an increasingly important element of the post-Strong 'sustainable development' narrative. UNEP has gone so far as calling meat 'the world's most urgent problem' [UNEP 2018] and giving the UN's highest environmental award to Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, two producers of vegan burgers [UN Environment 2018]. They have thereby de facto been supporting both ultraprocessed food culture and radical veganism. Indeed, both of these companies wish to ultimately eliminate the need for animals in the food chain, by making ASFs 'obsolete' [Garcia 2019] and 'undercutting the price of conventional ground beef' [Watson 2020]. The CEO of Impossible Foods puts it as: 'We plan to take a double-digit portion of the beef market within five years, and then we can push that industry, which is fragile and has low margins, into a death spiral. Then we can just point to the pork industry and the chicken industry and say ‘You’re next!’ and they’ll go bankrupt even faster' [Friend 2019]. He adds that 'livestock are a prehistoric food production technology' and that he wants to 'put the animal agriculture industry out of business. It’s that simple' [Greenfield 2021].
 
  • Key actor 8 - public-private partnerships
 
The above-mentioned actors (i.e., corporations, investors, global power centres, philanthrocapitalists, non-governmental organizations, ecotopian futurists, and UN factions), have formed public-private partnerships (PPPs) to synergistically maximize their influence. The PPP concept was introduced by Maurice Strong in 1997 to facilitate collaboration between the UN and the business community. It has been criticized for its lack of democratic accountability, as PPPs tend to operate beyond national boundaries and regulatory structures, making it challenging for civil society to effectively resist corporate influence, especially during times of societal shocks like economic crises or pandemics. The support for the EAT Foundation's 'Great Food Transformation' builds on the exact same network of organizations and establishment NGOs that Maurice Strong promoted in the 1970s. The concept of 'planetary boundary' conditions introduced by Strong was later formalized by the Stockholm institutes and is now used to legitimize the Planetary Health Diet. History has shown that top-down policies promoting grand schemes often come with control, exploitation, dispossession, and self-legitimization. Therefore, it's not surprising that EAT's 'Great Food Transformation' attracts the main power centres of the corporate food system.

Further reading: 

To maximize their impact, many of the above-mentioned players have joined various public-private partnerships (PPPs). Within this system, the private partners obviously expect substantial benefits from their public counterparts (loosening of regulations, bailouts when crisis develops, expansion of domestic investment markets through commodification, financialization, and privatization of public assets, government contracts and subsidies, etc.) [Shoup 2015]. They operate without borders as well as above and beyond national regulatory structures. Civil society, on the other hand, is not able to evolve as fast in adapting to the challenges of the global era and cannot, therefore, effectively resist a corporate takeover of its governments [Scott 1999; Rothkopf 2009]. This is especially true when resistance to neoliberal policies diminishes due to societal shock (e.g., an economic crisis or pandemic) [Shoup 2015].
 
The PPP concept was introduced in 1997 by Maurice Strong [see above] in a reform proposal as 'consultation between the UN and the business community' [Rosett & Russell 2007]. Such PPPs have been criticized for their lack of democratic responsibility and for overvaluing the status of unaccountable private actors and foundations in shaping the global development agenda and providing public goods and services [Global Policy Watch 2019]. The model constitutes an undemocratic conscription of 'corporate money and power to force through a social and political agenda - without the bother of going through the ballot box' [Stuttaford 2020a,b]. It has been pointed out that some of the transnational corporations involved in such PPPs are among the 'worst examples of Northern development strategy' and 'biggest contributors to cultural and environmental destruction in the South' [Chatterjee & Finger 1994]. 
 
The PPP(-like) examples below further document how the power lines in support of the Great Food Transformation are constructed on altering alliances of the various actors mentioned above (i.e., corporations, investors, global power centers, philanthrocapitalists, non-governmental organizations, ecotopian futurists, and fractions within the UN). They need to be seen as a contemporary continuation of Strong's model for 'sustainable development' and 'global governance'. It is likely no coincidence, therefore, that the Great Food Transformation is now supported by the same cluster of organizations and establishment NGOs of which Strong was a key proponent during his lifetime, starting in the 1970s [UNEP, SEI and the Beijer Institute, WBCSD, WBGU, WEF, WRI, WWF, Rockefeller Foundation, etc]. In addition, he launched the notion of planetary 'boundary conditions' [Strong 2001], which was later scientifically formalized by the Stockholm institutes [SRC, SEI, and the Beijer Institute; Rockström et al. 2009] and is now used to legitimize EAT's Planetary Health Diet [Willett et al. 2019]. 
 
