SFT CEO and organic farmer, Patrick Holden, outlines his key food and farming policy recommendations for Sir Keir Starmer and the new Labour Government, and the need for a ‘revolutionary vision’.

As a farmer in Wales and CEO of the Sustainable Food Trust, I have both a bird’s and worm’s eye view of food and farming, and from this uncommon vantage point it feels that they could be defining issues for Sir Keir Starmer and his Government.

Labour has a history of driving radical change in this area. At the end of the Second World War, Clement Attlee’s Government made food and health central pillars of his efforts to rebuild the nation and create a better future. With our current food and farming systems impacting ever more negatively on the health of people and planet, we need a similarly revolutionary vision now – and Keir Starmer’s personal leadership is critical to this.

I feel strongly that food and farming are central to achieving many of this Government’s most important goals, from the preventative health agenda to action on climate change, reviving our nature and rivers, the Green Growth agenda and national food security.

By shifting to regenerative farming systems that operate in harmony with nature, Britain could become a world leader, pioneering a new approach that combats climate change and protects nature, while delivering food security and helping to tackle poor health and poverty.

An investment in truly regenerative farming is undoubtedly an investment in the nation’s health. Today, the NHS is spending billions treating the symptoms of declining public health, including many previously uncommon diseases such as obesity, diabetes, food intolerances and cancer, all of which have been exacerbated by industrial farming methods and foods.

An investment in sustainable agriculture is also an investment in combatting climate change. By using regenerative practices to draw carbon down from the atmosphere and back into the soil, some estimates suggest we could sequester more than half of total annual greenhouse gas emissions globally.

But to transform our food and farming system and enable it to engender impactful change, we need a shared bold vision and an interconnected strategy that goes beyond any one ministry.

The Government should convene a ‘Food and Farming Council’, which would bring together the Chancellor, Secretaries of State and Ministers from various departments with a broad spectrum of stakeholders from the food system, including businesses, farmers and NGOs.

This Council should then demonstrate the same level of leadership in transitioning towards sustainable agriculture, as witnessed in the energy sector. In the early 2000s, the German government ingeniously convinced major fossil-fuel energy companies to subsidise feed-in tariffs, thereby overcoming the initial cost barrier until economies of scale eventually made renewable energy more affordable than nuclear and fossil-fuel power. Our Government urgently needs a similar approach to jumpstart the transition in agriculture, and the solution is within reach.

The food companies, retailers and other businesses who have a vested interest in ‘testing the waters’ of a transition, have the combined resources to create new models and templates for sustainable food production, and together can help shift the balance of financial advantage from extractive to regenerative production.

There are already instances of this transition in action, visible right on my farm in West Wales. Castell Howell, one of the largest food wholesalers in Wales, has recently initiated a pilot project to introduce organic vegetables into schools. They are funding the production and distribution of these vegetables, in my case carrots, using profits from their conventional trade. They are investing in this initiative because they recognise the long-term financial benefits of being pioneers in this area.

Many other players in the corporate world can support the transition by working together in new alliances. For example, members of the Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI), which was launched by the then Prince of Wales in 2020 and includes banks, asset managers, insurance companies and water companies, are now partnering with food companies and retailers to co-finance new initiatives that reward farmers for delivering on climate, nature and health.

The Government must also play its part by removing barriers to change. Here are three actions that Government could take:

• Back a large-scale pilot of a new approach to finance regenerative agriculture: through the SMI, the Sustainable Food Trust is working with a group of CEOs from some of the UK’s most influential companies, including McDonald’s, McCain, Pepsi, Waitrose, Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds of London to develop and run this pilot. The support of the Government and Defra could greatly boost the impact of this work.
• Link farm subsidies to measurement: the Environmental Land Management scheme has some positive attributes, but not enough money has been allocated to enable systemic change of the farming system. More money, combined with the use of common, holistic metrics, must underpin these schemes and determine what they can achieve. The Sustainable Food Trust has incubated the Global Farm Metric, a common framework co-created across the food and farming sector, which is now being deployed in trials across the world.
• Introduce a stronger regulatory framework: apply the polluter pays principle to those who buy inputs that contribute to climate change, pollute water and damage human health. This would create a level playing field for farmers who are doing the right thing.

If the Government acted on these fronts and enabled a shift from chemical to biologically based food production, they could rightly be seen as world leaders in this great food and farming transition.

 

This article was originally published by Goals House on LinkedIn.

Extreme weather events are putting smaller and medium scale growers under strain as they strive to meet customers’ needs at an affordable price. Here, organic grower, Alicia Miller, shares how climate change is impacting their approach at Troed y Rhiw Organics – a mixed farm and vegetable box scheme in West Wales.

This year’s ‘hungry gap’ is going to be a tough one – there’s no denying it. On our farm, we’ve been bracing for the impact. This is the time of year when running a box scheme is truly no fun. Our winter crops are finished – no greens or winter salads, purple sprouting broccoli and calabrese are over, and truly everyone is fed-up with celeriac, swede and kale. So, as we run the box scheme year-round, this it the time when we start ‘buying in’.

On the one hand, it’s a relief for our customers to have something different in their box – peppers and courgettes coming in from Europe make pretty much everyone happy. On the other hand, our costs go up significantly which in this economic climate, is extremely difficult.

And, if you haven’t noticed

The economy isn’t getting any better – despite recent headlines, the economic situation for most people (and small businesses) remains perilous. We’ve tried to keep our prices stable, but the hungry gap has made an increase a necessity. Prices are still climbing, even with the downturn in inflation. Explaining the rise to our box scheme customers is not going to be easy – a £1 increase in box costs is hard to swallow for many. We’re expecting some of them to leave, simply because they’ve hit the threshold of what they can afford to pay.

As small-scale producers, the rising costs are hitting us as well and we are near-on desperate to reach the summer when our crops, we hope, will finally arrive and our costs, at least in the short term, will go down a bit. It’s not easy communicating the value of what small-scale producers provide – supermarkets so easily undercut us because the price for customers at the check-out isn’t an honest reflection of the true cost of production. Many of the damaging externalities of industrial food production are paid by the public in ways we don’t even think about – our water bills, taxation and lost income from ill health are just a few examples.

Despite this, we persevere – what choice do we have? There are a few new crops coming along: spring onions, radishes, spring greens and I’d like to say strawberries, but they are very slow this year. The asparagus has arrived from the Borders, and at our Monday market it flies off the stall. New potatoes should be with us shortly, though again, it’s hard to tell for sure. But in the meantime, we are stuck with imports, and they are pricey.

