The anonymous author from Inside Track has responded to our initial critique with wounded indignation, claiming we’ve dismissed them as activists oblivious to commercial realities. Yet they haven’t refuted a single substantive argument we made.
Let’s be clear about what we argued in our original piece: Inside Track’s report calls for government-facilitated cartel behaviour, state funding for farmers to transition away from livestock, regulatory restrictions on advertising, and preferential treatment for plant-based alternatives.
We said the language bore hallmarks of activist ideology and questioned whether this leads to state-directed food production. The response? Not a word of contradiction on any of these points.
What they don’t deny
The author confirms they want “a change to business as usual” and explicitly states “yes, there is a role for government to play”. They acknowledge calling for government intervention because “it is not realistic to expect individual companies to take major decisions that will impact market share for the sake of the greater good”.
This is precisely what we warned about: advocating for state-sanctioned market manipulation to override competitive dynamics. They want government to create a “level playing field” – forcing all companies to reduce meat and dairy production simultaneously, regardless of consumer demand or business viability.
They don’t dispute their vision involves farmers “transitioning away” from current practices. They don’t challenge our characterisation of regulatory demands. They don’t deny wanting co-ordinated industry action that competition law currently prevents.
Instead, they demand “space for honest and difficult conversation” whilst failing to honestly state their objectives.
Their argument rests on an assertion that the industry is on an unsustainable trajectory toward intensive production and cheap processed meat. Yet they provide no evidence, ignore significant progress already made, and dismiss constraints that make their alternative economically unviable.
British agriculture has made remarkable strides in sustainability. UK livestock farming operates under some of the highest welfare standards globally. Major food companies have invested billions in improving practices. These represent fundamental shifts in how the industry operates.
The response dismisses these efforts as “not sufficient”. By what measure? Against what timeline? Using which methodology? These questions go unanswered because answering them would require engaging with economic realities that make radical transformation impossible without devastating consequences.
Most strikingly, the response barely touches on affordability. We pointed out that supermarkets operate on 2%-3% margins and that affordable meat provides essential nutrients to families under financial pressure. The response? A passing mention of affordability with no acknowledgement their proposals would drive prices up.
With 5.2 million UK families food-insecure and food prices up 27% in three years, any policy making protein more expensive hits the poorest hardest. Concerns about “health inequalities” ring hollow when their proposals would exacerbate precisely those inequalities.
What ‘business as usual’ means
The author wants to move away from “business as usual” without defining what that means.
“Business as usual” means feeding the nation affordably whilst continuously improving standards. It means British farmers producing high-quality meat and dairy under world-leading standards. It means retailers offering consumers choice and value. It means ongoing investment in sustainability within viable parameters.
“Change” is not inherently progressive. The chaos in Dutch farming and Canada’s fertiliser policy backlash demonstrate what happens when ideology trumps practicality.
We don’t doubt these are food industry professionals. But professional credentials don’t immunise ideas from scrutiny.
The question is whether their proposals reflect realistic thinking or whether they’ve adopted an ideological framework aligning with anti-livestock campaigning organisations. The language of “meat primacy”, the focus on a “transition away” from livestock, the calls for state co-ordination – these are activist framings, regardless of who’s using them.
What honest conversation requires
The author calls for “honest conversation” whilst refusing to engage with difficult questions. An honest conversation would address how much food prices would increase and who would bear those costs. It would examine what evidence suggests government-co-ordinated production reduction would improve outcomes rather than simply shifting production overseas to lower-standard producers. It would grapple with reconciling concern for farmer livelihoods with policies forcing many out of livestock farming.
An honest conversation would confront what happens to nutritional security for lower-income families if meat becomes more expensive. It would justify why taxpayers should fund the “transition” away from an industry contributing £8.6bn to the UK economy and employing thousands. Most fundamentally, it would acknowledge trade-offs rather than presenting a fantasy where everything improves only if government intervenes sufficiently.
This response reveals ideological commitment dressed as pragmatism. The author wants “a system that is fair to producers and manufacturers, is resilient to climatic and geopolitical shocks, and provides consumers with healthy and sustainable food”. Who could argue with such aspirations?
But aspirations without viable pathways are just wishes. When the pathway involves state co-ordination to reduce meat and dairy production, regulatory restrictions on marketing, forcing farmers to transition, and making protein more expensive during a cost of living crisis, those aren’t solutions, they’re the problem.
The response rejects “conspiracy theories” about their rationale. But we haven’t trafficked in conspiracy theories. We’ve analysed their actual proposals, traced the language to activist origins, identified likely consequences, and questioned whether this serves consumers, farmers, or food security.
Inside Track have had an opportunity to refute these concerns. Instead, they’ve confirmed they want government intervention to force change companies won’t pursue voluntarily, without articulating where the industry would move to or at what cost.
Standing firm
British farming and the food industry need support to continue improving within economically viable parameters. They need protection from regulatory overreach and cost pressures that make operation increasingly difficult. They need recognition that feeding the nation affordably whilst maintaining high standards is legitimate and vital.
What they don’t need is well-meaning professionals pushing for government-co-ordinated market manipulation based on contested assumptions about unsustainable trajectories.
That’s not honest conversation, that’s advocacy. And British farming, food businesses, and consumers deserve better.
Mike Coppen-Gardner is the founder and chief executive of SPQR
No comments yet