House & Home

Partly Sunny with Showers 14° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Digging for victory

Digging for victory: Britain's food revolution

The UK must become more self-sufficient and increase food production on a big scale to cope with dwindling global sources

By Martin Hickman

Last year Defra said that the agrarian revolution must be done sustainably

jason alden

Last year Defra said that the agrarian revolution must be done sustainably

Britain is to commit itself to a massive increase in domestic food production to feed the population in the next 40 years, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. The UK will announce tomorrow that it intends to "play a full part" in meeting a United Nations target of raising food production by 70 per cent by 2050.

The surge in homegrown crops and meat – which has echoes of the Dig for Victory campaign of the Second World War – is needed to cope with rising global population levels and crop failures and water scarcity caused by climate change.

British officials are increasingly concerned that food supplies will come under strain as a result of rocketing demand from newly prosperous and powerful nations such as China and India. Self-sufficiency has fallen in recent years, and only about 60 per cent of the food British people eat comes from the UK.

Tomorrow, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, will set out the scale of the problem and challenge farmers to raise output rapidly while cutting greenhouse gases. In the search for a new green revolution, he will say new research is needed to develop new crop breeds and techniques. Manufacturers, retailers and households will be urged to cut current massive levels of waste. Households can help by growing more food in back gardens and allotments.

Civil servants described the new food strategy as a "wake-up call" for farmers, retailers and the public.

Farmers who have long criticised the Government for taking a relaxed attitude towards food security will welcome the focus on domestic production. Wildlife groups, however, fear that further agricultural intensification will hit wildlife. Ripping out hedgerows, growing crops on meadows and dousing fields in pesticides and fertilisers have badly affected farmland birds and animals in the past 50 years.

Numbers of farmland birds such as skylarks, yellowhammers and corn buntings have almost halved and many wildflowers have been left on the brink of extinction. Most of England's hedgerows have been lost since 1947.

The Government's new approach is set out in a new document, the UK Food Security Assessment. It says that Britain's position is currently favourable because agricultural production has risen in recent years, with Britain a major exporter of wheat and barley. But it warns that rising population pressures and a likely worsening environmental picture will pose serious challenges in coming decades.

In a list of challenges to UK food security are the changing climate, floods, drought, soil erosion, water scarcities and the breakdown of ecosystems. Global temperatures may rise two to three degrees in the next 50 years, threatening large-scale crop failure in Africa.

"The Government is monitoring the climate risks to harvests and the potential for more volatility in supplies and prices. We will also examine any implications for animal disease and food safety," the document said. "Other areas of climate-change impacts on our food will include further pressure on fish products from increasing ocean acidification; supply strains on water-reliant crops such as fruit from the Mediterranean; and the impacts of increasing episodes of coastal flooding and erosion."

Droughts and rocketing demand last year sparked riots across developing countries such as Haiti after food prices rose by 40 per cent in 2007. In Britain, years of cheap food ended, with prices rising back to 1997 levels. British households still spend on average less than 10 per cent of their income on food, compared with 70 per cent in many developing countries.

The new document says that while Britain is relatively well placed for food security, countries from which we import may be in a much worse position. It adds that Britain should help to take pressure off global food supplies by raising production.

The UN Food and Agriculture Programme believes food production must rise by 70 per cent on 2005-7 levels to cope with a world population forecast to hit nine billion in 2050. On the risk of wildlife destruction, a government source said: "We are obviously hoping it's not going to lead to that. The central message is we have got to produce more using less and not trash our wildlife."

Last year the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said that the agrarian revolution must be done sustainably, or else future generations would inherit depleted natural resources and, ultimately, dwindling food.

Professor Tim Lang, a commissioner for land use on the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, warned: "We are facing a mounting crisis in securing global food supplies, with climate change, rocketing oil prices and growing demand all placing a strain on traditional supply chains."

Britain was wholly self-sufficient in food before the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Self-sufficiency sank to a record low of 30 per cent before the Second World War, when the Government was forced to increase production rapidly by bringing more areas under the plough and exhorting people to grow their own fruit and vegetables.

After the Dig for Victory campaign, production drifted back downwards, before nudging up to the current level of 62 per cent. Imports are mainly plants that have to be grown in hotter countries such as bananas, oranges, tomatoes, tea and coffee.

