Nestlé has once again placed sustainability at the heart of its strategy. Its CEO in Argentina stated that regenerative agriculture will be key to achieving the company's environmental goals.1 and claimed that “the rules are identical for all”. The question is reasonable, but contrasts with an antecedent in the dairy chain should not forget: the discontinuation of its programs of milk A2 and organic.
In 2021, the company announced an investment of more than US$16.5 million to develop both segments. Accompanied to 17 drums for several years, he presented the product as a response to new demands from consumers, and he assigned them to potential exporter. Milk A2 ceased to be purchased from April 2024 because, according to the company itself, the demand was not met expectations. In 2026 was the turn of the organic milk: from the 1st of October will be paid as conventional. The experience provides evidence that is sometimes lacking in the surveys. There may be consumer interest in organic products, A2 or with less carbon footprint, and even some willing to pay more. But that does not mean that they are enough, that you purchase regularly or accept the price needed to sustain a chain segregated. The surveys measured declared preferences; the continuity of the sales reveals the effective demand.
Up there you could talk about the commercial innovation has not reached scale. The most serious problem appears when observing who absorbs the cost of failure. Produce organic milk is not to change a label. Forces you to modify the feed, the rotations, the use of inputs, health management, the charging animal, records, and certification. The regulations require a different system to the conventional one and a transition that normally requires at least two years. The result can be a lower production per cow and per hectare, or at least less flexibility to respond to price changes and climate. The system was viable because they received a bonus of close to 90% above the reference price.
The industry can cancel a line of business on a particular date. The tambo can't rebuild on the same date, its pastures, bookings, charge, productivity, and flow of funds. The output of the industry is administrative; the conversion of the producer is biological, agronomic and financial. You can sue for many months and, without working capital, to lead a company on the brink of insolvency. Milk A2 presents another productive structure: not necessarily reduce the production, but requires genetic selection, identification of the rodeo, traceability and segregation. In both cases there is the same risk: investments that are worth mainly while it remains a specific buyer.
This is not to deny the innovation or environmental objectives. Not to equate this case with Sri Lanka, where a ban abrupt fertilizer aggravated a food and economic crisis far more wide. The common teaching is another: not to be promoted transformations productive without validating previously its scale, its viability and its mechanisms of departure. If industries want the drums to adopt practices regenerative or reduce their carbon footprint, they should offer contracts in line with the biological time of production: long-term, premiums, predictable, amortization of investment, output, staggered, and financing of the conversion. The sustainability can not consist of the company to capture the environmental attributes while the producer assumes all risk. In order to be genuinely sustainable, it must also support the dairy farm that makes this possible.
1 The Nation Supplement Field, August 1, 2026
