Not surprisingly, a debate is already raging in Whitehall. Whether there is a food and farming commission as promised by Labour is beside the point. Something like it will happen by other routes. Three questions loom. First, who should conduct the review. Insiders or new and more radical blood? Should it be under MAFF or the Treasury? The argument that food and farming cause trouble, get bailed out and pass the bills to other ministries (eg environment, health, transport, economy) is pretty much accepted in Whitehall these days. Second, should the government/commission set out to sooth ruffled brows, restate current policy and aim to return to business as usual or, take a deep breath, realise the country cannot go on having food crises, and fundamentally reorientate thinking? Labour set up the Food Standards Agency to try to put blue water between government and food standards. But as events continue to show, the crisis isn't just of food standards but of food and farming policy. This is fundamental. Papering over cracks might not be on. Third, what policy options are there? MAFF's internal review is playing with four scenarios. Much depends on whether farming is to produce food or be good to the environment, and whether policy is market-oriented or supported by the taxpayer. MAFF's four scenarios range from aiming for total food security to massive food imports, from being landscape driven to making farmers take out insurance to cover for eventualities like BSE. One thing is for sure. These options are not compatible. {{NEWS }}