Against such background, it comes indeed as no surprise that EAT self-identifies as a 'Davos for food', planning to 'add value to business and industry' and 'set the political agenda' [Richert 2014; Turow-Paul 2016]. References to EAT's Planetary Health Diet are already used in policy documents worldwide to justify a shift from ASFs to more 'plant-based' eating [see elsewhere], as in the case of the EU's Green Deal and Farm-to-Fork strategy [European Commission 2020]. History, however, has shown that top-down policies that propagate utopian schemes and aim to be world-spanning typically come with a specific deep structure of human and natural resource control, dispossession, exploitation, and blatant self-legitimization [Scott 1999; Shoup 2015]. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the Great Food Transformation attracts rather than repels the main power centers of today's corporate food system. The initiatives below illustrate this in more practical detail:

    • The Great Reset is WEF's 2021 agenda [WEF 2020], which has been criticized as an effort to revitalize a stagnate global economy and to fund a Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) by unlocking $90 trillion for new investments and infrastructure [Morningstar 2019]. It exemplifies WEF's PPP concept of 'stakeholder capitalism', positioning 'private corporations as trustees of society' to address social and environmental challenges [Schwab 2019]. To reinforce its transnational influence, WEF has entered into a partnership with the UN to accelerate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [WEF 2019]. The alliance has been lambasted as a 'disturbing corporate capture of the UN' [FIAN 2020], leading to a 'public-private UN' in 'which decisions of governments could be made secondary to multistakeholder led initiatives in which corporations would play a defining role' [Gleckman 2019]. Climate change, biodiversity concerns, and the COVID-19 pandemic are used to create a sense of urgency [WEF 2019]. One of the targets of the Great Reset is the 'Future of Food', tightly interlinked with WEF's core activity of 'Developing Sustainable Business Models' [WEF 2020]. EAT's Great Food Transformation seems to have been accepted as the dietary arm of the operation, with the purpose of achieving dietary change within a 'Transition Decade' (2020-2030) [WEF 2019]. To do so, a 'portfolio of solutions' that encompasses mock meat, lab meat, mycoprotein, and insects will be applied [WEF 2018a,b, 2020a,b; see also elsewhere].
    • The UN Food Systems Summit 2021 represents the culmination of the UN-WEF collaboration within the food domain and has been criticized by farmers, rights groups, and even by the current and two former UN special rapporteurs on the right to food, as an opaque takeover by transnational corporations (including producers of ultra-processed foods), philanthrocapitalists, and the WEF [Via Campesina 2020, 2021; Canfield et al. 2021; ETC 2021; Fakhri et al. 2021; Langrand 2021; Nisbett et al. 2021; PCFS 2021; Vidal 2021; Saladino 2021]. How leaders of the Summit's five Action Tracks were recruited has raised concerns because of the lack of transparency (while key expertise is missing) and doubts about the origins of its funding [Canfield et al. 2021]. Action track 2 ('sustainable diets') has raised specific concern due to the outspoken anti-livestock discourse within its ranks, generated by an alliance of investors, corporations, and animal rights group. The track was chaired by EAT's founder (G. Stordalen) and has the WHO at its disposition as 'anchoring agency' [UN 2020]. Francesco Branca, an EAT-Lancet Commissioner and WHO protagonist within action track 2 made it clear that, within the food system, 'everything has to be reset [...] we have to have much smaller amounts of meat on our tables. We need to reset, and we need to adjust. We need the policies, the investments, on the supply side and the consumer side. The WHO will be working on the consumer side' (emphasis added) [Grillo 2020]. This likely will involve interventionism at both the supply and consumer side [see elsewhere], as EAT's declared goal is 'to take full advantage of the Summit' and 'to force the kind of far-reaching changes that the world now desperately needs' [EAT 2020]. The Youth-Vice chair of the action track was a leader within the youth climate organization Zero Hour International (L. Weidgenant) [UN 2020], and an advocate of vegan eating [Yeager 2019]. Moreover, the Good Food Institute (GFI), a well-funded lobby group for mock and lab-cultures ASFs [see above], had been invited to 'lead the innovation pillar' of action track 2 and provide 'influence on the innovation thinking across all five action tracks' [GFI 2021]. In further support of this, the action track's Civil Society Leader was the CEO of 50by40 (L. Bruun) [UN 2020], a group with WRI, GFI, and animal rights organizations as members [see below]. Within the action track 2, there were three work streams [UN 2020]. WRI's Director of the Cool Food Pledge (D. Vennard) was leader of one of the work streams, focusing on food demand and consumer manipulation.  A second work stream was led by the President of the government-backed Good Food Fund in China (J. Yi), who is a vegan activist [FT 2020], which may connect to plans of the Chinese government to drastically cut meat consumption [Milman & Leavenworth 2016; Reid 2021]. His two deputies were the founder of Brighter Green (M. MacDonald), an organization with an animal rights agenda, and an academic with an outspoken anti-livestock opinion from Chatham House and Harvard's Animal Law Department, previously affiliated with the Seventh-Day Adventist University of Loma Linda (H. Harwatt). The third work stream was led by a WWF representative (Y. Kakabadse), with a WRI employee (L. Goodwin) as deputy [UN 2020].
