Amsterdam, Netherlands – Leading environmental groups Greenpeace International and Mighty Earth have issued an open letter to McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski, urging the fast-food giant to intervene as major soy traders abandon the Amazon Soy Moratorium.

The letter calls on McDonald’s to use its significant market influence to secure a renewed pledge from key traders – including Cargill, Bunge, ADM, and Louis Dreyfus Company – to remain committed to the criteria of the landmark zero-deforestation pact. It further demands that McDonald’s makes it “unequivocally clear” that the company will cut ties with any suppliers that withdraw from or fail to uphold zero deforestation commitments. 

Lis Cunha, Campaigner at Greenpeace International said: 

“The world’s largest soy traders pulling out of the Amazon Soy Moratorium is not merely a policy shift; it is a retreat from a mechanism that has been a primary bulwark against ecological collapse. As one of the world’s most recognisable brands and a founding member of the pact, McDonald’s has a moral responsibility to do all it can to prevent its partners from turning their backs on zero deforestation.”

The letter notes in particular McDonald’s over 45 year corporate partnership with Cargill, who is among a number of the world’s biggest soy traders now reportedly backing away from the Amazon Soy Moratorium.[1] Signatories warn that Cargill and other major suppliers abandoning the Moratorium render it “functionally impossible” for McDonald’s to guarantee its soy supply chains are not linked to new deforestation of the Amazon, violating McDonald’s global commitment to halting deforestation.[2]

McDonald’s played a pivotal role in establishing the Moratorium 20 years ago after Greenpeace International’s Eating Up the Amazon report exposed how soy grown on deforested land was entering the company’s poultry supply chain. In response to global pressure and activist “chicken” protests at its restaurants, McDonald’s led a coalition of retailers to demand that commodity traders halt the expansion of soy into newly deforested areas.[3] Since its adoption, the Moratorium helped reduce the share of soy grown on newly deforested land in the Amazon from 30% to less than 4% as of July 2025.

Boris Patentreger, forests and nature lead at Mighty Earth said: 

“McDonalds can be a saboteur or a saviour of the Soy Moratorium zero deforestation goal. The fast-food giant must choose to fight for a mechanism that has spared huge swathes of the Amazon rainforest from being destroyed over the last twenty years. That means holding the big soy traders to their commitments and cutting ties with suppliers abandoning the ASM. Or sourcing only from those who comply with the moratorium criteria and continue to implement their DCF policies, without rolling back. There cannot be a soy-free-for-all that will push the Amazon ever closer to collapse.”

On 5 January 2026, the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE), which represents the largest companies involved in Brazil’s soy industry, announced plans to withdraw from the Soy Moratorium, following new legislation in Mato Grosso that strips tax benefits from companies participating in voluntary environmental pacts. If the Moratorium collapses, estimates suggest deforestation in the Amazon could surge by as much as 30% by 2045 as producers revert to weaker legal standards that allow for the clearing of primary rainforest. ABIOVE and many of its members completed their withdrawal on 16 February.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• The full letter is available here.
• The letter comes days after Brazil’s government warned of the threat posed to the country’s agriculture sector by the US-Israeli war on Iran, with Iran’s closure of the Straits of Hormuz threatening global fertiliser supplies [4]

[1] Reuters, ‘Major Brazilian grain traders quit Amazon conservation pact’, 5 January 2026

[2] McDonald’s, ‘Nature, Forests and Water’, 2025 

[3] The Guardian, ‘The Odd Couple’, 2 August 2006 

[4] Reuters. Brazil sounds alarm as fertilizers price spike spurs cheaper alternatives, 18 March 2026 

Contacts:

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

Carole Mitchell, Global Director of Communications at Mighty Earth, +44 7917 105000, carole@mightyearth.org.

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

New York, USA – Greenpeace is demanding governments curb corporate interference in ocean protection as crucial Ocean Treaty talks begin at UN headquarters in New York today.

The talks are expected to have a crucial impact on the power of destructive industrial fishing activity on the high seas, which campaigners say could have “catastrophic” consequences.[1]

Megan Randles, head of Greenpeace’s delegation to the talks, said:

“The fishing industry has been lobbying to weaken the Ocean Treaty for years. We need governments to curb corporate influence now, stop kowtowing to industry pressure, and stop the process from being tied up in delays. If they don’t, the result will be catastrophic for ocean protection. 

“The organisations that manage fishing in the high seas have always protected industry interests, that’s why we’re calling for a limit on how much influence they would have on sanctuary proposals, which are urgently needed for the ocean to recover. Governments must not allow the fishing industry’s influence to hold the Treaty process to ransom.”

Fully protected sanctuaries would cordon off huge areas of the ocean from destructive human activity, but it’s something that the fishing industry has been lobbying against for years. 

