At a time when governments are once again backing productivity, technology and intensification, are we overlooking the fact that intensive farming systems may be becoming less resilient, not more? The SFT’s Senior Research Manager, Robert Barbour, considers the question in light of the UK’s increasing number of mega dairies.

What kind of food system are we building?

That question has been brought into sharp focus by two recent developments in the British dairy sector. First came an investigation by Andrew Wasley for The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, revealing that the number of so-called ‘mega dairies’ – where hundreds or even thousands of cows are kept permanently indoors – has doubled over the past decade. Then came the news that the number of dairy farms in Great Britain has fallen below 7,000 for the first time, less than half the number operating in the early 2000s.

Taken together, these stories tell a familiar tale. Faced with years of low milk prices and rising input costs, many dairy farmers have been pushed into a corner: either leave the industry or invest heavily to increase production. The result has been fewer farms, larger herds and a growing reliance on intensive systems that depend on imported feed, synthetic fertilisers and high levels of production to remain viable.

For some, this is simply the inevitable modernisation of agriculture. For others, including Sustainable Food Trust CEO and dairy farmer Patrick Holden, it points to a deeper problem. As we argued in our Grazing Livestock report, the long-term future of livestock farming should not be judged solely by how much it produces, but by whether it works within the ecological limits of the land while supporting food security, farmer livelihoods, animal welfare and environmental health.

Until recently, the argument for more agroecological forms of livestock farming was often dismissed as unrealistic. The assumption was that lower-input systems could not deliver the volumes needed to feed the population. But as climate change intensifies and global supply chains become more fragile, that assumption deserves much closer scrutiny.

The blockade of the Straits of Hormuz – through which a third of the world’s nitrogen fertiliser is transported – and extreme weather events like the June heatwave in Europe, show why transitioning to low input, pasture-based systems is more critical to food security than ever before. In part, this is because such systems have a much lower reliance on fossil fuel-intensive imports of energy, feed and fertiliser: animals can ‘upcycle’ human inedible plants into nutrient-dense foods and soil quality can be improved without synthetic fertilisers, for example with the dung of grazing animals and nitrogen-fixing plants like clover. The recent news that the Straits has, to some extent, reopened, must not serve as cause for complacency in the drive to transition to more resilient farming practices. Ongoing geopolitical instability means it is unlikely to be the last such instance, with sobering warnings that Europe’s food system is likely entering an era of permanent stress.

Climate change and environmental degradation are, of course, a massive driver of this stress. A significant proportion of our agrifood imports come from countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change, with a Government security assessment, published earlier this year, concluding that the UK would probably be unable “to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food”. But environmental and climate breakdown also pose major challenges for domestic production. In their most recent report, the Climate Change Committee predicted that, without adaptation, the amount of ‘high-quality farmland’ in England and Wales could shrink from 38% to 11% by 2050 under a 2°C warming scenario. Soil erosion is expected to increase by at least 15%, and arable crops will become increasingly threatened by drought, with the worst year in 20 causing 20% yield loss in wheat in the South East of England. Extreme weather is already negatively impacting yields, with England having experienced three of the worst five harvests on record over the past decade driving the five-year harvest average below the 20-year average – an unprecedented reversal.

In short, there are serious questions around whether we will be able to keep on producing food and feed in the same high input, high output manner as we do today. It feels even more difficult to argue that we will be able to use as much arable land to feed livestock – an inefficient use of a finite and increasingly pressurised resource, that will only get worse if livestock production continues to intensify.

Livestock production centred on grazing, on the other hand, could make a central contribution to a more efficient and resilient UK food system by converting grass and other inedible feeds into nutrient dense meat and milk. The total quantities produced would be lower than today; our Feeding Britain report, for instance, modelled a 20% reduction in dairy production alongside steep falls in pork and poultry, due, mainly, to the much lower quantities of arable crops available for feed.

This means that transitioning to an agroecological farming system will go hand-in-hand with changes to our diets, but smaller amounts of high-quality meat and dairy would still represent a significant source of various key nutrients, and one that, crucially, would complement, rather than compete with, the food we get from croplands. This, in turn, could create more space for systems of crop production that may be lower yielding, but which, through greater diversity and better soil health, are more resilient to extreme weather. Research from Wageningen University, for instance, has shown that a global food system where livestock are fed entirely on human-inedible feeds would only require 75% of the arable land needed for a vegan diet, because of the additional supply of calories and nutrients made available through meat and dairy.

Add this to the major environmental issues associated with intensive livestock production, and we have a clear imperative for a shift to farming animals in a less resource-intensive way – and adapting our diets accordingly.  Doing so, will bolster food security and support us to be healthier, all while using millions of hectares of UK grassland otherwise largely unsuited for food production. Realising this vision isn’t easy. As tempting as it is to think that the recent surge in input costs might precipitate such a shift, this seems unlikely, so it cannot be left to the market alone – Government needs to up its game, in all sorts of ways. We also need to broaden our understanding of sustainability and efficiency, from a narrow focus on product-level footprints (which tend to favour intensive systems), to a more aggregated, system-wide measurement of impact – which is, of course, the scale which ultimately matters.

