The new UK regulatory framework on genetically modified (GM) plants threatens both the right of farmers to choose what crops they grow and the right of consumers to know what they are eating. Patrick Holden – CEO of the Sustainable Food Trust and part of the successful 1990s campaign for the appropriate regulation of GMOs – highlights why we must act now if we want to preserve our right to keep GM plants out of our fields and GM food off our plates.

I have photographs of myself from the late 1990s, standing outside the High Court in London holding a placard. I was director of the Soil Association then, and we were in the middle of a major public campaign against the introduction of genetically modified crops into British farming. The cameras were there. The public and other civil society groups were with us. The momentum was with us.

We won – or so it seemed. Not by making GM crops illegal, but by ensuring they were regulated. A tough regulatory framework, backed by strong labelling requirements and even stronger public opinion, meant that GM crops never took root in British fields. For nearly two decades, that felt like enough.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t because regulation, as we have all learned to our cost, can be rewritten, debated by MPs who don’t understand what they are debating, or worse are told what position to take by the party, and signed into law in by ministers who haven’t read them. That was our Achilles heel, and we didn’t see it coming.

The industry we thought we had seen off came back, and it came back with a plan.

Three things converged to make this possible. The first was a genuine development in the science: a new technique called gene editing, which gives scientists the option of modifying a plant’s own genetic material rather than splicing in genes from an unrelated species. The second was Brexit – or more precisely, what Michael Gove called the “unfrozen moment,” the opportunity to strip away what his party regarded as overcautious European regulation. The third was a compelling political narrative: that Britain, freed from Brussels, could become a world leader in agricultural innovation, with Norfolk- and Cambridge-based plant scientists at the vanguard.

Put those three things together and you have a powerful lobby, a receptive government, and a story the media were willing to tell sympathetically.

Same old arguments, better PR

I was one of several NGO representatives who attended consultation meetings organised by Defra over the last few years, and we made the arguments against the proposed legislation with some force – the substantive grounds were strong. But the atmosphere was entirely different from the first time round. Instead of opposition making headline news, the media were largely seduced by the vision of Britain leading in agricultural innovation. What a contrast with the 1990s, when our campaign led the evening bulletins.

The argument the industry is making today is, at its core, the same one it had made then – that these genetically engineered plants are essentially no different from any other plant you’d find in a field or a hedgerow. Tony Blair’s government had accepted a version of this argument in private, but the late Michael Meacher, his Environment Secretary, fought it publicly and the campaign held.

Today there is no one remotely like Meacher. The legislation moved through Parliament, and when Labour came to power in 2024, rather than pause or reconsider, they accelerated it. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act became law in 2023, and despite some well-articulated opposition from NGOs and the House of Lords secondary regulations, which allow precision bred plants to be grown and sold as food, followed in 2025.

Taking our rights away

We cannot now unpick the primary legislation without another Act of Parliament. That argument is, for the moment, closed. What remains open – and what matters enormously – is what sits underneath it: the new regulatory framework that undermines three fundamental rights.

The first is the right of farmers to grow crops that have not been gene edited, without fear of contamination from those that have. The second is the right of consumers to know what they are eating and to choose accordingly. The third is the right of the wider natural world – the wild plants, the insects, the birds, the entire web of life that still manages to coexist with our farming systems – to be protected from changes whose long-term consequences we cannot yet know.

In my view, the regulations fail on each count. That is why a judicial review has been brought, and why I am a co-claimant in it.

It is worth being clear about who has actually been watching while others looked away. Beyond GM, the civil society organisation leading this legal challenge, and the wider UK network of UK GM groups have never stopped monitoring this issue – tracking the legislation, analysing the regulations and building the evidence base with a forensic attention to detail that puts many larger and better funded organisations to shame. While the rest of the movement drifted toward other priorities, they stayed in the room. This judicial review exists because of this.

Where is everyone?

But here is what I find genuinely shocking, and what I think demands an honest reckoning. Where are the other voices?

The National Farmers’ Union represents tens of thousands of farmers, including many who depend on the organic premium and the credibility that comes with a guarantee of non-GM status. Silence. The Consumers Association exists precisely to defend the public’s right to know what is in their food. Silence. The major environmental NGOs, with their memberships, their legal teams, their media relationships and their decades of expertise in exactly this kind of regulatory battle. Silence. And the organic movement itself – the community with the most immediate and practical stake in getting this right – seems to be fighting from the shadows and sidelines.

Time to speak up

I have thought carefully about how to characterise this absence, and I want to be direct. I don’t think it is cowardice. I think it is something more troubling: a failure to understand what is actually happening – not just where we are but where we are rapidly going. The legislation is complex.

The shift from primary law to secondary regulation is technical. The distinction between what we have lost and what remains to be fought for is genuinely difficult to communicate in the bullet point world of social media. These missing voices have been like the proverbial frog in slowly heating water – and I say this not to wound but to wake them up, because the water is now very close to boiling.

The judicial review being heard in May is not a rearguard action by a handful of obsessives. It is, I believe, one of the most important legal challenges to agricultural policy in a generation – a serious argument, mounted by serious people and serious lawyers, with serious evidence. I became a co-claimant because I believe that. I am an organic farmer. This is not an abstract issue for me.

What I am asking of the Sustainable Food Trust’s community, and of every organisation that believes food systems should work with nature rather than against it, is straightforward. Understand what is at stake. Say so publicly. And join us, spread the word, write to your MP,  make a donation to the legal fighting fund – because a coalition of the willing, speaking clearly and together before and after the hearing, may yet change the terms of this debate.

You can make a donation to the Stop Hidden GMOs fighting fund at CrowdJustice. Read more about the court case at Beyond GM and Stop Hidden GMOs

Featured image by Markus Spiske (Unsplash).

As the global shockwaves of the Middle East conflict continue to amplify, urgent questions on food security are coming to the fore. From geopolitical instability to the increase in extreme weather events, it’s become increasingly clear that our approach to food security in the UK is not fit for purpose.

Here, the SFT’s Head of Policy, Megan Perry, and Senior Researcher, Robert Barbour, share their thoughts on the current situation and imagine what a future food system that’s more resilient to global shocks and price volatility might look like.