Brexit fall-out – still falling out eight years on

The phrase ‘unmitigated disaster’ comes to mind quite frequently with any mention of Brexit. A 2023 Farmer’s Weekly survey detailed the list of woes, “Increased red tape, a worsening economic situation, damaging free-trade deals, a trail of broken promises – it seems that farmers…are far from satisfied with Brexit.” Three-quarters of those participating in the survey felt that Brexit had a bad impact on the economy as a whole and a slightly smaller number felt that it was “fairly negative” or “very negative” for their business.

The hardest hit by Brexit are upland farmers who have been pretty much written out of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) – with the SFI providing only a third of what the BPS did. Suggestions of diversification are really just a pipe dream, being realistic. This past autumn, Marianne Landzettel wrote for the SFT on Brexit’s impact on upland farmers. In a profile on farmer Michael Walton, Landzettel outlined what Walton would get from the SFI: “Under the EU Basic Payment Scheme, [Walton] received £55,000 which made up 50-60% of the farm’s income. From the SFI options available, he will receive £4,000 at best. Which means that by 2027, he will be £50,000 worse off than pre-Brexit.” While Defra has stepped up support for upland farmers more recently, they’ve still got the very short end of the stick.

And then there’s the weather!

After a spectacular hot, dry May and June in 2023, the rain kicked off round about early July. Instead of a continuation of the previous months, which though unexpectedly hot, and nightmarish for farmers who watched their grass wither, was a welcome stretch of proper summer. However, it didn’t take long before the wet returned and had a long-extended run for the next nine months, with little respite, bringing many farmers to their knees as they tried to farm on land that was deeply water-logged. Arable and horticulture crops across the UK have been seriously affected and it is anticipated that the UK will be reliant on grain imports for at least the coming year.

Climate change is visible everywhere on the earth now, in its varied presentations, and UK farmers, unquestionably, now know it up close and personally. We haven’t quite adjusted to it, but the rain was a great big wake-up call – especially here in Wales which saw well more than its fair share. The capriciousness of climate change will keep calling us out, no doubt, so we need  to think about the meaning and growing importance of sustainable farming – be that organic, regenerative, agroecological or biodynamic. How do we build a route to improved farm resilience and better food security? It’s only through a holistic approach to sustainability that encompasses all the diverse aspects that feed into how our food is produced – both good and bad. Properly measuring the outcomes using a consistent common framework will give us a baseline to extrapolate from – which is critical.

This is no time for naïvety. While the economy and Brexit have made a real mess of things, we need to focus – seriously focus – on how we turn all of this around. We need to consider the bigger picture – what do we need to be doing to make it through the next nine months of rain? Or possibly drought? Whatever is coming our way, we’re not going to survive this without a radical overhaul of how we farm and how we eat. There’s a nation to feed and we need to feed it much better than we do.

Read Feeding Britain from the Ground Up to learn more about how we can farm more sustainably while improving food security and public health.

After taking part in last month’s Big Plastic Count, the SFT’s Isabel Eaton felt prompted to explore our over-reliance on plastic-wrapped produce. Here, Isabel explains how this material is ending up in our seas and soils as well as our bodies, and how and where to shop for plastic-free alternatives.

Our food system has a big plastic problem. The material is present from field to fork, but it’s in supermarkets where – confronted by aisle after aisle of plastic-wrapped goods – the scale of the issue becomes most visible for many of us. As a diligent recycler, a keen frequenter of zero waste stores and someone who recently crashed their car whilst distracted by roadside litter (nobody was harmed!), it’s fair to say that I am conscious of waste. However, my participation in the Big Plastic Count this March highlighted a sizeable personal plastic footprint, largely formed of fruit and vegetable packaging, and the extent of our overall reliance on plastic-wrapped produce.

When Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic organised the first Big Plastic Count in 2022, the data that they gathered from households across the UK revealed not only the extraordinary amount of household plastic waste that we generate each year, but also the significant contribution of food and drink packaging towards the unsightly total. Of the estimated 96.6 billion items of plastic packaging thrown away in 2022, 83% came from food and drink.

Plastic packaging has revolutionised the food industry – low cost, lightweight and adaptable, it increases product lifespan, eases the transport of imported foods, helps with hygiene and preserves nutritional value. Essentially, it enables our globalised food systems to function.

But, as we are increasingly aware, this reliance on plastic poses a big problem for the planet. From the point at which it is produced using fossil fuels, to the point at which the consumer comes to dispose of it (usually after just one use), plastic is polluting, and our waste systems simply cannot cope. According to the Big Plastic Count’s 2022 report, which uses statistics from RECOUP and WRAP, in the UK just 12% of our plastic waste went on to be recycled. Of the remainder, 46% was incinerated, 25% ended up in landfill and 17% was exported to be dealt with by other countries – typically those less wealthy and often poorly resourced.

Plastic that ends up in an incinerator releases toxic gasses and more than two tonnes of CO₂ for every tonne of dense plastic burned. The plastic that goes to landfill also releases greenhouse gasses as it breaks down slowly into microplastics. These tiny fragments can now be found in every corner of the planet, from the bottom of our oceans to the top of our mountains, meaning that plastic is in our seas, in our soils and, inevitably, in our bodies.

Of course, recycling is a good thing, and the appearance of soft plastic recycling schemes in many supermarkets is a positive step, but the message from Greenpeace and other organisations is that recycling is no longer enough – reducing our use of plastics is now crucial.

Supermarkets have a big role to play in this. Although many are making efforts to offer more loose fruit and vegetables as well as refill options for other products, they continue to overpackage and to incentivise the purchase of plastic-wrapped produce over loose, sometimes by offering lower prices for multi-packed goods. This practice not only creates unnecessary plastic waste, but also encourages shoppers to buy more than they need, which may then lead to food waste – another big issue for the planet, with 40% of all food across the globe thrown away.

Supermarkets also typically sell their organic produce in plastic packaging, even when the equivalent non-organic fruit or vegetable is available loose. This is ostensibly to stop organic produce from getting mixed with non-organic produce, but for the environmentally conscious shopper it poses a dilemma.

When I counted my own plastic waste between the 11^th and 17^th of March for the Big Plastic Count this year, I generated 20 pieces of plastic waste, 75% of which came from food. This may be less than the UK average but would still amount to an alarming 29.2 billion pieces in a year if every household in the country produced the same as me.

Like many people, I would love to achieve a plastic-free weekly food shop, but it remains out of reach for most, with local amenities, budget and time, proving significant barriers. However, if you’d like to at least reduce your food and drink plastic footprint, there are lots of ways to go about it, many of which may enable you to support small local businesses and enjoy locally grown seasonal produce at the same time.

When shopping for plastic-free fresh produce, local farm shops, greengrocers, markets and veg box schemes are all good places to start. Milk can be delivered to your door in glass bottles by Milk & More or a local dairy farm – many of which are finding direct sales the best way to sell their milk. Whilst unwrapped bread can be bought from a local baker, if you are lucky enough to have one nearby.