Greenpeace is calling on governments to curb the influence of fishing industry lobbying before it’s too late, and ensure that fully protected high seas sanctuaries can be created without delay. Governments must therefore impose a maximum 120 day time limit for the review of sanctuary proposals, this would prevent the organisations that control high seas fishing, and fishing industry interests, from stalling the process. These Regional Fishing Management Organisations (RFMOs) have always protected the interests of the fishing industry, overseen the decimation of biodiversity and destruction of entire ecosystems, and therefore must not be allowed to tie up ocean protection in delays.[2]  

Governments have committed to protecting 30% of the ocean in the next four years, a target that scientists say is the absolute minimum required for the ocean to bounce back from decades of destruction. Making sure that the process of creating sanctuaries isn’t tied up in delays will be vital to this progress. 

It is in the best interest of the fishing industry that RFMOs retain their power over the high seas.[3] That’s why during the Ocean Treaty negotiations, they lobbied governments hard to ensure that the Treaty wouldn’t undermine RFMO power. They even tried and failed to remove fishing activity from the scope of the Global Ocean Treaty altogether. This would have been a disaster for ocean protection.

ENDS

Notes: 

1. The next round of Ocean Treaty talks, the Third Preparatory Commission (Prepcom 3), will begin at the United Nations in New York on 23 March. They are extremely important as key recommendations will be made on how the first Ocean COP (expected some time before January 2027) can deliver the protection needed to allow the ocean to recover from decades of destruction.
   
2. Out of an assessment of 48 high seas fish stocks we know to be in the high seas 75% were considered depleted or overfished in 2016.
    
3. The fishing industry has been actively lobbying against ocean protection measures and to protect its profit margins for decades. Last year, InfluenceMap found that nearly all major seafood companies lobby against ocean protection. Twenty-nine of the 30 biggest seafood firms analysed were pushing policies that clash with global biodiversity goals. Behind the scenes, the same players were working to block the creation or expansion of ocean sanctuaries. 

To receive a full media briefing please use the contacts below. 

Contact:

Florri Burton, Global Media Lead, Oceans Are Life, Greenpeace Nordic, +447896523839, florri.burton@greenpeace.org 

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

Talking about health and water can feel heavy, especially when words like “carcinogen” or “cancer” come up. Realising our water might carry health risks can leave us feeling vulnerable and anxious for our family’s well-being. But here’s the good news: knowledge is our best filter. 

This World Water Day, March 22nd, we aren’t just sharing a “scary” study; we’re sharing the science of prevention. When we know the real numbers, we can demand the real solutions. While industrial meat and dairy production is expanding, a massive scientific alarm is sounding from Denmark to New Zealand. It’s called Nitrate (NO₃). But, what is it?

Nitrate is a colourless, odourless, and tasteless chemical compound. In industrial farming, it comes from the gross overuse of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers and the staggering volume of manure and urine from intensive meat and dairy farms. When plants can’t absorb it all, it leaches deep into the earth and into the groundwater, the source of many people’s drinking water.

While Big Ag executives hide behind the claim that they are ‘feeding the world,’ their own run-off is poisoning the very communities they claim to serve. Here are the 5 facts about Nitrate (NO₃) that show our current water laws need an upgrade.

1. The current nitrate limit is a 1950s relic

First, breathe. The global health standard of 50 mg/L of drinking water nitrate isn’t a “danger cliff” you fall off, it’s just a “hopelessly out of date” limit from 1958. Science has simply gotten better at seeing the small details since then. It was set then to prevent “Blue Baby Syndrome” (acute oxygen deprivation in infants), this limit was never designed to protect you from the chronic exposure risks we can now measure in 2026.

Think of it like car safety: in 1958, we didn’t have mandatory seatbelts or airbags. We aren’t in a crisis because the water changed overnight; we’re in a moment of clarity because our scientific “microscopes” got sharper. We’ve traded rotary phones for smartphones; it’s time we traded “1950s basic safety” for modern medical precision.

2. 3.87 mg/L is an “early warning,” a scientific benchmark for precaution

The landmark study from Denmark tracking 2.7 million people over 23 years found that long-term exposure to drinking water nitrate levels above 3.87 mg/L is where we should start paying attention to bowel cancer risks. That is 12 times lower than the current “safe” limit.

Think of this number as a smoke detector for our water. It doesn’t mean there is a fire in every glass; it means we have the ability to detect risk much earlier than we did in the 1950s. By identifying this “Early Warning” level, we can push for source water protection before it does more harm to our communities.

3. Our bodies are natural filters (up to a point)

Your body is an incredible biological system, but even the best filter has a limit. While we naturally process small amounts of nitrate from food, drinking water with high concentrations from industrial runoff can overwhelm our bodies. In the acidic environment of the stomach, this excess is converted into harmful N-nitroso compounds, which are linked to increased cancer risks.

