From insight to impact
Caroline Reid, Senior Director of Sustainability at Oatly, reflects on how we & others can influence food system transformation
Why you're reading this
We created Oatly with a purpose: to help people eat better and live healthier lives without recklessly taxing the planet's resources. We’ve remained committed to this mission for over 30 years, and for nearly a decade we've transparently reported on our environmental footprint. However, viewing our impact in isolation only goes so far.
So, this year, we’re taking a unique approach that goes beyond our traditional sustainability reporting. We interviewed 29 experts across the food system – researchers, farmers, processors, retailers, café owners and policymakers – to understand what changes they are already seeing and what the evidence suggests is most capable of altering consumer behaviours. Alongside this, we ran a survey with more than 12,000 consumers across the UK, USA, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands to understand what people know, feel, and want to change about the future of the food system. Together, this has helped us at Oatly think more broadly about where to focus our efforts next, and ensure we're not just contributing, but driving meaningful change.
Why transformation needs to happen today
This summer made the stakes impossible to ignore. Extreme heat, supercharged by climate change, has sucked global soils dry. The European harvest is now forecast to come in 9 million tonnes of grain lower than was expected before the June heatwave — a downgrade worth around €2bn, with France, Hungary and Spain hit hardest (ECIU, July 2026). In the US, winter wheat abandonment is running at around 32.3% nationally, almost on a par with the 32.3% recorded in 1933 at the height of the Dust Bowl (USDA, May 2026). Globally, food production is under strain, and if things do not change, the impacts could lead to serious food insecurity for people across the world.
But this doesn't have to be the new normal. A resilient, abundant food system is still within reach – and the reassuring thing we heard, again and again, is that we largely know what needs to be done. The question is whether those responsible for our food system will choose bravery over resignation.
Within this document, we draw on expert insight, consumer polling and existing industry research to set out five themes aimed at the powerful middle – those that sit between farm and fork and at the policymakers and legislators who set the terms within which the middle actors operate – that, we believe, have the responsibility and power to drive real change across the food system through strategic changes to the consumer environment:
1. Optimism is a strategy for success
The foundation of progress is a belief that change is possible.
Facts and logic don't make mouths water. Food choices are still largely driven by emotion, and investment in taste is key to driving desirability.
Change is infinitely harder when people don't know what's true.
4. Make the better choice the default
Create new norms by opting out – not in – to the more sustainable alternative – and the public agrees.
A more equitable food environment for plant-rich diets – from subsidies to taxation – is required to level the playing field and shift norms.
Optimism is a strategy for success
Change begins with the belief that a different way is possible, and our research agrees. In almost every discussion we’ve had, ‘optimism’ has been highlighted as a key ingredient for systems change. Those interviewed saw optimism as a deliberate practice rather than just a feeling.
:format(webp))
They had tangible reasons for this outlook:
- Defaults are already functioning effectively at a large scale – For example, in 2025, Sodexo and Nuffield Health ran a pilot shifting 35 UK hospitals to plant-based-by-default patient menus. It saw food-related emissions cut by 22%, while maintaining diner satisfaction throughout.
- Money is moving - The financial sector is beginning to treat sustainable agriculture as risk reduction, not risk. Banks that once resisted are coming to the table, realising the risks of doing nothing are greater than they assumed and that regenerative practices decrease risk to land and farm businesses over time (Leah Blechschmidt, Nature United)
- Health and environmental science are converging - Nutrition and environmental research increasingly point to the same conclusions, removing a long-standing barrier to speaking about health and planet in one voice rather than as competing agendas (EAT–Lancet Commission; Rockström et al., The Lancet).
- Coalitions are widening - Groups are forming across sectors that didn’t previously talk, combining nutrition and planetary health under one effort to enable planetary health diets: Ali Morpeth, Co-founder, Planeatry Alliance.