Fears about how the Iran war is impacting food production has now been widely raised by farmers and in the media. The main focus has been the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and gas and about one third of global seaborne trade in fertilisers passes. Yet there is far more at play, and the lessons and solutions we should be drawing from this seem to be going unrecognised.

Disruption to the gas supply (a critical component of fertiliser manufacture) has further led to fertiliser plants shutting down in countries such as India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Around a quarter of the world’s rice exports come from India which will be impacted by a prolonged war. Brazil, which imports over 60% of its fertilisers, mostly via the Strait of Hormuz, is one of the world’s biggest exporters of agricultural commodities. Australia’s stock of fertiliser is expected to run out mid-April. US stocks of fertiliser are already 25% lower than usual. The Philippines has declared a national emergency.

It is not just the availability of food that is the issue, but people’s ability to buy it. With the disruption to fuel, many countries are experiencing a shut down in their industries, forcing people out of work. In the Philippines, the widespread Jeepney drivers are facing 50-60% pay cuts. In Gujarat, India, a shortage of gas has led the ceramics industry to close leaving the 400,000 employees without work. In Mumbai, a fifth of hotels and restaurants have been partially closed since the start of March.

This is all set within the backdrop of another major crisis. The United Nations warned last week that the earth’s climate is in a state of emergency and is “more out of balance than at any time in observed history”. Yet the environmental impact of the Iran war is catastrophic. It is draining the global carbon budget faster than 84 countries combined, with 5 million tonnes of GHG emissions released within the first 14 days alone.

Patrick Bigger, a research director at the Climate and Community Institute, was quoted in the Guardian, “Every missile strike is another down payment on a hotter, more unstable planet, and none of it makes anyone safer… Every refinery fire and tanker strike is a reminder that fossil‑fuelled geopolitics is incompatible with a liveable planet. This war shows, yet again, that the fastest way to supercharge the climate crisis is to let fossil fuel interests dictate foreign policy.”

There are also concerns the war will be leveraged to benefit big business or to remove environmental standards and regulation. An article from Greenpeace has said, “Expect the term ‘food security’ to be hollowed out and weaponised. Large-scale industrial players are already positioning themselves as the only thing standing between the public and empty shelves. In truth, it is this highly consolidated, chemical-dependent model of industrial farming that is making our global food system so fragile in the first place.”

How is the situation being addressed in the UK? The UK imports 60% of its fertiliser and close to 50% of its food, often from countries which in turn import significant amounts of fertiliser and rely on input-heavy production systems. The UK’s system is also heavily centralised and consolidated, nine big retailers account for more than 94% of all retail food.

The recently launched Land Use Framework gives an insight to the government’s thinking, namely we will need to produce more food from less land, with a drive to growth and efficiency in sectors such as poultry. George Monbiot does not mince his words on this approach, calling it “nothing short of moronic” given the poultry sector’s dependence on imported livestock feed.

The term ‘resilience’ is also being bandied around by the government and farming sector, but what does this mean? It does not appear to mean a big shift away from input-heavy approaches that dominate today, given the aforementioned focus on continuing to achieve current levels of production. Business as usual and tweaking rather than transforming appears to be the current thinking. But we need much more radical policies.

“The UK imports 60% of its fertiliser and close to 50% of its food, often from countries which in turn import significant amounts of fertiliser and rely on input-heavy production systems. The UK’s system is also heavily centralised and consolidated, 9 big retailers account for more than 94% of all retail food.”

As Professor Tim Benton says in this recent interview, it will likely take a crisis before change really happens. Yet we have the knowledge, resources and ability to transform our food system into one that is both resilient and does not degrade our environment.

If the government created support that took a whole farm approach, integrating nature and food production through agroecological farming methods, and promoted healthier diets aligned with what the UK can sustainably produce, we could move away from input-heavy agriculture, reducing our reliance on imports and increasing the resilience of domestic production to extreme weather. A decentralised supply chain is also critical for true resilience, embedding smaller-scale localised infrastructure across the country would be more flexible, able to pivot in a crisis and be less of a target from a security point of view. Empowering communities to produce food should also be taken seriously, supporting community growing, improving access to growing spaces and embedding practical food growing skills within the curriculum for young people. And we need to address our huge reliance on imported fruit and veg by creating market gardens and horticulture enterprises across the UK, accompanied by localised processing facilities.

In some ways, this is a vision that mirrors the shift that is needed in our energy system – a wholesale transformation to alternative forms of production that will allow us to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and in so doing improve our resilience to future shocks like the one being experienced today. Unlike the energy transformation, however, a similarly radical shift in the food system is not only failing to happen but is barely recognised as being necessary outside a fairly small circle.

“If the government created support that took a whole farm approach, integrating nature and food production through agroecological farming methods, and promoted healthier diets aligned with what the UK can sustainably produce, we could move away from input-heavy agriculture, reducing our reliance on imports and increasing the resilience of domestic production to extreme weather.”

Much of the media’s commentary on the Iran war has, quite rightly, noted the major impacts it will have on food prices and production, thanks primarily to the effects on nitrogen fertiliser supplies. There has, though, been vanishingly little reporting on how and why a major reduction in our reliance on energy-intensive agrochemical inputs, like nitrogen fertiliser, could tackle this issue moving forwards. Instead, prominent voices have effectively positioned fertiliser supplies, and the maintenance of current levels of food production, as proxies for food security. But this is a dangerous oversimplification, that ignores the various other equally important dimensions of food security and fails to acknowledge the enormous potential that exists to wean ourselves off agrochemicals, and in so doing generate a much deeper degree of resilience in our food system.

None of this will be easy to achieve, of course. But the threats our food system face are potentially catastrophic, and demand urgent and radical action. If we fail to do so, the consequences will be dire. If, however, we rise to meet the challenge – by implementing genuinely regenerative farming practices, adopting healthy diets and putting in place the various enabling policies and infrastructure needed to make this a reality – then we can create a better future for people and the planet alike.

To understand more about how these global dynamics are already playing out on the ground, and what they mean for countries directly impacted by the current conflict, read Zeead Yaghi’s analysis of Lebanon’s growing food crisis.

To hear more from Megan, listen to our most recent episode of the Sustainable Food Trust Podcast, where she joins Patrick and Stuart to talk about food security.

