Another potential shock is biodiversity loss, which can lead to ecosystem collapse that can wipe out crops from whole regions. The food industry is already worried about these risks. One 2024 report by the Institute of Grocery Distribution, “Resilience: A System Under Pressure”, highlights the risk inherent in our ageing farmer population. Labour is vital for production, and yet the average age of a UK farmer is 59 years old. The report also raises concerns that a botched roll-out of new farm support schemes might de-motivate farmers and discourage their investment in future production.
We can’t afford to ignore their warnings. The idea that we’d all be confined to our houses for months by a virus would have been considered science fiction prior to 2020, but now it’s a well understood scenario. Disaster planners have to model worse epidemics than Covid, and we need to be ready for them.
Perhaps the idea of being blockaded by submarines sounds a little unlikely, a strangely nostalgic fear left over from the Second World War. But war is far from over. There are three major conflicts affecting millions of people’s food supplies taking place right now.
The Israelis have used food supplies to try to bring their enemies to heel in Gaza, something that is illegal under international law. In Sudan, six million people are at risk of famine at present because of a civil war. And the Ukraine-Russia war has revolved heavily around food supplies — the Russians targeted Mariupol to gain control of Ukraine’s grain exports, and regularly target food markets to try to intimidate Ukrainians into ending their resistance. Britain is involved in the Ukraine conflict already, so it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which Russia sabotages Britain’s food system to punish us. Think less U-boats in the Atlantic, and more sabotage of computer software by bot-farms in Russia to collapse our logistics. A single electricity outage could crash our entire supermarket system overnight.
The Ukraine war has taught us that our farms are often reliant upon hidden foreign inputs — synthetic fertilisers drive current crop yields, and imported feedstuffs prop up our milk, meat, and egg industries. The war doesn’t have to touch English soil for it to cut the yields of our fields by around 20-30%.
As we know, bad things never happen one at a time. Shocks can come from several directions at once and compound the damage of each other. Imagine a flooded city loses its electricity during a severe epidemic. Now imagine there is a war elsewhere in Europe that prevents food supplies coming to that city. Figuring out how we might find, move, cook and serve food for millions of people in such a scenario is a serious business.
There is an old saying that we are only three days away from anarchy, particularly with a food system breakdown. Yet Professor Lang is more optimistic. He says that what we often see in a crisis is not social collapse but instead people working together, finding ways to ration or share, displaying the best of human nature. But even with a lot of good will, people need a certain number of calories every day to stay alive.
It’s worth pointing out, as Professor Lang does, that access to nutritious food is not guaranteed in Britain even without a geopolitical crisis of the kind I am imagining. Millions of British people are suffering from food insecurity right now. In 2022-23, 11% of the UK population lived in a household experiencing food poverty — including 17% of all children. That same year, 2.3 million people lived in a household that used a food bank. So poor is the British diet that the average five-year-old is now shorter than they were 20 years ago.
Add to this the fact that many British people have very poor access to, or else cannot afford, nutritious foodstuffs. Our diet of processed foods, full of salt, fat and sugar, is making us sick. In his recent report “The False Economy of Big Food”, Professor Tim Jackson estimates that our failing food system costs us £268 billion a year.
We don’t need a meteor or a war or even zombies to screw up our food system. For millions of vulnerable people, it is already broken. And they will be the hardest hit by any future shocks.
There are many farmers who use the “food security” argument as a way to say that farming can’t change. Leave us alone or there will be less food — I get it, but it’s a bad argument. Due to the rise of supermarkets and industrial technologies, farming has become massively specialised and monocultural. What’s needed is a food system that’s far more diverse.
We need lots more horticulture scattered all across the UK. We need orchards and urban farms. We need vast numbers of small and diverse food businesses to spread risks in the food system and avoid bottlenecks. And we need to support regenerative and nature-friendly farms that are less reliant upon imported inputs like synthetic fertilisers. Indeed, we need more farms not less, because giant simplified industrial farm systems are often the riskiest of all. Since they specialise in mass commodity production, they tend to grind to a halt when they can’t get rid of their pigs, chickens or milk because a processing plant stops working. They are also the most vulnerable to epidemics.
Furthermore, we need to create farms with closed nutrient cycles that utilise mixed livestock and cropping to restore soil and create resilience. We farmers can’t claim to be sustaining our food system’s future if we are degrading our soils — that strategy might produce cheap food right now, but only at the expense of our future. And no civilisation has ever survived that lets vital nutrients leak out of the food system. We need our waste to go back on our fields, rather than flushing it away.