- Whole categories are approaching tipping points - UNEP’s 2026 report Cheaper. Cleaner. Unstoppable. found that several climate solutions are close to becoming self-reinforcing — the point at which progress no longer needs to be pushed. Electric vehicles went from 2.6% of global new car sales in 2019 to 25%, one in four, in 2025. And in our own category, more new customers are trying plant-based drinks every day, which is increasingly becoming the norm in coffees and on menus. Change is not always slow.
Public sentiment tells a more nuanced story, one that points clearly to where we must focus our efforts. Around 80% say the future of the food system matters to them, but a third believe they worry about it more than others. People are concerned but feel alone in their concern. That disconnect can cause silence and inaction. This can dissuade people from taking small daily actions and discourage them from advocating for broader change, whether by voting, speaking out, or influencing brands and policymakers.
"Between 80 and 89 per cent, according to a growing number of peer-reviewed scientific studies, want their governments to take stronger climate action…More than eight in 10 human beings on the planet want their political representatives to preserve a liveable future."
That discrepancy between the optimistic conversations within the food system and the current disconnection between consumers suggests we need to get the message out there differently by communicating optimism. Something Oatly has begun doing by sharing the 89% message across its packaging.
For close to a decade, we have spent much of our time educating the public, customers, and partners about the climate impact of our food system, and that meant pointing out what was wrong. We must move away from pointing fingers. Instead, provide practical guidance that shows what the solutions are, and proves they do not have to involve sacrifice. Now, our collective approach should be optimistic and evidence-based, showing positive impact over time.
Our call to action:
- Industry: Optimism must underpin action; commit to sustained effort even when policy stalls, progress looks slow, or backlash lands, and communicate this to inspire more action.
- Media, Brands & Platforms: Unlock the power of the silent majority by connecting the concerned and reframing the narrative in media, on digital platforms and across the industry. Use recent examples to demonstrate the effects of climate change and question media portrayals that treat natural disasters as unconnected events. Continually show impact data and success stories and remind people they are not alone in their climate concern, to foster collective action.
Focus on taste
Although generally, consumers are becoming more interested in what goes into their food and drink, selecting the healthiest and lowest-climate-impact options isn’t top of the priority list. Instead, the choice is more emotional than that: we choose what tastes good, feels familiar, fits into our routines and suits those around us.
“Food is the intersection of so many things connected to sustainability. That’s why it’s so exciting. But it’s a huge challenge because we don’t choose what we eat based on logic. We do it based on feelings and body signals.”
- Solitaire Townsend, Futerra.
Food and drink trigger emotional reactions, and their impact is primarily determined by how they're priced, marketed, positioned and displayed, even before anyone looks at the label.
“People don’t choose food primarily through rational analysis. They respond to habits, emotions, social context, price, convenience, and how choices are presented to them.”
- Nina McGrath, European Food Information Council.
If we want diets to change, desirability is a must-have, not a bonus. Our polling data shows over a quarter (26%) of people believe improving taste and quality is one of the most important things that need to change to make it easier for people to eat more healthily and sustainably.
One example of this can be seen in an Oatly experiment from 2025, in which we conducted independent blind taste tests of coffee with Oatly vs coffee with cow’s milk in eight cities. Every time, in every city, about half the people preferred coffee with Oatly. That’s significantly more than the number of people who have ever tried oat milk, or actually order it in their coffee every day.
So why are hundreds of thousands of people walking around having their second-choice coffee every day? That preconception and habitual approach to food – that oat drink is not what I’m used to, and it ‘might’ not taste right in my coffee – is something we must tackle. In fact, this insight, among others, is what prompted our single-minded approach to taste, desirability and accessibility because we saw how it was decicisive barrier to change.
Internally, this thinking has shaped how Oatly's own team talks about the category:
“Don't create 'alternatives' - create new desirable, tasty norms which are connected to culture and trends."
- Sofia Ehlde, EVP Innovation at Oatly.
Another example comes from Sodexo and Greener by Default, who rebuilt hospital menus in 2025. Speaking publicly about the project, Amy Roach, UK Healthcare Manager at Greener by Default, explained that one of their most effective levers was simply the names of the dishes:
“If you have a dish on your menu and you call it a coeliac bowl because it’s gluten-free, chances are only people who are coeliac or gluten-free are going to want to pick that bowl. But if you change the name to be a ‘Thai peanut rice noodle bowl’, then so many people are going to pick that dish, because it sounds simply delicious.”