We shouldn’t be forced to be the “unpaid filters” for corporate waste. The latest science shows this biological overload has a real cost. A growing body of scientific evidence is showing health risks from exposure to nitrate at much lower levels than the current legal limits in most countries.

High nitrate levels can also act as an “Oxygen Thief,” making it harder for the blood to carry the vital oxygen a developing baby needs. A massive study of 1.2 million births even linked nitrate-contaminated water above 22.5mg/L NO₃ to a 47% higher risk of preterm birth. We aren’t “falling off a cliff” at the current limit, but we are being “soaked” by a standard that was never designed to take account of long-term health risks. 

4. We already have the map to fix it

The best part about modern science? It gives us a GPS for protection. In Aotearoa (New Zealand), Spain and Denmark, organisations have mapped where nitrate levels are highest. This is incredible news because it means we don’t have to guess. We can start by protecting the “Red Zones”, the specific areas where communities rely on groundwater the most.

Is your tap in a “Red Zone”? Knowledge is your first filter. You can explore the data for your region right now. Explore the Greenpeace Aotearoa: Know Your Nitrate Map Explore the Greenpeace Spain: Nitrate Water Pollution Map Explore the Greenpeace Denmark: Know your Nitrate Map

5. Transitioning is smarter than cleaning

The most encouraging part? We already know how to fix this. In 2024, Danish researchers reviewed the data and concluded that the societal cost of nitrate-linked illness is estimated at $317 million USD annually in Denmark. A similar study in Aotearoa New Zealand calculated health costs of $43 million a year, in New Zealand.

Denmark’s solution wasn’t to panic, but to pivot. The Government commissioned an expert working group to recommend a health-based standard. Their advice? Introduce a 6 mg/L limit on nitrate and convert high-risk farmland back into nature or organic buffer zones. 

The World Water Day goal: A health-based standard

We don’t want you to be afraid of your tap; we want you to be proud of it. 

Imagine a world where “perfectly legal” actually means “perfectly safe.” Where the water flowing into your home isn’t a source of “what-ifs,” but a testament to a food system that respects the Earth and the families it feeds. By calling for a new, science-led assessment of our water standards, we aren’t just moving a number on a page. We are drawing a line in the sand and demanding a precautionary approach that prioritises families over factory farms. We are forcing a long-overdue look at the outdated limits in high-livestock “red zones” to ensure that the water in our taps is truly safe for a lifetime. It is time to force Big Ag to clean up its act so that our communities, and our health, are never the cost of their corporate profit again.

History shows us that the law is often the last thing to change, long after the science has sounded the alarm. We saw it with leaden paint, where children’s health was traded for industrial convenience for decades. We saw it with asbestos, where vested interests spent millions to bury the truth while workers paid with their lives.

In both cases, the science was clear, but the policy only shifted when people power finally overcame corporate profit. Today, we are at that same crossroads with our water. The 50 mg/L limit is a more than 60-year-old relic of an era that didn’t foresee the true cost of industrial runoff. This World Water Day, let’s choose evidence over anxiety. Let’s demand a standard that reflects the best of modern science, not the worst of Big Ag’s industrial habits.

The science is clear. The roadmap is ready. Now, we just need the political will.

Stop Big Meat and Dairy

It’s time to cut through corporate lies, cut agriculture emissions and shift towards sustainable agroecology.

Sign now!

Amanda Larsson is the Food and Agriculture Global Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Aotearoa.

Unless you’re studying for a high school science exam, lithium, nickel, copper, and cobalt probably won’t carry much meaning beyond being elements on the periodic table. But if there is a time to pull out those dusty science books, it would be now.

Across various sectors, these minerals are of increasing importance, including – perhaps most prominently – renewable energy generation and storage, and electric vehicles; but also other large and growing sectors such as military and AI (e.g., for datacenters). And around the world, many governments and companies are competing to control who can dig them up.

The global minerals rush

These raw Earth materials are often called “critical minerals” by governments and the mining industry, typically a reflection of national political priorities rather than essential societal or energy transition needs. This risks turning these minerals into the focus of a new neo-colonial resource grab, with powerful countries and corporations racing to control them, and wasting their potential to power a fair and green transition.

Globally – from Chile, Argentina, DRC, Indonesia, Sweden to the deep sea – the extractivist rush for minerals puts vital ecosystems, peoples’ rights and the lives and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities at risk. The geopolitical scramble over minerals has also been linked to the current US government’s aggressive annexation threats to Greenland.