Featured image by Suphanat Khumsap (Getty Images).

Can the UK feed itself in the face of ecosystem collapse? Our Head of Policy & Campaigns, Megan Perry, takes a closer look at the UK Government’s recently published security report – following a Freedom of Information Request by the Green Alliance – highlighting how the government’s ‘just in time’ approach to food supply jeopardises the UK’s food security, and the transformation in food and farming production that is needed to address this.

A new report has given one of the starkest warnings yet for UK food security. If current rates of biodiversity loss continue, every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse. This will mean the UK cannot feed itself.

These warnings were so stark, in fact, the UK Government attempted to bury its own report. ‘Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security’ was written by the joint intelligence committee (which comprises the heads of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and senior officials from the Cabinet Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence, Home Office and HM Treasury) and was initially blocked by Downing Street. It only came out following a Freedom of Information Request by the Green Alliance.

Why was it blocked? According to The Times, Downing Street felt the report was too negative and would draw attention to the Government’s failure to act. The published document is reported to have been cut down, with some of the most alarming parts left out.

As the Government tries to keep us in the dark, it is even more important we sit up and take notice. The report warns that, “Without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food. The UK relies on imports for a proportion of both food and fertiliser and cannot currently produce enough food to feed its population based on current diets.”

Across the world, ecosystems are collapsing. According to the report, the rate of extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10 million years. It suggests that a sixth mass extinction may be underway. There is a realistic possibility some critical ecosystems, such as coral reefs in Southeast Asia and boreal forests will start to collapse by 2030 or sooner, and rainforests and mangroves from 2050. This is a direct result of biodiversity loss from land use change, pollution, climate change and other drivers.

As the report clearly states, “nature is a foundation of national security”. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse threaten the fundamental existence of human life – access to water, food, clean air and critical resources.

As these become scarce, the report warns there will be conflict within and between states along with mass migration and increased risk of pandemics. According to the report, a one percentage increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9 percent more people to migrate. Political instability and rising poverty will provide more opportunities for terrorism and organised crime. Global economic collapse will become more likely. As the report says, “Nature is a finite asset which underpins the global economy. It would take resources of 1.6 Earths to sustain the world’s current levels of consumption.”

The report is upfront about how this impacts UK food security. Biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, is one of the biggest threats to domestic food production – through depleted soils, the loss of pollinators, and drought and flood conditions.

It details how ecosystem collapse would place the UK’s agriculture system under great stress, leaving it struggling to pivot to the new approaches and technologies that would be required to maintain food supply. Impacts on major food producing regions around the world will have a direct impact on the UK which relies on global markets for food (40% is imported), animal feed (18% comes from South American soy) and fertiliser.

But food is not just affected by biodiversity loss, it is a direct contributor, with food production named as the most significant cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss.

A shift to sustainable farming systems has therefore never been more critical, playing a key role in reversing ecosystem collapse and mitigating food insecurity. Carrying on as we are and pursuing extractive agricultural practices is not an option. Yet the UK Government seems determined to ignore the immense and imminent risks.

“As the report clearly states, “nature is a foundation of national security”. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse threaten the fundamental existence of human life – access to water, food, clean air and critical resources.”

It is notable that the UK has so far failed to change its approach to supply chain resilience and security, unlike countries such as Sweden, Finland, Norway and Germany who are building up their food stocks and reserves. The UK, meanwhile, continues to rely on a ‘just in time’ approach to food supply, requiring consistent and rapid delivery to keep shelves stocked. Any disruption to this supply chain could have an enormous impact on the availability of food in the UK.

Global threats are looming, and while the UK now reports separately on food security, it lacks any coherent action plan and fails to integrate food with wider security strategy. The UK Risk Register – which flags up the main threats to the UK and covers everything from terrorism to disease outbreak – fails to make food and water a clearly defined risk in its own right. The UK National Security Strategy published last year gave a passing mention of food four times and without any detail about how the UK plans to address threats to food supply. The 2022 Government Resilience Framework said nothing at all about food.

What can be done?

Protecting and restoring ecosystems is clearly a priority. But our current trajectory does not look good, and plans need to be put in place now to deal with the potential impacts.

We agree with many of the report’s conclusions, including that self-sufficiency requires a wholesale change in consumer diets and improvements in efficiency, waste reduction and resilience across the food system, including agricultural production, food processing, distribution and consumption. These echo the conclusions of the Sustainable Food Trust’s Feeding Britain report which showed the UK can transition to fully regenerative farming practices and maintain or improve current levels of self-sufficiency, but that dietary change would be needed.

We welcome the mention of regenerative agriculture as a solution and feel there is a wider point to be made – climate change and geopolitical shocks change the equation around agroecological vs ‘conventional’ food systems and their (perceived) practicality. Arguments that agroecology is unfeasible due to its lower yields and a requirement for very difficult dietary change, are somewhat overshadowed by the reality that a food system with heavy use of imports, fossil fuels and agrichemical inputs could become unviable in the face of ecosystem collapse and geopolitical turmoil. Not to mention that these intensive input-heavy systems are the biggest contributors to ecosystem collapse. There is no choice but to seriously consider agroecology as the main alternative.

We therefore caution against placing too much emphasis on new technology to provide the answers (plant-breeding, AI, lab grown protein and insect protein are all mentioned). That’s not to say that technology has no role to play – far from it. But systemic change, from farm to fork, is what is ultimately required.

Any shortages in food will inevitably impact hardest on those who are already facing food poverty. The report says substantial price increases for consumers would be required for self-sufficiency. Yet prices now do not reflect the real cost of production, with the most damaging foods often being the ‘cheapest’ yet costing far more in environmental damage and impacts on our health. A transformation of our food system is needed to right these skewed economics and government intervention must be a core part of that.

The report also says the UK does not have enough land to feed its population and rear livestock. We agree that a complete shift is needed away from grain-fed livestock, particularly intensively produced poultry and pork. But integrating pasture-fed livestock, such as cattle and sheep, into regenerative systems is critical to rebuild soil fertility and move away from our reliance on fossil fuel- and energy-intensive fertilisers and pesticides.

