British Food Fortnight 2026: Why Celebration Alone Won’t Save Britain’s Food System

A clear explanation of the real issues behind the narratives and optics – including affordability, access, and the catch‑22 facing farmers

British Food Fortnight is a chance to celebrate the best of British farming, British production, and the local shops that keep our communities fed. And there is a lot to celebrate. British food is produced to some of the highest standards in the world. It’s part of our identity, our culture, and our future.

But celebration alone won’t fix what’s going wrong.

Behind the harvest festivals, seasonal menus, and cheerful messaging, the UK food production and food supply system is becoming more fragile every year. Not in a dramatic, headline‑grabbing way – but in a slow, structural way that most people never see.

And that’s the problem.

We are living with a food system that looks stable on the surface, but underneath it is a ticking time bomb.

UK Food Supply is insecure, NOT because farmers are failing. Not because consumers don’t care. But because the foundations of the system have been quietly weakened over decades.

British Food Fortnight should be the moment we talk about this honestly.

What’s genuinely worth celebrating

British food has real strengths:

Farmers who produce food to world‑leading standards.
Local retailers who keep regional supply chains alive.
Small producers whose craft gives British food its character.
Communities that choose British when they’re given the option.

These strengths deserve recognition. But they also deserve protection – and right now, they’re under threat.

The truth most people never hear

Here is the reality that rarely makes it into public conversation:

Britain is gradually losing the ability to feed itself.

Not because we lack land. Not because we lack farmers. Not because we lack demand.

But because the system has been reshaped around priorities that have nothing to do with food security.

The evidence is clear:

Domestic production is declining.
We rely more on imports every year.
Small producers and local shops are disappearing.
Local infrastructure – abattoirs, cold stores, distribution hubs – has been dismantled.
Supply chains are controlled by fewer, larger players.
Government messaging often paints a picture of stability that doesn’t match reality.

This isn’t a prediction. It’s already happening.

Why the system is fragile – explained simply

Most people assume food arrives in shops because “the system works”.

But the system only works when all the parts work together.

Right now, several of those parts are failing:

Costs are rising faster than farm incomes.
Labour shortages mean crops go unpicked.
Energy volatility makes planning impossible.
Local processing facilities have closed.
Retail price pressure squeezes producers.
Climate instability disrupts yields.
Policy focuses on schemes, not production.

When you add these together, you get a system that looks fine – until something goes wrong. And when it does, there’s no slack, no buffer, no resilience.

That’s the ticking time bomb – and that’s before we even begin thinking about other world events.

The affordability problem: the part nobody wants to talk about

There is another uncomfortable truth:

The small amount of British food that reaches consumers directly is unaffordable and inaccessible for many people.

Not because farmers are greedy. Not because local shops are elitist. Not because consumers don’t care.

It’s because the system forces farmers and local retailers into a corner:

Their costs are higher.
Their margins are thinner.
Their volumes are smaller.
Their infrastructure is weaker.
Their competition is global, industrial, and subsidised elsewhere.

Farmers who sell direct or through very localised chains are often struggling financially. They cannot drop prices without losing money. They cannot scale without infrastructure. They cannot compete with global imports on price. And they receive no structural support to make local food affordable.

This is the catch‑22:

The food people most want to buy – local, British, trustworthy – is the food farmers can least afford to sell cheaply.

Unless the system changes, this will never change.

Why this matters for food security

When local food becomes unaffordable, people turn to cheaper, imported, often processed food which is not as healthy or nutritious. When farmers can’t sell locally, they stop producing locally. When local shops close, communities lose access to British food entirely. When small producers disappear, diversity disappears. When diversity disappears, resilience disappears.

Affordability isn’t a side issue. It’s a structural warning sign.

A food system that cannot provide affordable local food to everyone is a food system that is already failing.

Real collaboration vs policy collaboration

There is a simple but important distinction in the UK food system – and understanding it explains why things keep getting worse instead of better.

Real collaboration

Real collaboration is what happens when farmers work directly with each other, with local businesses, and with the communities they feed.

It looks like:

farmers sharing equipment and knowledge
coordinating production so everyone benefits
rebuilding local infrastructure together
connecting directly with local retailers and consumers
creating practical, ground‑up solutions to real problems

This kind of collaboration strengthens the system because it is built around the people who actually produce and eat the food. It builds resilience. It builds affordability. It builds trust.

Policy collaboration

Policy collaboration is what government, large industry bodies, and many advocacy organisations call “collaboration”.

It looks like:

schemes
metrics
targets
environmental delivery
compliance
reporting
meetings
consultations

It sounds like collaboration, but it isn’t. It doesn’t rebuild infrastructure. It doesn’t reduce costs. It doesn’t strengthen local supply chains. It doesn’t make British food more affordable or accessible.

It organises farmers around policy goals – not food security, not community needs, and not the long‑term health of the food system.

Why this distinction matters

Many farmers are still hoping for help from the same institutions that have shaped the system into its current fragile state. They hope for support from government. They hope for representation from advocacy organisations. They hope for change from industry bodies.

But these organisations often prioritise maintaining good relationships with government and large industry players over representing the people who actually produce the food.

This is not a criticism of individuals – it is a structural reality.

When the priority is “staying at the table”, the people who need the most help – farmers, small producers, local retailers – are the ones whose voices are softened or sidelined.

The missing relationship: farmers and consumers

The most important relationship in the food system – the one that should shape everything – barely exists in any meaningful way.

Farmers and consumers are the two principal stakeholders in the food chain. One produces the food. The other eats it.

Yet they rarely speak to each other. They rarely understand each other’s pressures. They rarely collaborate. They are kept apart by layers of policy, industry, and supply‑chain intermediaries.

This separation is one of the biggest reasons the system is failing.

What real collaboration must look like

Real collaboration must be:

ground‑up, not top‑down
farmer‑led, not policy‑led
community‑facing, not industry‑facing
consumer‑connected, not consumer‑distant
practical, not theoretical
people‑first, not profit‑first

It must work with frameworks and governance – but not be dictated by them.

Policy should support direction, not set it.

Because when profit, metrics, and economic modelling set the agenda, people – farmers, consumers, communities – are pushed to the margins.

And when people are pushed to the margins, resilience disappears.

The bottom line

Britain does not need more schemes, consultations, or policy‑driven “collaboration”. It needs real collaboration – built by farmers, supported by communities, connected to consumers, and strengthened by local businesses.

A food system built around people will always be more resilient than a food system built around profit and policy.

And until we make that shift, the system will continue to weaken, no matter how many times we celebrate it.

The constructive path forward

The solution is clear:

Rebuild local food systems through real, farmer‑led collaboration – and support them so local food becomes affordable.

That means:

Rebuilding local infrastructure
Restoring local processing and distribution
Aligning farmers with local industries
Creating farmer‑employed coordinators
Strengthening business‑level resilience
Supporting local retailers
Making local food affordable through structural support
Reconnecting communities with the people who feed them

This is practical. This is achievable. This is already happening in pockets across the country.

British Food Fortnight should be amplifying this, not distracting from it – however much we need the message about what makes everything good about British Food championed.

A closing thought

British food is worth celebrating. But celebration without honesty is part of the problem.

If British Food Fortnight is going to matter, it must confront reality – not hide it. It must champion British producers while acknowledging the fragility of the system behind them. It must support local retailers while recognising how close many are to disappearing. It must make local British food affordable and accessible – not just admirable. It must celebrate British food while fighting for the ability to keep producing it.

Because if we lose the ability to feed ourselves, everything else becomes negotiation.

The September ’26 Farming Evidence Pack and the Reality We Can No Longer Ignore

A long-form, accessible analysis of the UK’s declining food production capacity and rising systemic risk

Introduction: A report that tells the truth without meaning to

The Government’s newly published Farming Evidence Pack: A high-level overview of the UK agricultural industry is, on the surface, exactly what it claims to be: a statistical snapshot of British farming. It lists land use, production volumes, livestock numbers, farm incomes, and environmental indicators. It is calm, neutral, and presented without commentary.

But the timing of this report is extraordinary.

It arrives at the very moment when the global supply chain is showing signs of critical fragility. It arrives as shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is under threat, and as diesel shortages are being openly discussed in industry circles. It arrives when farmers, hauliers, processors and retailers are already dealing with rising costs, shrinking margins, and unpredictable supply.

And it arrives at a time when the UK’s own native food production capacity is going backwards.

The report does not say this directly. It does not frame its numbers as a warning. But when you read the data in context – not the context of government narrative, but the context of how food systems actually work – the message becomes unavoidable:

Britain is producing less of its own food, relying more on large corporate operations, and becoming more dependent on a global supply chain that is itself at risk of failing.

This is the opposite of resilience. This is the opposite of security. And this is happening at the exact moment when we should be building capacity at every level.

1. What the Evidence Pack actually shows – if you read it honestly

The pack is not a policy document. It does not tell you what to think. It simply presents numbers.

