You might not recognise their name, but chances are you’ve had their food in your fridge or in your local restaurant. 

Headquartered in the Netherlands, JBS is the largest meat company on earth. It is controlled by billionaire brothers whose companies have pleaded guilty to bribery, been forced to pay millions to settle labour rights violations cases, and whose supply chain has been linked to massive deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. JBS is also a massive polluter, estimated to be responsible for more climate wrecking methane emissions than oil giants Shell and ExxonMobil combined.

Why JBS’s US$6 billion Nigeria expansion is a climate and human rights threat

Right now, JBS is engaged in a $6 billion global expansion, with almost half earmarked for Nigeria, from where it plans to bring its destructive industrial livestock model to sub-Saharan Africa for the first time. Community groups in Nigeria fear that the expansion will cause irreversible environmental damage and threaten access to land and water that local communities depend on for food security – all to line the pockets of wealthy international elites. 

With a track record like this, it’s easy to see why JBS prefers to stay in the shadows. It has long shirked corporate transparency while peddling empty promises. Its approach to Nigeria appears no different. Information published about its plans is extremely limited and despite the efforts of community groups in Nigeria, no environmental or social impact assessments have been published.

That’s why we need to drag them into the light.

Dragging JBS industrial meat expansion in Nigeria out of the shadows

Earlier this year, Greenpeace Netherlands activists took over JBS’ first shareholder meeting on Dutch soil to deliver a letter demanding they disclose the truth about their expansion plans. Using a new Dutch law which allows access to certain corporate data for the purpose of building litigation against a company, JBS were given 21 days to hand over files relating to the climate, nature and human rights impacts of its historic operations and its planned expansion.

Just hours before the deadline, JBS responded in its usual way: denying responsibility, refusing transparency, and completely dismissing anyone who dares to challenge them. JBS ignored the voices of thousands of Greenpeace supporters who emailed in support of our action and all those in Nigeria whose livelihoods are on the line.

Greenpeace Netherlands hoped it wouldn’t come to this. They didn’t want to trouble a judge with this matter. But JBS’ intransigence has left them no choice. Today, Greenpeace Netherlands has submitted a petition to a Dutch court asking it to force JBS to release the files. This is the first step towards stopping JBS’ dangerous plan to open new industrial frontiers in Africa and beyond before it even starts.

See you in court!

JBS appears to believe that despite moving to the Netherlands, it doesn’t need to follow Dutch rules. Today’s legal action aims to prove it wrong – and lay the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.

Greenpeace Netherlands believes that JBS’ historic business practices and its future expansion plans are inconsistent with the company’s climate and biodiversity obligations and therefore breach Dutch duty of care, a legal obligation requiring companies to act in line with international human rights law. 

This is the basis of groundbreaking litigation that Greenpeace Netherlands is building against JBS. Today’s action brings us one step closer to that goal. If the judge rules in Greenpeace’s favour, it will be a huge victory for transparency against corporate interest. And it will provide Greenpeace Netherlands with crucial information to robustly challenge JBS’ dangerous business model in court and hold it to account before its global expansion causes further harm.

JBS tears up climate and nature pledges – act now!

This legal intervention couldn’t have come at a more crucial time. Just weeks ago, JBS scrapped flagship commitments to eradicate deforestation from its supply chains and reach Net Zero emissions by 2040. With them, safeguards for traditional communities and Indigenous peoples may well also be gone.

Make no mistake, these were always empty promises that JBS was never realistically going to deliver. But now JBS appears to have given its supply chain carte blanche for the wholesale sacrifice of ecosystems from the Amazon to its new frontiers in sub-Saharan Africa, while abandoning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions exceeding those of Spain, a country of nearly 50 million people. Its expansion plans will balloon these impacts even further.

We can’t let JBS get away with it. And that’s where you can help.

We believe that public interest must come before commercial confidentiality, that corporate impunity must come to an end and that private wealth accumulation should never trump a healthy planet. We believe states like the Netherlands which host multinational corporations must hold them accountable – wherever they operate in the world. 

But we need a massive wave of public support to show the courts the strength of global concern about JBS’ plans. 

Stand in solidarity with local communities fighting the corporate takeover. Stand up for nature and the climate. Help us stop the new wave of destruction before it starts.

Take JBS to court over its destructive Nigeria expansion Join the People vs. Big Ag

Daniela Montalto is a Global Campaigner at Greenpeace UK based in London.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – Greenpeace Netherlands has petitioned a Dutch court seeking to compel meat giant JBS to disclose information in order to challenge its business policies in court. This includes its planned US$ 6 billion global expansion, of which almost half is earmarked for Nigeria.

Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said: “JBS’ meat empire expanded hand-in-glove with Amazon destruction, colossal emissions, human rights and corruption scandals, all with barely a semblance of transparency. This is the business model it wants to export to sub-Saharan Africa. JBS promises food security, but its expansion in Nigeria risks causing irreversible environmental damage and the displacement of smallholder farmers to line the pockets of wealthy global elites.

“Nigerians know well from the legacy of companies like Shell the destructive impact wrought by unchecked corporate power. As Greenpeace Africa has argued before the African Court of Human Rights, states with jurisdiction over multinationals must hold those corporate actors accountable – wherever they operate in the world. We welcome this bold legal action: the Netherlands and other European states must not be safe havens for corporations like JBS seeking to evade their responsibilities.”

In light of JBS’ longstanding failure to publish accurate and reliable information on its climate, nature and human rights impacts or its expansion plans, Greenpeace Netherlands views accessing this data as a necessary precursor to formal litigation in order to support its case. The case has the potential to be the first climate litigation of this scale against the livestock industry. This could set a major precedent for future legal challenges against the industrial agriculture sector, a major source of global emissions, particularly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, responsible for 0.5°C of warming since the Industrial Revolution.[1]

Marieke Vellekoop, Executive Director at Greenpeace Netherlands, said: “In a month where JBS has thrown its flagship environmental commitments onto the scrap heap, JBS’ disdain for basic transparency only adds to the impression that this meat giant has something to hide and is desperate to prevent its expansion plans from going public. We were hoping we wouldn’t have to trouble a judge with this matter, but JBS has left us no choice but to seek our right to information through the Dutch courts.

“JBS appears to believe that despite moving to the Netherlands, our rules do not apply to it. This legal action aims to prove it wrong – and lay the ground for a first major climate and nature lawsuit against the dangerous expansion of the global meat industry.“

At the centre of the dispute is JBS’ planned US$ 2.5 billion investment in industrial livestock production in Nigeria.[2] Civil society groups in Nigeria have raised urgent warnings that the aggressive expansion will threaten local food security, drive regional instability, and accelerate ecological degradation. There is no available evidence that JBS has conducted any impact assessments or community consultations in Nigeria, and local efforts to gather more information via Freedom of Information requests have reportedly been ignored.[3]

The escalation to the courts follows the refusal of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, to comply with a formal disclosure demand delivered by Greenpeace Netherlands in April. The environmental group is utilising new Dutch legislation, which grants parties with a legitimate interest the right to demand access to specific corporate data necessary to build litigation against Dutch companies.[4]

Greenpeace Netherlands’ lawyers allege that JBS’ historic business practices and future expansion plans are inconsistent with the company’s climate and biodiversity obligations and represent a breach of its Dutch duty of care, which requires companies to act in line with international human rights law.[5]

If the court rules in favor of Greenpeace Netherlands, it is entitled to seek the required information in the form of documents and from senior JBS figures under oath, raising the prospect of the Batista brothers being forced to testify in Dutch court. JBS reincorporated as a Dutch entity (JBS N.V.) last year to facilitate a dual listing on the New York Stock Exchange.

In April, JBS was forced to temporarily suspend its first annual general meeting since moving its headquarters to Amsterdam after it was disrupted by dozens of Greenpeace Netherlands activists. 

Last week, JBS scrapped two flagship commitments to reach Net Zero emissions by 2040 and eradicate deforestation from its supply chain. It also removed any explicit reference to Indigenous lands from all of its current policies. Greenpeace Netherlands is concerned this indicates JBS is seeking to expand unconstrained by the climate, nature and human rights impacts of its business.

Notes:

[1] The livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for 31% of global methane emissions (more than oil and gas operations). In comparison to CO2, methane is shorter lived (around 12 years) but has a much stronger ability to trap heat in the atmosphere over its lifetime: it has approximately 80 times more climate impact than CO2 when measured over 20 years. This means that changes in methane emissions have a more rapid effect on the climate than changes in CO2. See Greenpeace Netherlands letter to JBS dated 30 April 2026.

[2] JBS announcement

[3] Experts raise concerns over the risks of industrial animal farming (The Sun Nigeria) 

[4] Simplification and modernisation of Dutch evidence law (Fieldfisher)

[5] Greenpeace Netherlands petition to Dutch court available on request. Media briefing with further details on JBS expansion plans, including in Nigeria, available here.