Desirability is an important part of the equation. In fact, our data shows the public holds food manufacturers most responsible for ensuring people eat healthily and sustainably (44%) - ahead of farmers (39%), supermarkets (37%), individuals themselves (35%) and government (32%). If that is the case, then how we present healthier and more sustainable choices has to be a strategic priority. But no manufacturer shapes the food environment alone; it takes retailers, caterers, digital platforms and policymakers moving together, which is why the actions below are shared across the system.
Our call to action
- Food companies: Develop healthy, sustainable foods that genuinely taste great, that are part of Planetary Health Diets and are not pitched as ‘alternatives’ or made to feel like a backup option.
- Retailers, Public dining spaces, school caterers, hospitals, and online platforms: Design a food environment that encourages healthier, more sustainable choices that takes into account the psychology of choice.
- Digital platforms: As a critical part of how we show the food landscape, there must be an acknowledgement of how food options are shared, displayed and promoted (rather than just telling people what they should be buying and why), as this will directly influence both on- and offline purchasing habits
Tackle Misinformation
Truth is the foundation for change. The World Health Organisation suggests we are currently experiencing an “infodemic”: too much information, including false or misleading information, in digital and physical environments. WHO’s assessment is that it causes confusion and risk-taking behaviours that can harm health, and that it leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines the public health response.
Misinformation erodes consumer trust, which in turn creates weak market signals for change, causing companies to persist with the status quo, which influences policymakers and reinforces a negative spiral as consumers look to policymakers to drive the change that’s needed.
“When people don’t believe in science-based evidence, there’s a lot of polarisation, because you’re speaking two different languages, essentially.”
- Danielle Nierenberg, Food Tank.
Our polling data shows the scale of the trust deficit in the public: 72% of the public think decisions about the health and sustainability of our food system are only “sometimes” or “rarely” based on science.
Back at Oatly, we’re no stranger to the issue of misinformation. We have spoken publicly about the topic in relation to the nutritional make-up of our products and even authored a book on the topic. But it’s not just oat drinks that received a backlash.
The EAT–Lancet report that set out why we needed to reduce meat and dairy intake faced a barrage of negative articles and thousands of comments on social media. A 2025 DeSmog investigation, co-published by The Guardian, later found that PR firm Red Flag had run a campaign for the Animal Agriculture Alliance — a meat and dairy industry coalition — to discredit the report, briefing journalists, think tanks and influencers, and running paid advertising that reached 780,000 people. It is a reminder of how orchestrated resistance to unwelcome food-system evidence can be (Carlile, DeSmog / The Guardian, 10–11 April 2025).
Our recent discussions with experts confirm this remains a key challenge across the board. The issue isn't just false claims; it's that the very environment where information is shared, driven by algorithms prioritising engagement over accuracy, now directly competes with experts in shaping public beliefs.
Across our research, it has become increasingly apparent that many consumers reach the moment of choice with strong views shaped by a crowded and often confusing information landscape, where knowing which sources to trust is becoming harder.
To combat a world rife with misinformation, we must keep seeking answers from reputable, qualified experts and understand what is at stake when we let inaccurate claims circulate. In a world where information travels faster than ever, prevention rather than management is key. Businesses must be on the front foot together, driving truth within the industry and working with specialist, expert third parties to build credibility where other traditional and social media sources are questioned. This, in turn, provides a stronger, more well-rounded body of information feeding AI search, which has never been more important.
Our call to action
- Standard for all: Establish clear rules and accountability mechanisms for misleading nutrition and sustainability claims on digital platforms, similar to how greenwashing has been regulated, e.g. the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive in Europe
- Policymakers: Keep decisions on food, health and climate grounded in independent, science-based evidence, insulated from short-term political pressure or vested interests, the same discipline the industry is being asked to hold itself to on claims.
