The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of FoodTech Weekly.
Andy Clayton, Founder and CEO of Fermtech
It’s a hard time for food climate tech. Investment is shrinking, startups are going under, and public funding is struggling to keep up. AI and defence are the new darlings. It feels like food, despite being the world’s second-largest contributor to climate change, is quietly being deprioritised.
Why is this happening? Many food-tech companies were founded with sustainability at their core. Our ingredients and products often outperform conventional ones on climate metrics—and sometimes on cost and functionality too. But food companies lack incentives to choose these options. The uncomfortable fact is that climate credentials don’t shift market demand today.
Governments are starting reforms, for example the UK’s Food Standards Agency announced last week an accelerated sandbox for assessing and approving novel foods. These supply side reforms are welcome but in some ways make the problem worse - more solutions chasing the same demand.
Large food companies do care about sustainability. Most of those we work with have internal net zero targets, but they’re voluntary, and sometimes conflict with commercial objectives. Without demand-side drivers, there’s no clear reward for food companies to choose lower-carbon options.
So, the result today is under-investment and the flight of capital we are seeing from our sector.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. There is one change that could could help up-end these challenges and reverse this equation.
Imagine if food companies were rewarded—via visibility and consumer preference—for reducing Scope 3 emissions. The commercial case for climate-aligned products would shift dramatically, marketing departments would start to prioritise sustainability, procurement teams would chase better LCAs, and retailers would begin optimising their own-label assortments for carbon impact.
The answer? Mandatory carbon labelling on all food products. It is the most actionable, scalable way to create demand-side pull in food. Here’s why:
It works. Peer-reviewed research (Schulze & Tilling, 2025) shows that carbon labelling alone can lead to up to 5-6% reduction in food-related emissions, even without additional interventions.
It has public support. A 2020 YouGov–Carbon Trust poll of over 2,000 UK adults found that 67% of consumers support carbon labelling on products. That figure is consistent across multiple countries.
It’s cross-industry. Carbon labelling is already being adopted in fashion, transport, and consumer goods. It’s a comparative metric people are starting to recognise—like calories or litres of water.
It reflects broad environmental impact. Carbon is a good proxy for a wide range of environmental impacts, such as deforestation, fertiliser use, land footprint, and even water use in many cases.
It doesn’t require new science. LCA methodologies exist. Most major food manufacturers already produce them internally or with partners. Databases, experts, and tools exist. There’s no need to wait.
It’s easy to understand. Consumers don’t need to know the details of emissions factors. They just need a clear number on the front of pack. Low is good, high is bad.
Some companies are already doing this voluntarily. Tenzing, a UK energy drink brand, includes carbon footprints on every can. Quorn has used carbon labels since 2020, and Oatly now displays carbon numbers on select SKUs in the US and EU. But voluntary schemes can only go so far.
The UK food system accounts for an estimated 150 MtCO₂e per year. A 5% reduction would save ~7.5 MtCO₂e annually—equivalent to taking over 2.5 million cars off the road, or around 18% of the UK’s total private vehicle fleet.
And the cost? Vanclay et al. (2011) estimate that carbon labelling is among the cheapest emissions reduction interventions available when deployed at scale. Unlike farm subsidies or industrial retrofits, it’s a lightweight, data-driven nudge. Research shows it delivers a benefit equivalent to taxing carbon at EUR150/ton, but at a fraction of that cost.
Many of us live in countries with legal commitment to net zero (here in the UK, it’s by 2050). But ask yourself - how can we achieve this target without mandatory carbon labelling?
If you’re a food climate tech founder, these legal requirements may cause you to assume someone else is working on this, a team within government championing it on our behalf. But here in the UK at least that is not the case. This is our fight. Change will only come if we drive for it.
So, I’m calling on all food-tech entrepreneurs, investors, and NGOs to back a simple ask: contact the food regulation authority in your country and ask: ‘What’s the plan for mandatory food labelling in our country?’. Reach out to journalists and mainstream media you know and ask: ‘Did you know there is one intervention that would benefit consumers, progressive food companies, and the push to net zero?’. Tell me the answers you find at , what I want to know most is: which country will go first?
If you’re based in the UK I’d love to hear your views and experience. Are you working on this problem or know anyone that is that you can connect me to? Is there a way you could help or contribute to research or lobbying on this issue? Please connect with me.
Let’s push for change together. If not us, then who?
Fermtech