Much of the farming we need, such as no-till organic horticulture, is human-intensive — it relies on human brains and skilled hands not magic bio-tech solutions. In order to make these changes, we’d need a whole new generation of brilliant farmers and some radical new thinking. Heaps of young people, including my daughter, want to farm, but the capital required to take on a giant industrial operation makes that a fantasy. We need starter farms, and opportunities for people from non-farming backgrounds to produce food and contribute.
If all this sounds fantastical and unlikely, just remember that our current food system is creating costs that are staggering. The status quo is not serving us. We can’t keep mindlessly copying a US food system that is fraught with costs and risks.
Change would require bold action and joined-up thinking across government departments. We seem to have lost faith in the government’s ability to solve problems. But remind yourself that we once rationed food to survive a wartime blockade. (Remarkably, the poorest 25% of the population were healthier under rationing than they had ever been before, with access to good food for the first time.) And remind yourself that we created the National Health Service. We can do hard things — and sometimes we have to.
Food system planning and delivery should be at the heart of progressive politics — a priority for investment, even in austerity. And it is an investment, not a subsidy. It will make us all healthier, happier, safer, and more affluent. It would benefit the poorest the most.
The current fight between the government and farmers about inheritance tax is staggeringly stupid. It is the wrong fight, with the wrong people, about the wrong issue, at the wrong time. It is terrible politics because the list of things we need from our farmers is long and growing. We need to help them, not undermine them, so they can invest to create the healthy real food production we need. After all, history is littered with civilisations that collapsed because they were unsustainable.
This whole shift requires a standard of political leadership that doesn’t exist at present. And leadership at the local level as much as in Westminster. We need to be more like the French and Italians, empowering local government and mayors to restrict the growth of supermarkets and fast-food outlets, and instead prioritising local and healthier real food growers and sellers.
The truth is we’ve gambled too long already on a risky and failing system. The world around us grows ever more hostile and we have chosen to be a stand-alone geopolitical unit. Whatever you think of how we got here, that’s our reality. We now need to do the work of building a strong and healthy food system for Britain.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePlans? Who needs plans? There were plans for Covid, but as soon as the pandemic started, governments filled their pants in panic and ignored their plans.
That’s not the worst of his faux pas.
“No civilisation has ever survived that lets vital nutrients leak out of its food system”.
Whilst an example would’ve been useful, the author didn’t provide one since it’d hardly stand up to scrutiny. The concept of nutrient depletion is relatively recent, based on scientific understanding of what nutrients are, and whilst crop rotation and “fallow fields” were understood by our ancestors has anyone ever heard of an entire “civilisation” that failed because of not understanding it?
Droughts, yes. It’s thought some prehistoric South American cultures may have fallen at least partly due to not ‘propitiating their rain gods’ but the idea they understood soil science is ridiculous; and unless they did, they couldn’t have “let” nutrient depletion occur in the way the author suggests.
I’m not sure doomerism like this is helpful. If there is some kind of crisis, food is just one of many breakdowns that threaten the population. In a modern civilization, people are too dependent on too many interdependent systems – food, water, fuel, electricity etc. If everyone grows a garden, that won’t help out much during some catastrophe. If you’re really worried about food, you’re probably better off storing canned goods and freeze dried products.
The reference to climate change and diminishing food production is annoying because it is repeated ad nauseam and is not based in fact. There is no crop I can think of that has dropped in yield and productivity. All major crops have enjoyed continuous increased production.
The graph at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cereal-and-oilseed-rape-production/cereal-and-oilseed-production-in-the-united-kingdom-2024
suggests yields per area are flat over the last couple of decades (though more erratic in recent years).
The UK only produces about half its own food, so it is clearly vulnerable, hence rationing in WW2 and huge efforts made by Britain and its allies to keep us fed.
The point of ‘doomerism’ like this is to provoke thought. ‘Doomerism’ prior to WW2 meant Britain started to prepare for food supply from as early as 1936. https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/the-road-to-rationing-preparing-to-feed-britain-in-world-war-ii/
A free market in food, and capitalism more generally, fails during wartime (internally, for the country at war).
I’m not sure what kind of war you think will happen. Britain is a nuclear power. If it gets into a full blown war, I think there are bigger concerns than food safety.
Looking at the charts, it looks like yields have been flat for 20 years. That makes Britain an extreme outlier. Thats an important question to answer.
In the UK there was a drive for ever cheaper food following WW2. Over the long term has that actually benefitted us? It did to start with but a few generations later we are overweight and have just used the money saved to pay for houses instead, helping to drive up their prices.
We always hear of so much food wasted. Maybe some of this (able to be stored) should placed in secure, local depots for a rainy day.
Food for thought!