The UK's food system was described as broken in a recent parliamentary report - and it's not hard to see why. High living costs , a health crisis of diet-related chronic disease , farmers' incomes squeezed and low pay across the agricultural sector all play their parts.
Author
- Benjamin Selwyn
Professor of International Relations and International Development, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex
And these elements are underpinned by an environmentally destructive mode of agricultural production - the longer the livestock-intensive system prevails, the greater the environmental, economic and social costs.
The opportunity cost of not dealing with the food crisis is severe. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that the price of the UK's unhealthy food system is around £268 billion a year - almost equivalent to the government's entire expenditure on health . And farmers are also worried about the sector as they face an unpredictable climate, smaller profits and changes to tax relief policies .
I have researched how a green new deal for agriculture - namely a food system that complements rather than undermines the environment, while tackling social inequities - could begin to address these problems.
In 2024 the UK's farming sector experienced its second-worst harvest on record. Huge levels of rain last winter disrupted farmers' ability to grow crops and reduced yields.
The UK's population faces a significant health crisis, exacerbated by the high cost of living. In 2022, around two-thirds of the population across all four nations were either overweight or obese .
Retailers, processors and distributors grab an exorbitant share of the final value of many agricultural products. Sometimes farmers make as little as 1p profit for each item they produce. And farm workers' earnings can sometimes leave them facing absolute poverty .
What's more, the UK farming sector is systemically inefficient. Dairy and meat products provide about 32% of calories consumed in the UK, and less than half (48%) of the protein. At the same time, livestock and their feed make up 85% of the UK's total land use for agriculture.
To make matters worse, land ownership is highly concentrated - about 25,000 landowners , typically corporations and members of the aristocracy, own about 50% of England , for example.
What would change look like?
A green new deal for agriculture would require a significant reorientation of policy, akin to the 1945 Labour government's establishment of the welfare state . Critics might decry the costs and difficulties - but the longer the government waits, the greater the economic and environmental costs are likely to be.
The government could introduce compulsory sale orders to spread land ownership more evenly. These would enable public bodies to obtain land that has been left derelict, vacant or that has been used in environmentally damaging ways. These measures could be supported by the establishment of community land trusts - non-profit, democratic organisations that own and work land for the benefit of local people.
And a green new deal for agriculture could start with the government using its ecosystems service payments , where farmers and landowners are paid to manage their land in an environmentally beneficial way, to stimulate a transition to more plant-based proteins. This could combat hardship among farmers and agricultural workers, and tackle food poverty and ill health in the population. It would also establish the basis for a more sustainable agricultural system.
The UK think tank Green Alliance has mapped a green protein transition. It would entail an increase in "agro-ecologically" farmed land - that is, methods that bring a more ecological approach to farming. At present, this is about 3% of UK land, and it would have to rise to 60% by 2050. Under the plan, by 2030 10% of farmland would become semi-natural habitat, rising to one-third by 2050. This would protect land and facilitate natural restoration, and would also support agro-ecological farming methods.
In this scenario, Britons would be projected to eat 45% less meat and dairy, replacing them with alternative proteins - plants and synthetic foods such as those made from precision fermentation . This is a revolutionary technology producing proteins that can be used in new alternatives to meat and dairy.
Many conceptions of the protein transition from animal sources to more plant products ignore the necessity of improving farmers' and agricultural workers' incomes. But this will be crucial.
Ecosystems service payments should be broadened to include a focus on sustainable incomes. Farms can be paid directly by government for sustainable production to combat farmer poverty. And the real living wage of £12.60 an hour should be compulsory for agricultural workers.
As land use shifts from livestock grazing and feed crop production, more ground could be used for food crops for human consumption. There would then be more scope to change which food crops are produced - from wheat to legumes, for example.
Research has shown that flour made from broad beans is higher in key nutrients - protein, iron and fibre - than wheat flour. Bread, pasta, pizza, cakes and biscuits could increasingly be produced using broad bean flour , underpinning a shift towards more nutritious diets.
A protein transition would also free up land for fruit and vegetable production for domestic consumption, reducing the UK's heavy import dependence by using polytunnels and environmentally sustainable greenhouses.
Climate breakdown means that the frequency of poor harvests will increase. And the volatile economic and political global picture means that affordable food imports cannot be taken for granted.
A green new deal for agriculture could begin to remedy many of the problems the UK faces due to its broken food system. What's needed is a coalition including courageous political parties, farmers, and workers within and beyond food production. Working together, these groups would be well placed to withstand the economic, political and environmental shocks that are on the horizon.
Benjamin Selwyn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