Grazing livestock produce nutrient-dense foods that complement, rather than compete with, the crops produced from our finite and increasingly degraded arable area. In fact, in a regeneratively farmed UK, predominantly grass-fed animals could supply a significant proportion of the nation’s nutrient requirements – including around 34% of recommended protein intake, 37% of fat intake and 98% of vitamin B12 intake.

“We caution against placing too much emphasis on new technology to provide the answers (plant-breeding, AI, lab grown protein and insect protein are all mentioned). That’s not to say that technology has no role to play – far from it. But systemic change, from farm to fork, is what is ultimately required.”

Livestock also provide a level of resilience to environmental shocks that crops do not – they can be moved and, in worst cases slaughtered, should resources such as water become scarce or fields flooded.

So, a major transformation in livestock production is needed, as is the case for crop production. And this will require many people to eat less meat and dairy, overall. It’s critical, though, that this transformation doesn’t overlook the massively positive role that livestock can play in fostering a more resilient, environmentally and socially sustainable food system.

The report says countries best placed to adapt are those that invest in ecosystem protection and restoration, and resilient and efficient food systems. Yet support for sustainable food production has been inadequate and shambolic, with record closures of farming businesses. The UK also appears to have given up on the 30×30 target (30% of our land and sea protected for biodiversity by 2030) and is on track to miss targets established in the 2021 Environment Act for protecting and restoring wildlife.

While we must pressure Government to act with urgency, communities can also take things into their own hands. Tim Lang’s excellent report on civil food resilience highlights the different ways people can build resilience themselves, whether by growing food in allotments, gardens and community farms, forming co-operatives, building community food stocks, or by sharing skills.

Ultimately a major mindset shift is needed to address the root causes of ecosystem destruction and to embrace an integrated approach to food production and nature restoration. There is no time to lose.

Featured image courtesy of Christian Kay.

Earlier this month, the EAT-Lancet Commission launched its much-anticipated second report at the EAT Forum in Stockholm, accompanied by significant publicity and widespread social media attention. Here, our CEO, Patrick Holden, responds to the report.

Earlier this month, the EAT-Lancet Commission launched its much-anticipated second report at the EAT Forum in Stockholm, accompanied by impressive publicity and widespread social media attention.

Many of my friends hold influential roles within the EAT Forum, and I was invited to contribute to their Farmers and Fishers Consultation. Yet despite this engagement, I don’t believe the final report sufficiently reflects the perspectives and lived experiences of farmers on the ground.

So, what do I think of the report?

Firstly, there are some important and welcome conclusions:

• It rightly critiques the current food system, which is operating beyond several planetary boundaries.
• It calls for a shift to food systems that are environmentally and ethically sound and recognises the critical importance of a socially just transition.
• It highlights the need for financial support for sustainable agriculture.
• It makes clear the need for dietary shifts in line with ecological limits.

These are significant and commendable. However, I believe the approach the report takes is fundamentally flawed, with significant implications for our understanding of what represents a truly sustainable approach to food production.

1. A top-down, diet-first framework

The cornerstone of the EAT-Lancet report is the ‘Planetary Health Diet’, a universal dietary template based on an analysis of the health effects of different foods. I have two overarching problems with this approach. First, while the report’s recommendations do provide some flexibility in food choices, I take real issue with the inference that diets that exist outside the framework EAT-Lancet propose are unhealthy. Humans are, after all, a remarkably flexible species, able to thrive on a hugely diverse range of different diets. There are also all sorts of things we don’t know about the health impacts of different dietary choices, including evidently relevant factors like production and cooking method that are often not even considered in diet health studies.

Second, because EAT-Lancet’s dietary guidelines are based entirely on a top-down reading of health impacts, they have not been informed by any analysis of what different regions can sustainably produce. This, in my opinion, is a major flaw that risks missing practical, on-the-ground farming considerations that are obviously fundamental to the question of what we can and should eat. Future diets should instead reflect the food output from truly sustainable farming systems – which will vary by region. In other words, diets must emerge from farming systems that work with nature, not be imposed upon them.

2. Lack of clarity on how we should farm

This brings me to my next concern, which is that the report is inconsistent in spelling out what changes to farming systems will be needed in the future. On the one hand, the report speaks to the benefits of adopting more ecological farming practices and produces some useful figures around the potential of these to reduce the global food system’s environmental impacts. It also contains some important criticisms of industrial systems. At the same time, however, the report’s top-line modelling appears to assume further increases in agricultural yields in regions where these are already high (e.g. Europe), and this can only mean a continuation of a predominantly industrial approach – the opposite of the ecological systems the report claims to be supporting. All this does in my opinion is contribute to the ongoing confusion around which farming practices and systems we need to support – those based on ecological principles – and the ones which we need to move away from, that are heavily reliant on fossil fuel and energy-intensive inputs.

Future diets should instead reflect the food output from truly sustainable farming systems – which will vary by region. In other words, diets must emerge from farming systems that work with nature, not be imposed upon them.

3. Meat reduction without nuance

All of this is relevant to the question of meat and dairy. EAT-Lancet advocates for a major reduction in meat consumption globally. Our own modelling in Feeding Britain also acknowledges a need to reduce overall meat consumption, as do other studies that have modelled the outcomes of a wholesale shift to more nature-based farming systems. There are, however, some important differences in how we reach our conclusions.

Our starting point was looking at how much meat and dairy the UK could sustainably produce, were there to be a nationwide transition to farming systems based entirely on agroecological principles. We found there would be a very significant decrease in pork and chicken production, due to their heavy reliance on grain and feed imports. When it came to beef and dairy, however, we modelled more modest reductions, and this reflects the key benefits grazing animals provide in a food system based on biological principles. For instance, cattle and sheep play a central role in supporting regenerative cropping systems that don’t rely on agrichemicals, help manage cherished landscapes rich in carbon and nature, and produce nutrient-dense meat and dairy from our extensive grassland area otherwise unsuited for producing food.

This is a pattern that other agroecological modelling studies have broadly found. The EAT-Lancet report, on the other hand, argues that red meat and ruminants should constitute a considerably smaller part of our diets and farming systems than poultry. This simply doesn’t tally with what a transition towards a more ecological food system would in reality support. All of this is frustrating, given the report does acknowledge some of the benefits that livestock can provide – it just doesn’t go far enough in linking our diets to them.