But those numbers tell a story that is very different from the one government spokespeople and industry bodies prefer to tell.

1.1 Land used for food production is declining

The total agricultural area may look stable, but the land actually used for food production – especially croppable land – is shrinking.

More land is tied up in schemes, non-food uses, or left uncropped. The UK is producing less food on less land.

1.2 Livestock numbers are falling

Cattle, sheep and pig numbers have all declined. Poultry is volatile. These are not small fluctuations – they are structural reductions in the national herd.

1.3 Small and medium farms are disappearing

The pack shows a clear trend: fewer farms overall, and a growing share of production concentrated in larger, corporate-style operations.

Mixed farms – the most resilient type – continue to decline.

1.4 Crop output is unstable and trending downward

Cereal yields fluctuate wildly. Horticulture remains stagnant or shrinking. Sugar beet, potatoes, oilseeds – all show signs of long-term decline.

1.5 Farm profitability is increasingly dependent on price spikes

Farm Business Income rises only when global prices spike. When prices fall, incomes collapse. This is not stability – it is volatility disguised as success.

1.6 The UK’s food production system is becoming more concentrated, more fragile, and more dependent on external inputs

This is the most important point. And it is the point the report never names.

2. The pack’s biggest omission: dependency

The Evidence Pack measures output. It does not measure dependency.

It counts what we produce. It does not count what we rely on.

It tells us how many tonnes of wheat we grow. It does not tell us how much fertiliser, diesel, machinery, chemicals, packaging, feed and energy we import to grow it.

It tells us how many cattle we have. It does not tell us how dependent those cattle are on imported feed, imported medicines, imported genetics, imported equipment, imported fuel.

It tells us how much land is farmed. It does not tell us how much of that land is viable without global inputs.

It tells us how much food we export. It does not tell us how much of that export value is used to pay for the food we import.

In other words:

The pack describes a system that only works if the global supply chain keeps working.

And right now, that assumption is no longer safe.

3. The global supply chain is becoming critically fragile

This is not speculation. It is observable reality.

3.1 Diesel is the single point of failure

Every part of the UK food system depends on diesel:

tractors
combines
sprayers
feed deliveries
livestock transport
milk tankers
grain haulage
refrigerated distribution
supermarket logistics
emergency response

If diesel becomes scarce or unaffordable, the numbers in the Evidence Pack become meaningless.

3.2 Hormuz is a live stress test

The UK imports most of its diesel. Much of that supply depends on shipping routes that are now under threat.

If shipping slows, reroutes, or becomes more expensive, the UK will face:

rising fuel prices
rationing
delivery delays
reduced haulage capacity
prioritisation of high-margin routes
cold-chain failures
regional shortages

This is not a theoretical risk. It is a real-world scenario unfolding in real time.

3.3 The UK’s food system cannot operate without global inputs

The Evidence Pack does not mention:

imported fertiliser
imported feed
imported chemicals
imported machinery
imported packaging
imported energy
imported labour
imported ingredients
imported logistics capacity

But every one of these is essential.

The UK’s food system is not independent. It is not sovereign. It is not resilient.

It is globalised, corporatised, and critically exposed.

4. The consolidation problem: why corporate-scale farming is a systemic risk

The pack shows a clear trend: production is increasingly concentrated in fewer, larger operations.

Government and industry present this as efficiency.

But efficiency is not resilience.

Large-scale operations:

rely heavily on imported inputs
require stable global markets
depend on just-in-time logistics
cannot easily adapt to fuel shortages
cannot quickly change production models
cannot operate without machinery, chemicals, and energy
cannot feed local communities directly
cannot survive prolonged disruption

Small and medium farms:

are more adaptable
are more diverse
are more locally connected
are more resilient
are more capable of feeding communities
are less dependent on global inputs
are disappearing

This is the opposite of what a country facing food insecurity should be doing.

5. The illusion of self-sufficiency

The pack does not discuss self-sufficiency directly, but its numbers feed into the narrative that the UK is “around 60% self-sufficient”.

This figure is misleading.

It is based on:

value, not calories
production, not availability
exports counted as domestic output
imports assumed to be stable
global inputs ignored
processed food counted as UK production even when ingredients are imported

If you measure:

calories
nutrients
local availability
independence from imported inputs
ability to operate during disruption

The UK’s real independent food production capacity (i.e. Production that goes directly to consumers and would be immediately available in a crisis) is closer to 11%.

The Evidence Pack does not contradict this. It quietly confirms it.

6. What the pack should have said – but didn’t

If the report were honest about the implications of its own data, it would say:

The UK is producing less food.
The UK is losing small and medium farms.
The UK is becoming more dependent on large corporate operations.
The UK is becoming more dependent on global inputs.
The UK is becoming more dependent on imports.
The UK is becoming more vulnerable to global disruption.
The UK is not building capacity at every level.
The UK is not prepared for supply chain shocks.
The UK is not food secure.

But it does not say any of this.

It presents the numbers without context, allowing government and industry to continue telling the story that everything is broadly fine.

Everything is not fine.

7. What we must do now

The Evidence Pack should be a wake-up call. Not because the numbers are shocking, but because they are normalised.

We must:

rebuild small and medium-scale farming
restore mixed farming
increase local food production
shorten supply chains
reduce dependency on imported inputs
strengthen community-level resilience
rethink land use
support farmers directly, not through corporate intermediaries
measure food security honestly
plan for disruption, not assume stability

This is not about nostalgia. It is about survival.

Conclusion: The truth behind the numbers

The Farming Evidence Pack is not wrong. It is incomplete.

It tells us what we grow. It does not tell us what we depend on.

It tells us what we produce. It does not tell us what we can sustain.

It tells us what exists today. It does not tell us what will fail tomorrow.

The overriding message – the message the report never states but cannot hide – is simple:

Britain’s native food production capacity is declining, our dependence on large corporate operations is increasing, and the global supply chain we rely on is becoming critically fragile.

We should be building capacity at every level. Instead, we are dismantling it.

And at the very moment when the world is showing us how fragile the system is – through diesel shortages, shipping disruption, and geopolitical instability – we are doubling down on the model that cannot survive disruption.

The Evidence Pack is not reassurance. It is a warning.

And we ignore it at our peril.

Response to NAO Report Resilience of the Food Supply Chain to Disruptions (September 2026)

Adam Tugwell | 8 September 2026

On 4 September 2026, the National Audit Office published Resilience of the Food Supply Chain to Disruptions, a report that rightly draws attention to weaknesses in the UK’s preparedness for serious food supply shocks. This response is offered as part of my ongoing farming, food security and Foods We Can Trust work, which examines the gap between food being available in normal times and food being resilient enough to withstand disruption.

The NAO report is valuable because it recognises rising risks, weaknesses in contingency planning, declining engagement with industry, and the need to involve households and communities more seriously. However, it remains constrained by assumptions that deserve closer scrutiny: in particular, the use of headline self-sufficiency figures, the reliance on private-sector adaptation, and the continued preference for centralised emergency response over local capability.

This response therefore does three things. First, it explains why food self-sufficiency is not the same as food resilience. Secondly, it identifies where the NAO’s analysis understates structural vulnerability. Thirdly, it sets out the practical direction of travel required if the UK is to build a food system that is more local, more capable, more trusted and more resilient. Links to the specific works that develop these arguments in greater detail are provided in the further reading section.

1. The NAO’s “60% self-sufficiency” figure is useful, but it is not a resilience measure

The report states:

“In 2025, the UK’s food ‘self-sufficiency ratio’ was around 60%.”

This is a value-based measure: it compares the monetary value of food produced in the UK with the monetary value of food consumed here. That makes it useful as an economic indicator, but it does not answer the practical resilience question: how much food could the UK produce, process, distribute and access during a prolonged disruption?

It ignores:

UK-produced food that is exported
Imported inputs (fertiliser, feed, chemicals, energy)
The caloric composition of UK diets
The fact that many categories (fruit, vegetables, oils, ingredients) are overwhelmingly imported

The headline figure is also a net figure shaped by the way the modern supply chain works. Domestic production, imports, exports, imported inputs and processing dependencies all interact. Some food counted within domestic production may rely on imported fertiliser, animal feed, fuel, machinery, packaging or processing capacity. Some food produced here is exported. Some foods that are central to healthy diets are heavily import-dependent.

For that reason, the UK’s practical food resilience in a severe disruption scenario may be substantially lower than the self-sufficiency ratio suggests. The issue is not whether the precise figure is 60%, 52%, or lower still. The issue is that the official metric does not measure calorific adequacy, nutritional balance, imported input dependency, processing capacity or local distribution capability.

The NAO’s framing therefore risks creating false reassurance. It implies that production value can stand in for practical food availability. In a crisis, however, people need calories, nutrients, functioning logistics, processing capacity and accessible local distribution. Until government distinguishes those concepts, resilience planning will remain incomplete.

I have explored this in detail in Foods We Can Trust: A Blueprint for Food Security and Community Resilience in the UK, where I outline why caloric sovereignty – not value-based accounting – must be the foundation of food resilience policy.

