Comment: Why Arla's Trial with Bovaer is a Missed Opportunity for Climate Action
Source: DairyNews.today
Recent reports of TikTok users pouring milk down the drain in protest of Arla Foods UK’s trial of a new dairy feed additive highlight a growing backlash against the company.
Arla’s plan to test Bovaer, a methane-reducing feed supplement, on 30 UK farms has ignited online fury, with some threatening to boycott its products, including Lurpak butter. The backlash, fueled by misinformation, claims that Bovaer contains toxic chemicals harmful to both cows and consumers, despite strong denials from Arla and DSM-Firmenich, the Dutch company behind the product.
Arla has steadfastly defended Bovaer, stating that the feed additive has been thoroughly tested and is safe for both cows and consumers. The company also emphasized that Bovaer is already approved for use in 68 countries, including by regulatory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority and the UK Food Standards Agency. Despite this, public trust remains eroded, with conspiracy theories circulating online, some even linking the product to Bill Gates, a figure frequently tied to unfounded internet rumors.
The controversy surrounding Bovaer, however, misses a critical point: agriculture is responsible for approximately 40% of global methane emissions, with dairy cows being a major contributor through digestion and manure. Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2, and reducing its emissions is crucial in the fight against climate change. The United Nations has long advocated for innovation in animal feed supplements as a means to reduce these emissions by 20% annually. Bovaer, which has been developed over a decade, is one such innovation, shown to reduce methane emissions by at least 30% in dairy cows and 45% in beef cattle.
This resistance to Bovaer could have serious implications for the wider industry. If dairy and meat companies face significant consumer backlash for adopting climate-friendly feed additives, it may deter them from exploring other similar solutions. Methane emissions remain a blind spot for many in the food sector, with the vast majority of large protein producers failing to publicly disclose or set targets for reducing their methane output.
While several major dairy companies have signed up for the Dairy Methane Action Alliance, which encourages transparency and the development of plans to reduce methane emissions, the absence of specific targets for methane reduction has been a point of contention. Danone’s commitment to reduce methane emissions by 30% from its fresh milk production by 2030 stands out, yet many companies, such as Nestlé, have faced criticism for not taking similar steps.
Farmers involved in the Bovaer trial may be more concerned about the potential costs of the feed additive than the supposed toxicity. As Duncan Williams from Forum for the Future pointed out, dairy farmers in the UK can make as little as 4 pence per liter of milk on a good day, and asking them to invest in costly additives to reduce emissions could hurt their already thin margins. The economics of climate action in agriculture remain a significant hurdle.
The criticism of Arla’s approach, particularly from figures like Patrick Holden, former director of the Soil Association, focuses on the long-term sustainability of industrial farming. Holden argues that feed additives like Bovaer are a band-aid solution, distracting from the need for more sustainable farming practices that reconnect cows with the land they graze.
However, regenerative agriculture commentator Nathan Nelson offers a more balanced perspective. He suggests that while the shift toward more sustainable food systems will take time and likely include plant-based alternatives, Bovaer and similar innovations could still play a crucial role in reducing emissions in the short term. Nelson also raises an important point: if consumers are truly concerned about the chemicals in their food, they should consider the many other potentially harmful substances already present in processed foods, from carcinogenic nitrates to ultra-processed ingredients.
The uproar over Bovaer is indicative of a broader reluctance to embrace climate solutions in the food industry, particularly when they challenge long-standing practices. While concerns about the environmental and health impacts of feed additives should not be dismissed, the failure to engage with the real issue—mitigating the environmental impact of livestock farming—risks undermining the progress needed to address climate change. The milk spilled in protest could, in the end, be the symbol of an opportunity missed in the fight against methane emissions.
Arla has steadfastly defended Bovaer, stating that the feed additive has been thoroughly tested and is safe for both cows and consumers. The company also emphasized that Bovaer is already approved for use in 68 countries, including by regulatory bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority and the UK Food Standards Agency. Despite this, public trust remains eroded, with conspiracy theories circulating online, some even linking the product to Bill Gates, a figure frequently tied to unfounded internet rumors.
The controversy surrounding Bovaer, however, misses a critical point: agriculture is responsible for approximately 40% of global methane emissions, with dairy cows being a major contributor through digestion and manure. Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2, and reducing its emissions is crucial in the fight against climate change. The United Nations has long advocated for innovation in animal feed supplements as a means to reduce these emissions by 20% annually. Bovaer, which has been developed over a decade, is one such innovation, shown to reduce methane emissions by at least 30% in dairy cows and 45% in beef cattle.
This resistance to Bovaer could have serious implications for the wider industry. If dairy and meat companies face significant consumer backlash for adopting climate-friendly feed additives, it may deter them from exploring other similar solutions. Methane emissions remain a blind spot for many in the food sector, with the vast majority of large protein producers failing to publicly disclose or set targets for reducing their methane output.
While several major dairy companies have signed up for the Dairy Methane Action Alliance, which encourages transparency and the development of plans to reduce methane emissions, the absence of specific targets for methane reduction has been a point of contention. Danone’s commitment to reduce methane emissions by 30% from its fresh milk production by 2030 stands out, yet many companies, such as Nestlé, have faced criticism for not taking similar steps.
Farmers involved in the Bovaer trial may be more concerned about the potential costs of the feed additive than the supposed toxicity. As Duncan Williams from Forum for the Future pointed out, dairy farmers in the UK can make as little as 4 pence per liter of milk on a good day, and asking them to invest in costly additives to reduce emissions could hurt their already thin margins. The economics of climate action in agriculture remain a significant hurdle.
The criticism of Arla’s approach, particularly from figures like Patrick Holden, former director of the Soil Association, focuses on the long-term sustainability of industrial farming. Holden argues that feed additives like Bovaer are a band-aid solution, distracting from the need for more sustainable farming practices that reconnect cows with the land they graze.
However, regenerative agriculture commentator Nathan Nelson offers a more balanced perspective. He suggests that while the shift toward more sustainable food systems will take time and likely include plant-based alternatives, Bovaer and similar innovations could still play a crucial role in reducing emissions in the short term. Nelson also raises an important point: if consumers are truly concerned about the chemicals in their food, they should consider the many other potentially harmful substances already present in processed foods, from carcinogenic nitrates to ultra-processed ingredients.
The uproar over Bovaer is indicative of a broader reluctance to embrace climate solutions in the food industry, particularly when they challenge long-standing practices. While concerns about the environmental and health impacts of feed additives should not be dismissed, the failure to engage with the real issue—mitigating the environmental impact of livestock farming—risks undermining the progress needed to address climate change. The milk spilled in protest could, in the end, be the symbol of an opportunity missed in the fight against methane emissions.
