Food workers face exploitation across the global food chain by IPES-Food   Oct. 2026   The 1.4 billion people who grow, process, transport, sell, serve, and deliver the world’s food face widespread exploitation – from poverty wages and dangerous working conditions to wage theft, forced labour, and discrimination – according to a new report released today by IPES-Food documenting cross-cutting labour abuse.   The food system is the world’s largest source of employment – accounting for approximately 2 out of every 5 workers – yet the sector also exploits more workers than any other sector.   The report, Food Work: The workers behind our food and the exploitation they face, is the most comprehensive global review of labour exploitation across food systems to date. It finds that this exploitation is not accidental, but rooted in a food system built around keeping labour cheap and maximising profits at the expense of worker wellbeing.   Thirty percent of food system workers earn below a living wage. Migrant workers, women, racialized groups, and other marginalized workers face the greatest risks – in a sector plagued by informal work and widespread exclusion from basic labour protections.   Exploitation runs through the entire food chain and every country, from farms, fishing vessels, and factories to supermarkets, restaurants, and delivery platforms. While conditions differ enormously, the same pattern recurs: human exploitation is built into the system, and the workers with the least power and protection are exposed to the greatest risks.   This system keeps workers silent as they fear harsh consequences from speaking out, including losing employment that supports their families.   Agriculture is one of the most dangerous sectors in the world, with one-third of all occupational deaths worldwide, due to conditions including exposure to extreme weather, long shifts without breaks, and contact with harmful pesticides and chemicals. Where international labour standards do exist, experts found that they are largely ignored.   Climate change is making farm work even more hazardous, with extreme heat, wildfires, floods, and other climate impacts increasingly threatening workers’ health and lives. Many farmworkers lack basic protections from extreme weather, while policymakers continue to resist regulations to protect workers from intensifying climate conditions.   New technologies are also creating new perils for food workers. Digital surveillance and algorithmic management are increasingly being used to control workers, intensify productivity pressures, and break down labour relations.   Automation is displacing workers and intensifying health and safety hazards – such as in the meatpacking industries of USA and Brazil, where workers suffer workplace injuries and illnesses at three to ten times the national average.   Meanwhile the report finds that app-based platform work, such as food delivery, preys on vulnerable workers by shifting insecurity and risk onto workers who often lack basic labour protections.   Migrant workers are particularly exposed. Farm work, food processing, and delivery and hospitality sectors are highly dependent on migrant labour. Yet government migration policies keep them locked in legal limbo, while employer-tied permits, irregular status, and the threat of deportation can leave workers susceptible to physical and mental abuse at work, and unable to challenge abusive conditions.   Governments often devote far greater resources to policing migration than enforcing labour standards, the report finds, reinforcing the power imbalance between workers and employers.   At the root of these abuses is a food system that researchers found consistently rewards keeping labour costs low. Highly concentrated corporations can suppress wages, outsource jobs and risks through layers of subcontracting, and prioritise shareholder returns, while workers struggle to secure decent pay and working conditions.   Yet progress beyond this exploitative system is possible without raising food prices. The report documents how food workers are organising and winning higher pay, stronger protections, and safer workplaces, showing that conditions improve when workers have the power to act collectively and governments uphold their rights.   IPES-Food calls for stronger unions and collective bargaining, enforceable standards for decent work, equal rights for migrant workers, and action to tackle corporate concentration and hold companies accountable for abuses throughout food supply chains.   Raj Patel, IPES-Food expert:   "The people who put food on our plates are some of the most exploited workers in the world. Farmworkers, cooks, delivery riders – they consistently face low pay, unsafe conditions, abuse, and insecure work. Powerful food corporations profit from keeping labour cheap and workers powerless. But history shows that when food workers organise, they win better pay, safer workplaces, and stronger rights – raising the bar for workers everywhere, and making the food system safer for everyone".   Olivier De Schutter, co-chair of IPES-Food:   "Governments have allowed a vast workforce to fall through the cracks of labour law. Food workers are routinely carved out of basic standards on wages, safety, and collective bargaining. Even where rights do exist on paper, they are not enforced, due to lack of inspections and prevalence of informality. It’s time to close these loopholes, invest in enforcement, and guarantee dignified work for all food workers".   Errol Schweizer, IPES-Food expert:   "Our food system would collapse without migrant labour, yet migrant food workers face some of the highest rates of exploitation, injury and death. Government immigration and labour policies make migrant workers vulnerable, exploitation easier, and abuse harder to escape – with borders policed far more aggressively than abusive employers".   Mamadou Goita, IPES-Food expert:   "As recent heatwaves show, climate change is becoming a workers’ rights crisis. Farmworkers already face poverty wages, toxic pesticides, and gruelling conditions. Now climate change is turning up the heat and making their work even more dangerous. Yet governments are still failing to guarantee workers even basic, lifesaving protections like shade, rest, and drinking water. The people producing our food should not have to risk their health or their lives to earn a living".   http://ipes-food.org/report/food-work/ http://ipes-food.org/report/food-work/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2026/10/workers-helping-feed-the-world-but-starved-of-dignity/ Visit the related web page