2. Food inflation at 19.2% is not just an economic statistic – it is a resilience warning

The report notes:

“Food price inflation… peaked at 19.2% in March 2023.”

This is the first time I have noted that an official document has acknowledged the scale of the price shock that households have recently experienced. Food inflation at nearly 20% is not normal. It is not manageable. It is not a blip.

It is a sign that the system is structurally fragile.

Food is not discretionary. When prices rise at this rate, it reflects:

supply chain instability
import dependency
energy volatility
corporate consolidation
lack of domestic production capacity

The NAO mentions the figure but does not explore its implications. It should have been a central warning.

3. The NAO’s suggestion that Defra needs more emergency powers misses the point entirely

The report argues that Defra lacks the legal powers needed to manage catastrophic food disruptions.

But additional powers during an emergency cannot compensate for resilience that has not been built beforehand.

Legal authority can help coordinate action, but it cannot create food, processing capacity, distribution routes or community preparedness after the point of failure.

The lesson from recent crises is that centralised decision-making has limits when disruption affects daily life across multiple systems at once.

Food resilience requires operational capability before the crisis: trusted local relationships, clear responsibilities, practical logistics and the ability to identify and support vulnerable households quickly.

Food resilience must be:

built before a crisis
decentralised
community-led
grounded in local production and distribution
depoliticised

Emergency powers matter only if there is a resilient system for them to work through. Without food, fuel, people, local knowledge and functioning distribution, legal powers alone offer little practical protection.

4. The agri-food sector’s economic importance is understated – and underutilised

The NAO notes that the agri-food sector:

supports 4.1 million jobs
contributes £162.3 billion in GVA

These are enormous figures. And they would be significantly higher if British production and supply were prioritised.

The UK has the land, the skills, and the capacity to produce far more of its own food. What it lacks is a policy framework that values domestic production over globalised efficiency.

In The Need for a Collaborative Approach to the UK Farming and Food Security Problem, I argue that genuine collaboration – not policy-driven “collaboration theatre” – is essential to unlocking this potential.

5. Food as “one of 13 CNI sectors” creates false reassurance

Food is listed as one of 13 Critical National Infrastructure sectors. But unlike energy, water, telecoms, or transport, food is needed every single day.

There is no buffer. There is no downtime. There is no substitute.

Treating food as just another CNI category understates its foundational importance.

It leads to complacency and underinvestment.

6. Defra’s engagement with industry has deteriorated – and has become narrative management rather than collaboration

The NAO reports that:

engagement groups meet less frequently
objectives are unclear
support has declined
stakeholders see gaps in Defra’s understanding of key areas (e.g., the cold chain)

This aligns with what I have written in Real Collaboration vs Policy Collaboration. The concern is that engagement can become procedural rather than operational: meetings take place, stakeholders are consulted, and the language of partnership is used, but the people who understand production, processing, logistics and community need are not sufficiently empowered to shape the system.

Real collaboration requires:

shared objectives
transparency
local producer involvement
community representation
depoliticised structures

The NAO’s findings suggest that too much of this practical collaboration remains underdeveloped.

7. Household and community resilience has been neglected – and this is one of the report’s most important admissions

The NAO states:

“UK households are less prepared for emergencies… government-led messaging is less prominent.”

This is not a minor point. It is a fundamental failure.

Community resilience is the missing layer in UK food security. Without it:

supply chain shocks hit harder
vulnerable people suffer first
government response time shortens
local distribution becomes chaotic

In Local Planning for Food Shortages and Foods We Can Trust, I outline how community-led food resilience can be built at the lowest level – households, neighbourhoods, local producers – and why this must be prioritised.

8. Catastrophic planning remains theoretical – not practical

The NAO notes that:

Defra’s plans lack operational detail
industry is not involved
food assets are not included in the CNI Knowledge Base
national exercises have not tested real-world food failure scenarios

This is planning-oriented resilience rather than practical resilience. It may look adequate in documents, but it remains untested unless it is exercised with the businesses, local authorities, producers, distributors and communities that would have to make it work in practice.

Planning without accurate resilience metrics is incomplete. A credible approach should consider not only how much food is produced, but whether it can be processed, transported, stored, allocated and accessed under stress.

9. Local Resilience Forums are structurally incapable of delivering food resilience

The NAO concludes that LRFs:

lack clarity
lack capability
lack authority
cannot direct supermarkets
cannot identify vulnerable people effectively

This is not surprising. LRFs were not designed to rebuild food-system capability. They can coordinate emergency response, but food resilience also requires local production knowledge, community networks, producer relationships, storage capacity, transport options and clear mechanisms for supporting vulnerable households.

Food resilience therefore needs structures that are sufficiently independent of short-term political cycles and sufficiently close to communities to understand local need. Local government has a role, but it cannot be the only layer of resilience.

10. The private sector alone cannot be the backbone of UK food security

The NAO states:

“Defra has largely relied on the private sector… but this may not be sufficient.”

This is a significant understatement. The private sector is essential to the food system, but commercial efficiency and national resilience are not the same thing.

Large food businesses are generally incentivised to reduce cost, increase efficiency, consolidate operations and source globally. Those incentives can keep prices low in normal conditions, but they may also reduce redundancy, shorten stockholding, concentrate infrastructure and weaken local capability.

profit
efficiency
global sourcing
consolidation

Not:

resilience
redundancy
localism
sovereignty

In Who Controls Our Food Controls Our Future, I explain why corporate control of food systems is incompatible with national resilience.

11. What real food resilience requires: A blueprint

Drawing on my published work, real resilience requires:

Localised production

Rebuilding local food systems, shortening supply chains, and prioritising domestic output.

Community-level distribution

Neighbourhood hubs, local coordination, and community-led logistics.

Regional coordination

County-level frameworks that support local producers and manage regional flows.

National strategic oversight

A central body that sets resilience targets, not efficiency targets.

Depoliticised resilience structures

Community leaders, producers, and local organisations empowered to act independently of political cycles.

Accurate resilience metrics

Caloric sovereignty, not value-based accounting.

Reduced dependency on global supply chains

Rebalancing imports with domestic capacity.

Rebuilding domestic processing

Cold chain infrastructure, abattoirs, mills, and food processing facilities returned to UK soil.

Conclusion: The NAO report is a warning, but it is not yet a route to resilience

The NAO has highlighted important risks, and the report should be welcomed for bringing food supply disruption into sharper public view. Its strongest contribution is the recognition that Defra must engage more effectively with industry, households, communities and local government if the food system is to withstand future shocks.

However, the report does not go far enough. The UK’s food resilience is likely to be materially weaker than headline self-sufficiency figures imply, because resilience depends on more than production value. It depends on calories, nutrition, processing capacity, imported inputs, logistics, local access, household preparedness and community capability.

12. Priority actions

To move from acknowledgement to action, government should prioritise five practical steps.

Supplement value-based self-sufficiency measures with calorific, nutritional and supply-chain resilience indicators.
Map critical dependencies, including imported fertiliser, feed, energy, packaging, processing infrastructure, cold chain capacity and key transport routes.
Test severe food disruption scenarios with producers, processors, retailers, logistics providers, local authorities and community organisations.
Strengthen local and regional food resilience planning, including household preparedness, vulnerable-person support and community distribution capability.
Rebuild domestic processing and local food infrastructure so that production can be converted into accessible food during both normal conditions and crisis conditions.

The UK must therefore stop treating food solely as an economic sector and start treating it as a foundation of national security, public health, community resilience and democratic trust.

Disclaimer

This document represents the views and analysis of the author and is provided as an independent response to the National Audit Office report Resilience of the Food Supply Chain to Disruptions (4 September 2026). While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented, it should not be regarded as official policy advice. The opinions expressed are informed by the author’s research, professional experience, and studies in sustainable agriculture and food security, and are intended to contribute to constructive discussion on food resilience, food security and community preparedness.

NAO-Resilience-of-the-food-supply-chain-to-disruptions-4Sep26 Download

Response to NAO Food Resilience Report Sep26 PDF_Vers1_8Sep26 Download

Response to the Farming Roadmap 2050: A Blueprint for Dependency – and Why Britain Must Choose a Different Future

Disclaimer

This publication is an independent analysis and represents the author’s personal views. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of writing, the author accepts no responsibility for errors, omissions, or the consequences of applying the information contained herein.

Nothing in this book should be interpreted as legal, financial, or professional advice. Any references to government departments, organisations, or individuals are for critique, commentary, or contextual discussion only. This work is not endorsed by, affiliated with, or sponsored by any public body or institution.

Readers should conduct their own research and exercise their own judgement when evaluating the issues discussed.

Introduction

The Government’s Farming Roadmap 2050 presents itself as a long-term plan for a resilient, productive and sustainable future for British agriculture. It is framed as a partnership with farmers, a commitment to food security, and a vision for a thriving rural economy. Yet beneath that reassurance lies a more difficult question: does the roadmap strengthen Britain’s ability to feed itself, or does it deepen the dependencies that already make the food system fragile?