Media Contacts:

Joe Evans, Agriculture Global Comms Lead at Greenpeace UK,  +44 7890 595387, jevans@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org

You might not always see soy, but it could be in your chocolate, your shampoo, your cooking oil. Soy is in almost everything, which is exactly why almost no one asks where it comes from.

‘Contains soy. May contain deforestation.’ is the alert from a new Greenpeace Brazil campaign. Without a clear commitment to zero deforestation from across the sector, it is difficult to guarantee that the soy used in thousands of everyday products does not come from a deforested area in the Amazon rainforest.

Where does the soy we consume without knowing it come from?

There is a trail, and it leads straight to the forest, with every purchase, on every shelf, to every company that built a brand on the word sustainability and then agreed to dismantle the greatest mechanism that made that word verifiable: the Soy Moratorium. The soy trade in the Amazon is dominated by a handful of large companies like Cargill, Bunge, Amaggi, and ADM among them, that decide, in practice, whether or not the soy that reaches you is or not free from deforestation.

Could these items be on your shopping list?

Soy is the base of obvious food like oil, plant-based milk, textured protein, but it is also a ‘hidden’ ingredient. Soyby-products, such as soy oil and soy lecithin, are found in a massive number of processed products like biscuits, cosmetics, and animal feed that turns into meat, eggs, and milk on your table, alongside many other processed goods we wouldn’t even imagine.

We could be consuming soy produced in deforested areas of the Amazon without even knowing it. That is why a clear commitment from across the entire sector is essential.

What has changed in the protection of the Amazon against soy?

For 20 years, an environmental agreement called the Soy Moratorium prevented the purchase of soy grown in areas of the Amazon deforested after 2008. The mechanism worked, and the figures for the reduction in deforestation linked to the grain during this period proved it: production advanced, exports grew, and Brazil became the world’s largest soy producer.

The Moratorium proved that it is possible to produce without deforesting, but its effectiveness has always bothered those who want to remove barriers for predatory production. So, in recent years, the battleground has shifted and moved into politics.

As a result of an agribusiness movement that wanted to see the end of the Moratorium, Brazilian state governments in Mato Grosso, Rondônia, Maranhão, and Tocantins passed laws withdrawing tax benefits from companies with environmental criteria that are stricter than what legislation requires, and CADE – Administrative Council for Economic Defense – opened an investigation into allegations that the agreement constitutes anti-competitive practice.

In January 2026, the very companies that sustained the agreement abandoned it. ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, and Amaggi, among others, which for years used the reputation of deforestation-free soy to access demanding markets, gave in to tax benefits and political pressure and set aside the instrument that helped build that advantage. Thus, the guarantee of zero deforestation in the Amazon soy supply chain, which lasted for nearly two decades, ceased to exist.

Instead of backing down, companies should expand their commitments.

The Amazon, without the protection that was lost in early 2026, is at serious risk. Without clear zero-deforestation criteria, poor transparency, and weakened monitoring, soy will once again eat the Amazon.

According to the article The Rise and Fall of the Amazon Soy Moratorium, from Science Magazine, potential impacts of soy on the Amazon without a zero-deforestation commitment include:

• 1.4 million hectares (2 million football pitches) projected to be deforested by 2036 without the Moratorium
• Another 9.1 million hectares (the size of Portugal) suitable for soy could be legally deforested
• 28.7 million hectares of unallocated public forests (an area the size of Italy) are at risk of land grabbing and illegal deforestation

Additionally, 1.7 million hectares deforested before July 2008 in soy farms remain available for use, instead of deforesting new areas. Showing that continuing implementing Zero Deforestation is completely feasible.

If it contains soy, it may contain deforestation. And those who decided that the Amazon is worth less than the next harvest need to be accountable for it. We cannot accept anything less than zero deforestation.

That is why we are demanding action:

Companies that trade soy (traders) such as Cargill, Bunge, Amaggi, and ADM: Recommit to zero deforestation in the Amazon – monitoring production right from its source on the farm and rejecting soy from farms deforested after 2008. Expand these commitments to other threatened Brazilian biomes, like the Cerrado, and to other products at risk of deforestation, such as maize.

Banks, buyers, and retailers: Commit to the same zero deforestation requirements. Do not finance or buy products linked to deforestation.

Click here to sign our petition (in Portuguese).

Caroline Haddad is a Communications and Engagement Forests Campaigner at Greenpeace Brazil.

