The UK is, in relative terms, a pretty terrible place to grow food. As a nation, we lack enough high-quality land and sunlight to make us a significant agricultural power and our unpredictable seasonal rains add a further layer of complication. Simply put, we are too small, too wet, too hilly, too populated and too northern to produce enough high-quality food to fully sustain our current population.
When I have said this publicly in the past, it has proved one of my more controversial food opinions. But it is not, as many seem to assume, a criticism of British farming. Quite the opposite. The majority of UK farmers do an extraordinary job in difficult circumstances, but there are realities when it comes to producing food here that cannot be ignored.
The resistance against imports
The last time the UK was self-sufficient in food was probably around the end of the 18th century, when the population was less than 12 million. Throughout the early 1800s, campaigners such as the Reverend Thomas Malthus pushed back against increasing food imports, introducing taxation on imported grain to protect the interests of British landowners. But when these Corn Laws were repealed in 1846, in many ways that settled the debate on whether the UK should strive to be agriculturally self-sufficient.
Even today, 180 years later with the population at around 70 million, it remains fashionable to campaign we should be. Yet I would suggest that for all the disappointed self-sufficiency rhetoric, we don’t actually do that bad a job. We currently produce around 65% of the food we consume – and that figure is far higher for things we can actually grow here, at around 77%. For fruits and vegetables, the numbers are lower (15% and 53% respectively), driven by a lack of suitable land, a need for out-of-season availability and demand for crops that just don’t grow in our climate.
Globally, this is not unusual. Recent research published in the journal Nature has suggested that of 187 countries studied, only one (Guyana) produced enough to be self-sufficient in all food groups. Even great agricultural powers, with far superior soil, land, infrastructure and climate, are dependent upon imports for a completely balanced diet.
The benefits of a global food system
Does this, as many claim, create a food system that is dangerously vulnerable to global shocks? Is the UK at genuine risk of starvation? In reality, no. There is plenty of evidence to show that a globally connected food system is far more resilient and less prone to shortages.
The UK has centuries of almost uninterrupted trade with the rest of the world, providing vital insurance when our often-fragile domestic agriculture falters. Local food shocks are far more of a risk than global ones, making our connectivity a strength, not a weakness. And let’s not forget our current arrangement means we have year-round access to an abundance of delicious, nutrient-dense foods that we could never grow at home, making our diets far healthier as a result.
Throughout history, calls for complete food self-sufficiency have been the preserve of tyrants and isolationists and should be treated with great scepticism. There is a huge difference between championing the successes and strengths of UK agriculture, as I frequently do in my work and writing, and a jingoistic demonisation of the need for imported goods. We can and should love British-grown food without thinking our farming is a failure if we have to import some of our wheat.
The Corn Laws were repealed 180 years ago, it’s probably time our food politics caught up.
Anthony Warner is a development chef at New Food Innovation
No comments yet