In a speech to the Fabian Society last year, Mr Benn – who will launch the new policy at the massive Thanet Earth greenhouse complex in Kent tomorrow morning – said: "UK farming is doing all right overall. We are more self-sufficient now than we were before and after the Second World War, and we have shown during wartime what we can do to raise production when we need to.

"But to look at our food security in this way is only to think about art of the problem. Rather, we should look to maintain the security of our sources of supply. And if we want to avoid too much demand chasing not enough world supply, then we need to help to create a stable food market which can meet global demand for future generations."

Groups such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Soil Association and the RSPB are concerned that Britain will opt for massive single-crop farms, turning many areas of the country into monocultures dubbed "green concrete" for their impact on wildlife.

The RSPB said: "It is important that concerns about food security are not used as an argument to decrease the sustainability of production. For long-term food security, we must consider our impacts on the environment and ensure we do not cause lasting damage to biodiversity and the ecosystem."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Suggestion
[info]mackname wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 02:18 am (UTC)

Tackle the main cause of problem;

Let us have a campaign to make a target for the benefit of smaller families, preventing mass migration in order to stabilise harmonically the balance of human population in accordance to natural resources all over the world.

Re: one global family, one destination
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC)

Dont worry, be happy!

The world is at the beginning of its end-of-days (for humans) - all the signs for the start of this phase are valid now. So, just carry on with life, be a believer in God and be good...
Re: one global family, one destination
[info]ari02 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
I wish I could stick my head in the sand like that.
A Tipping Point
[info]alykhansatchu wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 02:56 am (UTC)
Today there are near enough 7b Souls on our Planet. There are many more of us. We have heated up the Planet a great deal as well and this has stressed our Weather patterns capping the net Agri Output. The mean calorific intake is a great deal higher. We have cannibalised Agricultural Land with our breakneck Industrialisation.

Sugar Contracts are trading at levels not seen since 1981 and is the Lead Indicator.

I sense we are on a sharp and permanent shift to higher Ground in the Softs.

Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
Re: A Tipping Point
[info]paganpete1001 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC)
I agree - I think we are reaching a social and economic tipping point and it does not look good for us!
Re: A Tipping Point
[info]gerryhiles wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
Agreed. The argument is really over and all that remains is committee meetings about trivia, e.g. so-called 'renewable energy'.
Better late than never
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:11 am (UTC)
The thirty-year-update to 'Limits to Growth' - which offered clear warnings - has been available now for five years, so that's at least five years lost.

Agrocukural autarky is also on a collision course with the lack of a population policc. And no organ of the media has given more full throttle support to open door immigration that the Indie.

It also cuts across the current gospel of 'free trade', under which we distort poor countries economies - and especially their agriculture - in pursuit of exotic foods which were largely unavailable fifty years ago when the world population with little over 2 billion.

Finally, there's the small problem of a clash with housing policies.
Dig for Victory
[info]jimfred wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:18 am (UTC)
Government policies have served to globalise farming in recent years.Have they decided that it is not such a wonderful idea after all?
Grow our own food.Fancy that.
Re: Dig for Victory
[info]gerryhiles wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:07 pm (UTC)
Bit of a snag.

I don't know where you live jimfred, but I grew up in a house with a reasonable size garden (1940-50s) and it just was not possible to be viable in the production of food, for manifold reasons, such as having the means to store and/or exchange gluts of produce (assuming that pests, of one sort or another, had not wiped produce out).

All that aside: there is the fact that many millions of people live in flats and other buildings which have no gardens and have no chance (nor interest) in acquiring an allotment ... FAR less chance (and interest) than during the 1940s.