This response examines the roadmap as a statement of intent. It asks what kind of food system it is building, who it empowers, who it marginalises, and what it means for national resilience in an increasingly unstable world.

Across the roadmap, several themes recur:

inflated claims about food security
a deepening reliance on global markets
the transfer of power from farmers to supply chains and investors
the centralisation and financialisation of land use
and a vision of farming that risks placing metrics, markets, and technology ahead of people, place, practical knowledge, and sovereignty

Together, these themes raise the central concern of this response: the roadmap speaks the language of resilience while relying heavily on the structures that have weakened resilience in the first place.

There is another path: one rooted in local production, regenerative practice, community infrastructure, farmer-led collaboration and appropriate innovation. This does not mean rejecting technology or attempting to recreate the past. It means taking the best of modern tools and the best of traditional husbandry, and aligning both with the public interest: a robust, accessible, uncaptured food supply that is fit for the future.

This response is not written to oppose change, but to argue for the right kind of change: change that strengthens farmers, communities and the nation rather than weakening them.

The stakes are high. This is not just about farming. It is about whether Britain intends to remain a country capable of feeding itself.

Section 1 – Food Security: The 65% Myth and the Illusion of Resilience

The Farming Roadmap 2050 opens its case with a claim that needs careful scrutiny. It states that:

“Farmers produce 65% of our food, manage 70% of England’s land…”

This figure is often presented as if it reflects the proportion of food available to feed the British public in a crisis. It does not. It is a gross production figure and, depending on the methodology used, can include food that is exported, production destined for animal feed, non‑edible crops, and commodities that never reach a British plate.

As I have argued previously in Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent, once the analysis is narrowed to food that is directly edible, domestically available, and capable of feeding the public rather than circulating through wider commodity flows, the UK’s practical edible self‑sufficiency may be closer to 11%.

That figure should not be confused with the official production‑to‑supply ratio; it is a stricter measure of resilience under crisis conditions.

The roadmap’s use of the 65% figure risks creating a false sense of security. It encourages policymakers and the public to believe that the UK is more resilient than it may be under crisis conditions.

It masks the reality that our food system is structurally dependent on:

imported calories
imported fertiliser
imported energy
imported labour
imported animal feed
imported inputs for every major supply chain

In strategic terms, this is less a foundation of resilience than a point of exposure.

The roadmap acknowledges global volatility, but only in passing. It notes that:

“Geopolitical instability, climate impacts… and supply chain disruptions are increasing exposure to price, input and output volatility.”

Yet it does not fully confront the harder conclusion: a nation that can feed only a limited proportion of its population from its own land, under crisis conditions, cannot assume that it is food secure.

It may be food‑supplied in ordinary times, but it remains food‑dependent in times of disruption. And dependence is vulnerability.

In The Fragile Nation and Understanding the Fragile Foundations of the UK Food Chain, I set out how the UK’s food system has been hollowed out by decades of globalisation. We have traded local resilience for global efficiency, and in doing so we have built a system that works only when the world is calm.

The roadmap continues this pattern. It assumes that global markets will remain open, stable, and affordable. It assumes that shipping lanes will remain safe. It assumes that geopolitical shocks will be temporary and manageable.

But as I wrote in Iran and the Prospect of Food Shortages, the closure of a single strategic chokepoint can send shockwaves through global food and energy markets within days. The roadmap mentions this exact example, noting that:

“The ongoing pressure on fertiliser and fuel prices because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz underlines the need to shift to a more resilient farming system…”

Yet it draws too narrow a lesson. The problem is not simply the price of fertiliser or fuel. The deeper problem is that the UK has built a food system that cannot function without them. A system that falters when a shipping lane closes is brittle, not resilient.

The roadmap’s answer is to place considerable emphasis on technology, data, market integration and productivity. These tools can have value, and they should not be dismissed. Precision farming, robotics, data‑enabled soil management, and better input monitoring can all help farmers reduce waste, improve margins, and protect natural capital.

But technology is only resilient when it is embedded within a balanced food system. If innovation deepens dependence on proprietary platforms, imported inputs, centralised data systems or capital‑intensive models that exclude smaller farms, it risks reinforcing the very fragility it claims to solve.

What is needed is a hybrid approach: modern technology where it genuinely strengthens farm resilience, traditional husbandry where it protects soil, livestock, landscape knowledge and local adaptability, and farmer judgement at the centre of both.

Food security begins with local production for local consumption, supported by innovation that serves farmers and communities rather than capturing them.

The roadmap claims that:

“Food is one of the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure sectors.”

If that is true, the first duty of government is to ensure that the nation can feed itself in a crisis. The roadmap does not yet meet that test. It presents a vision of food security that remains heavily dependent on global markets, multinational supply chains and financialised land-use systems.

In Who Controls Our Food Controls Our Future, I argued that the greatest threat to national security is not a lack of technology or innovation, but a lack of sovereignty over the essentials of life. The roadmap risks reinforcing that threat by handing more power to retailers, processors, investors and data-platform owners, while reducing the autonomy of the people who produce our food.

The central point is simple: food security cannot be outsourced. It cannot rest on the assumption that the rest of the world will always be willing and able to feed us.

Until the UK is willing to examine the gap between the official 65% figure and a stricter estimate of around 11% edible self-sufficiency under crisis conditions, every roadmap, strategy and framework will rest on an incomplete understanding of risk.

Section 2 – Who Really Controls the Future of Farming?

If Section 1 exposes the limits of the roadmap’s food security assumptions, Section 2 examines the question of farmer agency.

The Farming Roadmap 2050 repeatedly uses the language of partnership, but much of its substance points towards a future shaped by markets, supply chains, investors and data-driven corporate structures, with government acting as the enabler.

The roadmap states plainly:

“Markets will play a central role in shaping the future of the sector, enabled by an active and strategic state.”

This is one of the most revealing sentences in the document. It suggests that the future of British agriculture will be shaped substantially by market forces – the same forces that have contributed to consolidation, financialisation and the extraction of value away from primary producers.

The roadmap goes further:

“Food businesses, processors, retailers, investors and other supply chain participants will play an important role in shaping the conditions in which farmers operate.”

This may be presented as partnership, but it risks becoming subordination if farmers do not retain meaningful power within those relationships.

It formalises a trend that has already been developing for decades: the transformation of farmers from independent producers into contract‑bound suppliers whose autonomy is steadily eroded by the demands of supermarkets, processors, and global commodity markets.

In Who Controls Our Food Controls Our Future, I argued that the most dangerous shift in the modern food system is the transfer of power from those who produce food to those who control the flow of food.

The roadmap risks accelerating this shift. It embeds supply-chain dominance into the architecture of agricultural policy and treats farmers less as decision-makers than as implementers of standards, data requirements and production models designed elsewhere.

The danger is that the future farmer becomes less a steward of land and producer of food, and more a compliance operator within a vertically integrated system.

A system in which:

retailers dictate specifications
processors dictate volumes
investors dictate land use
data platforms dictate practices
government dictates environmental obligations
and farmers carry all the risk

That would not strengthen resilience. It would deepen dependency.

The roadmap claims that government will intervene where “unfair practices” arise, but the structure it endorses could make those practices more likely unless safeguards are much stronger.

When a small number of retailers dominate the grocery market, when processors consolidate into fewer larger players, when data platforms become gateways to contracts, and when farmers must share operational data to secure market access, the outcome may not be fair competition. It may become a form of corporate dependency that leaves farmers with ownership on paper but less practical control in reality.

Farmers may still own their land, but the roadmap risks weakening their control over key decisions.

This is exactly the pattern I described in Understanding the Fragile Foundations of the UK Food Chain: the more centralised and financialised the system becomes, the more vulnerable it is – and the less control farmers have over their own futures.

The parallels with the pub trade – which I explored in The Pub Crisis: How an Industry Lost Its Soul – are striking.

In both cases:

independent operators are squeezed by corporate intermediaries
data and contracts replace autonomy
margins collapse while compliance costs rise
ownership remains, but control evaporates

The roadmap’s insistence that farmers will “benefit” from supply-chain alignment echoes promises made in other sectors before independent operators were weakened by consolidation.

The risk is similar: a small number of large operators thrive within a corporate ecosystem, while smaller, independent businesses are pushed towards dependence or exit.

The roadmap also makes clear that government intends to withdraw support once markets “mature”:

“As private markets mature… government will step back.”

This is the same pattern we have seen in energy, water, housing, and transport.

Government sets the direction, private actors take control, and then government steps back, leaving the public exposed to the consequences.

In farming, the consequences will be even more severe, because food is not a discretionary service. It is a necessity.

In Food, Land and Power, I argued that the central question of our time is who gets to decide how land is used and for whose benefit. The roadmap answers that question clearly: land use will be shaped by markets, investors, and supply chains, not by farmers or communities.