Of course, none of this should detract from the need to produce and consume a more diverse range of plant foods – something that we too modelled in Feeding Britain. But if those crops are grown in chemically intensive monocultures or hydroponic systems, they may be nutrient-poor, lacking flavour, and environmentally damaging. This isn’t the future we need.

There are always going to be differences of opinion when it comes to the future of food. That’s healthy. But given the EAT-Lancet Commission’s growing influence, it’s vital that these differing perspectives are heard and brought together.

To that end, I’ve made repeated efforts to engage with the EAT-Lancet community – even inviting them to my farm. When I challenged the top-down nature of their dietary recommendations during the farmer consultations, there was widespread agreement among fellow participants. Yet I don’t see enough of that reflected in the final report.

Let’s be clear: we all want a food system that is fair, sustainable and healthy. But to get there, we must bridge the gap between global frameworks and local, grounded farming realities.

I hope this intervention encourages more genuine dialogue, because if we don’t work together, we risk building solutions that sound good on paper but fail in practice.

Ahead of the publication of the Government’s forthcoming National Food Strategy (NFS), food systems expert, Honor May Eldridge, reviews the Consortium for Labelling for the Environment, Animal Welfare and Regenerative Farming’s (CLEAR) ambitious proposal for the NFS to call for ‘method of production’ labelling to become mandatory for all meat products in the UK.

More and more of us want to make informed, ethical choices about the food we buy, and these choices inevitably reflect our concerns about the environmental impacts of food production and animal welfare. The SFT’s recent report, Grazing Livestock: It’s not the cow, but the how, demonstrates how, in relation to meat and dairy, the method of production makes a huge difference when it comes to the environment, animal welfare and much beyond. Consequently, it is critical that farmers who invest in better production methods are rewarded for that investment by the marketplace. Seventy-five per cent of UK consumers say they want supermarkets to stock only sustainably and ethically sourced food, and they’ve consistently called for more transparency about how meat is produced.

That’s where CLEAR comes in. The Consortium for Labelling for the Environment, Animal Welfare and Regenerative Farming, of which the Sustainable Food Trust is a founding member, wants to see national legislation to deliver transparent, verifiable food labelling that clearly communicates how food is produced. It is pushing for this to be a commitment within the forthcoming National Food Strategy (NFS). Defra is scheduled to publish the NFS in the autumn, which will lay out the Government’s vision to reshape the country’s food system to be healthier, more sustainable and resilient. The Strategy will guide the future of the UK food system and will (hopefully) pave the way for a Food Bill for England. CLEAR is pushing for the NFS to call for ‘method of production’ labelling to become mandatory for all meat products in the UK.

This focus is a continuation of the excellent work that CLEAR has done since its founding in 2021 when it brought together leading NGOs in the food and farming space to lobby the Government for better labelling. In 2021, CLEAR launched its manifesto at Groundswell with the aim of empowering consumers with meaningful information, bringing real transparency to the food system. Clear, consistent labelling will help people understand what lies behind the products they buy. Many of us have stood in a supermarket, holding a carton of milk, only to be confronted by a sea of labels – organic, non-GMO, fairtrade, free range. But what do they all mean? And how do they compare? For most shoppers, it’s unclear.

CLEAR’s vision includes mandatory method of production labelling for all foods sold in the UK, including imports, underpinned by strong enforcement mechanisms. It calls for independent assessment processes that are based on verifiable benchmarks, ensuring the integrity of any claims made. Crucially, the labelling must be clear and accessible, appearing directly on packaging so that shoppers can make informed choices at a glance. It is also vital to build the enforcement capacity needed to support these measures and make the system effective.

At a recent event hosted by CLEAR and the SFT to launch CLEAR’s ecolabelling review report, the authors highlighted some of the challenges of capturing farm environmental impacts on food labels. One theme which kept cropping up was the need for data that truly reflects the farming system that it describes – this usually means holistic, primary, outcome-based data. This is the type of data that the Global Farm Metric (GFM) focusses on. This data provides the truest reflection of farm sustainability, although it does require time and it does have a financial cost. The GFM team continues to work with the food labelling sector to explore how this type of data can feed into more transparent labelling efforts.

While its proposal is ambitious, CLEAR acknowledges the complexities of the current context. The UK’s departure from the European Union has left the food and farming sector in a state of flux. The UK is in the process of negotiating its phytosanitary (plant health) standards with the EU, and that negotiation will also involve consideration of labelling. The outcome will be critical for the future of the UK food system. At the bare minimum, the UK needs mandatory animal welfare labelling for poultry and pork that focuses specifically on method-of-production, strengthening country of origin labelling requirements, and establishing a regulatory basis for sustainability terms to ensure they are used meaningfully and consistently.

As the UK redefines its food system, now is the moment to ensure that transparency and integrity are placed at its core. Mandatory method of production labelling isn’t just a technical fix – it’s a vital tool for empowering consumers to make informed choices, rewarding farmers who adopt higher animal welfare and sustainable practices, and driving meaningful change in how our food is produced. With the National Food Strategy on the horizon, it’s time to embed CLEAR labelling into the future of UK food policy.

On April 4^th, the SFT participated in the launch of the Local Food Growth Plan. This plan was developed in partnership with the Landworkers’ Alliance (LWA), Sustain, Sustainable Food Trust (SFT), Pasture for Life (PfL) and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC), and was funded by the Rothschild Foundation.

The aspiration was to create a roadmap that will boost demand, channel investment and direct effort into delivering a thriving local food sector across the UK. There are huge benefits of expanding and strengthening local food economies. Firstly, these food systems are deeply rooted in communities and help build connections between people and their food producers. This creates economic growth and expands employment opportunities. Secondly, it tends to be more sustainable with fewer food miles and higher rates of agroecological production. This benefits the wider resilience of our food system, which is critical in light of growing global tensions and the climate crisis. Lastly, it benefits public health by increasing access to fresh, nutritious food so that all citizens can access healthy and sustainable food. You can read more about the benefits of local food in Richard Kipling’s article for the SFT.

In order to successfully grow the local food sector, this plan set out actions that require engagement from a range of people and organisations. Developed through research and a consultation process, this report contains detailed recommendations and seven key priorities.