This is a no hoper ... except that maybe Winsor Great Park and numerous other royal/aristocratic estates could be turned over to competent farmers.
To reach this target we must also
[info]stewartpa wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
-avoid wasting food through overstocking at supermarkets. I know some of this stuff is passed on when the sell-by date is reached, but when did you last remember a supply of perishable goods running out on the supermarket shelf?
- eat less;
- become better educated about use-by dates. These didn't used to be necessary;
- only buy what we are going to use. Unfortunately the big weekly shop doesn't help in this respect, and neither does the disappearance of the little corner shop/convenience store;
- be prepared to pay a realistic price for food so that farmers can make a profit and look after the countryside. It's about time the National Farmers Union started showing some muscle on its members behalf;
- be prepared to start eating seasonally again. Making some foods available throughout the year is incredibly inefficient and legislates against the supply country becoming self sufficient in favour of growing cash crops. Our overseas aid will need to react to this change;
- do not allow proponents of GM to climb on or indeed create a bandwagon in their favour;
etc
News?
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)
Is this really news or just something dugup?
The solutiuon to this and many other problems
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 07:10 am (UTC)
Digging for Victory
[info]horrol wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 07:23 am (UTC)
I would love an allotment - have you ever trierd to get one..............................
Kevin in Cumbria
Ferilisers
[info]alfred25897 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 07:27 am (UTC)
It is funny that such a long article about food self-sufficiency should only mention fertiliser in a negative context. Fertiliser is derived from gas. No prizes for guessing that UK-sourced gas is running out. No prizes for guessing that to increase yields (food/acre) more fertilisers are needed than ever. Now, if we were to study the other two essential additives - phosphates and potash, we will also find that the situation is quite dire long-term.

Frankly, the people ought to be told the reality and all subsidies that encourage people to have kids who they cannot really afford should be removed. In fact, having a kid ought to be a luxury the population has to drop to below 40 million.
population
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC)
would in fact drop to something like your recommended level, if the likes of Mrs Blair (and the unwanted of other societies, invited by anti-social government as exploitable fodder for a black economy) were not encouraged by welfare handouts to have children in Britain. If Mrs Blair et al were not actively encouraged to have too many children - that too often they then don't properly care for (the daughter of you know who being an example) - there would be ample living space for ordinary (moderately reproducing) British to have their one or two children.
Iranian Elections
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
Leaving aside the double-take when I saw the name of the author of the piece in Friday's Indie, the point being made was confirmed by a report on the BBC's World Service during the small hours one morning last week.

The reporter was trying to spell-out the argument that the present Iranian government has huge support, especially in rural areas.

The BBC's anchorman clearly did not like the content being offered, constantly interrupting the reporter in a manner which has become a hallmark of the BBC's treatment of dissenting voices.

As Naom Chomsky put it: the purpose of the media in a corporate world is to 'manufacture consent'.

This morning's assinine editorial on food policy is an excellent example of the genré.
Softening us up for GM?
[info]robertclondon wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 08:17 am (UTC)
There has to be some kind of agenda behind this. Are they softening us up for more GM food to be stuffed down our throats?
There are always two ways to balance any equation.
[info]proximaking wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
We either need a completely new way of doing things or when the inevitable crash comes it will be all the worse. Rather than producing more food nuking every major city would make more sense if we look only twenty years ahead never mind a thousand or more. Or we could start getting back to basics and ignoring big business and its real agenda, that of enslaving every man woman and child on this planet who is not a capitalist. Believe it or not money doesn't "work for you" only people do, when was the last time you ever saw a fiver walking down the road to go to its work? So that means if many millions sit in lovely big houses never having worked a day in their lives, their parents never having worked, their grandparents never having worked, etc what you have is a very effective system of slavery. End the slavery or remain slaves, it can be an awful lot easier to live than we have given it credit for but first you'd have to believe that the rich were no more deserving of holding the keys to the door of the mansions than you and yours are, you'd have to believe in crackpots and geniuses and know each when you saw them.


http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/06/crackpot-or-genius-has-a-shell-boffin-stumbled-on-a-scientific-breakthrough

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=48319 (any electrical engineer who tells you they know what electricity is is a liar)

when you are in a hole you stop digging for victory, you don't start digging for victory. Copy food as simply as "nature" always intended. Who knows you may even learn to feed the five thousand from a few loaves and fishes if you were really insane enough. :)))
Hilary Benn is right again!
[info]woollard1 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
I have just seen Hilary Benn on BBC TV and I wrote down three direct quotes from him:

'We've already seen food riots in other countries'

'We are going to need a big increase in food production'

'I want British farmers to produce as much food as possible'

Mr Benn is right, but the authorities are still supporting officially in my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' which is already taking out of food production thousands of acres of the finest food-growing farm land in the country, nay, the world.

We need some joined-up government here and a stop to this lunacy which, believe it or not, has the support of the Green guru in Cambridge, Mr Tony Juniper.