Spatial targeting, nature markets, and data‑driven land‑use planning all point toward a future where the economic logic of the supply chain overrides the lived reality of the land.

This is not simply a roadmap for farming. Unless carefully rebalanced, it risks becoming a roadmap for the consolidation of control over food.

That matters because once control is lost, it is difficult to regain.

Section 3 – The Minette Batters Problem and Manufactured Consent

One of the most politically significant features of the Farming Roadmap 2050 is the way it leans on the Farming Profitability Review (FPR) and, by extension, on Minette Batters.

The roadmap repeatedly cites her work as if it provides a mandate for the direction the government has chosen. It states:

“It is published alongside our detailed response to the Farming Profitability Review, authored by former National Farmers’ Union President Minette Batters, because profitability is central to everything we are trying to achieve.”

But the reality is far more complex – and far more revealing.

In the Farmers Guardian, Minette Batters publicly warned that Defra lacks:

“the commercial expertise and acumen needed right now to appropriately address food security.”

This is not a minor criticism. It is a direct challenge to the very premise of the roadmap: that government is acting strategically, competently, and in partnership with farmers to secure the nation’s food future.

If the department responsible for food security lacks the commercial understanding to manage it, the roadmap’s claims of strategic clarity deserve closer examination.

Her concerns did not stop there. In evidence to the EFRA Committee, she admitted that she had been warned her review would be:

“filleted and changed”

and that she might not be able to publish it in her own words. She insisted on retaining control of the text precisely because she feared political manipulation.

This is crucial. It shows that even the author of the FPR understood the risk: that her work could be used to legitimise a direction she did not endorse.

The roadmap risks doing precisely that.

It cites her review as if it represents a unified industry position, while pursuing policies that contradict the concerns she raised – particularly around supply‑chain power, commercial competence, and the structural extraction of value from primary producers.

The roadmap’s heavy emphasis on markets, data‑driven compliance, and corporate‑led supply‑chain governance is the very model that has undermined farm profitability for decades.

That does not read as full collaboration. It risks looking like co-option.

In A Few Thoughts on Minette Batters’ Farming Profitability Review, I argued that the FPR risked becoming an elephant trap – not because Batters lacked integrity, but because the government could use her involvement to claim credibility for a predetermined agenda.

The roadmap appears to justify that concern. It uses her name and review to create the appearance of consensus, while giving insufficient weight to the substance of her warnings.

The roadmap claims it is:

“grounded in engagement with farmers, growers and land managers across the country…”

Yet the policies it proposes – increased regulatory consolidation, spatial land‑use targeting, mandatory data sharing, and the primacy of markets – are the very policies farmers have consistently warned against.

The roadmap acknowledges concerns about fairness and supply‑chain power, but then hands even more influence to the very actors responsible for those problems.

Consultation is not the same as co-design if farmers are heard but the direction of travel remains largely unchanged.

It is also part of a wider pattern. As I wrote in The Need for a Collaborative Approach, genuine collaboration requires shared power, shared understanding, and shared responsibility.

What we have instead is a political model where government consults selectively, cites strategically, and then proceeds with a direction shaped by Treasury orthodoxy and corporate interests.

The roadmap’s use of the FPR therefore needs careful handling. It allows ministers to claim that the direction of travel is grounded in industry engagement, while the policies themselves remain aligned with markets, supply chains and investment logic more than with farmer agency or food security.

The danger is that Minette Batters’ credibility is used to legitimise a direction that does not fully reflect the warnings she raised.

That is why the narrative should be challenged now: not because Batters acted in bad faith, but because her warnings deserve to be read on their own terms, rather than absorbed into a roadmap that may serve interests far removed from the needs of British farming.

Section 4 – Land, Power and the New Feudalism

If Sections 1–3 expose problems of food security, farmer agency and collaborative policymaking, Section 4 raises a deeper question: who controls the land itself?

The Farming Roadmap 2050 presents this shift as a technical necessity – a matter of “spatial targeting”, “nature markets”, and “land‑use optimisation”. But beneath the language lies a profound reordering of power.

The roadmap states that:

“Some payments… will be spatially targeted… Landscape Recovery will be spatially prioritised.”

This is not a minor administrative detail. It is the beginning of a system in which central government – guided by market logic, investor priorities, and environmental modelling – determines what land is for, where, and by whom.

Farmers are no longer the primary decision‑makers. They become operators within a land‑use framework designed elsewhere.

In Food, Land and Power, I argued that the most important question in any society is who decides how land is used.

Land is not just a resource; it is the foundation of food, community, culture, and sovereignty.

When control over land shifts away from those who live on it and work it, the consequences ripple through every part of national life.

The roadmap accelerates this shift. It introduces a model in which:

government sets the land‑use categories
markets determine the incentives
investors determine the value
environmental metrics determine the obligations
and farmers are expected to comply

This is less stewardship than centralised land management by proxy.

The roadmap also makes clear that environmental actions currently funded through SFI will be moved into regulation:

“Future payments for actions in this group will be time‑limited and will be phased out as regulation is introduced.”

This means that what is currently voluntary will become mandatory – not because farmers have chosen it, but because the regulatory framework will require it. And once these actions are embedded in regulation, they will be enforced through inspections, data monitoring, and compliance systems that farmers have no control over.

The roadmap promises to “double the EA’s farm inspection capacity”. It promises new permitting regimes for livestock. It promises consolidated water regulation. It promises tighter ammonia rules. It promises mandatory data sharing.

All of this is presented as environmental necessity, but the effect is unmistakable: control moves upward, away from farmers and toward regulators, markets, and corporate intermediaries.

This risks creating a new kind of dependency – not based on aristocratic landowners, but on corporate, financial and bureaucratic power.

Farmers may still hold the deeds to their land, but they will not hold the decisions.

Their autonomy will be replaced by compliance with a system designed to serve the needs of:

retailers
processors
investors
carbon and biodiversity markets
and the Treasury

The roadmap even acknowledges that land will be taken out of production. It states that meeting water‑quality targets alone will require:

“up to 9% land use change away from agricultural use…”

This is a significant admission. In a country that can feed only a limited proportion of its population from its own land under crisis conditions, the planned removal of agricultural land from production deserves far greater scrutiny.

In The Fragile Nation and Understanding the Fragile Foundations of the UK Food Chain, I argued that the UK’s food system is already dangerously exposed. Reducing agricultural capacity in this context should not be treated as a technical adjustment; it is a strategic choice with food security consequences.

The roadmap’s answer is that productivity gains will compensate for land loss. But this assumes a future of high‑tech, capital‑intensive farming that only large operators can afford.

It assumes that small and medium farms – the backbone of rural communities – will either scale up, specialise, or exit.

It assumes that land not used for food will be used for carbon, biodiversity, or energy markets – markets dominated by financial actors, not farmers.

Unless safeguards are built in, this is not only a roadmap for farming. It risks becoming a roadmap for the financialisation of land.

In The Glyphosate Era is a Warning, I argued that the real danger is not any single chemical or technology, but the mindset that treats land as a unit of production rather than a living system. The roadmap continues that mindset – only now the unit of production is not food, but carbon credits, biodiversity units, and environmental metrics.

Farmers become service providers to markets they do not control.

Communities lose the ability to shape their own landscapes.

And the nation loses the ability to feed itself.

That is the deeper risk: ownership without sufficient power, land without sufficient autonomy, and farming without sufficient agency.

Section 5 – Globalisation, War and the End of the Old Assumptions

If the earlier sections reveal the internal contradictions of the Farming Roadmap 2050, Section 5 reveals the external one – the assumption that the world of the next 25 years will look like the world of the last 25.

The roadmap is built on a belief that global markets will remain open, stable, and affordable; that geopolitical shocks will be temporary; and that the UK can continue to rely on imports to fill the widening gap between domestic production and national need.

That is a highly optimistic assumption, and one that deserves far more scrutiny than the roadmap gives it.

The roadmap acknowledges, almost in passing, that:

“Geopolitical instability, climate impacts, environmental degradation and supply chain disruptions are increasing exposure to price, input and output volatility.”

But it treats these pressures as background conditions rather than as structural threats. It does not fully confront the reality that the global food system is already fragmenting, that the era of cheap, abundant imports is ending, and that the UK’s dependence on global supply chains is a strategic liability.

In The Fragile Nation, I argued that Britain’s food system is built on assumptions that no longer hold: that shipping lanes will remain open, that exporting nations will continue to sell, that global markets will remain liquid, and that geopolitical tensions will not spill over into trade. These assumptions are now breaking down.

The roadmap itself references the closure of the Strait of Hormuz – a single chokepoint whose disruption sent shockwaves through global energy and fertiliser markets. It notes:

“The ongoing pressure on fertiliser and fuel prices because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz…”

But it draws the wrong lesson. The problem is not simply the price of fertiliser. The problem is that the UK has built a food system that depends heavily on imported fertiliser, imported fuel, imported feed, imported chemicals, imported labour and imported food.