	Biofuel production expansion threatens food supplies and forests by Dr Patrick Schroder, Bhargabi Bharadwaj Chatham House, Climate Action Network   Sep. 2026   The problem with biofuels as a response to the Gulf energy supply shock - How they threaten food supplies, forests and biodiversity   Biofuel production is set to expand rapidly over the next four years, as the search for alternatives to Gulf oil supplies gains momentum amid the US–Iran war.   Our analysis indicates that an extra 36 million hectares of land – an area the size of Germany – could come under pressure globally as governments expand fuel-blending mandates. Additional production on this scale risks intensifying competition for land and food crops, contributing to food insecurity and incentivizing deforestation.   Policymakers must therefore treat biofuels as a targeted transitional measure to help bridge the current oil crisis, rather than a permanent solution to the problem of energy security.   Our policy recommendations include stronger protections against deforestation, clearer land-use limits, enhanced criteria for feedstock sustainability, and the promotion of agroforestry and integrated approaches to land use.   Key Points   The ongoing conflict between the US and Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz to shipping have caused a global energy ‘shock’, with Asian economies particularly exposed to higher fuel prices and supply insecurity as a result.   Biofuels are being promoted as a swift and easy way to increase domestic energy security in response to this shock. Major economies including Brazil, India, Indonesia and the US are rapidly advancing new policies to increase the share of biofuels in transport fuels. Global production of biofuels is now expected to be 68 per cent higher in 2030 than in 2025.   However, production on this scale risks intensifying competition for land and agricultural outputs, contributing to food insecurity and threatening biodiversity.   Our analysis shows that the changes to biofuel mandates announced by various governments since the beginning of the Gulf energy crisis could require around 36 million hectares of additional land to be used for biofuel production globally – an area the size of Germany. This pressure will likely lead to further deforestation in ecologically sensitive regions of the world.   Biofuels must therefore be treated by policymakers as a targeted transitional measure to help bridge the current crisis, rather than a permanent solution to the problem of energy security.   An accelerated and largely uncoordinated policy push for biofuels – combined with reduced fertilizer availability due to conflict and El Nino-related impacts on agriculture – would likely rely heavily on food crops such as palm oil, soy, maize or rice as feedstocks.   Growing biofuel demand could push up the prices of key crops and products like corn and vegetable oils, worsening food security risks in 2026 and beyond.   Higher shares of biofuel can help reduce exposure to oil price shocks and import dependency (e.g. for existing vehicle fleets and hard-to-electrify sectors such as heavy goods transport). However, if biofuel expansion is not managed carefully, it will increase long-term pressure on land.   Pressures on forests and ecosystems like those described above will be difficult – perhaps even impossible – to reverse.   To reduce negative impacts on land, forests and food supplies, policymakers must avoid measures that stimulate demand for biofuels unless robust safeguards are in place.   National biofuel mandates and bioeconomy strategies need to be designed to include stronger deforestation protections, clearer land-use limits and improved feedstock sustainability criteria.   The latter should prioritize waste- and residue-based fuels, advanced second-generation biofuels and low-impact feedstocks (such as those produced sustainably on degraded land).   The role of biofuels in the fuel mix should be reassessed once immediate pressures on energy security ease and rolled back if environmental impacts become too severe, especially given that higher biofuel mandates often depend on government subsidies or other policy measures that may impose unnecessary costs relative to their benefits.   Alternatives are likely to be more cost-effective and yield better long-term results. In many transport sectors, especially passenger transport, energy efficiency measures and demand reduction, decarbonization of electricity generation and electrification offer long-term energy security with less risk of capital expenditure becoming ‘stranded’.   Meanwhile, in terms of land use, agroforestry and integrated approaches can increase biomass and land productivity while protecting biodiversity and avoiding large-scale monoculture expansion.   http://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/09/problem-biofuels-response-gulf-energy-supply-shock http://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/09/problem-biofuels-response-gulf-energy-supply-shock/meeting-need-energy-security-while   22 Sep. 2026   Climate Action Network International today warned that the COP31 “35-by-35” electrification target will fail to deliver climate progress unless it is powered by sustainable renewable energy – not nuclear power, oil, gas or coal – and implemented as a just, equitable and people-centred transition.   The warning follows the publication today of the International Energy Agency’s new special report, Electrification. Developed at the request of Turkiye and Australia through the strategic partnership between the COP31 Presidency and the agency, the report envisages a scenario in which nuclear power could make a “strong comeback” in its pathway aligned with net zero emissions by 2050. Under that pathway, annual nuclear capacity additions could rise from around 3 GW today to more than 40 GW by 2035.   35 by 35: What kind of power – and for whom?   