For dried goods and oils, zero waste shops have cropped up across the country in recent years. The range of produce varies from store to store, but if you take along empty tubs and jars you may be able to stock up on anything from basics like pasta, rice and flour to exotic spices, loose leaf teas, oils, sauces and even peanut butter.

Ultimately, the actions of individual shoppers, though helpful, won’t turn the tide on plastic and a lot is riding on the Global Plastics Treaty, which is currently under negotiation. Due for agreement at the end of 2024, its aim is to end plastic pollution by establishing international rules around how the material is made, used and recycled. These rules can then be converted into government policy to help stem the flow of plastic into food and waste systems and most importantly, the environment.

The hope of this year’s Big Plastic Count is that it will shine a spotlight on the plastic crisis and mobilise action in the UK government. When this year’s results are released later this month, they will no doubt make for a sobering read and serve as a vital reminder that we cannot continue to rely on plastic to make our food system function. Although this year’s count is over, you might like to measure your own waste over the course of a week to get a sense of your plastic footprint and, quite possibly, scare yourself into action.

As our climate changes, farmers are branching out when it comes to decisions on what they should grow. Here, we look at some crops that might fare well as UK temperatures increase, and consider how these might fit into a more sustainable farming system.

On a farm in West Wales, Nathan Richards (pictured) is beginning to harvest his first small commercial crop of peaches and nectarines. These crops, along with apricots and cherries, are part of an experiment exploring future opportunities for polytunnel-grown stone fruit in the UK. He is interested not only in seeing if these crops are viable in our changing climate, but also trying to make best use of polytunnels’ warmth and vertical space. With the effects of climate change already being felt around the world, farmers like Nathan are increasingly turning their attention to ways that they can adapt, ensuring that they can continue to feed their customers locally grown produce that previously may only have been available on import.

Changes in global temperatures and disruption of regional weather patterns pose a major threat to global food security. Simultaneous harvest failures across major crop-producing regions are increasingly likely, linked to a strongly meandering jet stream which can trigger concurrent extreme weather events. Crops like maize – the primary staple food for many of the world’s people, particularly in lower latitudes – are especially at risk; by the end of the century, it’s possible that maize production could drop by as much as 24% .

Wheat, on the other hand, tends to be grown in more temperate regions and benefits more than maize does from increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As a result, wheat production is expected to increase by up to 18% in the same period. These trends highlight the global inequalities of climate change when it comes to impacts on food production, with some staples at greater risk than others.

A recent study looking at sub-Saharan Africa, a region where climate change is compounding difficulties in producing enough food for a fast-growing population, suggests that the answer could lie in crop diversification. Maarten van Zonneveld and his team found that embracing ‘forgotten food crops’, including varieties of leafy vegetables, fruits, cereals, pulses and tubers, could support the ‘double-win’ of more climate-resilient and nutrient-rich food production in the sub-Saharan region.

Choosing crops that will be able to feed us in a changing climate is essential in all of the world’s regions, including here in the UK. Although some predictions show that certain traditional UK-grown staples, like wheat, may have a degree of resilience to climate change, our food supply is far from immune to the shocks of a warming planet particularly given our heavy reliance on foods grown by farmers in other parts of the world.

So, which crops might flourish as we seek to diversify for resilience? Here, we look at four potential candidates.

1. Stone fruit

While plums can flourish in the UK’s temperate climate, other stone fruits, like apricots and nectarines, are more sensitive to weather conditions. Their flowers appear on trees early in the year and are easily damaged by frost, and the fruit needs plenty of sun to ripen. These crops are difficult to produce in more northern latitudes, and they are typically grown in countries such as Turkey, Morocco, Italy and France, and imported to cooler, less sunny countries.

However, there are hopes that these fruits might become easier to grow in countries like the UK as temperatures increase, potentially opening up a new market for farmers and enabling consumers access to fruit that hasn’t been shipped long distances.

The roots of Britain’s current intensive crop and livestock systems can be traced back to World War II when the inaccessibility of imports necessitated urgent increases in production on home soil. The industrialised farming practices that emerged from this period continue to dominate the landscape to this day, encouraged by agricultural policy and the global trend for producing, consuming and wasting ever more food. The unceasing quest for greater yields has had a devastating impact on our nature. Britain is now considered one of the most wildlife-depleted countries in the world and calls for urgent reform of our food and farming systems grow louder by the day.

Ideas as to how to transform UK agriculture so that it heals and protects the environment rather than continuing to degrade it, can be largely divided between two primary approaches, commonly known as ‘land sparing’ and ‘land sharing’. First thought to have been used by Cambridge scientists in 2005, the terms represent two distinct visions for farming that feeds the planet, without damaging biodiversity.

Land sparing calls for a reduction in the amount of land used for farming and an increase in areas dedicated to nature. Within this approach, technology is used to further intensify production on land that remains in agricultural use, ideally while also reducing chemical inputs – this is often termed ‘sustainable intensification’. This approach aims to free up more land for conservation, supporting populations of insects and animals that struggle to survive in farmed and urban landscapes to recover and hopefully thrive.

Land sharing, meanwhile, is the principle of farming in harmony with nature to deliver biodiversity and food production on the same land. This is achieved by de-intensifying our farming systems and using nature-based practices to produce food with fewer inputs, less waste and more diversity. In this ‘agroecological’ approach the farm represents an important ecosystem that benefits plants, animals and people. Associated farming methods include agroforestry, regenerative crop rotations, mixed farming systems and companion cropping.

Although both approaches aim to protect nature and tackle climate change while feeding a growing population, the advantages and disadvantages of each have long been subject to heated debate. Proponents of land sparing believe that the majority of farming systems are ultimately incompatible with efforts to protect wildlife. They also argue that the lower yields associated with agroecological farming systems mean that land sharing couldn’t feed the planet without occupying ever more land.

These opinions are disputed by proponents of land sharing, who view farming as a key part of the solution in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, and capable of being practiced in harmony with nature. Their concerns around land sparing include the finite productivity of intensively farmed soils, the potential for continued use of harmful chemical inputs, the welfare issues associated with intensive livestock systems and the risks to nature of creating isolated conservation areas bordered by inhospitable farmland. They also fear that land sparing could impact the estimated 600 million smallholders worldwide, many of whom use low-intensity methods and may be unable to access the technology necessary to farm more intensively.

Conscious of the often-cited criticism that land sharing couldn’t produce sufficient food without occupying more land, the Sustainable Food Trust’s 2022 report ‘Feeding Britain from the Ground Up’ modelled a nationwide transition to agroecological farming systems and investigated the impacts on land use and food production. The report found that with changes in how we eat and significant reductions in food waste, this approach could produce enough food to maintain current levels of self-sufficiency in Britain, while freeing up an additional 1.5 million acres for nature and other ecosystem services – reducing the total land occupied by agriculture from 72% to 62% of the UK’s total area.