For more details go to -

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/
Hilary Benn is right again! - according to the de-Gilliganised main government propaganda organ
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC)
Compare the BBC propaganda about Iran to reality, a hint of which (including the fact that Iran is far more democratic than the banana republic of Britain) is communicated in http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/darius-guppy-here-in-iran-we-look-with-horror-at-the-country-that-britain-has-become-1769001.html

Then consider the validity of an argument like yours, that is based entirely on BBC product, when for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F5963509?thread=5422643&skip=40&show=20#p63176352 was censored by the BBC until it was linked to as evidence of tax-financed censorship. In other words, you may have a supportable argument, but you undermine it by basing it on BBC propaganda. In the instance of the airtime given to Benn I suggest that the real purpose of 'dig for victory' is to distract the herd's attention from misgovernment and give people something nice and safe to focus on - until it conflicts with some commercial interest, when it will be quietly and unceremoniously buried and composted to fuel the next puff of smoke blown over the fact of pseudo-democratic government as an enemy of the State and of the people.
Digging for victory
[info]septimusgrunge wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 09:23 am (UTC)
For the the past 10 years I have turned our land over to planting trees. At one time we farmed the land, but due to the fall in prices for livestock the door has been shut on that avenue. Having paid £150 for a calf incurred the cost of raising it, then being offered £25 at market didn't make sense. People would rather pay for a piece of meat that was probably frozen a couple of years ago and imported from the other side of the globe, because its cheap, to hell with nutrition.


Septimus Grunge
Re: Digging for victory
[info]ponkbutler wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 09:28 am (UTC)
Let's just hope this doesn't lead to spurious arguments about GM crops which favour only the big corporations and not food security.... Labour's record at defending the long-term national interest here isn't good....
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC)
then I'm sorry to be the one to tell you but your land should be confiscated by the state and turned over to others who can produce food economically and without massive use people who think of themselves as being in a business, to buy input at six times the value of output

I have no doubt that the NFU (for the unaware , that's the 'farmer' trade union) is wholeheartdly behind Benn's BBC appearance as what it sees as a promise of lots more luvly subsidies for the pampered green welly brigade whose welfare dole put even corporate welfare in the shade until the Icelend on the Thames handout
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
typo correction :
... produce food economically and without massive subsidies that have trained people - who nevertheless, for some odd reason, think of themselves as being in a business rather than a welfare system - to buy input at six times the value of output...
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 10:16 am (UTC)
and btw, I write the above as ex UK livestock producer and grain producer elsewhere (where production is rendered uneconomic by dumped surpluses produced by remote pampered welfare 'farmers' whose welfare systems are such that they need not care a fig about whether or not they are producing something saleable (at all), or at a (free) market price
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC)
Stewartpa, Septimus Grunge and ponkbutler have it right (see their comments above). Use-by dates have done more to increase food wastage than anything else, and GM crops are yet to show any benefit in terms of increased production. World population is the main problem, more specifically, the population of those that consume most - us.

Perhaps we should abandon the idea of producing vaccines for diseases like Swine Flu and let 'nature' take its course. If it weren't for the plague in medieval times and later, the population of Europe would probably have reached current levels a lot sooner, let alone all the diseases that have controlled populations in what we like to call '3rd World' countries.
abandon
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC)
a far better 'idea' would be to "abandon" massive subsidies for green wellies posing as 'farmers', so that they are forced to either produce food that people are willing and able to buy, or to hand over their land holdings to people who are willing and able to do so.
The Food and More Project
[info]ianalec wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
The Food and More Project www.thefoodandmoreproject.com addresses at its core FOOD and the more related issues. A collaborative BIG business large enough to tackle issues on the scale needed. Owned by many and a truly sustainable project - get involved - it will be yours.
STOP BREEDING & STOP IMMIGRATION!
[info]valeblogger wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC)
Problem solved! Fewer mouth to feed, less food required.
= something like
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
stop "child allowance" welfare payments to all including those like Mrs Blair who refuse to limit themselves to the one or two population replacements norm and refuse all legal aid to those who can't prove legal residence during the previous 18 years (under age minors don't qualify legal aid in their own right)
Re: = something like
[info]w1551ns wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 04:52 pm (UTC)
We are all Kissinger's 'useless eaters'. His 'friends' have got plans for us.
Re: = something like
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 05:23 pm (UTC)
the 'useless eater' was replaced by the planet-busting mindless trained consumer, of anything and everything