In times when genocide, wars, extreme weather and the largest World Cup ever can coexist, the world’s biggest football tournament inevitably becomes a stage for geopolitical tensions and contradictions. Even more so when it is co-hosted by a country that has threatened to annex a fellow host country and started a war against one of the competing nations.

While football has been historically considered a working-class sport, the 2026 World Cup goes far beyond football tactics and the performance of national teams, and it has put the sport’s inclusive nature to the test. It places not only a magnifying glass on the global social and economic divide, but also exposes the brutal reality that countries are falling behind on many indicators, and remain far from the victory their people truly seek: a dignified life in a safe and liveable environment.

The “people’s game” in a world of visa walls and fossilflation

The US hard-line immigration and border policies affecting players from competing countries, as well as fans, showed that teams do not compete under equal conditions and standards. A Somali referee was denied entry into the country. An Iraqi striker was held for seven hours of questioning. Iran’s players were subject to unfair treatment, from visa denial (to at least fifteen officials and team staff) to different travel arrangements between training and matches. The US has barred or restricted citizens from 39 countries and halted immigrant visa processing for 75 countries; out of 150 Ghanaian fans who applied for visas, 147 were refused. The divide is clear.

For those fortunate enough to pass the entry barriers, another layer of privilege for those attending the matches is related to the attendance costs: the most expensive in the World Cup’s history. This year’s tournament has made it as clear as ever that fans are not merely supporters; they are treated as consumers and a revenue stream for an industry that becomes more and more elitist. The dynamic pricing system and the sophisticated profit tactics adopted by FIFA led category 1 tickets to reach more than US$10,000, flights from abroad to reach $2,000 roundtrip, and average hotel price on matchdays $400. For fans in competing countries going through high domestic inflation (an increasingly common trend around the globe), attending a match has become financially impossible. 

This reflects however a broader social problem: the unprecedented global income inequality in an era in which the world has for the first time a trillionaire (a status Elon Musk reached the day after the World Cup kicked off), while over 673 million people face hunger, and society is treated as a marketplace. A strong social safety net and fair income distribution are at least as important as people being able to enjoy and afford World Cup matches, because dignity off the pitch and joy on it should go hand in hand.

Nations short scoring on democracy, inequality and the cost‑of‑living crisis

Besides the tournament itself exposing deep paradoxes from the host nation’s foreign diplomacy, from strict borders to price discrimination, other issues underscore the effect that geopolitics has on current inequality and rising cost-of-living. Countries around the world — competing or not to the World Cup — have been falling short in many other social, economic, and climate indicators. 

As latest data from the independent research institute V-Dem shows, nearly 74% of the world’s population now live under autocratic rule, including many of the competing countries. This number is likely to increase next year as recent developments in countries like Colombia and Peru show, from Colombia’s razor‑thin election of a Trump‑backed far‑right president promising US‑backed airstrikes and mega‑prisons to Peru’s ongoing post‑electoral crisis and weakened democratic institutions. The “third wave of autocratization” is fast spreading through both democratically fragile and traditionally stable nations: also in the United States itself, which according to the analysis in a timeframe of a bit more than one year is rapidly moving from electoral democracy towards electoral autocracy. 

The world is taken by a widespread affordability crisis driven by increasing inflation, whose cause is manifold: the war-driven energy shock, pressure on global food supplies because of crop failures caused by extreme weather, increased defense and fiscal spending amid rising global tensions, as well as core inflation by housing and rent, which in many countries make up the largest chunk of consumer price indexes; all this while the wages fail to keep the pace with price shocks on top of structural cost of living. In 2026, the energy shock has put significant pressure on key regions such as Europe and Asia, which are dependent on oil and gas from West Asia and North Africa (the Middle East) and facing industrial recessions and high utility bills, with countries facing deep energy shortages, soaring prices and tight supplies. 

War, energy shocks and fossilflation: who is actually winning?

When the US–Israeli war on Iran shut down shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and pushed oil prices up, ordinary people paid more for fuel, food and transport, but fossil fuel corporations turned the chaos into a jackpot. Greenpeace analysis shows the world’s biggest oil and gas companies raking in tens of billions of dollars in windfall profits during the first months of the Iran crisis, with major European firms booking some of the highest quarterly earnings in their histories and making more than 80 million euros per day in “war profits” from inflated diesel and petrol margins.

The same pattern is playing out in our food system. As gas supplies tightened, fertiliser prices soared and big agribusiness and agrochemical giants reported windfall profits, while farmers struggled with higher input costs and households faced rising food bills. These companies use crises like the war on Iran and the global energy shock to demand more subsidies and weaker environmental rules, turning “food security” into corporate welfare while people and ecosystems pay the price.

If people are to win, it is time to change the tactics

While football remains a universal language that unites people around the world, breaks down cultural barriers and offers relief when everything else feels upside down, the World Cup is a timely moment to remind our leaders that goals on the pitch are not enough to guarantee a life with dignity on a livable planet. What truly decides that future is whether countries can rebuild what has been lost amid deep economic and political crises, straining public services, collapsing democratic foundations and a trapping dependence on fossil fuels that keeps causing repeated economic disruptions.

New outcomes cannot be expected when outdated tactics are in place. People are eager for justice, equality, and economic stability. It is time for our leaders to stop defending a broken system and start playing for a different kind of victory.

Marília Monteiro is a Senior Campaign Strategist with Greenpeace International, working on socioeconomics analysis and responsiveness, based in the Netherlands.

A world cup message in New York, to the oceans treaty projection in Switzerland. Here are a few of our favourite images from Greenpeace work around the world this week.

USA – A ferry passes by the New York skyline that is enveloped in wildfire smoke shortly before a rain shower. Most of the Tri-State Area, including New York City, is under an air quality alert on July 15 and 16 due to smoke from Canadian wildfires. The alert is also due to ground-level ozone. New Yorkers can expect to see smoke over the five boroughs during the mid-morning hours. New York City is in a Code Red as heat indices are expected to reach triple digits. 

USA – Greenpeace USA projects a message for World Cup fans onto the Verizon Building and Brooklyn Bridge. Activists lit up the New York skyline days ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup final at MetLife Stadium with the message “Defend Your Balls. Dove, Kick Plastic Out,” as part of its campaign calling out Dove, an Official 2026 FIFA World Cup Personal Care Sponsor, for selling itself as a brand that cares about men yet consistently ranking as one of the world’s top plastic polluters amid growing concerns about the role plastics may play in men’s reproductive health. Greenpeace USA is calling on Unilever to phase out plastic packaging, transition to plastic-free reuse and refill systems, and support a strong Global Plastics Treaty that cuts plastic production. Projections include the messages: “Defend Your Balls,” “Sperm Count Down,” “Microplastics In Semen,” and “Dove, Kick Plastic Out.

Indonesia – Greenpeace Indonesia held a public discussion to mark the launch of the paper, “Reassessing Coal in Islamic Finance: Ethical Imperatives for Divestment and Sustainability in Indonesia.” This paper encourages a reassessment of the tayyib principle of coal, which has negative impacts on health, the environment, and the economy, in the Islamic finance screening methodology.

Switzerland – Greenpeace activists have projected a video at five symbolic locations across Switzerland highlighting the Swiss company Allseas’ involvement in deep-sea mining. The visual shows what the tranquil village of Châtel-St-Denis has to do with Donald Trump and one of the greatest plundering operations in modern history.

Greenpeace has been a pioneer of photo activism for more than 50 years, and remains committed to bearing witness and exposing environmental injustice through the images we capture.

To see more Greenpeace photos and videos, please visit our Media Library.

Star-narrated film, Groundswell ends on a breathtakingly beautiful note. Narrated by Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson, the film paints a picture of a world where a better food system for people and the planet is possible. But what’s blocking this vision of regenerative farming from taking off? Industrial agriculture and Big Ag’s corporate greed.

As regenerative agricultural expert Natalie Topa powerfully states in the film:

At Greenpeace, we agree: food systems are one of our greatest sources of hope. The way we produce food right now through intensive industrial farming is destroying the Earth, but a diverse, regenerative system could restore it. While the film successfully mainstreams the crucial idea of living soil, we have to look closely at the forces holding this future back.

But as inspiring as Groundswell is, it leaves out a critical question: If a better food system is entirely possible, what is blocking us from achieving it?

Big Ag’s corporate greed is blocking regenerative farming

Early in the documentary, Woody Harrelson says that technology and policies haven’t done enough to fix our heating planet. That’s because they don’t challenge the root cause: corporate greed and Big Ag’s grip on our food systems. 

From seeds and fertiliser to consumption, a handful of giant agribusiness corporations monopolise the food market. Today, global agriculture is locked down by a handful of massive corporate monopolies – which means just a few giant companies control almost everything.

From seeds and fertilisers to meat processing and supermarkets, a tiny group of multi-billion-dollar corporations control the market, squeezing farmers on both sides. They use their massive wealth to lobby governments, making sure laws protect their profits rather than the planet or regular people.