Tackling food waste could significantly improve the viability of agroecological systems by reducing the amount of calories and nutrients lost from the food system. Globally, we already, technically, produce more than enough food for everyone, however, one third of this is lost or wasted. WRAP statistics suggest that in the UK, 7% of all harvested food is wasted before it leaves the farm and a further 22% is wasted beyond the farmgate. These losses from the system are further compounded by an estimated 40% of the UK’s arable land area being used to produce food for livestock – a highly inefficient use of cropland in terms of calories produced for human consumption. The ‘Feeding Britain’ report, therefore, modelled a huge fall in the amount of grain fed to livestock and a 50% reduction in food waste (in line with the Courtauld Commitment 2030) to help match the levels of food produced by our current farming systems.

In the report’s vision for a regeneratively farmed UK, siloed and specialised food production, including arable monocultures and intensive pork and poultry, would be replaced by mixed rotational systems. High welfare, pasture-based livestock would often be integrated with more diverse cropping systems, and the farms would align with the principles of the circular economy by producing much of their own animal feed (in the form of pasture, cereals and food and crop waste) and fertiliser (in the form of manure and compost). Crop rotations (including fertility-building legume phases and species-rich temporary grasslands) would be used to break pest and disease cycles and generate soil fertility, while a diverse mix of chemical-free on-farm habitats would support birds, insects and other wildlife. The reintroduction of hedges, wildflower meadows, beetle banks and woodland onto farmland would all encourage a far more biodiverse agricultural landscape.

The findings of the ‘Feeding Britain’ report, therefore, indicate that the agroecological systems associated with land sharing do have the potential to benefit nature and feed the nation. However, whether you align more closely with the principles of land sparing or land sharing, there is little disagreement that our farming systems require urgent and extensive change. The vast scale of land dedicated to agriculture in Britain means that the sector has a significant impact on climate and nature. However, the good news is that, as the report details, farming has huge potential to shift from being part of the problem to part of the solution, as long as we are willing to leave behind our industrialised systems, eat differently and embrace a new vision for farming that benefits nature, the climate and, of course, humans.

The use of methane inhibitors in cattle and sheep feed was the subject of a recent consultation by the UK and devolved governments, to which the SFT responded. Reducing methane emissions is essential, but we have concerns about some of the products under consideration, as well as the wider impacts for animal welfare, biodiversity, the environment and both human and animal health that could arise. We provide some background, then set out our perspective on each issue.

With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise, and climate change already increasing the severity and duration of extreme weather, meaningful action to phase out the use of fossil fuels is urgently needed.

Yet, despite the important progress on a Loss and Damage Fund at COP 27, aspirations of staying within 1.5°C of warming took a knock when a last minute change to the final text exempted natural gas from a commitment to phase out all fossil fuels. It was a watering down of ambition the planet can ill afford – according to the latest UNEP Emissions Gap Report, which monitors the difference between reality and targets, we are on track for 2.8°C of warming by the end of the century, a prediction up from 2.7°C last year.

While we need to reduce the emissions of all three major greenhouse gases, getting CO₂ levels down to net zero by 2050 at the latest, is the most urgent task we face, even though many politicians and business leaders have yet to embrace this. This is because CO₂ is an extremely long-lived gas, so once it enters the atmosphere, most of it stays there for thousands of years. Ongoing emissions of CO₂ therefore accumulate in the atmosphere, causing a continuous rise in temperatures.

Methane

Methane on the other hand, behaves very differently from CO₂, with most of it breaking down within 10-12 years. In total, it is estimated that methane has been responsible for around a third of the 1.1°C of warming experienced to date, but because of its short life in the atmosphere, its contribution to global warming today is largely based on the amount we have emitted over the last decade or so (an amount that continues to increase). What this means is that reducing methane emissions globally could have a small but beneficial cooling effect within 10-20 years which would help to offset the expected increase in warming due to CO₂. The UNEP estimates that if we achieve a 45% reduction in global methane emissions by 2045, this could reduce global warming by 0.3°C. This would help us stay within the target of 1.5°C of warming by 2050.

Scientists at Oxford University acknowledge that taking action on methane now rather than later could bring benefits, but using more precise methods they conclude that this would be, “by a much smaller amount than the direct GWP₁₀₀ equivalence between methane and CO₂ [the method used by the UNEP] would suggest. GWP₁₀₀, the traditional method of calculating the warming contribution of greenhouse gases, does not provide an accurate picture for methane, as is explained in the second half of this video by Professor Myles Allen.

Nevertheless, reducing methane emissions is still very important and with growing concern that the world is a long way off track for meeting its CO₂ reduction targets agreed in Paris, attention has increasingly focused on methane in recent years. The UK Government was one of the first signatories of the Global Methane Pledge which commits the government, with other countries, “to collectively reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030”.

Methane inhibitors

UK agriculture is responsible for 10% of the UK’s home-produced greenhouse gas emissions and about 54% of that is related to ruminant methane (when measured using the GWP₁₀₀ metric). One potential solution to help reduce this that has received a lot of attention recently, is the use of methane suppressing feed additives – substances which when mixed with feed, reduce the amount of methane cattle and sheep produce in their rumen and then emit into the atmosphere.

However, while there is a clear need to tackle anthropogenic methane emissions – including from ruminant livestock in the UK – and we agree that some additives potentially have a valuable role to play in achieving this, we, nevertheless, have some significant concerns.

Human and animal health concerns

We already know that some products proposed as methane suppressing additives can have negative impacts on animal health and welfare – for instance, the antibiotic growth promoter monensin, widely used in US cattle feedlots, and nitrate salts that can cause severe illness or even death in cattle when administered incorrectly. Then, there are other additives for which potential health risks have been proposed. For instance, the red seaweed Asparagopsis produces the probably carcinogenic compound bromoform, accidental ingestion of which has caused a range of health problems, though more research is required to consider the implications of this.

Even where more rigorous testing has been carried out, as is the case with the chemical 3-NOP, which has recently been approved in the EU, there are still risks. 3-NOP poses a health risk to those producing it, and potentially to those adding it to feed rations too. It can cause irritation to the skin and eyes, while inhalation could also be dangerous. We should also keep in mind that its use will bring about a change to a key aspect of ruminant metabolism. All available evidence indicates this is safe, but the last time we did something similarly unnatural in the UK, by adding meat and bone meal to cattle feed, it was also said to be totally safe. The negative aspect of the practice, the emergence and spread of Bovine Spongiform Encepalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow Disease, as it was dubbed, wasn’t identified for over half a century and it took well over a further decade before it was clear this was the cause of a new and fatal variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), in humans.

