Can there be meat without greed? | Greenbiz

Next week, Chloe Sorvino, a journalist who leads coverage of food and agriculture at Forbes, is publishing her first book. “Raw Deal: Hidden Corruption, Corporate Greed and the Fight for the Future of Meat” is a meticulously researched account of what’s wrong with today’s meat industry and how we might overhaul it. 

Of course, I had to read it and talk to Sorvino about her takeaways. 

The book comes to life through the perspective she gained from nine years of reporting on food and finance. Sorvino followed the global trajectory of some of the world’s largest meat companies and the intimate first steps of mission-driven startups such as Impossible Foods, Eat Just and Cooks Venture. And, being a journalist, she asked everyone the hard questions, taking an equally critical look at the big and small players. 

While I appreciated that inquisitive lens, I felt she was taking her skepticism slightly too far in some instances. For example, Sorvino questions whether commercially grown mushrooms are a sustainable alternative to meat because electricity and transportation can make up a large portion of their climate footprint. While true, those numbers likely appear outsized because mushrooms don’t have significant emissions from many other sources. 

Still, it’s a worthwhile read. What sets the book apart from many others in this genre is Sorvino’s excellent deep dive into how the world’s largest meat companies and retailers have been deploying illegal and irresponsible practices — including bribery, corruption and collusion — to grab, hold on to and expand power and profits at the expense of people and the planet. She managed to tell those stories with just enough detail and nuance to inform readers but not put them to sleep.  

Sorvino’s proposed solutions center around the bottom-up creation of regional food systems. They would be supported by shared manufacturing infrastructure, more equitable financial instruments and government or community-managed food hubs instead of supermarkets that feature food from businesses with alternative ownership and legal structures, such as public benefit corporations. 

I agree that all of those solutions are worth pursuing. But I also doubt they will gain support quickly enough to build up a parallel food system that can out-compete global industrialized markets anytime soon — especially as they require people to care enough about their food to seek alternatives while having the time, money and other resources to do so. 

So I wish Sorvino had spent more time exploring improvements within our current supply chains that don’t prop up greedy billionaires but also don’t depend on a rise-up by the masses. She acknowledges in the book’s conclusion that “there simply isn’t enough time to start from scratch, and large food and agriculture companies have four major reasons to contribute: hard assets, capital, a ready workforce, and scale.” Yet she doesn’t truly explore what that contribution could look like.

I got on the phone with Sorvino to dig deeper into that question. Our conversation explores why she wrote “Raw Deal” and how she thinks about overcoming the power and market grab of the industrial meat industry to move toward a more sustainable, equitable and nourishing future. 

The interview was edited for clarity and length. 

Theresa Lieb: Congratulations on the publication, Chloe. Out of all the books you could have been writing, why did you land on meat and power?  

Chloe Sorvino: In the darkest days of the pandemic, I found myself on the phone constantly, hearing horror stories of COVID-19 and climate devastation, but I was also talking to the billionaires who never had a better year. In many ways, I was one of the only people who could tell what I was hearing. I’ve been at Forbes for nine years and came to this analysis by seeing some of the most extreme examples of wealth and power in the food industry, especially in meat. I just thought now is the time to do something about it because the climate clock is ticking, and we just don’t have a single second to waste.

Lieb: What’s the main message you want readers to take away from it?

Sorvino: People need to know about the countless allegations of collusion, manipulation, price fixing and wage fixing at nearly every level and every corner of the meat industry. I spent thousands of hours flipping through thousands of legal pages and testimony to tell that complete story. The power and consolidation of profits that meatpackers have gained through those practices have driven insane ramifications for every consumer, including real financial implications. But it’s almost a tale as old as time in this industry, and it might really not be possible to unscramble the eggs anymore — even with things like anti-trust laws.

Lieb: You specifically investigate the illegal practices of the Brazilian company JBS, which has become the world’s largest meat processor. Is it doing much worse than some of the other large players in the industry, or why did you decide to make JBS a focus? 

Sorvino: Their takeover of the American meat industry happened so quickly, and it could only happen because there was such power and consolidation of the meat industry already. Yet so few American consumers know how wild the bribery scheme behind a lot of the invested money was, reaching across all levels of government in Brazil, including several presidents. It’s an extreme case with profound effects on the American environment, farmers and ranchers. 

Lieb: You place a lot of hope in regionalizing food, including meat production and processing, to get better outcomes. I understand the case for that, but I also wonder how we could change the power structures underpinning larger-scale systems. Do you see a way for industrial meat producers like JBS, Tyson and Smithfield to become more sustainable?

Sorvino: The first thing we need for this industry is actual accountability with actual enforcement and transparency, especially as the climate is so rapidly getting worse around us. For example, could financial transactions be reported in a somewhat timely fashion to address fixing prices in markets that have become very uncompetitive with only one or two buyers making bids? There has also been eating away at environmental regulations like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. We could use a lot of accountability and enforcement from the regulatory side. 

Lieb: But given your documentation of how much these companies spend on lobbying and bribery, where will incentives for regulation and enforcement come from? 

Sorvino: That’s why I advocate against waiting for governments and billionaires to save us. Solutions for lowering prices are really up to regional communities. We understood in the hardest days of the pandemic that our own neighbors and communities are the ones who will show up for us. That’s why strengthening regional supply chain infrastructure will help communities withstand crises with dignity. Another way the government could get around lobbying and help create a parallel food system is by using its own buying power to close some of the gaps. But in this divided Congress, it will be very hard to achieve accountability through legislation.

Lieb: What role can people working at large companies play? They all have sustainability teams — where should they place their efforts?

Sorvino: Everyone needs to be involved; there’s just not enough time to start from scratch. It needs to come from the workers at these institutions. They need to take a stance and demand actions, as do consumers. Retailers need to do a better job of accounting for environmental impacts. It really has to come from every single part of the supply chain. Companies also need to rethink some of the goals that have been put out with years off in the future. A lot of pilots are happening that account for far less than 1 percent of the actual impact[and the sourcing. We need to make more meaningful changes and not just look at 1 percent but look at 10, 20, 30 percent now. 

Lieb: Given your background in financial reporting, have you seen much engagement from banks and other investors on these issues? Is capital starting to account for industrial meat’s ESG risks and shifting away? 

Sorvino: No, and that’s a big problem, I’ve done a lot of work looking into the long-term financial institutions, and there have not been significant shifts over towards other systems. They are still major backers. Fidelity and Blackstone, to name just a few, are top shareholders in JBS, and they have increased their shares even after the profound scandals have come to life. Until we see financial institutions address climate change in their bottom line, in how they make their investments and what their culture looks like, it will only change so much. 

Lieb: Why is it taking investors so long to act? Climate models have clearly identified meat-related risks for quite some time. 

Sorvino: Bankers and investors are completely after short-term gains. Very few look at the long-term ramifications. But climate change will upend how industrial meat is made, full stop, and it’s going to make meat production much more expensive. There’s almost been a frenzy to get the last profits out of this industry. 

THE FIRST E-COMMERCE SPECIALIZED ON TRUFFLES AND TRUFFLE PRODUCTS – TRUFFLEAT.IT