The rise of ‘Big Dairy’ in the UK is certainly an issue that needs focus right now – it is a situation that should make us question whether bigger and more intensive necessarily means better. Yet, ultimately, this is about much more than dairy farming. It is about deciding what kind of food system we want, and what we mean by efficiency, sustainability and food security. If we continue to judge success primarily by output, we risk accelerating the loss of farmers, wildlife and resilience at precisely the moment we need them most.

Read about our London Climate Week session on Big Dairy here.

As food systems took centre stage at London Climate Week 2026, the Sustainable Food Trust was there to listen, challenge and contribute to the debate. In this round-up, the SFT’s Bahareh Sarvi (SFT’s Trials Data Manager), Amy Warner (Head of Fundraising) and Jessica Gunn (Director of Advocacy and Communications) reflect on five of the most significant conversations – from affordability and investment to regenerative agriculture and the rise of ‘Big Dairy’ – and what they mean for the future of food and farming.

The irony wasn’t lost on anyone: as the Capital sweltered in temperatures of 35C, scientists, policymakers, executives and activists gathered in their thousands to discuss the climate crisis. Newspaper headlines screamed “London Climate event on coping with extreme heat cancelled due to extreme heat” and “London isn’t calling, it’s cooking!”; it all felt very real.

London Climate Week Action 2026 was bigger than ever – reportedly surpassing even New York Climate Week in the sheer number of events. There were panels, roundtables, big events and intimate gatherings across the gauntlet. The good news was that food systems as a topic was well represented from the Palace to Goals House. As ever, the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) was deep in the weeds of it all, so if you weren’t able to be there in person – these are the five main things you need to know from this year’s event.

1. The affordability trap

The Economist launched its Resilient Food System Index, a serious attempt by a serious institution to hold companies accountable for food system performance. The Index presents four pillars of measurement and success – availability, quality and safety, adaptability, and climate and affordability. This all sounds very sensible, until you get to that last, despot of an argument that, in reality, has driven decades of soil degradation, biodiversity collapse and public health crises – here now again enshrined as a measure of success.

A UNICEF representative offered the most single, devastating data point in response: obesity has now overtaken hunger as the world’s primary form of malnutrition. Both conditions disproportionately affect people in poverty. Both are driven, in large part, by cheap food.

The SFT view: The race to make food cheaper has not fed the world or made us healthier. It has malnourished us – differently, but no less completely. Whenever a proposal emerges that might raise food prices, industry players (and Government) reach for ‘affordability’ like a weapon – and it works every time. Price has become equated with public good at the expense of every other measure of a food system’s health. Finding new language for this – language that holds space for both access and quality – is one of the most urgent tasks in food policy today.

Find out more here: insights.economistenterprise.com/energy-environment/resilient-food-systems-index

2. The investment gap nobody wants to own

Harry Farnsworth from Rabobank said something that should have made the front page: the climate is still not priced into the market. The reality of agriculture’s risk model still failing to reflect the environmental reality it operates within – global conflict, climate change, degraded soil, dwindling biodiversity etc, and the fact the margins on farming are already too low, means a sustainable transition is simply not investable at scale – unless someone steps up to take the first loss.

Two new funds have been set up to address this: a DEFRA-backed nature bond and a Wildfarmed initiative, both relying on government or philanthropic capital to absorb risk that private markets refuse to touch.

The SFT view: These are promising experiments. But they are two drops in an ocean that requires a tide. The food industry’s lobbying budget runs to tens of billions annually – while philanthropic capital flowing into food system change is measured in the hundreds of thousands. We are bringing a trowel to an excavation that needs heavy machinery.

Find out more here: https://uknaturefund.com

3. Net zero: A useful framing or a dangerous one?

One of the sharpest critiques to emerge across multiple sessions was directed at net zero itself. The framing, various participants argued, has created tunnel vision – a single metric absorbing all available attention, investment and political will, while biodiversity, water quality, soil health and community resilience, are treated as afterthoughts.

The SFT view: Net zero has become too narrowly focused on carbon. Offsetting has overtaken genuine emissions reductions, and has inadvertently rewarded intensive production because it can appear carbon-efficient (see Big Dairy) while in reality still harming ecosystems. Measuring success primarily through CO₂ can obscure wider environmental and social outcomes. Instead, we need a whole-systems approach that integrates climate, food security, ecosystem health and long-term resilience.

4. Thinking in systems, not commodities

‘Regenerative’ might be a buzz word but how to define it? Discussions around the week confirmed the answer remains elusive. Regenerative agriculture however, many now agree, is not a destination, it is an approach to farming that by design is in constant motion. Regenerative wheat is classified as such, not simply because of how the crop itself is grown, but because of the barley, legumes and grass leys that preceded it – the label emerges from a community of plants (or commodities) working together. The whole farm system is the unit of analysis, and most of our financial and regulatory infrastructure is completely unequipped to handle that complexity.