Seven priorities for a thriving local food sector

1. Establish regional local food growth plans: These documents would be guiding principles to inform and advance the expansion of local food within a region. They would be agreed with stakeholders from across the community, ranging from politicians to farmers, businesses and NGOs, and include a strong voice from citizens, and would direct investment and development in the local food sector.
2. Enable and invest in policies to support infrastructure: Both national and local government need to invest and support the infrastructure that underpins local food. This means protecting and expanding local markets and increasing regional processing facilities and mid-scale infrastructure. For example, protecting small abattoirs to enable small-scale local meat production to continue. The campaign to protect small-scale abattoirs is a long-running campaign of the SFT and you can learn more about it here.
3. Prioritise horticulture support in a national Horticulture Strategy: Defra has been promising to deliver a Horticulture Strategy for years now without any progress. This document would act as a clear commitment from Government that they valued British horticulture and were committed to increasing the supply, processing and distribution of fruit and vegetables to improve public diets through healthy, affordable and climate-friendly food.
4. Create a roadmap for meeting the commitment to public sector food procurement standards: The Government has made a strong commitment to increase the target of local and agroecological food in public procurement. But, to achieve that goal of 50%, supporting policies need to be put in place that can provide the necessary support to SMEs to submit bids, along with data collection and monitoring to ensure that the targets are met.

5. Enable decisive action to make food supply chains fairer for farmers: Part of the challenge for small and local suppliers is that the system is rigged against them. Large retailers hold too much power. The food supply chain needs to have greater transparency and accountability to ensure fairness. This requires expanding and reinforcing the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and Food Crime Unit.
6. Recognise the vital role of local action and networks: Local food works because it is rooted in community and listens to the voices of citizens. To expand local food systems, we need to ensure that sustainable food partnerships, are established in every area, to advocate for the needs of the local food sector and enable collaboration between local farms, supply chains and citizens.
7. Promote influential marketing, targeted business and training support to help the local food sector thrive: People want to buy local food but currently it is often too challenging. There needs to be an effort to promote and connect citizens with local retailers so that we can build a grassroots movement to expand access to local food for all people.

The full Local Food Growth Plan is available here.

So how do we make this aspiration a reality? How do we grow local food in our communities? To do so, we need to catalyse change within our political leadership, and we need local and regional authorities to commit to meaningful action.

A manifesto for local food leadership in Bristol

That is why a collaboration between local food organisations in Bristol (where the SFT is headquartered) have developed a manifesto for the upcoming mayoral election for the West of England Combined Authority. This strategic authority encompasses Bath, Bristol, South Gloucestershire and North East Somerset. Once elected, the next Mayor will have a critical role in shaping how food is produced, distributed and accessed across the region. Through adopting key actions, the region can deliver healthier and more sustainable food for all.

The group is calling for a strategic review of food access across the region to help ensure that local and sustainable food is accessible to all citizens in the region. This review should engage with civil society, businesses and community groups to co-develop a Regional Food Plan that strengthens supply chain infrastructure and improves food resilience. Similar work is already ongoing with the Sustainable Food Places programme. This would be a legal document and would be used to inform spatial development strategies, ensuring that food accessibility is embedded in planning, development and the management of council-owned agricultural land. Central to this document would be the evaluation of St Phillips Market, a local fruit and veg market that has been operating for decades and is critical for the collection, storage and distribution of local food. Ahead of any closure of the market, there needs to be a clear plan for its replacement to ensure a thriving future for SMEs in the food sector for years to come.

Once this document was approved, it would prompt the investment needed to make it a reality. Many groups in the region have been struggling to access the funds that they need to improve public diets and tackle hunger. Through the public commitments within the Regional Food Plan, resources would be unlocked to improve the access to funding for initiatives addressing health inequalities and climate change impacts through food systems, with particular support for small, community-led organisations.

Lastly, one of the key areas that sits within the remit for the Strategic Authority is skills and training. Therefore, there is a huge opportunity for the incoming administration to invest in training, career development and business support for those entering the sustainable local food sector, fostering new green job opportunities and supporting SMEs. Investing in the next generation of growers and food producers will help ensure the viability of local food long into the future and support economic resilience by increasing employment and regional growth.

Call for action: Better food for all

These steps are critical for the region to achieve healthy and sustainable diets for all citizens. There are approximately 150,000 residents in the region who live in deprived communities with poor access to good food. Many low-income families can only afford to buy cheap food, which is often high in fat, salt and sugar, and this can damage their long-term health outcomes. Worse still, this food tends to be cheap because it is produced in a way that is environmentally damaging. Industrially produced food fails to account for its true-cost to the planet – something Patrick Holden, the SFT’s CEO, has spoken out about recently.

Our dependency on cheap food and the inequalities in our food system needs to change urgently, and we need our regional leaders to act. All families deserve to be able to access climate and nature-friendly food that is affordable and nutritious and grown without harmful chemicals. The region is full of incredible agroecological farmers, growers and food producers that want to deliver sustainable food for the region to help meet net zero targets, support nature recovery and improve health outcomes.

So, will the politicians running for the role step up and commit to these five key asks if elected? We will keep you posted.

Read the full manifesto here.

SFT Content Editor, Alicia Miller, provides an overview on this year’s Oxford Real Farming Conference, including one of the SFT’s sessions, Grazing for Good, which took a closer look at the integral relationship between livestock and the biodiversity it supports.

Arriving into 2025 with the Oxford Real Farming Conference (ORFC), it has been hard to ignore what this past year has delivered in terms of climate change – 24 hours of rain in Dubai, a terrifying hurricane season in the US, fatal flooding in Valencia, Spain, heatwaves here, there and everywhere across the globe, and as an intro to the new year, Los Angeles is burning like never before. Twenty-twenty four was the hottest year on record; what will 2025 be?

So, being at the ORFC felt almost blissful – a momentary haven to talk with like-minded people and think about the micro and the macro, how we move forward in a rapidly changing new world and, most pressing, what we can do to fix it, if fixing it is even possible at this point… But hope remains our friend and that’s good to keep in mind.