There is also a long list of synthetic pesticides and antimicrobials which were once thought to be totally safe, but which have eventually been found to cause harm decades after they were first introduced. Pesticides like the organochlorines, paraquat and the neonicotinoids, and antimicrobials like avoparcin, virginiamycin, carbadox, chloramphenicol and colistin have all now been banned or, in one case, severely restricted. The hope, of course, is that this won’t be the case with feed additives, but with the testing and roll-out of these products still in its infancy, caution is needed.

Indirect effects for human health

There are also concerns around the indirect impacts some feed additives might have on human health and on animal health and welfare. For instance, we now know that monensin has been shown to have potential for treating both pancreatic cancer and new viral infections, while one component of it, monensin A has the potential to be developed as an antibiotic of last resort, for treating infections caused by certain hospital superbugs. A more general health and welfare risk is that, at present, feed additives can only be used in intensive production systems, as they need to be mixed with the animal’s feed. Efforts to incentivize the use of feed additives could, therefore, entrench, or even support the expansion of intensive housed systems. These tend to be associated with lower levels of animal welfare and contentment and at a global level, higher levels of zoonotic infections, such as E.coli 0157, campylobacter and salmonella.

Potential environmental impacts

Further intensification of the ruminant sector due to the promotion of feed additives could have negative impacts on the environment, too. The air and water pollution problems associated with keeping very large numbers of cattle together are well-known, as was highlighted in depressing detail in a recent Guardian exposé. But there is also a risk that feed additives could kill off the emerging interest in regenerative agriculture, where grazing animals play an important role. Intensification could also cause further biodiversity loss and CO₂ emissions, by bringing about an even bigger transition from extensive, grass-based systems to year-round confinement, with diets based more on grain and soya and less on grass. Intensive production systems can be associated with lower methane emissions, but they have higher CO₂ and N₂O emissions due to greater energy and fertiliser use, and the long-term soil degradation associated with both grain and soya production.

Methane suppressing feed additives cannot currently be used in extensive grazing systems. So, if their use were to be required for, say, receipt of public money, or an assurance scheme, there could also be a real risk that extensive grazing systems would become even more economically disadvantaged than they are at present. This could then lead to the closure of grazing livestock farms. These are not all perfect from a biodiversity perspective, but they are still of huge importance as grazed habitats for a wide variety of plant and animal species.

Slow-release boluses, mineral licks and the like may eventually present a means of delivering additives in grazing systems, with 3-NOP and monensin being two candidates for this. However, there has been very little research into whether this would work safely and effectively in practice.

The environmental impacts of feed additive production also need to be considered. This is particularly relevant to additives such as the tropical red seaweed Asparagopsis, which has shown promising potential. At present, it is only grown on a very small scale, so what might happen if it were to be grown in commercial quantities over a much wider area? Large-scale seaweed production could be harmful to the environment: the spread of non-native invasive species and pests and diseases, wildlife becoming entangled in production infrastructure and noise pollution are all potential issues that have been highlighted. But it could also deliver major benefits, including a reduction in excess nitrogen in the marine environment, protection from coastal erosion and significant amounts of carbon sequestration.

Basically, we don’t know what the large-scale production of such seaweed species would mean for the environment, or whether it would even be possible. And this lack of evidence is a major issue for feed additives and their efficacy more generally. A few additives have consistently been shown to deliver significant emission reductions, but there are many others where the evidence is minimal at best. For some additives, it is also not clear whether they will continue to be effective over the long-term. There is evidence that the efficacy of monensin, saponins, direct-fed microbials and, most notably, 3-NOP (when added to high-forage diets) may decline over time, as the rumen microbiome can adjust and produce methane in other ways.

None of this is to say we should dismiss their potential out of hand. If, for example, it proves possible to produce seaweed at scale sustainably, and process it into a safe product, that could be of significant benefit.

Potentially better alternatives

It is important to add that there are other potential means of reducing methane emissions from ruminants which are not feed additives. Perhaps the most promising of these is the selective breeding of animals for low methane production, an area of research which in the UK is being led by Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC). In a recent study, they found that by selecting animals according to 30 rumen microbial genes associated with low methane production, emissions can be reduced by 17% of the mean per generation. Their findings also suggest that this mitigation potential should be achievable across any breed or production system. More work is required to make the genetic testing scalable and affordable.

There is also research from the UK showing that a 10% reduction in cow size could reduce emissions by around 8% with no negatives for productivity, profitability or environmental sustainability. Improvements in herd health (by tackling diseases like BVD, Johnes’ and mastitis) could reduce total GHG emissions by approximately 10%, due to the positive impact this would have on productivity. In addition, there is ongoing work into the development of a vaccine which could reduce methane emissions. Field studies have so far been unsuccessful, but laboratory results have shown this to be a promising avenue for future research. Finally, there is also some evidence that grazing ruminants on tannin-containing legumes (e.g. birdsfoot trefoil) and some herbs, especially plantain, can deliver reductions in methane emissions, whilst providing other benefits, such as major reductions in nitrogen losses, which represent a significant source of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Putting things in context

Most importantly, the drive to reduce ruminant methane emissions, while important must not become all-consuming. Grazed ruminants provide many benefits when managed well, and the delivery of these must not be jeopardised by a push to cut UK emissions of methane without considering the wider implications.

One of these is the potential harm which a further reduction in UK ruminant numbers could have on our overall climate footprint, if we end up importing more beef or lamb. We already import 20% of our beef, some of it from countries such as Australia and Brazil where deforestation is continuing, most of it to create additional grazing land or to grow yet more soya. As analysis by the Climate Change Committee has shown, importing more beef from areas with a global-average beef carbon footprint would result in a net increase in warming, even if we were to reduce personal consumption in the UK by 20%.

It is also vital to remember that sheep and cattle are far from the only source of methane. Ruminants, waste and rice production combined, produce more methane than the fossil fuel industries. However, at 111 million tonnes per year, global ruminant emissions on their own are similar to and slightly lower than the 128 million tonnes lost by the fossil fuel industry, as shown in the Global Methane Budget, 2008-2017 (See Table 3, p. 1580).

It’s also become clear that fossil fuel emissions have been grossly underreported. New high-precision methods for monitoring methane losses from oil, gas and coal extraction and use are finding some of them to be two or even three times higher than the figures reported to regulators by these industries. A report from CarbonBrief estimates that globally, methane losses from fossil fuel extraction and use are 20-40% higher than official figures indicate. The good news is that well-tested technological solutions exist to stop these losses and they are already being introduced by some companies.

This doesn’t mean we should not seek to reduce methane emissions from livestock, but it does show that our priorities and the relentless media focus on cattle emissions may be misguided, especially since fossil fuels are also the primary source of CO₂ emissions.