The SFT view: A true understanding of regenerative agriculture (or lack of) has profound implications for how we finance, measure and incentivise farming. Supply chains that claim to support regenerative practice must begin investing in farmers to support the transition. This process must not simply be a matter of passing the cost to consumers, nor relying on government alone to bridge the gap. If a company’s share price was genuinely exposed to the climate risk embedded in its supply chain, that investment would follow quickly. The Regen10 Framework believes that ownership of the transition must not be a dictatorship; each farm and landscape is different and the challenge for each will reflect that. Our role is to define where we need to go, not necessarily how we get there.

Find out more here: True Cost Accounting report and https://regen10.org/outcomes-framework/ 

5. A big debate about Big Dairy

The SFT hosted its own panel on the rise of Big Dairy in the generously donated environment of Goals House. There was a diverse line-up of people in the room, with Patrick Holden at the helm. Against a landscape of the number of ‘mega dairies’ in the UK doubling over the last decade, while dairy farms overall have declined rapidly from 54,000 in 1974 to under 7,000 today, it leaves in no doubt the reality that the message to dairy farmers has felt like ‘go big or get out’.

Today 60% of the milk now consumed in the UK comes from Big Dairy, aka: ‘fully housed’ systems – and the public are only just waking up to this – helped by high profile campaigns from Project Sling Shot. High on the agenda was agreement that the dairy system is trapped in a commodity model that rewards low price above all else. Commodification has simultaneously dissolved dairy’s intrinsic value, and the sector’s control over its own narrative. Stronger storytelling around its stewardship, nutrition and security is vital.

The SFT view: we need a trusted, shared framework on measurement that rewards farmers for sustainable practices, higher welfare and ultimately, human health. The current system is optimised for a small number of actors – we need pricing mechanisms that serve farmers, the public, climate and food security. Bringing people together from all sides of the debate is the first step towards a shared vision.

In a nutshell
What we need now is not more agreement on the problem, but rather the leadership – political, financial and institutional – to act on it.

This makes it all the more striking that London Climate Week generated very little mainstream press coverage. Thousands of people, hundreds of events, some of the most consequential conversations happening anywhere in the world about food, land, water and climate – and the national newspapers were largely silent. When the public conversation isn’t happening, the urgency stays trapped in the room. That, perhaps more than anything else, is what needs to change.

Image credit: Photo by Benjamin Davies on Unsplash

Last week, the High Court ruled in favour of a judicial review challenging regulations that remove labelling and traceability from so-called ‘precision bred’ organisms. The judicial review was led by Beyond GM, with Patrick Holden, CEO of the Sustainable Food Trust, and two others standing as co-claimants. Here Patrick reflects on why he chose to speak out and on the importance of the case.

I cannot pretend that I fully understood all the legal arguments when I first agreed to become involved in a judicial review challenging new regulations governing genetically modified ‘precision bred’, organisms (PBOs).

I am a farmer, not a lawyer. What I did understand was that the new regulations, which removed traceability and labelling from certain types of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would make it harder for producers and consumers who wished to – or had to – avoid genetically engineered organisms to do so.

That seemed wrong to me then and, following the High Court’s judgment last week, it’s clear the Government did not fully consider all the options available or the impacts of a profound change in legislation.

Becoming a claimant in a judicial review is a serious commitment. It required putting my name to a public legal challenge against the Government and accepting a level of scrutiny that many might prefer to avoid. But then again, the core issues of the case led by Beyond GM – the integrity of living organisms and the protection of organic standards – are issues that I have a long history with.

The experience has caused me to reflect not only on the case itself but on how dramatically the debate around genetic engineering has changed since the battles many of us fought in the 1990s. History, it seems, still has some important lessons to teach us.

Lessons to learn

Back in the late 1990s and early noughties, when I was director of the Soil Association, one of the standout campaigns with which I was involved was against the introduction of GMOs.

Our GMO campaign, arguing that the Government should not allow genetically engineered foods to creep into our food system was won, due in no small measure to the massive media attention it attracted, but also because Labour’s Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, was both privately and virtually publicly on our side.

Michael was the one who championed the Farm Scale Evaluations – a series of large-scale trials to test the impact of GM crops on local biodiversity and ecosystems, prior to any commercial approvals. The results raised serious concerns about the environmental consequences of planting GMO crops and undermined claims that they would automatically deliver public benefits.

He paid the political price for doing the right thing.

Coincidentally, I met with him on the day that he was sacked by Tony Blair. “I’ve got some bad news,” he said, “let’s go and have a drink on the Terrace.” It was never stated publicly, but many of us believed his opposition to the Government’s pro-GM policy played a significant role in his departure.