Minerals have different uses, and there are no guarantees that the minerals mined “in the name of energy transition” are used for wind turbines or energy storage. For example, big tech companies are consuming more and more of these minerals to expand AI infrastructure (such as datacenters). In addition to driving up energy demand and emissions, the vision of ‘progress’ advocated by big tech oligarchs also threatens to worsen extractive pressures on people and nature, and divert minerals away from energy transition. Moreover, mineral use in the expansion of AI-driven warfare systems has been found as a particularly concerning development.  

In light of this, it is more important than ever to demand coordinated action to ensure that minerals are used where they matter most: principally, for a fast fair fossil fuel phase out and a transition to clean, affordable renewable energy and sustainable transport systems. 

So how do we protect people and nature in the energy transition?

Reduce, recycle, restrict for a safeguarded energy transition

In a report commissioned by Greenpeace International, and authored by academics at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in Australia, we’ve found that an ambitious energy transition can be achieved without mining in vital ecosystems – whether on land or at sea. With visionary leadership, sound policies, and innovative technologies, we can keep global warming within 1.5°C, safeguard vital ecosystems and reduce extractive pressures on people and nature.

Here’s five ways how:

1. Reduce mineral demand with improved public transport, car-sharing, and smaller, more efficient vehicles

Accessibility, efficiency, and reliability in how cities are governed make them great places to live in. Having improved public transport systems is one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for mineral-intensive electric vehicles and the batteries that power them. In addition to expanding high-quality public transport, employing car-sharing schemes, and investing in active mobility (e.g. walking and cycling infrastructure) would significantly decrease reliance on individual car ownership. 

As an added bonus improving our public transport systems is essential not just for climate, but for connecting people to opportunities. Mobility justice is climate justice.

2. Incentivise and substitute battery technology towards alternatives requiring less lithium, cobalt, or nickel

Think about how many items you use that require batteries? Without it, our personal gadgets would be useless; we wouldn’t have advancement in items like electric cars or bikes; and batteries can also help store and use more eco-friendly sources of energy, such as solar and wind. But the production of large batteries is highly mineral-intensive. 

Luckily, over the last decade, technological innovation has transformed the market. Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, now widely commercialised, eliminate the need for cobalt and nickel, reducing pressure on these supply chains. At the same time, sodium-ion (Na-ion) batteries are advancing rapidly, and offer a pathway to significantly reduce mineral demand for lithium, according to the report. It shows that, using innovative battery technologies and energy storage systems that do not require these key minerals would significantly reduce supply gaps for key minerals and ease potential development pressures for new mines targeting them.

3. Design for circularity and scale up recycling 

We all know the drill by now – reduce, reuse, recycle. When it comes to transition minerals, this maxim is of key importance. 

By maximising collection and the recovery of transition minerals from end-of-life transition technologies, recycling can significantly reduce the need for new extraction. Investing in advanced recycling technologies and collection systems, alongside policy incentives that reward high recycled mineral content in new products, ensures that transition minerals re-enter the supply chain. 

Additional circularity measures like extending technologies’ lifespans, improving repairability, incentivising reuse, designing and standardising components for easy disassembly to help with repair and recycling, and enforcing extended producer responsibility (EPR), could also contribute to reducing overall mineral demands. 

4. Prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition needs

Minerals are finite resources, and the practice of mining carries significant social, labour, and environmental risks. Therefore, the use of mineral resources should be prioritised where they matter most – in renewable energy and its storage and in electric mobility to enable a fast fair fossil fuel phase out. 

Governments and industries must prioritise mineral use towards a fast, fair, and just energy transition. Coupled with supply chain transparency, prioritising minerals for energy transition ensures finite minerals are used to advance climate goals that benefit all people and the planet.   

5. Protect key ‘Restricted Areas’ from mining development

Protecting human rights and ecological integrity is a non-negotiable foundation of a just and green transition. Restricted Areas have high environmental, ecological, and natural values, and may include Indigenous Peoples and local community territories. Defining and protecting these Restricted Areas is a crucial step to ensuring that mining of transition minerals respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to their territories, and does not destroy biodiversity, critical natural ecosystems, natural carbon storage, freshwater systems and oceans. 

After all, what is “critical” here is not a minerals scramble largely driven by geopolitical rivalry. Neither the AI race, nor the power and profit chased by States and corporations.

Critical are the ecosystems that all living beings on the planet depend on. 

Critical are the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. 

Critical is meeting peoples’ needs and ensuring that current and future generations can live in a safe climate. 

For this, it’s essential for our world leaders to take courageous and coordinated action to protect people and the planet, and ensure our Earth’s minerals help create a green and just future, rather than being exploited for short-term profit. 

Stop Deep Sea Mining

We need a global moratorium to stop the launch of this destructive new extractive industry. Join the Campaign.

Add your name

Elsa Lee is the Co-Head of Biodiversity at Greenpeace International