Why is Arla’s Bovaer trial stirring controversy in the UK?

Livestock emissions account for around 32% of human-caused methane emissions, according to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Cutting down methane is key for tackling climate change, since the gas is 80 times more potent at warming than CO2 and has contributed around a third of global warming since pre-industrial times. In dairy, methane emissions from farming have been a major obstacle to improving sustainability performance and achieving meaningful reductions in Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions. This has made the adoption of novel technologies and methods to decrease enteric methane emissions all the more important. dsm-firmenich’s synthetic feed additive Bovaer has been one such solution. According to the company, a quarter teaspoon per cow per day reduces enteric methane emissions from dairy cows by 30% and by up to 45% for beef cattle on average. The product works by suppressing the enzyme that forms methane in the cow’s rumen and is fully metabolized by the animal, meaning that no parts of the fodder leaks into milk or meat. The Dutch firm also says its feed additive – which contains chemically synthesized 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol) as an active ingredient, along with propylene glycol (diluent) and dried silicic acid (carrier) - is ‘the most extensively studied and scientifically proven solution’ of its kind, with more than 150 studies having been conducted to date. Bovaer is commercially available in 68 countries and has been approved by the FDA in the US. In the UK, the ingredient got the regulatory green light in January . In November 2024, Arla Foods UK – Britain’s largest dairy co-op – announced it would trial Bovaer across 30 dairy farms in partnership with several major grocery retailers. The aim: to see if there’s scope to roll out the fodder at a wider scale by assessing cost and collecting real-world methane reductions data. (Arla has been laser-focused on leveraging data to support its decarbonization efforts and the recently-announced trial feeds into this strategy.) However, what neither the co-op nor the feed ingredient supplier foresaw was the consumer backlash that their announcement unleashed. From UK MP Rupert Lowe stating he ‘won’t be consuming anything containing Bovaer’ and calling on Defra to carry out ‘an urgent review of its use’, to social media users inaccurately linking dsm-firmenich to Bill Gates, the list goes on. Both Arla and dsm-firmenich have since issued statements rebuking the claims; but it’s unclear how effective these would be in the long run, or if the controversy would stick. So why did a backlash even happen? Dr Jan Dijkstra, associate professor in ruminant nutrition at Wageningen University said there hasn’t been a lot of unease related to Bovaer in markets it’s been trialed previously, ‘at least nowhere near in the orchestrated way seen now in the UK’. “I think the background to this is a growing general trend in Western society of growing skepticism and mistrust towards food additives and chemicals in food,” he said. “There is the ‘nature is better’ ideology; a fear of the unknown (3-nitroxoypropanol is a complex name); the large influence of ‘influencers’ with millions of followers; and admittedly, wrong actions of certain companies, like using banned additives. So what should companies do to mitigate similar consumer backlash going forward? “We are never going to win arguments with some people on scientific/logical grounds,” he said. “But we can enhance transparency and offer clear and accessible explanations about purpose and safety of additive. “We can emphasize scientific backing, and as companies, be prepared to fund solid, expensive experiments by scientists that are of high quality and cannot be disputed. “Next, develop good educational campaigns highlighting safety and regulatory guarantees, including why the additive is introduced – what are its benefits - and possibly also provide examples, such as how salt and vinegar are chemicals but beneficial for preservation. “And do listen and respond, through surveys, focus groups, customer feedback. And perhaps, use the same ‘trick’ as ‘the other side’, i.e., partner with trusted influencers to debunk myths and conspiracies.” ING Research economist Thijs Geijer suggested that consumer mistrust in sustainability claims could be key part of the puzzle here. “Consumer reaction to feed additives is certainly a topic that is being debated in the industry,” he said. “With any innovation, consumers will ask, ‘what’s in it for me’? “While there are no negative effects for consumers, there are also no positive effects for them. “Sustainability is the major consideration, but we also know from our consumer research that around a third of consumers in Europe don’t necessarily trust sustainability claims from manufacturers.” Philip Graves, managing director at behavioral insights consultancy Shift, said that the language used in the announcement ‘had the potential to trigger negative associations with a product that many consumers regard as natural’. “The fact that it’s a ‘trial’ implies that there is still some uncertainty about what will happen; phrases like ‘considered safe by the FSA’ are not definitive, and the notion of altering a natural digestive process with a chemical additive may feel troubling,” he said. “The mind works by association, so if the associations triggered by what they hear are negative, they are likely to react adversely to it. “We are wired for loss aversion in many contexts; they are biased towards protecting us from feeling bad in the future to protect us from taking unnecessary risks: in the case of food, it makes sense for us to be cautious.” In terms of what companies could do to mitigate future risk and what went wrong in this case, it’s really a question of understanding the consumer psychology involved - and making sure that you’re priming people positively, he added. “I wonder if the companies involved felt they were being virtuous by promoting something they were doing in an attempt to reduce climate change, and failed to consider that, as much as people may say they care about this issue, they often prioritize other concerns in their day to day lives.” The Bovaer trial announcement likely needed ‘a lot more of the environmental context established, either through the press release or from other news events at the time that were making the environmental risk of increasing temperatures much more salient,’ he suggested. ING Research’s Geijer said what the future brings for feed additives like Bovaer would be down to whether consumer concerns prove long-lasting. “In general, we see strong interest within the industry to apply measures that reduce GHG’s including the use of these additives,” he to. “Especially since additives are a proven - and cost-efficient - method to reduce the carbon footprint of milk. Meanwhile, Dr Dijkstra predicts that a rise in natural additives could be on the cards. “Companies developing synthetic additives will have a tougher job given this recent Bovaer scare,” he said. “We will see a rise in ‘natural’ additives to mitigate methane – even though natural additives may have equal warning signs.” “For example, red seaweed is seen as natural and lots of people see little objection to it being used, although the active compound is bromoform with all kinds of potentially nasty effects (depending on the dose). (Dr Dijkstra helmed research into bromoform’s effects on milk safety : which caused a stir with some feed additive companies. Visit our sister website FeedNavigator for more information.) “I guess this will [also] make it much more difficult to accept synthetic bromoform – even though synthetic bromoform may well have advantages as to being certain of level of dosing etc, compared with seaweeds,” he added. Companies’ responsibilities aside, are consumers entirely off the hook in how they inform their perceptions? News sources matter, Shift’s Philip Graves said. “In an age when people increasingly get their news from social media, many people’s first encounter with the story is unlikely to involve balanced reporting,” he said. “Additionally, someone conducting a trial is not intrinsically newsworthy – and is unlikely to create an attention-attracting headline; whereas anything focusing on fear or risk associated with it is much more likely to catch the eye. “We live in an age of journalism where one person claiming concern is reported with the same weight as a thousand saying all is well. It’s the fear-factor that makes the story ‘clickable’.”