It is heartening to know that one of the last actions Michael took before he passed away, was to stand with Beyond GM on the steps of Number 10, to deliver the ‘Letter from America’ – a plea from American farmers, businesses, food advocates and civil society organisations, representing some 57 million people, for the UK not to follow America’s unquestioning embrace of GMOs.

The empire strikes back

Twenty years later, how things have changed! There is no equivalent to Michael Meacher in the Government. Many of the MPs who waved this legislation through without scrutiny probably couldn’t tell a GMO from their own elbows and are utterly seduced by the idea that we can improve on nature using the great white heat of technology.

After a decisive blow, the industry, or perhaps one might say the empire, has struck back, and very effectively too. It did this in the form of a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation – the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023 – which sought to distance GMOs from their past failures by giving them a shiny new name: precision bred organisms (PBOs).

Ask anyone on the street and they likely won’t be able to tell you what a PBO is, yet 8 in 10 people in the UK believe that all GMOs should be labelled and traceable in our food system. This change of law has a major impact on the right to exercise informed choice and to choose not to plant, sell or buy GMOs.

The Act was signed into law by the Conservatives, but it is Labour that passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations into law in 2025, which allow the commercial planting and sale of PBO plants.

Despite a feeling of a fait accompli, Beyond GM and its legal team at Leigh Day and Matrix Chambers believed there was still a possible route to challenge what was happening. Not by reversing the primary Act, which would require another Act of Parliament, but by challenging the legality of the regulations made under it.

Taking the fight to court

The gathering of co-claimants was part of an intense and meticulous 13-month effort by Beyond GM and its legal team at Leigh Day and Matrix Chambers.

What was needed was evidence from farmers who could explain how the absence of labelling and traceability would affect their ability to maintain the integrity of organic and non-GM production. Organic farming depends not only on what happens in the field, but on the reliability of the whole chain – seeds, feed, ingredients, certification, trust. Organic farmers are legally obliged to avoid all GMOs, including PBOs. If precision bred organisms can move through parts of that chain without being identified, then the ability of organic producers to avoid them is compromised.

The case also needed a consumer voice, and that was provided by Joanna Blythman, whose long-standing commitment to food quality and transparency is well known.

As with all legal issues, there were fine lines to negotiate. Today’s organic standards, for which I can claim some credit, have always recognised that absolute purity can be difficult in a contaminated world. Spray drift, environmental contamination and other forms of unwanted intrusion have long been part of the reality organic farmers face. But that is precisely why a functioning regulatory system matters. If the Government creates a regime in which contamination becomes both inevitable and harder to identify and avoid, it cannot then pretend that organic producers and consumers are unaffected.

“Organic farming depends not only on what happens in the field, but on the reliability of the whole chain – seeds, feed, ingredients, certification, trust. Organic farmers are legally obliged to avoid all GMOs, including PBOs. If precision bred organisms can move through parts of that chain without being identified, then the ability of organic producers to avoid them is compromised.”

The Court’s verdict

I may not be a legal expert but I can read and the Court’s judgement makes very good reading.

It concludes that the Defra Farming Minister was repeatedly “misadvised” by his advisors that he had no power to mandate labelling and traceability for these new GMOs. It goes further, noting that had the Minister been given correct information he would have given greater consideration to the wider impacts of the regulations and indeed might have made different decisions about what they should contain.

The Court accepted that the consequences of removing the tools necessary to support traceability and transparency were real and likely to impose greater burdens – and costs – on famers, businesses and consumers.

It went further still, stating that organic farming is not merely a technical standard or certification scheme. For many, it represents a fundamental set of values, principles and professional commitments which the Regulations make much more difficult to maintain. To my knowledge, this is the first time something this impactful to organic has been made plain in a legal judgement.

More than a food issue

These are serious findings and, beyond their relevance to the food system, they reveal something very troubling about the way the government now works. If ministers are not properly informed, if MPs are not fully engaged and if complex regulations are waved through on the basis of ‘party lines’, industry lobbying and soothing language, then democratic oversight becomes little more than theatre.

Will the judgment make a difference? We shall see.

As I write, Beyond GM and its legal team are now in discussions with the Government about what should happen next. The Court has identified serious flaws in the way these regulations were developed and these cannot now be ignored.

The missing media

One thing is unfortunately clear. The media appetite for this issue is much less than it used to be. When the judgment was handed down, I rang my contacts at the BBC Radio 4 Today programme to let them know about a major breaking story. They said they were interested, but in the end came the familiar refrain: “Do keep in touch, we are interested in this, but unfortunately it didn’t make the cut for tomorrow’s programme.”

That would not have happened in the 1990s.

Today, the public, politicians and much of the media have allowed themselves to fall into a state of torpor about food and farming. The progressive industrialisation of our food systems has gone so far that many people have almost lost the will to complain. It is now difficult to buy genuinely high-quality, nutrient-dense, contaminant-free food.

What comes next?