This leaves farmers trapped in a vicious cycle. They have to take out massive bank loans just to buy expensive chemical fertilisers and sprays. Then, they are forced to overproduce just to pay off their debts, destroying the land in the process.

Do you ever feel like the world is breaking, but the people in charge aren’t doing anything to fix it? We see the alarm bells ringing every day through erratic weather, floods, and droughts. Yet, the solutions are right in front of us. This corporate bottleneck is exactly why those solutions aren’t being put into action.

Beware of Big Ag’s “regenerative” greenwashing

Because of documentaries like Groundswell the public is demanding change. We know it’s making a difference because industrial giants can no longer ignore the word “regenerative.” But instead of changing their practices, these companies are trying to hijack the term Regenerative Agriculture to protect their usual destructive practices. This is called greenwashing – using eco-friendly language as a marketing shield to cover up environmental harm.

Corporate giants like Nestlé are increasingly using these catchphrases. Even governments are getting in on the action. A few years ago, I attended a regenerative agriculture conference hosted by the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries. From the opening speeches, the goal was transparent: rebrand existing, intensive farming to cash in on the global eco-hype.

New Zealand’s massive dairy producers love to boast that their farming is pasture-based (meaning cows eat grass outside), compared to the cramped feedlots often seen in Europe and America. But don’t buy the hype. Grass-fed can still mean highly industrial:

• It is still a monoculture: Vast landscapes have been stripped of wild trees and biodiversity to create giant fields filled with just one animal and only one or two species of grass.
• It relies heavily on chemicals: You can only cram that many cows onto a field if the grass is supercharged by millions of tonnes of synthetic (artificial) fertiliser, made using fossil fuels.
• It is a massive climate polluter: Pasture-based or not, New Zealand’s intensive dairy industry remains the country’s single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Real regenerative agriculture means diverse plants and animals, living soil, fewer chemicals, shorter supply chains and communities in control. Big Ag’s “regenerative” branding usually means business-as-usual factory farms with new labels. We need to support lots of smaller-scale, local producers, processors and retailers who live in and care about our communities – and are fighting factory farms.

Industrial agriculture is busting Earth’s planetary boundaries

Groundswell ends on a high note with a beautiful montage of regenerative initiatives and hopeful graphs showing how eco-friendly farming practices are growing globally. Yes, there is a real reason for hope in the rising number of farmers pushing for this change. But the dark flipside is that conventional industrial agriculture is expanding too – and fast. It is swallowing up ecosystems, belching out massive greenhouse gas emissions, and blowing past more planetary boundaries than any other industry.

Right now, the world’s largest meat empire – JBS – is planning an absolutely enormous expansion of industrial meat farming into a brand new frontier: sub-Saharan Africa. For decades, JBS has been the market leader in Brazil’s beef industry, which is the primary engine behind the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Now, it plans to use Nigeria as a gateway to export its destructive mega-farm model to the African continent.

JBS is not acting alone. From Nigeria to New Zealand, Mexico to Spain, industrial meat and dairy giants are aggressively expanding production. Often to produce foods that aren’t even nutritious. In the case of the New Zealand dairy industry, its biggest customers make chocolate bars.

Just as the Groundswell documentary makes clear, we do not need conventional industrial agriculture to feed the world. These expansions are not about feeding people; they are about lining shareholders’ pockets – at seemingly any cost to people and planet. JBS is run by two billionaire brothers and the company is right now being sued by the Brazilian government for labour abuses.

But, at a time when logic, science, and public opinion say we must move away from chemically-dependent monocultures, the industry still holds so much power. And it is using its wealth and influence to lobby for environmental deregulation and massive corporate handouts. Unless we break the power of Big Ag, we’re on a direct path to more industrial destruction.

More plant-based meals and buying local food is good. But to break Big Ag’s grip we need people power

If giant corporations stand between us and the world envisioned by Groundswell, how do we break their grip?

Yes, we can and should support local: buy our produce at farmers’ markets instead of the big supermarket chains. Eat less meat and dairy and replace it with more plants, which use far less land and water to produce. If we have the time and space, we can even grow some of our own veggies in gardens and allotments or keep backyard chickens.