Even with the urgent need to address global warming, we must not allow vested interests from the fossil fuel industries to stampede us into making decisions we will later regret. In this context, we need to note the conclusions from climate scientists at Oxford University. They tell us, “Reducing methane emissions to zero while continuing to emit CO₂ could delay, but not prevent, global temperatures rising.”

On 16 August, The Guardian published ‘The most damaging farm products? Organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb’, an article by George Monbiot. The piece consists of points from Monbiot’s recent book, Regenesis: Feeding the world without devouring the planet, which the SFT has already reviewed. We respond to four of the claims that require specific interrogation.

Monbiot’s basic argument is that organic and pasture-fed livestock take up more land than any other type of farming and are therefore the least efficient and most environmentally destructive form of food production. We fundamentally disagree with this. In reality, well-managed organic and pasture-fed livestock:

·      convert grass and other feeds humans can’t eat into nutrient-dense food, which is a highly efficient use of resources;

·      are essential for the survival of many of the UK’s most important habitats and species;

·      have an important role to play in the transition to climate- and nature-friendly food and farming systems which don’t rely on energy-intensive, non-renewable inputs.

None of this detracts from the urgent need to reduce the amount of meat we eat, (something which Henry Dimbleby, leader of the Government’s National Food Strategy, is quoted as calling for in a separate article published by The Guardian). However, where we differ from both Monbiot and Dimbleby is that we believe that this should be delivered through major reductions in grain-fed meat production, which would affect chicken and pork more significantly than beef and lamb.

The fundamental reason for this is that over half of the world’s grasslands are unsuitable for crop production, while including grass in arable crop rotations on the most degraded soils is the best way to restore soil carbon and resilience. Grain and other arable crops can be consumed directly by people; grass can only contribute to human nutrition if it is first converted to milk or meat by grazing animals.

Below, we give our response to four of the key claims made by Monbiot.

1. Claim: Grazing livestock are inefficient at producing food

Response: Grazing livestock are able to convert grass and other feeds humans can’t eat into nutrient-dense meat and dairy, which represents an efficient use of resources

At the heart of Monbiot’s opposition to grazing livestock is their perceived inefficiency. He supports this with an argument he has made many times before: that 28% of the planet’s land surface is used for grazing, but that animals reared entirely on grass produce just 1% of the world’s protein. This is grossly misleading. While entirely grass-fed ruminants only make up a small percentage of the global herd/flock, most of these animals belong to subsistence farmers in dryland regions where grass quality is very poor and crops are frequently devastated by prolonged droughts. However, all sheep and cattle receive a substantial part of their diet from grass. While no exact global figures are available, in the UK, grass contributes over 20 grams of high quality protein per person per day through meat and milk, one third of the recommended intake. In Regenesis, Monbiot also states that, “cattle, goats and sheep are less efficient converters of protein than chickens and pigs.” This is also misleading. Chickens and pigs are only more efficient at converting grain to meat. Cattle, goats and sheep are far more efficient at converting grass into meat (and milk) than chickens and pigs, making ruminants of greater value at converting human inedible protein into human edible protein.

Monbiot also overlooks that fact that almost two-thirds of global grassland is unsuitable for arable cropping. Meat and milk produced from most grasslands and other human-inedible feeds, e.g. crop by-products and food waste, therefore represent an additional and complementary source of nutrition to that provided by crops, since these resources would otherwise provide no contribution to the human food supply. One review, which explained why overall consumption of animal foods needs to decline, found that livestock reared solely on grass and other inedible feeds could provide 20-50% of the world’s protein, 10% of our energy and iron, 20% of our calcium and zinc and 75% of our vitamin B12 needs. Significantly, this approach would require 25% less arable land than under a vegan scenario.

2. Claim: Grazing livestock are bad for biodiversity

Response: Well-managed grazing livestock are hugely important for many habitats and species in the UK

Monbiot also claims that in almost all instances, grazing livestock are bad for nature, citing a global review of studies which found that having no grazing is better for almost every category of wild animal. He ignores the fact that the same study highlighted instances where grazing is good for biodiversity. In addition, a more recent paper by the same authors acknowledges that by only comparing grazed versus ungrazed areas, their review didn’t account for grazing intensity, which they acknowledge is essential for an accurate assessment of impacts on biodiversity.

In reality, as most ecologists would recognise, the effect of grazing on biodiversity is hugely context dependent. Some habitats and species benefit from having zero or very low levels of livestock grazing (as Monbiot references), while others benefit from or even rely upon the extensive grazing he constantly rails against. This is particularly the case in countries like the UK where many species and habitats have co-evolved with grazing animals throughout a long history of farming.

It is true that many of the world’s grasslands would benefit from less intensive and more sympathetic grazing practices. In the UK, intensive management in the lowlands (especially on the most intensive dairy farms with very high nitrogen fertiliser use) and overgrazing and the move to sheep-only systems in many parts of the uplands, has had negative impacts on biodiversity. However, undergrazing is now also a growing concern in some areas. We undoubtedly need many more trees in the landscape, but there are ways this could be achieved without the wholesale conversion of large areas of grassland to commercial timber plantations at the expense of the many important species which rely on open-ground habitats. We also need to make sure that tree planting is undertaken in a way that benefits the whole country and doesn’t just become another form of greenwashing for polluting industries. Currently, investors are buying up grassland for afforestation so they can sell carbon credits to industries that want to continue using fossil fuels, rather than investing in renewables.

3. Claim: Grass-fed livestock are worse than intensive livestock for climate change 

Response: A nationwide transition to agroecology, which grazing livestock are key to achieving, could significantly reduce the UK’s agricultural emissions 

Monbiot’s claim that organic and grass-fed beef and lamb are worse for the climate than intensive products has been made many times before, but this is a massive simplification. What is probably the most detailed comparison of the carbon footprint of organic and conventional beef in the UK, found that the on-farm footprint of conventional beef was 15.028 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kilo of beef, whereas that for organic beef was lower at 13.46 kg. The impact on global warming, however, is much lower than even these figures indicate, because all current calculations still measure the climate impact of methane in an inaccurate way, which fails to account for its short life in the atmosphere compared with the indefinite life of all additional CO₂ emissions.

Monbiot also criticises grazing livestock for preventing woodland expansion and the associated carbon storage – what is generally called a ‘carbon opportunity cost’. But this ignores the major potential for organic and pasture-fed grazing livestock farms to sequester carbon by restoring degraded soils through good grazing management, including where grass is incorporated into arable crop rotations, and through the greater integration of trees and hedgerows into pasture. As the technical data behind CPRE’s Hedge Fund report makes clear, each square kilometre of grassland in the UK already contains 57% more hedgerow than each square kilometre of cropland, (5.25 km compared with 3.34 km). It also supposes that the conversion of the UK’s grass and moorlands to woodland is invariably a good thing for carbon, but this is not always the case: there is good evidence that tree planting on many upland soils, already high in organic matter may not result in a net carbon gain.