As always, there was much to explore at the Conference with an array of workshops and ‘deep dive’ sessions arguably dominating the more academic talks on topics like Trauma and the Land and The Interbeing of Agroecology– not to dismiss those deeper discussions which are important to have, but perhaps ‘practice’ is having a moment? What can we do on the ground, in the day-to-day, to make change happen? Are we in a place where action speaks louder than words? That’s definitely food for thought.

In a session on Improving Food Resilience, food policy veteran, Tim Lang, discussed the findings of his recent research for the UK Government, with the panel addressing the critical question: ‘Is the UK’s food system resilient?’ Unsurprisingly, the general consensus was a resounding ‘no.’ The panel explored what resilience truly means in the context of food systems – essentially, the ability to recover from shocks, whether acute (like pandemics) or chronic (such as prolonged political instability) – and how it can be strengthened. The ‘just-in-time’ logistics employed by supermarkets faced criticism, with broad agreement that transitioning to a more localised food system could be vital to ensuring access to healthy and sustainable food in an increasingly uncertain world. Sustain’s Sarah Williams shared insights from the Local Food Plan (which the SFT is involved in), while farmer and GP Tom Pearson emphasised the importance of more farmers engaging with their local communities. The panel agreed that the proof of concept exists, but robust policy frameworks and a stronger economic narrative are needed to turn theory into action.

Following in the vein of Tim Lang’s thinking was a lively panel organised by the Eating Better Alliance. Chaired brilliantly by the organisation’s Sarah Wakefield, the panellists tackled the complex issue of dietary shift and implications for farming – a topic often mired by polarisation, which Eating Better aims to overcome. Holly Purdy’s Exmoor farm exemplifies the concept of ‘better’ meat, with her pasture-fed beef and sheep, and ‘more plants,’ through the introduction of a market garden and silvopasture incorporating fruit trees. Jimmy Woodrow at Pasture for Life highlighted the need to better account for the ecological role of livestock in regenerative food systems, a contribution that isn’t always “captured in spreadsheets,” while Julia Kirby-Smith of Better Food Traders brought in the perspectives of consumers and retailers, emphasising the system’s reliance on cheap food. Could True Cost Accounting provide the solution to rebalancing the system and demonstrate the far-reaching benefits of ‘eating better’? The discussion around barriers ranged from the lack of local abattoirs to the role of the media, and, once again, the panel agreed that getting people – whether school children or MPs – onto farms will be essential to shifting mindsets and driving real long-term change.

Also very interesting and relevant, was a session on pesticide use and its future, organised around organic beef farmer Denise Walton and mixed arable farmer Patrick Barker and how they manage their land. It was an enlightening perspective, especially from Barker, who while working hard to conserve nature on his land (and doing it very well), still uses glyphosate widely. It’s a strange disconnect – for Barker, it’s a tool and he doesn’t worry about it overmuch. But for most, if not all, agroecological farmers at the ORFC, it’s anathema. You can’t do both and his admission is at best problematic.

The Sustainable Food Trust’s session on Grazing for Good? Livestock and Biodiversity in the UK, chaired by SFT CEO Patrick Holden, included the SFT’s Senior Researcher Robert Barbour and Farmer Teleri Fielden, along with Molly Biddell, Head of Natural Capital at the Knepp Estate and Jo Riggall at Plantlife. It was an engaging discussion on the integral relationship between livestock and the biodiversity it supports. Teleri Fielden made a strong case for the role that the mixed flock of cattle that she and her husband graze in Snowdonia National Park are essential in the wider preservation of the nature they support. Practices like rotational grazing and the inclusion of more diverse swards can help to mitigate the overuse of anti-parasitic medication which has significant impact on invertebrates. The reintegration of fertility building leys grazed by animals in crop rotations also offer significant benefits in reducing agri-chemical use. And there are many more sustainable practices that work to support nature and natural habitats in a variety of ways – it is possible to have a food system that works for “people, farm animals and the natural world”. Livestock, as Molly Biddell comments, is “totally critical for the health that their meat provides [and] critical for what they do for the landscape…” The session explored many of the themes that will be covered in the SFT’s next report, due out later this year.

Can we find the serenity to accept those things we cannot change, but at the same time, the courage to take action in the areas where we could make a difference?

Many of us, although certainly not all of us, have been upset by the news of the US election, and some by the recent UK Government budget.

Whatever our reaction, we clearly must accept what is, in connection with which, the serenity prayer comes to mind:

“O God, give me the grace to accept with serenity the things which cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.”

In an Eastern version of this teaching, Vipassana meditation, the word “equanimous” is used, meaning, as I understand it, remaining impartial and accepting in front of us what is.

Viewing this ‘acceptance of what cannot be changed’ through the lens of sustainable agriculture, how might we come to see the results of the American election and the UK budget in a more positive light?

In the US, it is surely welcome news that Joel Salatin, one of the leading examples of truly sustainable agriculture and whose farm I have visited, has accepted an invitation to join the Trump administration’s agricultural advisory group. Joel has pioneered mob grazing and although like me, it’s only recently that he has been measuring the soil carbon outcomes, it’s obvious when you visit the farm that these practices are sequestering carbon at quite a scale.

Then there is Robert Kennedy Junior, who before the election did a piece to camera in front of the Department of Agriculture, telling everyone what he would do if Trump got in, which is more or less an ideal manifesto for all the things we at the Sustainable Food Trust believe in. Apparently, since the election, his anti-vax position has precipitated the White House team to distance themselves slightly from him, so he may not be as much of an influence as he was hoping, but it’s another example of how, in this strange world in which we live, even disturbing events can have unexpected positive consequences.

Whatever the outcome of this US saga, there have also been interesting developments on the UK front. Last week, I had the good fortune to have three short conversations, with the Chancellor Rachel Reeves, the Environment Secretary Steve Reid, and Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, at events in London.

“…every human being – whether a small farmer, Prime Minister or President of the US – is a representation in microcosm, both of the systemic order but also the disorder which comprises our universe and which is reflected everywhere in all aspects of life, including, paradoxically enough, the disharmony of our daily lives.”

I suggested to the Chancellor that carbon sequestration in soils could become a cost-effective part of the Government’s climate change strategy, but only if they harness the potential of farmers to be carbon stewards, firstly through measurement and then through payments linked to ELMs.