But change doesn’t come from consumer choices alone. History shows us that the biggest changes occur through people power. They happen when everyday people stand up together against industrial giants – and win. And there are reasons for hope – we are already seeing the cracks in the system:

• In Denmark: Following relentless public pressure to protect drinking water and animal rights, the Danish government has officially committed to regulating industrial pork production and supporting regenerative, ecological farming methods. This is a huge turnaround for a country whose meat industry churns out more pigs per person than anywhere else in the world.
• In Croatia: Local communities have mobilised a massive grassroots coalition to fight a toxic mega-project – an industrial factory farm aiming to slaughter 100 million chickens a year. Europe’s largest poultry producer has pulled out of the project, citing local opposition as its main reason.
• Taking on the behemoths: Greenpeace recently disrupted the shareholder meeting of JBS – the world’s largest meat empire and one of the key engines behind the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. We are taking legal action to block them from exporting this destructive model to sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.

Time to take our power back – with healthy soil and a food system that heals not harms people and planet

Groundswell shows us a beautiful destination, but we have to build the road to get there.

To heal the planet, we absolutely need to build healthy soil and recloak our Earth in greenery. But we cannot get there unless we dismantle the political stranglehold of the small number of massive corporations who profit from keeping things broken.

We have the power to fix our food system, but it requires all of us standing together. Join Greenpeace today and help us fight for a food system that heals the Earth and belongs to people, not corporations.

Stop Big Ag: End Toxic Greed

Join the global movement putting people and the planet before corporate profit. 

Take action now

Amanda Larsson is the Global Project Lead for Agriculture at Greenpeace Aotearoa 

The Stakes for the ISA and Deep Sea Mining in 2026 and Beyond

Deep sea mining isn’t just an environmental disaster—it is a unilateral power grab disguised as a resource war, and a modern iteration of colonial history in the Pacific.

This report exposes how a speculative industry is trying to colonise the ocean floor—and highlights the critical, fleeting window the international community has to stop this resource grab before it starts.

From Norway to New Zealand, efforts to exploit the seabed have crashed into a
wall of opposition: legal challenges, parliamentary blocks, and fierce resistance from local communities, scientists, the fishing industry, and environmental groups. The world is not waiting for deep sea mining; it is actively mobilising against it.

Download the report:

Power Games in the Deep: The Stakes for the ISA and Deep Sea Mining for 2026 and beyond – Full Report

Biodiversity protection is vital to life on Earth. Healthy oceans and forests provide us with the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink and much more. Indigenous Peoples, local and coastal communities have been protecting these ecosystems for generations. Their cultures, knowledge and livelihoods are centred around a deep connection to nature.

Yet, the world’s oceans have been plundered by industrial fishing, filled with plastic pollution and affected by climate change. Deforestation for commodities like soy, palm oil, meat and dairy are pushing forests to the brink, and a new rush for minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and copper for the energy transition, AI, new technology and the military means these crucial ecosystems are at greater risk.

From Chile to Indonesia, from the DRC to Sweden, mining has been poisoning lands, displacing communities and leaving a trail of destruction behind. The rush for so-called “critical minerals” even threatens the world’s pristine and understudied deep sea ecosystems. 

How to protect forests and oceans

To ensure a livable planet for future generations, we must protect vast areas including forests and the ocean from mining. Greenpeace International, together with Mighty Earth,Rainforest Foundation Norway and Fern, released an indicative global Restricted Areas Map and Framework for governments, investors and companies using raw materials extracted from Earth. Advancing and applying the Restricted Areas framework is a crucial step to ensure mining does not destroy essential biodiversity, natural ecosystems, carbon storage and freshwater systems.

As crucial leaders and stewards of nature protection, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights must be respected. The Restricted Areas Framework requires Free Prior and Informed Consent before any mining activities happen in their territories. The map then combines multiple environmental and conservation datasets to identify landscapes and natural ecosystems that should be off-limits or ‘no-go zones’ to mining. The map also identifies hotspots where mining of raw materials overlaps with Restricted Areas, and serves as a starting point for further discussions and more detailed mapping of locations where mining poses unacceptable environmental or social risks.

What areas are critical for protection

A key global data set used for the Global Restricted Areas map is the recently updated Intact Forest Landscapes (IFL) map. Identified through satellite imagery, IFLs are the last remaining large undisturbed forest landscapes on Earth – a mosaic of forests and associated natural ecosystems of at least 50,000 hectares, showing minimal signs of human activity or habitat fragmentation. They are massive stores of carbon and biodiversity, as well being the traditional territories for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The data, recently updated by World Resources Institute, Global Land Analysis and Discovery lab at the University of Maryland, and Greenpeace International Global Mapping Hub, is available on WRI’s Global Forest Watch platform.