It is also vital that we assess the climate impact of cattle and sheep from a whole food system perspective, rather than purely on the basis of individual product footprints. Doing so shows that a nationwide transition to agroecology, which grazing livestock are key to achieving, could lead to a 55-70% fall in the UK’s agricultural emissions – providing we simultaneously transitioned to more sustainable diets.

4. Claim: Sustainable production couldn’t feed Britain

Response: Sustainable, nature-friendly farming could feed the UK, provided we change our diets and waste less food 

Ultimately, the main argument Monbiot levels against grazing livestock and nature-friendly farming systems more broadly, is that they do not produce enough food per hectare of land. This results in the bizarre situation where, despite advocating veganism in Regenesis, he ends up arguing that US feedlot beef, produced on grain and soya, is the better approach to beef production because it produces more beef per hectare.

However, while yields are obviously an important consideration (and increasing these in agroecological systems will be possible, given adequate research and development), it is not necessarily the case that a nature-friendly approach to food production would require more farmland. In fact, dietary change, especially an overall reduction in grain-fed meat consumption, along with a reduction in the amount of land used to grow bioenergy crops, could make space for lower-yielding but more environmentally-friendly farming systems, while still freeing up land for rewilding or other purposes – as has been shown recently at both an EU and UK level.

In relation to both Monbiot’s and Dimbleby’s positions, it is important to point out the dangers of continuing to rely on intensive agriculture, as the National Food Strategy recommends for the country’s best land. This summer has shown the threat a changing climate poses to food production, with yields well down due to drought. While agroecological systems are not immune to climate change, they have the potential to be more resilient in the face of extreme weather, due to higher levels of soil organic matter, greater diversity of crops and the efficient integration of crops and livestock at an on-farm level. Food systems that continue to rely heavily on agrochemicals (as would be necessary under both Monbiot’s and Dimbleby’s approaches) also carries risks, as we have seen recently, with the three-fold increase in the cost of nitrogen fertiliser, higher energy prices and the accumulating evidence over the safety of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used pesticide.

Conclusion – Where the SFT, George Monbiot and Henry Dimbleby all agree

If the global population continues to grow, as predicted, and if developing countries continue to move in the direction of Western, high meat diets, we will face a global ecological and climate disaster because it will be impossible to increase meat consumption sufficiently without destroying even more wild land for agriculture, including further vast tracts of the Amazon rainforest. As such, we strongly agree with both Monbiot and Dimbleby, that meat consumption will have to decline in the UK and in other developed countries. This is not, however, an argument for slashing the production of beef and lamb in a country like the UK, where crop production is impossible or problematic on more than half the farmland area – it is exactly the opposite. Beef produced on former rainforest land has a carbon footprint of approximately 700 kg of CO₂ per kg of meat, largely due to the carbon and other greenhouse gases released when trees are burned, and because tropical soils quickly degrade once converted to food production. That results in a carbon footprint more than 40 times higher than beef produced in the UK.

But, while Monbiot, Dimbleby and others assume it is grass-fed meat production that needs to decline, due to its lower protein productivity per hectare than chicken and pigs fed on grain, we see it as fundamentally more important to reduce our consumption of grain-fed meat, in large part because continuous crop production degrades soils. As research by British scientists finds, 38% of our cropland soils in the UK are already degraded, compared with less than 7% of grassland soils. High grain production also depends on a wide range of unsustainable inputs, produced from non-renewable resources at a high carbon cost. Intensive grain-fed systems also cause huge amounts of air and water pollution and confine animals in unnatural and stressful conditions. In contrast, well-managed grazing animals can play a valuable role in a climate-friendly food system, providing a range of key social and environmental benefits, including a significant and resource-efficient contribution to the food supply, a vital source of income for rural communities, benefits for biodiversity and an important role in reducing agrochemical inputs by building fertility and reducing weeds, pests and diseases in cropping systems, through rotations that include grass and forage legumes, like clover.

We asked a few of our speakers from the upcoming Fir Farm Conference 2022 to share their thoughts on the issues that matter most to them – true cost accounting, sustainability, animal welfare, and of course, farming.

Paula Daniels

Paula Daniels is Co-founder, Chief of What’s Next, and founding Chair of the Center for Good Food Purchasing, a social enterprise non-profit founded in July of 2015 as a national spin-off from the Los Angeles Food Policy Council, which Paula founded in 2011. The Center for Good Food Purchasing uses the power of procurement to create a transparent and equitable food system that prioritises the health and well-being of people, animals and the environment, through the nationally-networked adoption and implementation of the Good Food Purchasing Program by large institutions. There are numerous institutions in many large cities across the US enrolled in this Program.

True cost accounting can be a vital tool in reforming our food system – how do we leverage it more effectively to drive real change in food production?

True cost accounting is important in shining a light on the otherwise hidden costs in the food system, so that businesses and policy makers can better design their practices and policies.

Why are local food economies important in our food system and how do we best foster their development?

Local food systems are a key aspect of supply chain resilience in times of disruption, as well as important frameworks for supporting local economic development and small businesses.

What’s most important in the creation of a healthy food secure future?

Recognising the public interest in a healthy equitable food system, and designing supportive policies accordingly.

John Gilliland

John Gilliland is Director of Global Agriculture and Sustainability at Devenish, an innovative livestock nutrition company with a focus on sustainable food solutions. He was recently appointed Professor of Practice in Agriculture and Sustainability at Queens University Belfast. John has previously been an award-winning farmer in Ireland, President of the Ulster Farmers Union, a policy adviser for Devolved, National and European Governments on Biotechnology, Climate Change and Sustainability, and chair of Defra’s Rural Climate Change Forum for seven years. For the last six years he has chaired the N. Ireland Expert Working Group on Sustainable Land Management and is currently a member of the EU Commission’s Mission Board Assembly on Soil Health & Food in Brussels.

How would you define ‘sustainability’ in food and farming, especially from a global perspective?

Sustainability means different things to different people. For me, it is about using the breadth of human intelligence to produce food and manage our natural environment in a manner that improves human health, environmental health and profitability, all at the same time, and that allows us to feed 8 billion people, by 2050.

What’s most important in how we evaluate the impact and sustainability of our farming systems?

If you can’t measure, you will never be able to manage your impact on sustainability. Core to the work I am leading is measuring farming systems at the landscape level, then repeating the measurements on a regular basis to inform and communicate the journey of improving sustainability of our farming systems.

What do you see as the three most important changes that need to happen in the way we farm, if we are to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees?