During New York Climate Week, Turkiye launched the 35-by-35 pledge as part of the COP31 Action Agenda. CAN International said that reaching the numbers on paper would not constitute climate progress: governments have to consider how electricity is generated, what it is used for, who gains access to it, and who owns and controls the systems that deliver it.   The pledge says that the goal should be supported by “diverse and sustainable energy sources”, without defining those sources. The IEA’s High Electrification Scenario likewise does not determine how the additional electricity demand would be met but presents several scenarios.   Alongside the expansion of nuclear power envisaged in its net zero pathway, the report also presents a scenario where gas-fired generation could increase by around 2,000 TWh by 2035 under the supply mix based on stated policies.   Janet Milongo, Energy Transition Lead at CAN International, said: “The 35-by-35 target will only represent climate progress if it is powered by sustainable renewable energy – and that’s not nuclear or fossil fuels. Success cannot be measured simply by how much of the world’s final energy consumption becomes electric. We must ask what generates that electricity, who has access to it, who owns the infrastructure, and whether it is helping communities transition away from fossil fuels. Developing countries must have the resources and capacity to own, govern and shape their electricity systems in the public interest.”   The global electrification agenda must also strengthen energy sovereignty. International cooperation and investment should build domestic capabilities and resilient, public-interest energy systems – not create new dependencies in which grids, technologies and energy resources are controlled by foreign governments or multinational corporations.   The report acknowledges that electrification alone is not enough to meet climate goals and that how additional electricity demand is met has major implications for emissions. CAN International called for rising demand to be met through the rapid, just and equitable expansion of sustainable renewable energy, supported by energy efficiency and sufficiency, storage and fit-for-purpose grids.   Public resources and political attention should be directed towards these rapidly deployable solutions, rather than costly, risky and slow-to-deploy nuclear projects or continued dependence on gas, oil and coal which run counter to climate science.   Additional civil society quotes:   Jacqueline Kimeu, Senior Climate Change and Energy Advisor, Christian Aid: “Investing scarce public resources in nuclear power is the wrong choice for a just energy transition, especially in developing countries, where electrification is not simply about replacing one technology with another. It means powering homes and hospitals, creating industries and jobs, and building resilient economies; needs that decentralised renewable energy can meet. Every dollar spent on nuclear power reduces investment in renewable solutions that can reach underserved communities quickly, create local jobs and provide clean energy without transferring hidden costs and risks to future generations. Achieving 35 by 35 therefore requires recognising countries’ different starting points and giving developing countries the finance, technology and policy space to shape their own renewable energy futures.”   Rajneesh Bhuee, Just Transition Co-lead, Recourse: “Electrification can be a powerful driver of the energy transition, but 35 by 35 only has climate credibility if it is powered by sustainable renewables. Paris alignment means avoiding new fossil fuel lock-in and directing public finance towards the grids, storage, efficiency and sustainable renewable energy systems needed to electrify at scale. Nuclear can not be treated as interchangeable with sustainable renewable solutions: doing so risks diverting scarce finance and attention from the rapid deployment of sustainable renewables. For the Global South, electrification must expand affordable, reliable access without creating new dependencies.”   Avantika Goswami, Programme Manager Climate Change and Green Economy, CSE India: “Electrification is a low-hanging fruit to support economy-wide decarbonisation as countries work towards achieving their climate goals. The effort must be to ensure that it is backed by grid-scale renewable energy coupled with storage, so that we achieve twin goals: electrifying infrastructure and drawing down fossil fuel use. For this to work, customized sectoral needs and gaps for developing countries must be identified, and developed countries must commit the corresponding financial and technological support for this global target to work.”   Stela Herschmann, Lead of International Policy, Observatorio do Clima (Brasil): “Electrification is key to tackling the root cause of the climate and energy crisis – but only if those electrons come from renewables, not fossil fuels. It’s a means, not an end. Any target needs to be anchored in real guardrails: it must close the energy access gap, be backed by public finance, and respect community rights, not repeat the harms of extraction.”   CAN International calls for:   Industrialised countries to take the lead in electrifying and decarbonising their high-consumption economies. Developing countries to receive the finance, technology and policy space needed to expand reliable, affordable and sustainable renewable electricity.   Electrification strategies in developing countries to expand energy access, power homes and public services, support sustainable industrialisation and job creation, and contribute to poverty reduction.   Progress to be measured not by a global percentage alone, but by whether electrification reduces fossil-fuel dependence, delivers universal access to quality renewable energy, strengthens democratic control over energy systems and reduces inequalities within and between countries.   Electrification and decarbonisation to advance together: the world cannot afford to electrify first and decarbonise later.   http://climatenetwork.org/2026/09/22/ieas-electrification-report-governments-must-back-renewables-not-nuclear-and-fossil-fuels/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories