Soy

Soybeans come from the soybean plant, a legume in the pea family. The plant is heat-loving and frost-sensitive and is primarily grown in Argentina, Brazil, the USA, and China. Soybeans contain up to 40 percent protein and have an amino acid composition similar to that of animal protein – the protein found in meat. This makes soybeans a highly sought-after source of protein. Soybeans are used around the world as food for both humans and animals, but only 25 percent of the total soybean production goes to human food, while 75 percent is used for animal feed. In Denmark, soy is most commonly used as processed products such as tofu, soy milk, and soy sauce. Some may also be familiar with the green edamame beans, a variety of soybeans that are eaten raw and immature, mostly available frozen in Danish supermarkets. The soybeans used in animal feed production are fully matured and light brown. Denmark imports far more soy for animal feed than for human consumption. Fifty-three percent of the soy we import is used for pigs.

Soy farming is one of the biggest drivers of deforestation today. Soy producers in South America clear forests that are habitats for countless species and are essential for the balance of ecosystems and the climate. At the same time, these soy producers are violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples in South America by destroying their territories. Forests of the World works to secure the rights of Indigenous and local Peoples, enabling them to care for the forests where they live, as it has been documented that the best way to fight deforestation globally is by securing and maintaining the territories of Indigenous Peoples.

In addition to this focused effort, we are generally working to ease the pressure on the world’s forests. This pressure often comes as a result of demand and consumption in the Western world – such as from the demand for meat, and therefore soy, which is used in animal feed. We are running this campaign to pressure Danish Crown, Denmark’s largest producer of pork and one of the largest players globally. We believe that Danish Crown should take responsibility for ensuring that the soy used in its supply chains has not caused deforestation.

Deforestation of areas to be used for soy plantations is ongoing. Over the summer of 2019, deforestation increased, and a record number of forest fires ravaged South America. The fires were partly sparked by soy farmers to expand their land for soy cultivation due to the growing global demand for meat from animals fed with soy. These many fires made it more important than ever to focus on the fatal consequences of soy farming for nature, the environment, the climate, animals, and people.

There are several aspects of soy that make it problematic:

(1) Soy is grown in tropical areas like South America, where forests are felled and burned to make way for cattle and soy plantations. Soy is often grown on land that was previously forested because this land is “free” for farmers to occupy. At the same time, the soil is rich in nutrients for the first three to four years after the forest is burned. After this, the soil becomes exhausted and often hard as stone, unless constantly fertilized, prompting farmers to move further into the forest. Soy production is therefore one of the biggest drivers of deforestation.

(2) Soy is increasingly used for animal feed for livestock. This is an inefficient use of the protein in soybeans, as a production animal must eat a lot of feed, and thus a lot of soy, before it is slaughtered and turned into meat that people eat. This means that it takes enormous areas of land to grow enough soy for animal feed to satisfy the large meat consumption we have today. Animals consume many times their own weight in feed throughout their life, and meat production therefore requires a lot of resources.

Yes, unfortunately, we do. Through publicly available information on the export and import of soy, we can see that some of the soy coming from regions where recent violations of human rights, illegal logging, and forest fires have been documented, is directly exported to Denmark.

There are several certification schemes for soy, all aiming to make soy cultivation more sustainable. ProTerra and RTRS are two such certification schemes that Danish importers can use when purchasing soy. ProTerra certifies segregated soy – meaning soy that is kept physically separate from non-certified soy – from areas that have not been deforested since 2004. Through RTRS, it is possible to purchase segregated soy, but most of the soy with an RTRS certification is covered by so-called credits. This means that by purchasing RTRS-certified soy, you support soy farmers who grow soy on land that hasn’t been cleared since 2016, but the soy you physically receive can still be conventionally grown.

ProTerra is the certification with the best deforestation date, but both RTRS and ProTerra have some flaws and shortcomings in other areas of their certification. Nonetheless, certified soy – especially ProTerra-certified soy – is an important step in ensuring that the purchased soy doesn’t come from recently deforested areas.

Yes, it does! Despite Denmark’s small size, the country has a very large agricultural industry, especially in animal production. Over 60 percent of Denmark’s land is covered by agriculture. 80 percent of this agricultural land is used for livestock – either for grazing or for producing animal feed. Furthermore, we import over 1.7 million tons of soy every year. This requires at least an area the size of Zealand, Falster, and Bornholm combined to grow that much soy. Denmark’s import constitutes five percent of the total European soy import. Denmark produces over 30 million pigs annually and exports pigs to large parts of the world. Therefore, the Danish agricultural industry bears significant responsibility for the impact that Denmark’s consumption and other countries’ supply chains have on tropical forests in South America.

Additionally, Denmark has a very high per capita meat consumption. Therefore, it could also make a huge difference if we change our eating habits in Denmark. We in Denmark can set an example for how one can take responsibility for their own imports and ensure that they are not causing deforestation or violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Danish climate is not particularly suitable for growing soybeans, as they are very heat-dependent. Currently, research is being done on growing red clover and horse beans in Denmark as alternative sources of protein-rich animal feed. However, it is still cheaper to import soy from South America than to grow alternative protein sources in Denmark, which is why the agricultural industry still opts to import soy.

Furthermore, if we were to move the entire production of crops for animal feed back to Denmark, we would risk displacing an already existing production of another crop within Denmark. And where would that crop then be grown? This is a displacement effect we must always account for in land-use decisions. The production we would potentially move out of the country might be less efficient elsewhere, requiring even larger areas of land. We could also risk pushing the production of another product into the jungle – meaning, for example, we might end up importing grain from South America, which we previously grew here. In that case, we’d be no better off. The same issue applies to other countries in Europe.

Therefore, as things stand right now, we must first and foremost think about how to import responsibly produced products – or how to reduce demand so that less needs to be produced. We can do this by, for example, reducing our meat consumption and eating more plant-based food.

There are not many pigs in Denmark that haven’t been fed some amount of soy in their feed. And it is virtually impossible for consumers to know which pigs have been fed certified soy and which have been fed non-certified soy. Currently, animal and meat producers are not required to disclose what their animals have been fed. This makes it impossible for the consumer to figure out which meat they might want to avoid. Forests of the World believes that it should be the responsibility of meat producers to inform consumers about what the animals were fed, so that consumers can make an informed choice about which type of production they want to support.

No, actually they are not. Furthermore, it is not as problematic when people consume soy products such as soybeans, tofu, soy milk, or soy-based meat alternatives, as it is when animals are fed soy. This is for the following reasons:

The soy used in products for human consumption is most often grown in Europe, whereas soy used for animal feed typically comes from South America.

When people eat soy directly instead of consuming meat from an animal that has been fed soy, massive resources are saved because the soy doesn’t first have to be used to feed a growing animal. At each stage in the food chain, large amounts of resources are required. The process of raising a pig from piglet to slaughterweight is resource-intensive, and on average, 4 kilos of plant-based feed is required for every kilo of pork produced.

As a consumer, there are not many alternatives to Danish Crown’s products in supermarkets if you want to buy pork. This is exactly why it is so important to tell Danish Crown that it is their responsibility to ensure sustainable supply chains. As a consumer, you can do one or more of the following:

Reduce your pork consumption.

Sign Forests of the World’s letter to Danish Crown.

Ask your local supermarket to set demands on Danish Crown, their supplier of pork.

Your local supermarket is the very last link in the pork supply chain before you, the consumer, bring the meat home. Danish Crown is the largest supplier of pork to Danish supermarkets. Therefore, you can ask the supermarkets to set demands on Danish Crown. Supermarkets can require Danish Crown to take a step in the right direction by demanding certified soy in their supply chains and/or ensuring that all sub-suppliers sign the Cerrado Manifesto and Soy Moratorium. Danish supermarket chains are all part of the Danish Initiative for Responsible Trade’s so-called Alliance for Responsible Soy. Ask your supermarket what they specifically plan to do to ensure responsible soy in the supply chains for their meat products in the future.

As Denmark’s largest supplier of pork and one of the world’s largest exporters of pigs, Danish Crown has a huge responsibility and a unique opportunity to steer the development in a more sustainable direction.

As long as Danish Crown cannot trace the soy in their supply chain all the way back to the soy farmer, they cannot claim to be free from receiving soy that has caused deforestation. This means they are complicit in the import of soy that has contributed to deforestation, wildfires, and violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Danish Crown is a Danish-based global food company and slaughterhouse primarily selling pork, but also beef. Danish Crown is one of Europe’s largest receivers of pigs and one of the world’s largest exporters of pork products. It is owned by around 9,000 farmers, who simultaneously produce and deliver many millions of pigs each year. Ninety percent of Danish Crown’s pork is exported to over 120 countries. Pork accounts for about 5 percent of Denmark’s total exports, making a giant pork producer like Danish Crown a powerful and significant player in the international market.

