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
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."
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited






Comments
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.
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...
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
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.
Grow our own food.Fancy that.
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.
- 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
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbtoday/F59635
Kevin in Cumbria
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.
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.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/0
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.ph
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. :)))
'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/SaveOu
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/F59635
Septimus Grunge
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
... 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...
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.
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
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!'
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOu
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.
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.
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.
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 answer is not monoculture, but sustainable polyculture.