- Qualified experts and food companies: Become the trusted signal amidst the noise, with transparent storytelling. No cherry-picking, no greenwashing.
- Media platforms: Take responsibility for managing their information environment instead of leaving credibility to others.
Make the better choice the default
If food is emotional and information is unreliable, messaging alone won’t drive change. People tend to accept change effortlessly when the alternative becomes the default, especially since most food choices are made in seconds due to time constraints and habits.
“We’ve learned that only one or two per cent of customers actively choose based on sustainability. The rest expect us (the food industry) to set the baseline. Defaults matter more than messaging.”
- Julian Markus, Jumbo Supermarkten.
Our polling even confirms this is what the public actually wants. When asked to select up to three of the most important things that need to change, 38% chose ‘making sustainable and healthy options the default.’ We even asked about oat drink – and a whopping 68% of respondents said they wouldn’t mind if oat drinks were the default in cafés, with most of that group asking only that cost and choice be preserved.
This is the silent transition: focusing less on persuading and more on establishing what’s normal and readily accessible. It means the sustainable option (often the plant-based one) is no longer the alternative, and it removes the idea that it is ‘second best’. It means changing a decision from opt-in to opt-out.
Critically, the approach travels internationally. For example, in the US, Sodexo is working with Greener by Default to bring plant-based-by-default patient menus to 400 hospitals by 2026, building on the programme it ran with NYC Health + Hospitals across all 11 of the city’s public hospitals. It made a similar move across nearly 400 US college campuses, reaching around a million students, in 2024.
“Driven by sustainability goals, our oat milk default transition succeeded with messaging around taste and convenience, while keeping price parity.”
- Sustainability Manager, national café chain.
At Oatly, we developed the Oatly Baristamatic specifically for this purpose. It is a product designed to work with existing coffee machines in offices, cafés, and other out-of-home locations, encouraging oat drink to become the default option rather than a separate choice that requires its own set-up – a significant barrier to take-up.
Matcha's growth also shows what happens when a category evolves without traditional baggage. Take the UK: oat drink use is on the rise. However, when it comes to matcha – a fairly new phenomenon in the world of coffee - oat drink consumption surpasses all dairy options.
Our call to action:
- Public institutions: Use procurement and meal programmes to make plant-rich, nutritionally balanced lower-impact meals aligned with the Planetary Health Diet the default in schools and hospitals. This shifts millions of meals without asking anyone to change their mind.
- Food service: Use placement, menu design and defaults to make the healthier choice the easy one. Force people to opt out of this new default and not have to opt in.
- Manufacturers: Build products that let partners transition quietly and at scale.
:format(webp))
Address cost head-on
Within our current food systems, there’s an uncomfortable truth. When we ask people what stops them from eating more sustainably, it is not a lack of knowledge or willpower. It’s price. In our consumer polling, more than half (53%) named affordability and access as the biggest barriers.
Unfortunately, price is not an even playing field. Take oat drink: two-thirds of respondents are open to it being the default in cafés, but 28% of that group said only if it doesn't cost them more.
The challenge is that incumbent, resource-intensive foods – like meat and dairy - are structurally supported. Plant-based categories like ours compete against the cost of animal-based products like cow’s milk, which are, in fact, artificially low in price. In the EU, an estimated 82% of Common Agricultural Policy agricultural subsidies support animal-based foods – 38% directly and a further 44% through animal feed. Across the globe, plant-based alternatives seek to compete with an industry propped up through subsidies, procurement rules, and pricing structures, all within decades of embedded infrastructure built around them. The question we really should be asking is not “why is X food so expensive, but how can X food be so cheap?”
That support is also written into what the public purse buys directly. The EU School Scheme spends €220.8 million a year supplying food to schoolchildren, of which up to €90.1 million goes to milk and dairy and up to €130.6 million to fruit and vegetables (European Commission; Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Articles 22–25, and Council Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013, Annex I). Plant-based drinks are not funded on the same terms: when the European Parliament reviewed the scheme in 2023, it admitted dairy-free alternatives only for children with an allergy or intolerance. Public money therefore helps secure long-term demand for cow’s milk among the youngest consumers. The issue is that the scheme was designed before the evidence base moved, and has not been updated to give schools a genuine choice, with the next review only for 2028-2032.