Danish Crown owns subsidiaries such as Tulip, ESS-Food, Sokolow, KLS Ugglarps, Friland, and DAT-Schaub, and is also a partial owner of Scan-Hide and WestCrown. In Denmark, pork from Danish Crown is sold under brands like Tulip, Steff-Houlberg, Gøl, Den Grønne Slagter, Mou, and Friland. Additionally, Danish Crown operates production in many other countries beyond Denmark.

DIEH stands for the Danish Initiative for Ethical Trade: an organization whose purpose is to promote responsible trade through collaboration between various stakeholders. In September 2019, DIEH created an alliance specifically focused on soy.

On September 24, 2019, DIEH launched the Danish Alliance for Responsible Soy, focusing on deforestation, particularly in South America, as a consequence of Denmark’s soy imports. According to the soy alliance, all members must publish an action plan by April 1, 2020, outlining how they will ensure sustainable soy in their supply chains. They are also committed to providing annual progress reports on the matter. The alliance covers both soy products (such as soybeans and soy oil) and soy embedded in other products on the Danish market, such as meat.

As of December 2019, the binding members of the soy alliance include:
Salling Group, Coop, Rema1000, Dagrofa, Aldi, Lidl, Letz Sushi, and Danish Crown.
Supporting members include:
WWF, NEPCon, 3F, Dansk Erhverv, DSK, the Ministry of Environment and Food, Landbrug & Fødevarer, and Dakofo.

However, Forests of the World believes that the soy alliance does not set strict enough requirements for the signatory parties to function as a guarantee for more sustainable soy. The individual companies that have signed the alliance are responsible for creating their action plans, with no fixed requirements regarding the ambition level of these plans or the concrete actions to be taken. There is no external oversight to evaluate whether the efforts are sufficient, which raises concerns that some companies’ actions may not be adequate to drive meaningful change in the industry.

It is indeed positive that Danish Crown acknowledges its role in the market and wants to ensure deforestation-free soy with full traceability in its supply chain. This action plan is a step in the right direction. However, it is still not enough.

First of all, 2025 is simply too late. That means five more years of accepting both legal and illegal deforestation. This is not good enough. Danish Crown should strive to achieve 100% segregated soy with full traceability by the end of this year. This should apply to all of their production, not just the Danish one.

Secondly, Danish Crown is relying on the RTRS certification scheme, which does not guarantee 100% deforestation-free soy. Most importantly, Danish Crown must ensure that they only purchase soy from suppliers who are deforestation-free throughout their entire supply chain. It is not sufficient to ensure deforestation-free volumes for their own production if they continue to trade with companies involved in deforestation elsewhere. Here, Danish Crown should use its powerful market position to set requirements for the entire supply chain of its suppliers. Otherwise, Danish Crown continues to indirectly support deforestation in South America. After the many forest fires in South America last year, there is no doubt that this is urgent. We should not accept deforestation for the next five years just to secure enough soy for pig production.

The EU’s organic certification scheme operates in accordance with regional EU legislation on organic production. It defines a range of environmental and animal welfare criteria, including separation from conventional products, non-use of pesticides, fertilisers, and GMO seeds. For soy to be certified as organic, its origin must be fully traceable, and it must not be mixed with other soy. Organic product certification is in place in many countries, including Brazil. Agricultural land that can be classified as HCVA (High Conservation Value Area) and has been cleared within the last five years is excluded from certification. However, Forests of the World does not consider the organic certification’s protection of forests to be sufficient.

FEFAC is a European federation with the aim of responsible feed trade, establishing 37 essential and 22 desired criteria. To be approved, producers must meet the 37 essential criteria and at least five of the 22 desired criteria. Regarding production areas, soy cultivation must meet the following criteria:

Soy must not be grown on areas that have been illegally deforested according to the national legislation in effect (2008 for Brazil).

There is no national legislation for deforestation in Argentina. Since FEFAC does not impose stricter requirements for deforestation linked to soy production than national legislation, FEFAC does not guarantee protection against deforestation, as all forests in Argentina can essentially be cleared. Furthermore, for Forests of the World, it is always deeply problematic when irreplaceable tropical forests are cleared to make way for agriculture—whether it is done legally or illegally—which FEFAC does not address.

The UN Global Compact is a set of criteria for responsible business conduct established by the UN. These criteria are based on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and function in practice as a voluntary initiative that companies can join to commit to upholding. The environmental points of the initiative are as follows:

• Companies should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges.
• Companies should take initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility.
• Companies should encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.

There is no specific mention of securing natural areas or deforestation in the initiative.