In Iran and the Prospect of Food Shortages, I argued that the UK’s exposure to global shocks is not theoretical. It is immediate. A single geopolitical event can disrupt the flow of calories, inputs, and energy into the country within days.

The roadmap acknowledges the risk but then proceeds as if the solution is simply to “improve productivity” and “support markets”.

That is not sufficient resilience. It is an overreliance on optimistic assumptions.

The roadmap’s entire strategy depends on the continued functioning of a global system that is already fracturing. It assumes:

stable shipping
stable energy
stable fertiliser
stable commodity markets
stable geopolitics
stable climate
stable trade relationships

None of these conditions can be guaranteed. Many are already failing.

In The Fragile Foundations of the UK Food Chain, I argued that the UK’s food system is built on imported sand. The roadmap does too little to change this. It relies on the same dependencies, the same vulnerabilities, and the same belief that globalisation will continue to provide what domestic production cannot.

This is why the roadmap’s claim that the UK is “food secure” is so dangerous. It is based on a definition of food security that assumes global markets will always be there to rescue us.

But as I argued in Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent, true food security is not measured by how much we can import. It is measured by how much we can produce, store, and distribute within our own borders.

The roadmap does not yet offer a credible route to greater domestic resilience.

It removes land from production. It increases regulatory burdens. It centralises land‑use decisions. It prioritises environmental metrics over food output. It hands more power to supply chains and investors. It assumes productivity gains will compensate for land loss. It assumes global markets will fill the gaps.

This is not a sufficient plan for resilience. It risks becoming a plan for managed decline.

In The Fragile Nation, I wrote that Britain can no longer rely on a global food system that is itself under strain.

The roadmap refuses to accept this reality. It clings to the old assumptions of globalisation – assumptions that are already collapsing under the weight of war, climate shocks, resource scarcity, and geopolitical fragmentation.

A resilient nation does not outsource its food security. A resilient nation does not depend on shipping lanes for calories. A resilient nation does not assume that other countries will feed it in a crisis.

The roadmap relies too heavily on these assumptions, and that is why it falls short.

Section 6 – The Alternative: Local, Regenerative, Collaborative

If the Farming Roadmap 2050 risks a future of consolidation, dependency, and centralised control, then the alternative must be a future built on local resilience, regenerative practice, appropriate innovation, and farmer‑led collaboration.

This is not a romantic ideal. It is a practical necessity, and one I have outlined repeatedly in Food From Farms Guaranteed, Foods We Can Trust, Risk and Responsibility, and Reclaiming Food.

The roadmap assumes that food security can be delivered through global markets, corporate supply chains, and technological intensification.

But as I argued in Food From Farms Guaranteed, true food security begins with a simple principle:

A nation must be able to feed its own people from its own land.

This requires a shift away from the current model of export‑driven production, long supply chains, and dependency on imported inputs. It requires a commitment to producing food for domestic consumption first – not as an afterthought, but as a national priority. It requires a food system designed around public need, not market demand.

In Foods We Can Trust, I set out what this looks like in practice: local food networks, community processing facilities, short supply chains, and transparent relationships between producers and consumers.

These are not nostalgic ideas. They are practical foundations of resilience.

When food is produced, processed, and distributed locally, the system becomes less vulnerable to global shocks, less dependent on corporate intermediaries, and more accountable to the people it serves.

The roadmap’s vision of resilience is strongly technological and market‑facing. But real resilience must also be ecological, practical and distributed.

It should be built on:

mixed farming
regenerative soil management
diversified enterprises
local markets
community infrastructure
farmer‑led decision‑making
precision farming and appropriate technology that reduce input dependency rather than increasing it
traditional knowledge, stockmanship and soil stewardship embedded alongside modern methods

This is the model I described in Reclaiming Food: a food system rooted in place, culture, and community – not in financial markets or supply‑chain metrics.

Food is not just a commodity. It is a public good, a cultural asset, and a foundation of national sovereignty. When control over food is lost, control over everything else soon follows.

But this alternative cannot be delivered by government alone. In Risk and Responsibility, I argued that farmers themselves must choose to rebuild the food system – not by waiting for permission, but by acting collectively to create new structures of production, distribution, and trust.

This means:

forming local cooperatives
investing in shared infrastructure
building direct‑to‑consumer markets
reclaiming processing capacity
refusing dependency on corporate contracts
collaborating across farms and communities

The roadmap treats farmers as implementers of policy. The alternative treats farmers as leaders of a national renewal.

The roadmap assumes that resilience comes largely from technology, data and markets. The alternative recognises that technology has an important role, but only when it is aligned with relationships – between farmers and land, farmers and communities, and communities and their food.

The roadmap centralises power. The alternative decentralises it.

The roadmap financialises land. The alternative roots land in community.

The roadmap reduces farmers to compliance operators. The alternative restores them as custodians and producers.

The roadmap assumes globalisation will continue to absorb the risk. The alternative prepares for a world in which it may not.

This is not a rejection of innovation. It is a rejection of dependency and absolutism.

The future should not be framed as technology versus tradition, or productivity versus ecology. It should take the best of both worlds: precision farming, robotics, data and scientific insight where they genuinely support farmers, and mixed farming, soil stewardship, local knowledge and regenerative practice where they build resilience that technology alone cannot provide.

It is a call for a food system that is:

local
regenerative
collaborative
sovereign
resilient
farmer‑led
innovative without being captured
accessible to the whole population, not only profitable for those who control the system

This is the future that the Farming Roadmap 2050 does not yet fully imagine – because its centre of gravity remains markets, metrics and centralised control.

But a more balanced approach could deliver genuine food security, community resilience, and national sovereignty by ensuring innovation serves the food system rather than capturing it.

Section 7 – Conclusion: This Isn’t Just About Farming, It’s About Sovereignty

The Farming Roadmap 2050 presents itself as a plan for the future of British agriculture.

But when you strip away the language of partnership, productivity, and environmental ambition, what remains is something far more consequential: a redefinition of who controls food, land, and the means of national survival.

This is not only a farming document. It is also a sovereignty document. In its current form, it points in the wrong direction.

Food security is misrepresented through inflated production figures and a dangerous reliance on global markets.
Farmer agency is eroded, replaced by compliance with supply‑chain demands and regulatory frameworks designed elsewhere.
Land use is centralised, financialised, and increasingly dictated by markets, investors, and environmental metrics rather than by farmers or communities.
Government withdraws, leaving corporate actors to shape the future of farming while claiming that this is “market‑led progress”.
Resilience is too narrowly defined as technological efficiency, rather than as a balance of ecological stability, local self‑reliance, farmer knowledge, and appropriate innovation.

This is not yet the path to food security. It is a path that risks deepening dependency.

In Who Controls Our Food Controls Our Future, I argued that control over food is the foundation of every other form of power.

A nation that cannot feed itself cannot claim to be sovereign. A community that cannot shape its own food system cannot claim to be resilient. A farmer who cannot decide how their land is used cannot claim to be independent.

The roadmap risks accelerating the loss of all three.

It hands more power to retailers, processors, investors, and data platforms. It reduces farmers to operators within a system they do not control. It treats land as a financial asset rather than a national resource. It assumes globalisation will continue to provide what domestic production cannot.

Unless rebalanced, the roadmap risks taking Britain towards 2050 more dependent on global supply chains, more vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, and more disconnected from the land that sustains it.

But there is another path – one rooted in the ideas I have set out in Food From Farms Guaranteed, Foods We Can Trust, Risk and Responsibility, and Reclaiming Food. A path built on:

local production for local consumption
regenerative, mixed farming systems
short, transparent supply chains
community processing and distribution
farmer‑led collaboration
land used for food first, markets second
innovation that blends precision farming and technology with traditional farming knowledge
a robust, accessible and uncaptured food supply for the UK population
sovereignty over the essentials of life

This is not nostalgia. It is strategy. It is resilience. It is a model that can withstand the shocks already reshaping the world – war, climate disruption, resource scarcity and the fracturing of global markets – while still embracing the tools and methods that make farming fit for the future.

The roadmap is still built on assumptions that are becoming less reliable: globalisation, financialisation, centralised control, and the belief that markets will always provide what domestic production cannot.

Those assumptions are weakening. Policy must now catch up with that reality.

The question is whether the roadmap will be allowed to define the future, or whether farmers, communities and policymakers will insist on a more resilient alternative.

Because the truth is simple:

A nation that cannot feed itself is not fully secure. A farming system that cannot meaningfully shape its own future is not fully resilient. And a government that allows control of food to drift too far toward markets is not adequately protecting its people.

This is why the debate over the Farming Roadmap 2050 matters. Farmers, communities and citizens must challenge it constructively, and help build an alternative – local, regenerative, collaborative, sovereign – before the window to do so closes.

This is not just about farming. It is about who we are, who we serve, and whether we intend to remain a nation capable of feeding itself.

And that is a question far bigger than any roadmap.

Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent | Farming, Inflation and the Illusion of Food Security

The story of Britain’s food system does not begin with a fuel duty cut or a supermarket photo‑op. It begins a long way from here, in a narrow stretch of water that most people will never see.