since that idea came a cropper, it isn't clear yet what's in store... other than to be first starved and then toasted as a virus with boots on, by a fed-up planet on the defensive
Live and Let Die?
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 03:54 pm (UTC)
Stopping immigration doesn't solve world population, only our own. We can pull up the drawbridge but if all other countries do the same, and if climate change forecasts are anywhere near right, we'd better have pretty good fortifications because there is going to be extreme pressure for migration towards higher latitudes. Are we all going to let Live and Let Die become our motto, or what? I only pose the question, I don't know the answer.
I recommend frwilliams standing for election!
[info]woollard1 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 04:29 pm (UTC)
"Perhaps we should abandon the idea of producing vaccines for diseases like Swine Flu and let 'nature' take its course. If it weren't for the plague in medieval times and later, the population of Europe would probably have reached current levels a lot sooner, let alone all the diseases that have controlled populations in what we like to call '3rd World' countries."

I recommend frwilliams standing for election to, say, a parish council, and using the above as a personal manifesto. It would, I believe, go down like the proverbial lead balloon. He/she might also try as an election slogan: 'BRING BACK THE PLAGUE!'
Re: I recommend frwilliams standing for election!
[info]frwilliams wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 10:01 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Woollard1. Unfortunately it was just a musing to provide food for thought (no pun intended!), not a serious suggestion.
Re: I recommend frwilliams standing for election!
[info]woollard1 wrote:
Monday, 10 August 2009 at 03:06 pm (UTC)
I'm relieved - and so are millions more!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/
Fabian Society
[info]w1551ns wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 04:36 pm (UTC)
Says it all really. Oh and Benn, say no more.
Food
[info]ape12 wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:02 pm (UTC)
I wonder....has anyone figured out how many calories above the normal, required level nationally are being consumed due to obesity? And how much land must be taken up just to feed this 'fat premium'? I often feel widespread obesity is just a predictable outcome of the modern era's 'idiot consumer' as engineered by business and successive governments.
The cost of food has risen due to policy not scarcity
[info]old_green wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:56 pm (UTC)
The cost of food rose astronomically last year despite the world's largest ever harvest.

The cost rose due to speculation and the biofuels initiative. Let's be clear, biofuels are nothing but a means of burning crops.

Let's not shift the blame away from those who deserve it.
Initiatives to bankrupt farmers
[info]old_green wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 06:59 pm (UTC)
Let's not forget that Third World farmers have been driven out of business by trade war.

They have been forced into growing cash-crops, then we rig the rules to depress prices, driving them out of business, then raise the prices again.

Look at the role of Britain in the suicides of Indian farmers.
Transition towns
[info]quizbook wrote:
Sunday, 9 August 2009 at 11:08 pm (UTC)
Whist its true the government might have a hidden agenda in this - promoting GM crops, for instance - growing your own veg is a good idea. Fresh veg is better than that which has been transported hundreds of miles and sat on a supermarket shelf for several days. Gardening is good exercise, particularly for the over thirties. Look up the Transition towns movement branch nearest to you. Dig for a change !
a "wake-up call" for farmers
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Monday, 10 August 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC)
Ah, I understand now, this is a new strategy to foist GM food onto us again. Can't the government go back to its sponsors and tell them we are not interested?
If the government was serious about this they would provide farmers with protection against the supermarkets which continually push to prevent farming being a viable business in the UK. Consumers are also part of the problem in choosing to only shop at supermarkets.
People would also be able to grow more food for themselves if they had reasonable garden access - nowadays more people are forced to live in flats or tiny houses by greedy developers.
We're growing our own food!
[info]charlotte_barry wrote:
Monday, 10 August 2009 at 01:13 pm (UTC)
Camel Community Supported Agriculture is a pioneering new local food project. based in north Cornwall. We’re a community group growing fresh, seasonal vegetables for our members to share.
It’s hard work, but much more beneficial than having an allotment as the emphasis is on shared effort and shared reward. There are also the benefits of healthy eating, reduced food miles, exercise and making new friends. Have a look at our website to find out how we're doing it and why we got involved - http://camel-csa.org.uk


the last sentence...
[info]nutritiongrrl wrote:
Tuesday, 18 August 2009 at 03:05 pm (UTC)
is the most important: "The RSPB said: "It is important that concerns about food security are not used as an argument to decrease the sustainability of production. For long-term food security, we must consider our impacts on the environment and ensure we do not cause lasting damage to biodiversity and the ecosystem.""

the answer is not monoculture, but sustainable polyculture.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date