I suspect this lapse of attention may be temporary. People such as Chris van Tulleken, who I recently interviewed for the Sustainable Food Trust podcast, have done a brilliant job alerting the public to the dangers of ultra-processed food. Many younger people, especially in Gen Z – if my sons are anything to go by – are increasingly worried about what is being done to the food they eat.

So, thank you Pat Thomas at Beyond GM and Lawrence Woodward, who provided strategic advice throughout, for your thorough and thoughtful work on this issue. Please do not give up – because this issue will not go away.

I may be just an ‘average person,’ albeit rather better informed than most because of a lifelong interest in this area, but I do not want to re-design nature. I do not want to eat food of poor nutritional quality. I do not want food contaminated by pesticide residues, GMOs, additives, preservatives or anything else I cannot identify or avoid.

Some people who shared these views were, perhaps understandably, reluctant to step forward and put themselves through the rigours of being a co-claimant. I chose to do so because I believe these regulations compromise my right, and the rights of others, to eat food that reflects our values and to grow it for others.

I am absolutely convinced I am not alone.

Write to your MP – you can be part of the action by writing to your MP. Use this link, expressing  your concerns and your support for transparency and labelling for PBOs. It’s quick, there’s suggested text to use and it does meaningful work in letting the Government know what the people really want.

Sustainable Food Trust founder and CEO, Patrick Holden, has been awarded Advocate of the Year at The King’s Foundation Awards 2025.

The award is presented to an individual who has gone above and beyond to promote the philosophy of Harmony during the year. Harmony is a guiding principle of the Sustainable Food Trust’s work, which is inspired by our philosophy of the interconnectedness of the health of soil, plants, animals and people.

This recognition also reflects Patrick’s lifelong commitment to farming in alignment with nature, and to advocating for sustainable food systems both in the UK and globally. Harmony is foundational to the approach at Holden Farm Dairy – now the longest established organic dairy farm in Wales – where these principles are put into daily practice.

The King’s Foundation Awards celebrate individuals and organisations across the UK who are leading the way in creating a more sustainable, harmonious future. The awards shine a light on those making a tangible impact through education, craft, the built environment, and the natural world – all core pillars of The King’s Foundation’s work.

Please join us in celebrating this recognition of Patrick’s work and that of all the 2025 award winners.

After 12 years, the Sustainable Food Trust’s Adele Jones has decided to step down from her role as Executive Director at the SFT.

Reflecting on her time at the SFT, Adele says: “After an amazing chapter of my life at the SFT I have decided to step down as its Executive Director.  This has been an incredibly hard decision. The SFT is such a special organisation, its leadership and ideas are world leading and this team of people making it all happen are absolutely second to none.  I am so grateful for all the opportunities and experience the SFT and, in particular, Patrick have given me – in many ways this organisation feels like an extension of me which makes it even harder to say goodbye.  It’s the right time for me to explore new opportunities but I very much plan to stay involved in taking forward the projects we’ve set in motion. I’ll be working with Patrick and Fabia on a transition plan over the coming months but for now it’s business as usual.”

Patrick Holden, SFT founder and CEO, comments: “It would be hard to overstate the breadth and scale of the contribution that Adele has made in building the profile and influence of our organisation over the last twelve-and-a-half years. Her combination of integrity, loyalty, professionalism and ambassadorial skills have played a very significant part in the development of the Sustainable Food Trust. We look forward to a new chapter of collaboration, since we have no doubt whatsoever that her work and ours will continue to be intertwined.”

Adele will continue to work with Patrick, Fabia and the SFT team to ensure a smooth transition until she leaves in the early Autumn. Fabia Bromovsky (currently Director of the Global Farm Metric) will then take on the role of Executive Director to continue to deliver the ambitious plans we have in place for 2025 and beyond.

Please join us in thanking Adele for her extraordinary contribution and wishing her all the best in this next chapter.

Defra has just launched a package of measures to help farmers facing huge increases in the price of fertiliser.

The cost of nitrogen fertiliser is currently three times higher than it was last year. This makes it an appropriate moment to consider the dependence of intensive agriculture on synthetic nitrogen and whether the prospect of green hydrogen to make fertiliser with a lower environmental footprint offers a long term solution.

A brief history of nitrogen fertiliser

Since the Second World War, synthetic fertilisers, especially those made from ammonia, have played a major role in agriculture on almost all farms except those using organic methods. These have driven a dramatic increase in production through higher yields, but that has come at a high environmental cost in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution from ammonia, water pollution from high levels of nitrate and biodiversity decline in terms of delicate wild flowers and plants outcompeted by ranker vegetation better able to ulitise nitrogen.

Today, the UK uses just over one million tonnes of nitrogen every year, in over three million tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser, with different products containing different proportions of nitrogen. Ammonia is produced by the Haber-Bosch process – named after German scientists Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch who developed a method to produce synthetic ammonia in 1911. This process turns the inert nitrogen in the air we breathe into reactive nitrogen, by breaking the triple bond which holds nitrogen atoms together in pairs, then forcing them to combine with hydrogen. This requires a temperature of  500°C, 250 atmospheres of pressure (approximately 120 times the pressure in a typical car tyre) and an iron catalyst.