When the latest conflict involving Iran erupted and the Strait of Hormuz was suddenly back on the news, it was framed, as these things usually are, in the language of foreign policy and defence. Tankers, missiles, alliances, red lines.

But for anyone who grows food, moves it, or depends on it being on the shelves – which is to say, everyone – the real question was much more basic: what happens if the ships slow down, or stop?

Britain imports a large share of what it eats. The government’s preferred line is that the UK is “roughly 58% self‑sufficient”, which is another way of saying 42% of the food we consume is imported.

Some analysts, using calorie‑equivalent or commodity‑equivalent measures, put the import share closer to 48%. Neither number is wrong. They simply measure different things.

But both numbers share the same flaw: they describe trade, not resilience.

They count food as “British” even when the fertiliser is imported, the diesel is imported, the feed is imported, the chemicals are imported, the packaging is imported, the machinery parts are imported, the ingredients are imported.

They count food that is British in geography but global in dependency.

Strip all that away – strip it back to the food that Britain could grow, harvest, process and consume entirely within its own borders, without relying on imports that could be disrupted tomorrow – and the picture changes dramatically. The real figure is closer to eleven per cent.

Eleven. Not fifty.

Not fifty‑eight.

Not even forty‑two.

Eleven per cent of the food that British people eat can be produced and consumed independently, without the global scaffolding that props up the modern food economy.

This is not a fringe estimate. It is not a doomsday scenario. It is simply the number you get when you stop counting food that only exists because the rest of the world keeps supplying the things that make it possible.

Once you see that number, the rest of the story snaps into focus. It becomes clear why a conflict in the Strait of Hormuz matters to a supermarket in Swindon. It becomes clear why a spike in diesel prices can ripple through the entire food chain in days. It becomes clear why the government’s daily rhythm of announcements – the confident tone, the insistence that everything is under control – feels increasingly detached from the world people can see with their own eyes.

By the time senior politicians began tweeting about the risks to global shipping and the prospect of higher prices at home, farmers had already seen the first wave hit. Red diesel – the fuel that keeps tractors, combines and much of the heavy kit in the countryside running – had been trading at around 75p a litre before the Iran crisis escalated. As the conflict bit, that price surged to around 120p, before easing back to something nearer 105p. Even at that “settled” level, it was still roughly fifty per cent higher than before the crisis.

Those numbers are not abstract. They are the difference between a harvest that just about pays and one that doesn’t. They are the difference between a contractor being able to honour a quote and having to add a fuel surcharge at the last minute. They are the difference between a farmer filling the tank and deciding to leave a job until next week and hoping the price comes down.

Against that backdrop, the government’s response arrived on 20 May in the form of a package designed to show that it was “stepping in”. Fuel duty on road diesel and petrol would remain 5p lower than planned. Hauliers would get a year‑long road tax holiday. And, crucially for agriculture, the duty on red diesel would be cut by “more than a third”, taking it to its lowest rate in over twenty years.

On paper, that sounds dramatic. A third is a big number. It is meant to be. But the duty being cut was not the full price of fuel; it was the tax element on a fuel that already enjoys a reduced rate. The change took the duty from 10.18p per litre down to 6.48p – a reduction of 3.7p.

Three point seven pence.

For a typical family farm, that translates into a saving somewhere in the region of £200 to £500 between now and the end of the year. A large arable operation, running multiple tractors and a combine across a thousand acres or more, might see a benefit in the order of £1,000 to £1,600. Those are not imaginary numbers; they are real money. But they sit in the shadow of something much larger.

When the underlying price of red diesel has jumped by 30, 40, even 50 pence a litre in a matter of weeks, a 3.7p duty cut is not a lever. It is a rounding error. The extra cost of filling a single large tractor tank once or twice can wipe out the entire annual benefit. The difference between last year’s fuel bill and this year’s dwarfs the saving before the first field is finished.

And that is before you even get to the question that has quietly begun to matter more than price: Will the fuel actually arrive?

In farmyards and machinery sheds, the conversation has shifted. People still talk about what they are paying, but increasingly they talk about whether the next tanker will turn up on time, or at all.

Britain has spent decades allowing its refining capacity to shrink and its storage to run down. The country now relies heavily on imported diesel to keep its economy – and its food system – moving.

When global routes are threatened and suppliers are nervous, that dependence stops being a technical detail and starts to feel like a vulnerability.

It is in that context that another, less publicised part of the story sits: the government’s quiet contortions over sanctions and Russian fuel.

Having taken a strong line on Moscow, ministers then found themselves having to “ease” or reinterpret parts of the regime to ensure that enough diesel could still be sourced to keep the wheels turning. On paper, it looks contradictory. In the real world, where tractors do not run on principles, it is grimly logical.

The red diesel duty cut did not fix any of this. It could not. It was never designed to. What it did do was generate a headline that sounded large and reassuring at a moment when the underlying reality was neither.

If fuel was the first act, tariffs were the second.

With the cost of living still biting and food prices a constant source of political anxiety, the government began to talk about reducing or suspending tariffs on certain imported foods as a way of easing pressure on household budgets.

Again, the language was confident. Cutting tariffs sounds like cutting prices. It suggests that there is a simple, mechanical relationship between the two: lower the tax at the border and the price on the shelf will follow.

The reality is more complicated. Most of the food Britain imports already comes in tariff‑free, either because of existing trade agreements or because the applied tariffs are zero.

Even if every remaining tariff were scrapped overnight, the overall effect on prices would be marginal. In a system where currency movements, energy costs, logistics bottlenecks and retailer strategies all exert far greater influence, the tariff lever is small and slow.

There is also the question of who captures any benefit.

A reduction in tariffs does not automatically flow through to consumers. It can be absorbed at any point in the chain: by importers, by processors, by retailers.

In a concentrated market where a handful of supermarket groups dominate, the power to decide where that margin goes does not sit with the shopper.

For domestic producers, however, the signal is clearer. Cheaper imports, or even the threat of them, become a benchmark against which their prices are judged. Buyers point to alternative sources and push down on farmgate prices. Contracts become tighter. Volumes become less certain. The risk is pushed back onto the farm.

So a policy that is sold as a way of helping consumers can, in practice, deepen the pressure on the people who actually grow the food.

It can also increase the country’s reliance on long, fragile supply chains at the very moment when global events are demonstrating how brittle those chains can be.

Supermarket “price talks” have also been reported this week. They were designed to be seen. Ministers summoned the chief executives of the major retailers to a meeting. Cameras captured the arrivals. Briefings suggested that the government was “leaning on” the supermarkets to keep prices down. The message was that someone was “standing up for shoppers”.

What happens inside those meetings is less clear, but the structural reality of the market does not change. Supermarkets are not charities. They are publicly listed companies with shareholders and debt and tight margins of their own. When they are pressed to hold down prices, they do not simply absorb the cost. They look for ways to pass it on.

The easiest place to do that is further up the chain. Processors are asked to trim their prices. Suppliers are told to sharpen their pencils. Payment terms are stretched. Promotions are funded by someone other than the retailer. Eventually, the pressure lands on the farm, where the ability to push it any further has for many farmers already disappeared.

From the outside, it can look as though the government is taking on powerful corporations on behalf of ordinary people. From the inside, it feels more like the state is using its political weight to reinforce a set of commercial dynamics that already favour the biggest players.

Running alongside all of this is a quieter, more technical narrative: the story of inflation.

For months, ministers and officials have pointed to falling inflation as evidence that things are “getting better”.

The rate at which prices are rising has indeed slowed. The headline number is lower than it was at the peak. On paper, that looks like progress.

But inflation is a rate of change, not a level.

When it falls from, say, ten per cent to three per cent, that does not mean prices have gone back to where they were. It means they are still rising, just more slowly. The new, higher plateau remains. Wages and benefits, which lag behind, have to catch up to it.

For many households, that catch‑up never quite happens.

In the supermarket aisle, the distinction between “prices rising more slowly” and “prices falling” is not academic. It is the difference between feeling a little less squeezed and feeling any relief at all. When the official narrative leans heavily on the former and implies the latter, trust erodes.

For farmers, the inflation story has its own twist. Input costs – fuel, fertiliser, machinery, finance – tend to ratchet upwards and then stick. When global prices fall, they do not always fall all the way back.

Farmgate prices, by contrast, are volatile and subject to the bargaining power of buyers. The result is a squeeze that can persist long after the headline inflation rate has eased.

Taken individually, each of these interventions can be defended.

A duty cut is better than no duty cut. Tariff reductions may help at the margins. Talking to supermarkets is preferable to ignoring them. Managing inflation expectations is part of economic policy.

The problem is not that any one of these things is uniquely bad. The problem is that, taken together, they reveal the limits of what government can now do within the system it has inherited and helped to build.