Promising signs show what’s possible even within a distorted system. A 2026 study by Madre Brava with PATOS Solutions, pricing baskets across Aldi Süd, Edeka, Lidl and Rewe, found that a shopping basket aligned with the Planeatry Health Diet was already 25% cheaper than Germany’s current average diet — €73.14 a week against €98.36, saving a two-person household an estimated €1,315 a year. Retailers are starting to respond: when Lidl Germany brought its plant-based Vemondo range to price parity with equivalent animal products in October 2023, it reported sales of its vegan range rising by more than 30% following the change (Schwarz Group, citing a 2024 ProVeg study).
“Let's say the regulator, because I'm again convinced that the food environment is so much skewed and so far from a level playing field, that anything that brings it back — not even favouring sustainable options, just giving them an equal chance — has to come from the regulator.”
- Professor Eric Lambin, environmental scientist and geographer, UCLouvain and Stanford University.
For the Planeatry Health Diet to become a practical part of everyday life, the food system needs structural changes. That means supermarkets, policymakers and health institutions coming together to make healthy food more visible, affordable and accessible for all.
In July 2025, Oatly joined REWE, vly and Berief-Food in a public petition calling on the Bundestag to cut VAT on plant-based drinks from 19% to 7% matching the VAT that cows milk is subject to in Germany. It gathered around 150,000 signatures. That’s proof people will push for a fairer price when you give them the chance. (REWE Group, 9 July 2025.)
Our call to action
- Finance ministries and tax authorities: Correct the fiscal asymmetry directly — align VAT on plant-based drinks with the reduced rate applied to dairy, and redirect subsidy and school-scheme support so that healthier, lower-impact foods are not structurally disadvantaged at the till.
- Legislators and regulators: Reform outdated promotion schemes, procurement standards, labelling rules and market regulations, while giving farmers, producers and public institutions the support and lead time they need to make the transition viable in practice.
- Companies, retailers and farmers: Share risk through multi-year contracts and transparent pricing, so the transition doesn’t rest on the farmer or the shopper alone.
Conclusion? It all starts and ends with taste
This document aimed to go beyond Oatly, exploring views from the food system and its people on what they think and feel about the future and identifying the key themes and calls to action that could inspire real change if we act on them.
So what did we learn? Power remains with the food companies, retailers, caterers, platforms and public institutions that sit between the people who grow food and the people who eat it. This powerful section of society decides what is on the shelf, what is on the menu, what is shown first, and how it is marketed. It is the narrow point of the hourglass, and it holds more influence over what the world eats than either end of the food chain. But that middle does not set its own terms. Policymakers and legislators decide what food costs, what it is allowed to be called, and what public institutions are funded to serve. The middle decides what is on the shelf; policymakers decide what it costs to put it there. Neither moves far without the other
“You sit between agriculture and the consumer market. In that position, you can create conditions for more sustainable production through how you collaborate with the farmers you buy from. And you can ensure sustainable and healthy choices are visible and accessible to consumers.”
- Helena Hansson, Professor of Agricultural & Food Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
None of the five shifts we’ve identified happen in isolation either: food, health, climate, finance, and trade policy all has to move through that same narrow point together, or progress on one can undo progress on another.
Collectively, this ‘powerful middle’ supported by the policy makers who set the rules can shape a food system that supports both human and planetary health, and is easy, delicious, and affordable. Not virtuous or effortful. But normal. That means:
- Hold onto optimism: Each of these levers becomes easier to act on when we see the positive impact it is having on the world.
- Focus on taste: Facts and logic don’t make mouths water.
- Be the default: That’s what the public is actually asking for.
- Tackle misinformation: Truth is the foundation for change. Change becomes infinitely harder when people don’t know what’s true.
- Address cost head-on: Level the playing field on price. No default, and no single piece of communication, will overcome an uneven playing field.
