Thadine writes*
Do you know how much ‘embedded soy’ you consume each day?
Your breakfast egg from the Albert Heijn, the margarine in your birthday cake, the chicken salad you ate for lunch may be directly linked to deforestation in the Amazon. This is largely due to soy, which is the leading source of animal protein feed and the second-largest vegetable oil source globally. In 2022, the Netherlands was the 8th largest importer of soybeans, contributing to its position as one of the biggest consumers of illegally sourced deforestation products.
From 2017 to 2021, the Netherlands imported an average of 8.1 million tons of soy annually in various forms, including soybeans, meal, oil, and soy ‘embedded’ in animal products like poultry, pork, and eggs. Around 88% of this soy is used as animal feed, and 85% of the imported soy is re-exported, primarily as processed soy meal, biodiesel, and poultry feed.
As much land as two-thirds of the Netherlands (2.7 million hectares) is required to produce the soy supplied to the Netherlands every year, with Brazil (42%), the USA (28%), and Argentina (6%) being primary suppliers. The greenhouse gas emissions linked to land-use change from imports between 2017 and 2021 totaled an estimated 21.9 million tons of CO2-equivalent per year, equal to about 12% of the Netherlands’ domestic emissions in 2019.
A mere eight companies brought over 80% of soy from the Cerrado (Brazil) to the Netherlands in 2018, among others global traders like Cargill (USA), Bunge (USA), and Louis Dreyfus (French/Dutch), along with Brazilian producers and traders such as Amaggi. The Cerrado, a highly biodiverse and globally important ecosystem in Brazil, faces significant threats due to deforestation and land conversion. The Netherlands is a major contributor to this as in 2018 45% of Dutch imports came from the Cerrado.
Alarmingly, only half of these imports were subject to corporate zero-deforestation commitments. Even more concerning, one-third of the imported soy linked to deforestation and land conversion was connected with corporate pledges to combat deforestation.
Global supply chains disconnect production and consumption, allowing high-income countries to “virtually” use land in producing countries.
In June 2023, the European Union passed the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) to ensure that the supply chains of various commodities and derived products (beef, soy, timber, coffee, cocoa, etc.) do not contribute to deforestation. The EUDR aims to guarantee that the imported commodities and products were not produced on lands that have undergone deforestation or degradation after December 31, 2020. Moreover, it establishes strict traceability requirements linking commodities to their production sites.
This law was set to come into effect in December 2024 for micro-and small enterprises. However, the European Commission proposed last month an “extra 12 months of phasing-in time, responding to calls by global partners”.
The EUDR has been criticized for its failure to provide adequate legal protection for the Cerrado. According to Mighty Earth, an environmental organization, the EUDR falls short in safeguarding three-quarters of this critical biome in Brazil, leaving it vulnerable to further pressure and degradation.
Bottom Line: The Netherlands, as one of the largest importers of soy, plays a significant role in driving deforestation in the Amazon and other vital ecosystems like the Cerrado, despite the introduction of the European Union’s Deforestation Regulation aimed at curbing these impacts.
* Please help my Environmental Economics students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice :).
Hey!
I love this topic because the debates around unsustainability of animal agriculture usually only center around methane emissions the animals themselves produce, omitting the externalities of the feed for the animals.
Interesting thing I will add is that while the soy for animals is usually imported from Brazil, leading to deforestation, other soy products for human consumption often do not originate from such practices. You mentioned Albert Heijn, well – if you choose to buy tofu, tempeh, soy milk, etc from AH, for years now, they have supposedly guaranteed to not accept soy from supply chains that cause deforestation or land conversion. Additionally, the famous Alpro products (as replacements of dairy) grow soya mainly in France.
I would be very interested if it is even possible to completely stop growing soya in the Amazon Rainforest, causing its destruction, as we see incredibly high demand for animal products and the caloric and protein benefits soya gives to animals that come with it…
Hi! What an interesting post, I really enjoyed reading it 🙂 Here are some general points I researched while looking more into your case, which may help you:
An important point about about soy in Brazil is that about 98% is genetically modified. Looking at the European Commissions website about GMO regulations, they do indeed approve GMO in soybeans import. This is mainly for animal feed it seems, and the EU does not have protectionist measures because of the good trade ties between the EU and Brazil (and when soy is used for human consumption, it’s heavily monitored for adverse health effects). European soy, on the other hand, is usually not GMO. The biggest caveat though is that growing soy is difficult due to environmental conditions in the EU, but it could be generally seen as healthier, albeit more expensive than Brazilian soy. So, already for human consumption, there is an incentive to buy soy because of its cheap price.
Then for the Netherlands specifically, the country needs cheap soy for their cattle production or dairy farming. It makes sense; the cost compared to the benefit is huge. To really reduce the amount of soy the Netherlands purchases, a huge shift would have to occur in their agriculture, along with an advancement of the protein shift worldwide to fuel this.
The EUDR is changing all of the above information. Negative externalities and mispricing previously allowed the Netherlands to profit largely from soy (also through such “hidden subsidies”), while Brazil faces costs such as deforestation and environmental degradation (reduced ecosystem services). Now, these externalities will be internalized and the Netherlands may have to find alternatives to soy, as well as potentially facing challenges in terms of its market competitiveness. As EUDR will occur all across Europe, this could reduce the demand for European meat and dairy in general (or even a larger shift towards plant-based eating). But this is also an opportunity for new, sustainable, alternative feed innovations….
look into the circular economy in this context; alternative feeds have included “byproducts from food processes” like the leftover soy bean hulls, and grains. And even more interestingly, soldier flies! (to read more generally about the amazing potential of soldier flies, heres a documentary about them on youtube –> “The Business of Commercial Black Soldier FLy Larvae” by No-Till Growers).
I hope all this information helps you and I look forward to reading your paper!