The initial motivation was the prospect of war with Britain. Ammonia is essential for the production of explosives and had Haber and Bosch not made their breakthrough, the huge scale of the carnage during the First and Second World Wars would not have been possible.

At the end of both wars, the world was left with massive industrial capacity to produce ammonia for which there was suddenly no demand. However, in the 1940s it was realised that this ammonia could also be used to create nitrogen fertilisers, with the Rockefeller Foundation in the US pioneering their development for use in Mexican agriculture. While the programme was not well suited to Mexico, the experience gained underpinned the promotion of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers in developed countries from about 1950.

Haber and Bosch originally produced the hydrogen they needed to make amononia by passing an electrical current through water. However, producing hydrogen through electrolosis in this way is extremely energy intensive and it was later found that by using natural gas as the source of hydrogen the amount of energy needed could be reduced considerably. Even today, however, the process of making ammonia still requires a lot of energy. It accounts for 1.4% of global carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (much of this in the form of nitrous oxide and CO2) and consumes 1% of the world’s total energy production. Hydrogen (and the ammonia produced with it) is currently made using either Steam Methane Reforming or Auto Thermal Reforming with natural gas. This is known as grey hydrogen (or blue hydrogen, when the associated CO2 emissions are captured and stored underground). Given the significant contribution to the climate crisis, finding an alternative, less carbon intensive method of creating ammonia has long been desirable. This is where green hydrogen comes in.

Green hydrogen

The concept of ‘green hydrogen’ is now being promoted as a new climate friendly way to create and store energy to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, with the potential to make greener nitrogen fertilisers as well. Green hydrogen production relies on the original Haber-Bosch method of splitting water by electrolysis (using electricity from renewable energy sources), which results in only two outputs: hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which directly contributes to global warming or air pollution. The hydrogen can be stored safely under pressure in fuel cells and the oxygen can be vented to the atmosphere with no negative impact. There are many uses for green hydrogen, including a potentially important role within agriculture as a replacement for the fuel used by tractors and other heavy machinery. However, of greater interest to many is that green hydrogen fed into the traditional Haber-Bosch process can be used for ammonia production which is then used to make fertilisers like ammonium nitrate.

Since this green ammonia is 100% renewable and largely carbon-free switching to green ammonia would greatly reduce the carbon footprint of nitrogen fertiliser production. This is a good thing. In theory, it would help us get closer to net carbon zero. Any steps we can take to reduce our global carbon footprint are clearly essential to the efforts to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees by 2050 and 2 degrees by the end of the century, avoiding the worst predicted aspects of climate change. As such, it makes sense to support a switch to green ammonia from both grey and blue ammonia production. Price, however is still a limiting factor. The cost of green hydrogen is currently still high, but given the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on energy prices and the finite nature of natural gas reserves, the option to produce ammonia from green hydrogen is appealing since it is expected that at some point over the next 5-10 years, it will become lower in price and possibly also less susceptible to price fluctuations than when grey (or blue) hydrogen is manufactured and used. This could eventually help farmers, already under financial pressure and worried about rising input costs – a challenge that Defra is partly addressing though a package of measures unvailed recently.

But might green hydrogen be a false prophet?

One big advantage of green hydrogen is that it provides a way to store energy from wind turbines and solar panels to use overnight and on days when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. But one of the biggest questions is whether it will be possible to produce enough renewable electricity in the UK to make sufficient green hydrogen for all our needs?  As already mentioned, using electricity to make hydrogen for fertiliser production instead of natural gas is significantly more energy intensive overall. There is a great deal less pollution, but much more energy is needed in total. Given the need to use hydrogen to replace diesel and the dramatic increase in renewable energy we will need to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, the scale of the problem is huge. There has to be a further question over whether we have enough land in the UK for sufficient solar panels and windmills, without taking excessive areas of land out of food production? As such, it seems likely that we will remain dependent on other countries for much of our energy needs, even once green hydrogen becomes a financially viable option. The obvious place to produce energy from solar power is in deserts, but the hydrogen would need to be made close to vast sources of water as, according to our initial calculations, it will require approximately six litres of water to make enough hydrogen to replace one litre of diesel.

Seeking an altogether greener approach

The current model of industrial agriculture relies on artificial inputs to maintain high yields and productivity. This has been achieved to the detriment of the environment and human health. Agriculture is the source of over 80% of ammonia emissions in the UK and ammonia is a major cause of air pollution. Even if it is possible to produce a ‘greener’ form of synthetic fertiliser at scale, green ammonia-based synthetic fertilisers will still cause some of the same environmental problems associated with current nitrogen fertiliser use, including fertiliser run-off into streams, which creates dead-zones in rivers, lakes and even some oceans through eutrophication. Producing enough hydrogen to make the 190 million tonnes of fertiliser nitrogen used globally each year could also put additional strain on the planet’s already inadequate supplies of fresh water in many regions.