    • The UN Convention on Biological Diversity 2021 has been targeted by WWF to demand a designation of 30% of the planet as Protected Areas by 2030, and 50% by 2050 [WWF 2020]. This agenda, supported by major retailers and food processors, involves a critical overhaul of the food production system and the rewilding of agricultural land [Bunting 2020]. The WEF has set up a platform for massive afforestation within the 2021-2030 decade [1t.org], which is part of the land-hungry 'New Deal for Nature' that wishes to setup controlled Protected Areas and is, therefore, antagonistic to livestock farming.
    • The World Benchmarking Alliance [WBA] has EAT, SRC, GAFF [see below], WBCSD, WWF, SYSTEMIQ [see FOLU], the B Team, We Mean Business, the UN, FAIRR, and animal rights activists [Compassion in World Farming, World Animal Protection] among its members. Its purpose is to assess '2,000 of the world’s most influential companies, ranking and measuring them on their contributions to the sustainable development goals'. The aim is to shape their attractiveness to investors and the public, 'creating accountability for those who don’t change' [WBA 2021], thereby building metrics to reflect the SDGs [Terazono 2021]. The benchmarking setup was already embryonically in place at the WEF edition of 2018, with EAT and others (e.g., Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition) discussing ways to 'track food system transformation and assess progress' to a 'new global food system' [IFPRI 2018]. Within this mindset of tracking and control, WBCSD's 'New agenda for business (Vision 2050)' mentions that the monitoring of compliance with the Sustainable Development Goals will involve the 'widespread use of millions of eyes and the internet' and a 'Coordinating Global Issues Forum' [WBCSD 2017].
    • The Global Commons Alliance [GCA] functions as a PPP platform linking EAT, PIK, SRC, WBCSD, WEF, and WRI, as well as UN Environment and other allies of the industrial-NGO complex such as WWF and C40 Cities, to large business platforms [e.g., Ceres, Natural Capital Coalition, and We Mean Business]. 
    • The Food and Land Use Coalition [FOLU] oversees the dietary Great Food Transformation plans of the GCA, through the FABLE project. FOLU was established in 2017 by Unilever and the fertilizer giant Yara, and its management was handed over to SYSTEMIQ (established by two former McKinsey executives) [ETC 2021; GRAIN 2021]. Its partners include, among others, EAT, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), WBCSD, and WRI.
    • The 50by40 network counts WRI, GFI, the True Health Initiative (THI; with EAT's Walter Willett as a core member), and a myriad vegan and animal rights organizations (PCRM, ProVeg, etc.) among its members. Its CEO was also the Civil Society Leader of the UN Food Systems Summit's Action Track 2 [UN 2020]. It aims at achieving 'a 50% reduction in the global production and consumption of farmed animal products by 2040' [50by40]. Two if its members (PCRM and THI) tried to aggressively prevent the publication of scientific articles with an unwelcome conclusion on the health aspects of red meat [see elsewhere], using a smear campaign to accuse the authors of conflict of interest [Rubin 2020].
    • The Global Alliance for the Future of Food (GAFF) has the mission to 'transform global food systems' and 'get sustainable food systems on the political, economic, and social agenda'. Among its members we find the WK Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefeller foundation, the David Rockefeller Fund, the Oak Foundation, and IKEA Foundation. Together with the Barilla Center For Food & Nutrition, GAFF co-organized 'Resetting the Food System from Farm to Fork: Setting the Stage for the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit' (emphasis added) [BCFN 2020].
    • The True Animal Protein Price Coalition (TAPPC) is a Dutch PPP of food companies, animal rights organizations, and others, founded in 2019, that is lobbying for policy measures that lower consumption of meat and dairy by introducing taxes. Partners include Oatly, Beyond Meat, Vivera, Quorn, Redefine Meat, Proveg International, Youth for Climate, Compassion in World Farming Netherlands, World Animal Protection, Transition Coalition Food, Green Protein Alliance, FFAC, Caring Doctors, Caring Farmers, and various European vegetarian societies, as well as 50by40 [TAPCC 2023a, b].

    Translate content