RTRS is a certification scheme that sets requirements for how soy is produced. This means that you can only obtain RTRS-certified soy if you meet RTRS’s criteria. They operate with three different types of certifications: segregated soy, mass balance, and RTRS credits. By purchasing segregated soy, you are buying and receiving the actual certified soy. Purchasing RTRS credits means buying non-certified soy from one producer and compensating by purchasing credits from another producer who grows certified soy but, for various reasons, is unable to sell their soy as certified (for example, logistical issues may prevent the soy from being kept segregated all the way to the recipient countries).

Originally, RTRS had a cutoff date for permissible deforestation, which was set to 2009 for three out of its four land area categories. This meant that soy from areas cleared of forest after 2009 could not be RTRS certified. In 2016, they introduced what seems to weaken the rules in some areas and tighten them in others. The certification scheme’s cutoff date now depends on the category of the area, and depending on the area, the cutoff date for deforestation is either 2009 or 2016. Forests of the World does not consider 2016 to be an acceptable cutoff date. However, the RTRS standard in 2016 did become more explicit about ensuring the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

ProTerra is a soy certification scheme that operates with total segregation of certified soy, ensuring 100 percent traceability of their products and guaranteeing that the specific soy you purchase is certified. ProTerra does not allow cultivation on land that can be classified as HCVA (High Conservation Value Area) that has been cleared after 2004 unless compensatory environmental measures have been taken. ProTerra’s definition of HCVAs includes areas of high conservation value, particularly primary forests. However, the definition lacks coverage of other potentially vulnerable natural areas, such as wetlands. Furthermore, ProTerra is GMO-free. In 2015, ProTerra was the most widespread certification scheme.

n 2006, a number of organizations and companies signed the Soy Moratorium for the Amazon in Brazil, attempting to stop deforestation and wildfires in the Amazon rainforest. The moratorium is an agreement designed to make it easier for the participating parties to put pressure on countries that grow soy unsustainably. The principles of the moratorium focus both on preserving forests for nature’s sake and on protecting the rights of Indigenous and local Peoples. The Soy Moratorium is considered to have been a major success as it has stopped a significant portion of deforestation caused by soy cultivation in the Amazon. Plans have since emerged to create a similar ban in the Cerrado, known as the Cerrado Manifesto. Recently, there have been reports that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro intends to lift the Soy Moratorium, which could have catastrophic consequences for the Amazon.

After the Soy Moratorium for the Amazon showed some success in combating deforestation and wildfires, some farmers have begun clearing land in the Cerrado, a large savanna-like area in South America. The Cerrado Manifesto was therefore created to combat deforestation in the Cerrado. However, the Cerrado Manifesto has not yet been implemented, as companies such as the large shipping company Cargill have opposed it.

Soy must pass through many different stages before it becomes animal feed. Once a South American farmer has harvested their soy, it is bought and transported to the port. During transportation, the soy is sometimes mixed with soy from other farmers because the trucks collecting the soy pass by several different farms on their way to the port. At the port, the soy is poured into giant silos, where it is once again mixed with soy from other trucks that have gathered soy from various parts of the country. Only organic soy, ProTerra-certified soy, or segregated RTRS soy remains separate from other types of soy. The large silos are often located in major ports, where the soy is loaded onto large container ships. From there, shipping companies like Cargill and Bunge transport the soy to Europe. In Europe, the soy is distributed and resold. Sometimes it arrives as whole beans and is ground at a mill in Europe, while other times it has already been ground in South America. Some of the soy is sold directly to Denmark, while other parts are first sold to Germany, which then resells it to Denmark. In Denmark, it is purchased by feed producers like DLG and Danish Agro. The feed producers mix the soy with other products and sell the finished feed to Danish farmers, such as pig producers. A large portion of the whole pigs, piglets, and meat are sold abroad, with Germany, China, Poland, England, and Italy being the largest buyers. In Denmark, the meat is sold under brands such as Tulip, Gøl, Steff Houlberg, Den Grønne Slagter, Mou, and Friland, all of which are subsidiaries of Danish Crown.

In October 2018, Information published an article about the consequences of soy for South American forests. In this context, Jesper Pagh, the Group Director of the feed-producing agricultural company DLG, stated that at that time, they would need to pay an additional five to six Danish kroner per 100 kilos of soy if they were to buy certified soy rather than non-certified soy. To learn more about the exact price difference, one might contact DLG or Danish Agro, both of which are major feed producers in Denmark.