Recognising the damage caused by synthetic fertiliser, the SFT and others in the sustainable farming sector have long been advocating a switch toward more agroecological farming systems. We believe that we need bold change if we want to create a more sustainable food and farming system. A switch to agroecology would be that change. Agroecology employs natural methods of nutrient cycling to build soil health. For example, using forage legumes in grassland, in rotation with crops and as cover crops, which bring natural nitrogen into the soil. The benefits of adopting such methods is that this allows farming to function in harmony with nature and available natural resources, it also aims to reduce negative externalities while still ensuring a productive and viable farming sector.

Of course, it is unrealistic to think that the world will ditch its dependency on nitrogen fertilisers overnight, and so where these continue to be used green hydrogen is likely to have a valuable role in reducing the emissions associated with their manufacture. Yet, green hydrogen should not be viewed as the primary solution to the nitrogen fertiliser ‘problem’. Ultimately, as opposed to challenging that long-entrenched dynamic of high-input industrialised agriculture, switching to green hydrogen could merely maintain the status quo of ammonia-dependent and polluting farming systems. Despite lowering the carbon footprint, it may create additional problems while enabling food to be produced with the same high levels of synthetic fertiliser, without introducing more fundamentally sustainability components into production methods.

Conclusion

As a result, adopting an approach that sees green ammonia as a solution to creating a more sustainable farming system might be misguided. It could help a little but it is not a panecea. Rather than moving towards the systemic change and a shift to agroecological practices that is needed, this could undercut delay the urgent need to transition in the direction of agroecology. We need to continue to push for bolder change, ultimately ensuring we stay within all planetary boundaries, allowing us and future generations to maintain a healthy and habitable planet.

In a press release published today, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics has drawn attention to a developing divergence between food production standards in the UK and the EU. From today, livestock farmers in the EU’s remaining 27 member countries will face greater restrictions on the use of antibiotics than farmers in the UK.

Intensive livestock farmers in the EU will no longer be permitted to use antibiotics routinely or to compensate for poor hygiene or animal welfare. Such use will, however, continue to be allowed in the UK.

As concern has grown about the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant infections globally, farmers in the UK have managed to reduce their use of antibiotics by 49% since 2014 and many farmers are continuing to go further. Yet use per pig in the UK is still 250% higher than in the Netherlands and Denmark, two major pork-producing countries.

Of even greater concern to UK consumers – while the EU has also banned the importation of meat from countries like the US and Australia, where the use of growth-promoting antibiotics long-banned in the EU and UK is still permitted – the UK government has so far refused to follow suit. This inevitably gives rise to concern that the government gives a higher priority to rushed trade deals than to the safety of UK consumers.

This is an issue which we exposed in our report, ‘Maximum Growth: Whatever the Cost’ in December 2020.

SFT Policy Director, Richard Young said, ‘Antibiotic resistance is a major, developing problem caused by the overuse of antibiotics in both human and veterinary medicine. The Sustainable Food Trust fully supports calls for the UK to keep its veterinary medicines legislation fully in line with the EU. This would help to protect UK consumers and it would also help to prevent UK farmers being undercut by imports produced in other countries with antibiotics used to make animals grow faster. If this is allowed to happen, decades of hard-won progress could go into reverse. UK farmers could be forced to increase their use of antibiotics, in order to compete and stay in business, rather than reduce them further, which is what needs to happen.’

---

Press Release

From today the UK will have weaker farm antibiotic regulations than the EU. Farmers on the continent will no longer be allowed to give preventative group antibiotic treatments or use antibiotics to mask poor living conditions and standards for farm animals. This will remain legal in the UK. The Alliance to Save our Antibiotics says this threatens to undermine recent improvements in the UK and increases the risk of antibiotic resistance.

New legislation in the EU has banned all forms of routine antibiotic use for farm animals. They have also banned imports of meat, dairy, fish and eggs that have been produced using antibiotics to stimulate rapid growth in the animals.

Antibiotic resistance is increasing at a faster rate than previously realised and, as reported in The Lancet in 2019, it was directly responsible for the deaths of more than one and a quarter million people worldwide and linked with the deaths of nearly five million people. The overuse of antibiotics in humans and farm animals is to blame for this crisis. Worldwide about two thirds of antibiotics are used in livestock.

The new EU legislation was agreed in 2018, and since then the UK government has repeatedly said that it largely supported the new regulations and would introduce similar laws here. However, over three years later the Government has still not published its own legislative proposals for ending excessive farm antibiotic use. This leaves the UK exposed and means that rules here are weaker. It remains legal in the UK to:

• give antibiotics to farm animals routinely, rather than when they are sick or have an infection
• give preventative group treatments to farm animals
• give antibiotics to farm animals to compensate for inadequate welfare standards, lack of care or poor hygiene
• import animal foods produced with antibiotic growth promoters

Campaigners are calling for the UK government to honour its repeated commitments and the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics (ASOA) has written to Environment Secretary George Eustice MP urging the Government to act swiftly to improve the UK’s farm antibiotic laws in line with the EU.