At CBD COP15, governments agreed to the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to protect biodiversity, including the target of protecting at least 30% of lands and seas by 2030, and rights-based approaches. The Restricted Areas framework and map provide a useful tool to identify additional areas for protection or Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs), as well as Indigenous and Traditional Territories (ITTs). It reinforces the need for rights-based approaches to any protection or conservation, and the need for Direct Access Financing (DAF) for Indigenous Peoples and local communities for biodiversity conservation, restoration and management. 

A transition away from fossil fuels without destroying the planet is both necessary and possible

Transitioning away from fossil fuels is vital for our future on the planet. But the current “critical minerals” rush, driven by geopolitical competition and different sectors, threatens to undermine the possibility of a just and green energy transition. Mining often causes devastating environmental damage and social harm, repeating extractivist and colonial patterns and disregarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. There are numerous reports of workers’ rights violations, land grabs from Indigenous Peoples, and threats to communities connected to the mining industry. Around the world, environmental legal frameworks are being revised or weakened under the justification of national “interest” or for “security” reasons. 

With responsible political leadership, it is possible to meet global climate targets while limiting mining. According to the report Beyond Extraction, commissioned by Greenpeace International and authored by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney, there are several solutions for achieving an energy transition that doesn’t put further pressure on Earth’s vital ecosystems. A key recommendation of the report is that decision-makers must prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition purposes, with public transport, improved recycling programmes, and advanced battery technologies shown as crucial solutions to limit mineral demand.

From deep in the Amazon to the pristine paradise and UNESCO Geopark of Raja Ampat, Papua, Indonesia, Indigenous Peoples, local and coastal communities are resisting mining on their territories around the world. Protecting human rights and ecological integrity must be non-negotiable foundations of a fast and just energy transition. World leaders, investors, and companies must implement a Restricted Areas framework and recognise Indigenous Peoples’ territories and rights, and protect the world’s most sensitive places. We must stand with the guardians of the forest to protect the ecosystems that maintain all life on Earth. 

Defend the defenders

Demand the recognition of Indigenous rights and their territories.

Join now

Grant Rosoman is a Global Forest Solutions Advisor at Greenpeace International and Leon Auty is a Research and Communications Assistant at Greenpeace International.

Learn more at restrictedareasfrommining.org

Brussels, Belgium – Six Greenpeace Belgium activists unrolled a massive banner in Brussels’s historic Grand Place square, ahead of a celebration of the United States’ 250th anniversary in the EU capital. The 600-square-metre banner read “War. Greed. Energy Crisis. What’s there to celebrate?” condemning using the occasion to promote Trump’s political and corporate agenda.

John Noel, Campaigner, Greenpeace International said: “Read the room: this lavish celebration is utterly misplaced. Trump is waging war, threatening allies and adversaries alike, and driving economic disruption across the globe – what’s to celebrate? While EU leaders seem to have made excuses to dodge this party, it’s also time that they stood up to Trump’s bullying too and make sure the EU protects people and planet instead of billionaires’ profits.”

The celebration in Brussels takes place against a backdrop of intensifying global instability driven by the White House. Greenpeace Belgium warns that Trump’s erratic foreign policy and ‘energy dominance’ agenda are fueling conflict, worsening the global energy crisis, and weakening international cooperation. By pairing aggressive trade maneuvers with the dismantling of democratic institutions and environmental protections, Trump’s administration is leaving a trail of economic and ecological disruption worldwide.[1]

Joeri Thijs, Campaigner, Greenpeace Belgium added from the protest: “It is shameful that Belgian authorities are rolling out the red carpet for this administration in the heart of Europe, while US policies are wreaking havoc worldwide.While Belgium and the EU are finally weaning themselves off fossil gas from Putin’s Russia, we are rapidly increasing our dangerous dependence on fracked gas imported from the US. At the same time, Trump is actively pushing to weaken EU environmental safeguards. Continuing to coddle this administration severely jeopardises both the EU’s climate ambitions and its independence from bullies.”

US officials are hosting a celebration in the nearby Parc du Cinquantenaire in the EU quarter later the same day, with thousands of political, diplomatic and corporate representatives on the guest list. The Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever and Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte are reportedly attending, though high-profile invitees from the EU institutions such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas declined to say they would attend.[2]

ENDS

Photos and video available free to use in the Greenpeace Media Library.

Notes:

[1] US demands EU dismantle green regulations in threat to trade deal (Financial Times)

[2] Who dares snub Trump’s party | Euractiv (Euractiv)

Contacts:

Greenpeace Belgium press desk : +32 (0)496 26 31 91,  bpress@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace International Press Desk, +31 (0)20 718 2470 (available 24 hours), pressdesk.int@greenpeace.org