Firstly, there is no silver bullet. To date, we have been very good at bringing forward single innovations without any understanding of how they impact the other public goods we provide. Research and education into systems-based solutions that optimises the synergies and minimises perverse outcomes will be fundamental. Secondly, knowing where your business is on its journey to Net Zero – knowing your gross emissions, your gross sequestration and ultimately your net carbon position and what tools are needed to improve the net position over time, is vital. Lastly, building resilience into your food production system that will allow you to weather both the direct and indirect impacts of ever-increasing numbers and severity of extreme weather events will be essential.

Marisa Heath      

Marisa Heath has 17 years of experience as a policy adviser and campaigner, working on issues relating to food, farming, animal health and welfare in the UK and has also worked internationally on agroforestry projects. She is Cabinet member for Environment at Surrey County Council responsible for the Climate Change Delivery Plan and is involved in numerous projects around local food, land management and nature recovery. She has a strong interest in future food systems and the role of better meat, plant-based food and sustainable production. She authored the ‘Future for Small Abattoirs’ report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and currently co-chairs the Small Abattoir Task and Finish Group which works closely with Defra as well as running a Trade Alliance that seeks to set core animal welfare and environment standards for UK trade policy on agriculture.

What are your key concerns in relation to animal welfare among farm animals in the UK?

The increasing shift to industrial farming where animals are kept indoors and the demand for cheap protein in light of the cost of living, means people will not shift to ‘better’ meat where animals are reared on pasture as part of regenerative farming. Also, as consolidation continues to take place, animals will be transported further within the UK and often moved through collection points and, whilst this does not mean welfare standards are not met, it does raise the scope for stress and potential welfare issues to arise.

Why are small abattoirs important to our food security?

It is recognised that there are different business models for livestock rearing and slaughter. Farmers who are producing for large retailers who either own their own processing plant or have strong affiliations with large processors, will not have their needs – mainly based around throughput – met in small abattoirs. Smaller producers who are producing for specific markets will prefer to use small local abattoirs and will find their needs are better met within them. There needs to be choice to enable a strong functional and sustainable market in the UK that will ensure food security. The critical role small abattoirs can play in providing ‘private kill’ and the easy return of livestock products to farmers and collaborators to add value to those products, should be recognised as key to enabling the evolution of a self-sustainable rural farming economy, which is a real part of food security.

How do we protect British animal welfare standards in the face of trade deals?

Foremost, we need a trade policy that protects UK standards within every trade deal and makes it clear what is not acceptable in regards to imports via the setting of core standards, so farmers feel secure that the standards to which they are producing will not be undercut by cheap imports. We have good animal welfare standards in the UK and there is consideration of going further, with the potential ban on caged hens for example, but we can go even further through local food production and creating a risk based regulatory system that supports domestic local production. Clearly, we do not want to jeopardise our trading position, however there are measures which can be taken to support smaller producers and provide food aligned with even higher animal welfare including short transport distances and quick processing. 

Sarah Langford

Author and former barrister Sarah Langford has returned to her roots in farming. Leaving her life in London to run a small family farm with her husband, she wrote the recently published Rooted: Stories of Life, Land, and a Farming Revolution, which weaves her own learning as a farmer in with the narratives of farmers that she learned from. Rooted offers a picture of 21^st century farming and the difficulties farmers face, but it also looks at the great potential of regenerative practices to map a path to a sustainable farming future.

What have you learned from your land?

It taught me to see. Once you learn how to look at soil, wildflowers, the birds and creatures that live upon the land, even weeds, everything looks different. You can never go back.

You grew up in the countryside – what has changed about it since you moved back to the country?

I grew up with grandparents in the countryside where we spent all our spare time. They were in Hampshire, which is full of hills and woods. When I moved back to the countryside as an adult I did so to Suffolk, on the other side of the country. I’d never seen such huge flat fields before. Walking through a field where you genuinely couldn’t see where it ended or began was quite a strange experience.

Do you want your children to grow up to be farmers?

I would love them to have work which is creative, purposeful, intellectually challenging, enterprising and meaningful. So, I suppose, yes.

In April, the UK Government’s Department of Education launched the Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy, which sets out how the UK education sector intends to become a “world leader in climate change by 2030”.

Whilst the strategy indicates that the Government is eager to engage with the sustainability agenda in education, there is still a real sense that it hasn’t gone far enough.

Shortly after its release, the student-led campaign group Teach the Future, who were instrumental in calling for a greater focus on sustainability and climate change in the curriculum, called the Strategy an “opportunity to mainstream and integrate climate education”.

Director of The Harmony Project, Richard Dunne, whilst appreciating the hard work that had gone into the Strategy, also felt that sustainability and climate change issues had not been addressed as comprehensively as they could have been in ensuring all students are guaranteed access to these critical issues. “What’s needed,” says Richard, “is a much deeper review around what we are actually educating for, so that nature and biodiversity loss, sustainability and climate change are embedded across the curriculum and beyond in a much more joined-up way.”

Several of the individual elements of the Strategy are positive steps forward. The introduction of a Natural History GCSE in September 2025, the Nature Park initiative (which asks schools to increase their biodiversity on their school estates), and an offer of training support for teachers on sustainability and climate change, are all good to see. However, given that none of these recommendations are statutory, many will be concerned that this represents a lack of commitment from the Government in making sure that all young people in schools and education settings across the country can benefit from the proposals put forward.

What’s more, the Strategy makes no mention of updating the national curriculum to include climate education, beyond the inclusion of related issues (such as landscapes, urbanisation, habitats and ecosystems) in the existing subjects of geography and science.

As Richard says,

“We will only properly address sustainability and climate change with a much more coherent way of learning, based on projects that draw together subject skills and knowledge and engage students in applying them in relevant ways in their schools, their local communities and the wider global context.”

Of particular interest to the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT), is the reference to food education. The proposals include piloting a food curriculum and a whole-school approach to food – something which is welcomed by the SFT as an important step towards equipping young people with an understanding of where their food comes from. However, for this to be successful, it must be made mandatory and go hand-in-hand with improvements to school food procurement so that school kitchens are able to serve seasonal and sustainably produced foods, wherever possible, from the farmers in their region.

On a more positive note, the Government is looking for support from practitioners to help them deliver this work. The Harmony Project is leading an initiative to develop a new framework for food education, working with the SFT and Square Food Foundation to draw on the expertise of farmers, food producers, chefs and educators. The curriculum framework will be piloted in a number of schools and will be linked to the SFT’s Beacon Farms initiative, which promotes the role of farms as platforms for education.

The SFT urges the DfE to make the development of whole-school approaches to food compulsory, and to ensure that food education is embedded throughout the curriculum, rather than forming part of the Design and Technology curriculum, where the focus is often on health and nutrition with little mention of the farming systems that produce the food and how they can become more regenerative and sustainable.

The urgent need to re-think food education goes hand in hand with the need to transform our food and farming systems, so that we are all better placed to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and concerns about public health.