I pointed out to her that this was already being explored in Northern Ireland, where the Department of Agriculture has made receipt of post-Brexit subsidies conditional on farmers agreeing to measure soil carbon outcomes. She told me she would talk to Daniel Zeichner the agriculture minister as to how this might be taken forward.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, 92% of Northern Ireland’s farmers have signed up for the scheme, as a result of which they are collecting soil samples on every field of those farms, thus building up an accurate database which they can easily use to introduce incentives for farming systems which best build or retain soil carbon stocks.

When I mentioned this conversation to Steve Reid and Ed Miliband, they responded very positively, which is exciting, because if through measurement it becomes possible to demonstrate that the post-Brexit support scheme is delivering climate benefits, then that opens the pathway to unlocking a new income stream for farmers from the Treasury! It is important that such a framework of measurement should not be confined only to soil and climate, but also include impacts on natural capital and social outcomes.

In support of this, the Sustainable Food Trust has been working for over eight years on developing the Global Farm Metric, comprising a harmonised framework for measuring these impacts, which we hope will eventually represent a common language for assessing the sustainability outcomes of farms throughout the world.

The encouraging news is that more and more individuals and organisations are realising that this would be positive, including our own Government.

So, although it is challenging to be confronted by a rapidly changing political landscape, both nationally and globally, especially when as individuals we can feel overwhelmed by the scale of the need for change, it does seem to me that there is cause for optimism!

After all, every human being – whether a small farmer, Prime Minister or President – is a representation in microcosm, both of the systemic order but also the disorder which comprises our universe and which is reflected everywhere in all aspects of life, including, paradoxically enough, the disharmony of our daily lives.

To conclude with the insights from the prayer: can we find the serenity to accept those things we cannot change, and at the same time, have the courage to take action in the areas where we could make a difference? This is surely a daily challenge for us all.

Keep an eye open for Patrick’s next updates following his visit to Baku, Azerbaijan, for COP29, where he will be advocating for a more sustainable food and farming system.

Current thinking around how we use land to tackle climate change represents a massive missed opportunity – the significant potential of sustainable food and farming in addressing climate change, restoring nature and improving public health.

Before the general election, I met Sir Keir Starmer a couple of times – not one-on-one meetings, just brief chats at receptions. After the second encounter, I sent him an email suggesting that if he became Prime Minister, he might consider calling a meeting between the treasury and the departments of health, education, climate and Defra, exploring ways in which an investment in truly sustainable agriculture might bring savings to those other government departments.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, he didn’t reply. Of course, I wasn’t offended, after all he is a very busy man, and for most of his advisors, the proposition of investigating ways in which an investment in sustainable agriculture could create savings for other government departments was simply not on their radar screens.

However, not having been able to get through the front door, my back-up plan was to work on individual government departments, encouraging them to form strategic partnerships where agriculture could help solve a problem.

And, as if by magic, a perfect case study presented itself at New York Climate Week, where I met Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, at a dinner hosted by the Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI). Serendipitously, after giving his speech to around 50 CEOs, he came and sat at my table!

We had previously met at COP28 in Dubai. I had the distinct impression that he didn’t have much interest in agriculture, and this was quite rapidly confirmed during his speech! After rightly highlighting the urgency of accelerating the energy and climate transitions, he went on to make two points, subsequently repeated in radio interviews. Firstly, he spoke about how the Government were committed to spending billions on carbon capture and storage and, secondly, about their plan to use one percent of UK agricultural land for solar panels.

“It is so sad to witness this massive, missed opportunity, which both Defra and climate ministers are failing to grasp. The advantages of investing in sustainable agriculture as part of a wider strategy for addressing climate change, nature restoration and improving public health seem glaringly obvious to me, but not to them!”

Neither of these policies make any sense to me. On carbon capture and storage, surely this is a classic example of blind faith in an unproven technology. I suspect it won’t work, but even if it does, the cost will be horrendous and, from my perspective at least, there is a far better way of achieving the same result, namely by drawing down the equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere and putting it back in the soil. This not only addresses climate change, but it also helps enable the transition to climate and nature-friendly agriculture because unless we re-carbonise our soils, this shift will be impossible on many farms.

He then went on to assert that the consequences of taking one percent of farmland for solar panels would not be significant for food security.

By this time I was thinking ‘Okay, he definitely doesn’t get agriculture!’ It seemed unwise, however, at this early stage in the life of a new Government, to say as much to this highly intelligent man, so instead, I told him the story of Richard Gantlett’s 1500-acre farm in Wiltshire, where Richard estimates he is sequestering 10 times more carbon than it emits. Would he consider a visit, I asked? He neither accepted nor declined, but I suspect he had probably forgotten the conversation within a few minutes of leaving the room.

It is so sad to witness this massive missed opportunity, which both Defra and climate ministers are failing to grasp. The advantages of investing in sustainable agriculture as part of a wider strategy for addressing climate change, nature restoration and improving public health seem glaringly obvious to me, but not to them!

The Climate Change Committee don’t get it either, and this matters, because if you add up all the land that is proposed to be or already has been taken out of food production, including for woodland creation, re-forestation, re-wilding, crops for biofuels and now solar power, there simply may not be enough left to adopt a sustainable farming strategy, where food is produced in harmony with nature, as advocated in our ‘Feeding Britain From the Ground Up’ report.

Can anything be done to shift the mindset of a Government who, despite their good intentions, seem oblivious to perhaps the most important environmental issue of our time, namely the connection between intensive farming, which now occupies so much of the planet’s surface, and climate change, biodiversity destruction and growing public ill health.

To end on a note of optimism, with the tide of public opinion now turning, we may yet be able to persuade the Government to change tack on all of this. Let’s hope!

Today, farming is far from a simple livelihood. As well as growing food, farmers are tasked with delivering a broad spectrum of ‘public goods’ – from wildlife habitat and healthy soils to public access and rural employment. Some of the issues – like coping with a fast-changing climate – are more recent, while others have been challenges for generations of farmers.

Here, we share some reflections of the late countryman, conservationist, farmer and local politician, Steele Addison. Writing in 1985, Steele presents a clear-eyed view of the complex environmental, economic and social challenges that were facing farmers, many of which continue to be at the heart of today’s conversations about our food and farming system.