Britain’s food system has, over decades, been shaped into something that is highly efficient on paper and highly fragile in practice. It relies on long, complex supply chains that stretch across continents. It depends on imported energy and inputs. It is dominated at the retail end by a small number of powerful firms. It is financed and evaluated through a lens that prioritises short‑term returns over long‑term resilience.

When such a system is hit by shocks – a pandemic, a war, a shipping disruption, a spike in energy prices – the room for manoeuvre is limited. The levers that remain are mostly optical. They can change the story more easily than they can change the underlying reality.

That is why the announcements keep coming. It is also why they sound increasingly similar, regardless of who is in office.

The names on the ministerial red boxes change. The structural constraints do not.

This is the contemporary politician’s dilemma. To level with the public about the scale of the problem would be to admit that the system itself – the way we organise food, energy, trade, finance – is no longer capable of delivering the outcomes people reasonably expect. It would mean saying that tinkering at the edges will not be enough, and that some of the assumptions of the past forty years will have to be revisited.

The alternative is to keep performing competence. To keep announcing. To keep finding small, symbolic measures that can be presented as decisive action. To hope that the next crisis holds off long enough for someone else to be standing at the despatch box when it arrives.

So far, almost every government has chosen the second path. The system punishes the first.

Meanwhile, the underlying pressures continue to build. Farmers face rising costs, volatile prices and growing uncertainty about the rules of the game.

Consumers juggle higher bills, shrinking buffers and a sense that the weekly shop has quietly become a luxury.

The country as a whole becomes more dependent on global systems that are themselves under strain.

The rollercoaster analogy is overused in politics, but in this case it fits. Britain is strapped into a set of tracks that were laid in a different era, under different assumptions, for a different world. The carriage keeps moving because that is what carriages do. The people in the front seats can wave and smile and point to the scenery, but they cannot easily change the route.

If we want a different destination, we need a different track.

That means asking harder questions than “what can we announce tomorrow?”. It means looking at how much food we produce here, how we value it, how we move it, who controls the routes and the margins and the risks. It means thinking about energy security not just as a question of household bills, but as a question of whether the machines that plant and harvest and transport can keep running when global markets seize up. It means accepting that resilience is not free, and that efficiency measured only in pence at the till can be a very expensive illusion.

None of that will fit into a neat press release. It will not produce a headline as simple as “duty cut by a third”. It will not satisfy the daily hunger for something new to say.

But it is the only conversation that matches the reality we are now living in.

Until we have it, the announcements will keep coming. The system will keep fraying. And more and more people – in fields, in factories, in shops, in kitchens – will feel the widening gap between the story they are being told and the world they can see with their own eyes.

That gap is where trust goes to die.

The Fragile Nation: Why Britain Can No Longer Rely on a Global Food System

Price Fixing in a Broken System: What the Government’s Talks With Supermarkets Really Tell Us

Understanding the Fragile Foundations of the UK Food Chain

Iran and the Prospect of Food Shortages: Ask the Farmers – Go Local

The Contemporary Politicians Dilemma

Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent PDF_Vers1_21May26 Download

Tag: UK Food Security

Response to the Farming Roadmap 2050: A Blueprint for Dependency – and Why Britain Must Choose a Different Future

Disclaimer

Introduction

Section 1 – Food Security: The 65% Myth and the Illusion of Resilience

Section 2 – Who Really Controls the Future of Farming?

Section 3 – The Minette Batters Problem and Manufactured Consent

Section 4 – Land, Power and the New Feudalism

Section 5 – Globalisation, War and the End of the Old Assumptions

Section 6 – The Alternative: Local, Regenerative, Collaborative

Section 7 – Conclusion: This Isn’t Just About Farming, It’s About Sovereignty

Further Reading & Contextual Analysis

1. Understanding the Fragility of the UK Food System

1.1 Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent

1.2 The Fragile Nation: Why Britain Can No Longer Rely on a Global Food System

1.3 Understanding the Fragile Foundations of the UK Food Chain

1.4 Iran and the Prospect of Food Shortages: Ask the Farmers, Go Local

2. Power, Policy and the Erosion of Farmer Agency

2.1 A Few Thoughts on Minette Batters’ Farming Profitability Review (FPR)

2.2 The Government’s Biodiversity National Security Report Misses the Real Threat

2.3 UK Farmers & Inheritance Tax Changes: What Does the Government’s Christmas Announcement Really Mean for Food Security?

2.4 Our Politicians Sold Out Our Farming and Fishing Communities…

3. Land, Markets and the Fight for Control

3.1 Food, Land and Power: Why the Future of Britain Depends on Rebuilding Local Food Economies

3.2 Who Controls Our Food Controls Our Future

3.3 The Glyphosate Era is a Warning, Not the Future of Agriculture

4. Building the Alternative: Local, Regenerative, Collaborative

4.1 Food From Farms Guaranteed

4.2 Foods We Can Trust: A Blueprint for Food Security and Community Resilience

4.3 Risk and Responsibility: Why Farmers Must Choose to Rebuild the UK Food System

4.4 Reclaiming Food

How to Use This Reading List

Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent | Farming, Inflation and the Illusion of Food Security

A clear explanation of the real issues behind the narratives and optics – including affordability, access, and the catch‑22 facing farmers

What’s genuinely worth celebrating

The truth most people never hear

Why the system is fragile – explained simply

The affordability problem: the part nobody wants to talk about

Why this matters for food security

Real collaboration vs policy collaboration

Real collaboration

Policy collaboration

Why this distinction matters

The missing relationship: farmers and consumers

What real collaboration must look like

The bottom line

The constructive path forward

A closing thought

Further Reading

1. The Fragile Nation: Why Britain Can No Longer Rely on a Global Food System

2. The Key Stakeholders in UK Food Production Are the Farmers and Consumers

3. The Need for a Collaborative Approach to the UK Farming and Food Security Problem

4. Real Collaboration vs Policy Collaboration

5. Food From Farms Guaranteed

6. Why Is Food Supply Becoming Unstable?

7. Response to NAO Report: Resilience of the Food Supply Chain

8. The September 26 Farming Evidence Pack and the Reality We Can No Longer Ignore

Share this:

A long-form, accessible analysis of the UK’s declining food production capacity and rising systemic risk

Introduction: A report that tells the truth without meaning to

1. What the Evidence Pack actually shows – if you read it honestly

1.1 Land used for food production is declining

1.2 Livestock numbers are falling

1.3 Small and medium farms are disappearing

1.4 Crop output is unstable and trending downward

1.5 Farm profitability is increasingly dependent on price spikes

1.6 The UK’s food production system is becoming more concentrated, more fragile, and more dependent on external inputs

2. The pack’s biggest omission: dependency

3. The global supply chain is becoming critically fragile

3.1 Diesel is the single point of failure

3.2 Hormuz is a live stress test

3.3 The UK’s food system cannot operate without global inputs

4. The consolidation problem: why corporate-scale farming is a systemic risk

5. The illusion of self-sufficiency

6. What the pack should have said – but didn’t

7. What we must do now

Conclusion: The truth behind the numbers

Further Reading

Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent: Farming Inflation and the Illusion of Food Security

Response to NAO Report: Resilience of the Food Supply Chain to Disruptions (September 2026)

Foods We Can Trust: A Blueprint for Food Security and Community Resilience in the UK

Response to the Farming Roadmap 2050: A Blueprint for Dependency and Why Britain Must Choose a Different Future

The Real Implications of the UK’s Food Strategy 2025

A Few Thoughts on Minette Batters’ Farming Profitability Review (FPR)

Share this:

1. The NAO’s “60% self-sufficiency” figure is useful, but it is not a resilience measure

2. Food inflation at 19.2% is not just an economic statistic – it is a resilience warning

3. The NAO’s suggestion that Defra needs more emergency powers misses the point entirely

4. The agri-food sector’s economic importance is understated – and underutilised

5. Food as “one of 13 CNI sectors” creates false reassurance

6. Defra’s engagement with industry has deteriorated – and has become narrative management rather than collaboration

7. Household and community resilience has been neglected – and this is one of the report’s most important admissions

8. Catastrophic planning remains theoretical – not practical

9. Local Resilience Forums are structurally incapable of delivering food resilience

10. The private sector alone cannot be the backbone of UK food security

11. What real food resilience requires: A blueprint

Conclusion: The NAO report is a warning, but it is not yet a route to resilience

12. Priority actions

Further reading

Disclaimer

Share this:

Disclaimer

Introduction

Section 1 – Food Security: The 65% Myth and the Illusion of Resilience

Section 2 – Who Really Controls the Future of Farming?

Section 3 – The Minette Batters Problem and Manufactured Consent

Section 4 – Land, Power and the New Feudalism

Section 5 – Globalisation, War and the End of the Old Assumptions

Section 6 – The Alternative: Local, Regenerative, Collaborative

Section 7 – Conclusion: This Isn’t Just About Farming, It’s About Sovereignty

Further Reading & Contextual Analysis

1. Understanding the Fragility of the UK Food System

1.1 Feeding Britain on Eleven Per Cent