If Danish pig producers want to ensure that the soy their pigs are fed does not contribute to deforestation in South America, they will likely have to pay a little more for the soy. This price difference will, of course, lead to increased costs in the production chain. Hopefully, in the future, consumers will have the option to buy meat that has not caused deforestation. It may be slightly more expensive, but this could also lead to a reduction in meat consumption, which would be beneficial for the climate.

Both cows and pigs are fed soy in their diets. Denmark is a major producer of pigs, both in Europe and globally, and 53 percent of the soy imported to Denmark goes to pig production. Therefore, we have chosen to focus on pig production in this campaign, even though we acknowledge that there are also problematic aspects in beef production.

It seems that it is more expensive to import soy from the USA than from South America to Denmark. Forests of the World has not thoroughly examined North American soy production, but it is something Danish importers could be asked about. Alternatively, one can consider other options than feeding animals with soy, which would also be a viable solution.

Large areas of land have previously been deforested and turned into agricultural land. However, in many places, the soil has not been properly tended, and over time it has lost its nutrients, meaning crops do not grow very well. As a result, farmers have moved on to new forested areas where the soil is rich in nutrients for the first 3-4 years. Research, however, shows that it would be economically beneficial to properly manage the land that has already been deforested. By planting trees and using other methods to restore nutrients in the soil, these areas can be rehabilitated to such a degree that they provide a great economic return for farmers, so they do not need to clear more forest.

No. Once the forest is cleared, it will take a very, very long time for it to return to its previous state. You cannot replant a new forest that would be as rich in flora and fauna as the old forest, since original forests consist of complex, ancient, and vital ecosystems. However, it would still be better for both animals, plants, and the climate if the area were allowed to regrow naturally—meaning the felled and burned forest was allowed to regenerate on its own—rather than converting the land into agriculture, which would further deplete the soil and prevent the forest from returning. Additionally, farmers often clear an area of forest to use the land until the soil is so depleted of nutrients that they move on to the next forest in search of more fertile, “free” land.

Forest fires, both natural and man-made, can, to a limited extent, be beneficial for some types of forests and ecosystems, as they pave the way for new, healthy trees to grow in an old forest. However, forest fires do not naturally occur in all types of forests, and, for example, fires are not a natural part of the Amazon rainforest’s cycle. It is generally quite difficult to set fire to a rainforest, yet there is an active and persistent effort to burn large forest areas. In recent years, due to climate change and political situations, there have been more and more wildfires in South American rainforests than ever before. Typically, farmers clear a patch of forest during the hot and dry summer months, let it dry for a few weeks, and then set fire to it. However, the exceptionally dry summers have made the rainforest drier. When a patch of forest is felled and burned, particularly due to less control from authorities, the surrounding forest dries out even more, making it easier for new fires to break out. This is the negative spiral, where a drier rainforest generates less rain, becoming even drier and more vulnerable to new wildfires. Even in areas where fires have occurred “naturally,” the forest is not allowed to regenerate, as the land is repurposed for agricultural industries, particularly soy cultivation.

It is actually quite difficult to set fire to a rainforest. Farmers usually have to fell the trees and leave them to dry for a few weeks before they can burn them. Setting fire to the remains after cutting the trees down is an easier way to clear the forest than removing the felled trees by other means. In recent years, however, climate change has made many areas much drier than usual, and forest fires have increasingly spread and gone out of control. This has only worked in favour of those seeking to convert as much tropical forest as possible into farmland.

Both oil and soybean cake are extracted from the soybean, and the industry often argues that soybean meal, which is used for animal feed, is merely a byproduct of the soybean oil, which would otherwise be discarded. However, only 18 percent of the soybean is turned into oil. The rest is turned into soybean cake or soybean meal for feed, which is of much greater value. It is therefore misleading to claim that animal feed made from soy is simply a sustainable use of a byproduct. The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration has previously called the soybean cake, which remains after oil extraction, “indispensable.” While oil provides a higher return per kilogram, there is an enormous market for the products left behind once the oil is pressed out. Therefore, referring to it as a byproduct is more of a rhetorical trick, similar to calling parts of a slaughtered pig, which do not yield the highest returns per kilogram, “byproducts.” Of course, all parts of the soybean sold are part of the overall product on the market, just like all parts of the pig sold are a commodity in demand. For soy, the demand for animal feed is so large now that it often drives production, and without soybean cake and soybean meal, soybean oil would likely become so expensive that it would be replaced by other types of oils. The so-called main product would hardly be profitable without the byproduct. The vast majority of soy ends up as animal feed, and with this in mind, one could certainly argue about what constitutes the main product and what is the byproduct.