“Transitions fail when they’re framed as taking something away. They succeed when people experience abundance: more choice, more taste, more possibility.”
- Professor Armando Perez, Umeå University
We are realistic that this is a huge undertaking. But the appetite is already there. Around 80% of people say the future of the food system matters to them. Around two-thirds would accept a more sustainable default tomorrow, and for a significant minority of them that acceptance is conditional on it costing no more.
Difficult decisions remain. At Oatly, we accept this challenge with radical optimism. We'll keep using our voice, our products, and our partnerships to make the healthy, sustainable choice the desirable, affordable and obvious one, and to help build a food system that works for people and the planet. But we can't do it alone. Wherever you sit in the food system, this is your invitation to collectively act.
“It's not down to just Oatly, it's down to Oatly convening a group of organisations who've got a vested interest in a very different food environment to the one that we have today."
- Ali Morpeth, Planeatry Alliance.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all of the people we interviewed as part of this report.
Farming and primary production
- Bryce Cunningham : Owner, Mossgiel Farm, Ayrshire, Scotland
- Jakob Henningsson : Arable farmer, Sweden
- Matt Wallington : Owner and Chief Executive, Hanover Ridge Farms, Tisdale, Saskatchewan, Canada
Milling, processing and ingredient supply
- Erik Larsson : Berte Qvarn, Sweden
- Sophia Wise : Sustainability Director and Director of Regenerative Agriculture, Grain Millers, United States
Retail, foodservice and coffee
- Julian Markus : Sustainability, Jumbo, Netherlands
- Leslie Laborde : Director of Impact and Agricultural Transition, Belco, France
- Indra Hokke : Giraffe Coffee Roasters, Netherlands
- Daniel Mohr : Green coffee buyer and head roaster, Café Mic, Vienna, Austria
- A sustainability lead at a speciality coffee company, who asked to contribute on an unattributed basis
- A senior sustainability leader at a North American wholesale food distributor, who asked to contribute on an unattributed basis
Public sector and institutional catering
- Lena Sjöqvist : Tullinge school kitchen, Botkyrka, Sweden
- Kajsa Siggesson : Tullinge school kitchen, Botkyrka, Sweden; School Chef of the Year
Research and academia
- Professor Helena Hansson : Professor of Agricultural and Food Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU); Programme Director, Mistra Food Futures
- Anna Stubbendorff : Researcher in sustainable nutrition, Agenda 2030 Graduate School, Lund University, Sweden
- Professor Armando F. J. Perez-Cueto Eulert : Professor of Food, Nutrition and Culinary Science, Umeå University, Sweden
- Professor Eric Lambin : Professor Eric Lambin, environmental scientist and geographer, UCLouvain and Stanford University
Policy, advocacy and civil society
- Ali Morpeth : Registered Nutritionist and Co-founder, Planeatry Alliance, United Kingdom
- Faustine Bas-Defossez : Director for Nature, Health and Environment, European Environmental Bureau
- Nina McGrath : Content Area Lead and member of the leadership team, European Food Information Council (EUFIC)
- Raphaël Podselver : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, contributing in a personal capacity
- Danielle Nierenberg : Co-founder and President, Food Tank
- Leah Blechschmidt : Nature United, Canada
- Laura van Geel : World Business Council for Sustainable Development
- Katarina Wangler Björk : Exponential Roadmap Initiative, Sweden
- Werner Schouten : Director, Impact Economy Foundation, Netherlands
- A senior advisor to a US senator who asked to contribute on an unattributed basis
Media and communications
- Mark Hertsgaard : Executive Director and Co-founder, Covering Climate Now
- Solitaire Townsend : Co-founder, Futerra
The Oatly interview team
- Anna Åhnberg : programme lead and lead interviewer
- Caroline Reid
- Cecilia McAleavey
- Malina Andersson Lee
- Sara Fletcher
- Katie Gilman
- Kate Overy
- Stacy Cushenbery
- Mette Axelsen
- Karin Levall
- Anthony Calvez
- Matthijs Germs
- Alistair Brown
- Julia Kuin