Cóilín Nunan ASOA Scientific Advisor said: ‘British farmers have voluntarily reduced their antibiotic use by 50% in recent years. But much larger cuts can still be achieved if the Government introduces new laws ending preventative antibiotic group treatments and increasing minimum animal health and welfare standards. On the other hand, if the government pursues a trade policy which cuts tariffs on the importation of meat and dairy produced with extremely high antibiotic use, including the use of antibiotic growth promoters, then in order to compete, British farmers could be compelled to reduce their own animal health and welfare standards and increase their use of antibiotics.’

January kicks off once again with the event that pretty much everyone involved with sustainable food and farming signs up for: the Oxford Real Farming Conference.

This year, it was off to a bit of bumpy start – with the pandemic continuing to linger far longer than had been planned on, the ORFC had to do a quick last-minute move online. Perhaps next year, we can move back to something not too far from normal!

Because of the shift to online (perhaps), the conference felt somewhat dispersed over a wide and sometimes closely overlapping array of topics. What the ORFC always does particularly well is to provide something for everyone, and they certainly delivered on that. But it felt at times that the topics could have been honed and more clearly delineated – mostly around the broad topics of agroecology and land access and justice.

This year the ORFC introduced a few ‘deep dive’ sessions to take place on the Wednesday before the proper start of the conference. These two hour panels gave time and space to really investigate and debate the topics at hand. While the ORFC sessions are quite ample as is, it was still nice to have those more in depth panels, especially in a session like Developing a Shared Theory of Change for the Land Justice Movement which was given a full three hours to explore and develop ideas and to move those ideas into action.

One of these ‘deep dives’ was Understanding and Assessing the Impact of Food and Farming Enterprises, which looked at the importance of data and the need to robustly quantify environmental, social and economic benefits and impacts. The Sustainable Food Trust discussed the development of the Global Farm Metric (GFM) in this session, arguing the importance of having a harmonised metric with which to measure on-farm sustainability, developed by farmers for farmers. At the root of the panel discussion, which also had the involvement of the Better Food Traders, was the potential of data to shape change in our food system. The phrase ‘you can’t manage, what you can’t measure’ is critical in realising how we might more accurately understand and define ‘sustainability’.

The discussion of the ELMs roll-out that took place first thing on Thursday morning at the start of the ORFC raised many questions. This is an area of concern for farmers, especially because of the impending withdrawal of the BPS which could be significantly impactful on small- and medium-scale farmers. The panel included Sustain, the Soil Association, RSPB and several farmers along with a Defra representative and raised more questions than could be answered. Vicki Hird at Sustain queried whether the budget would really be adequate to realise the gains for the environment and biodiversity? She also asked if ELMs would impact the diversity of farms and would holdings under 5 hectares be included? Adrian Steele stressed the importance of farmers need to develop more agroecological practices to realise the environmental and biodiversity gains. Alice Groom at the RSPB similarly asked how deliverable the schemes were – how practical were they for farmers to incorporate into their business? The questions that surround ELMs still need some clear and defined answers.

There were a number of really inspiring stand-out sessions that should not be missed (and you can see them all on Youtube): Raj Patel and Rupa Marya discussing their recently published book Inflamed which explores the embedded structural racism and uneven health outcomes that black, indigenous and people of colour experience, through the lens of internal and external inflammation; Silent Pandemic was unquestionably the most depressing and devastating account of the impact of pesticides, but so necessary to understand what we are facing if significant change isn’t made in pesticide use imminently; Nicolette Hahn Niman’s talk The Real Food Solution: Why Animals Matter was fantastically literate and thoughtful, focusing on what’s happened to the way we eat and why being an omnivorous eater of real food is critical – animals have an important role not just as a source of food but also for the relationship that they have with the land and our food systems.

Another of these stand-out sessions was Feeding Britain: For Nature, Climate and Health, chaired by SFT CEO Patrick Holden with Sue Pritchard, Chief Executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC) and journalist and farmer Nicolette Niman. Both the SFT and the FFCC are in the midst of generating reports on how we might most sustainably feed ourselves as a country and what food production systems will feed us best and most fairly.

Sue Pritchard brilliantly identified one of the key issues we face in building a better food system: cheap food. She commented that, ‘…the need for cheap food has become in effect a marketing strapline for a particular business model that has commodified and financialised food systems so that the needs of the poor and the vulnerable…have become an excuse to provide eye-watering profits for a small number of large global food agri-businesses.’ Nicolette Niman stressed the importance of vibrant adaptive ecological systems that respond to specificity of site, of the particular piece of land that food is grown on. Niman argues for Charles Massey’s phrase of ‘listening to the land’. Our diets should have some connection to the ‘true landscape function’ of a place. She disparages the globalised food system which has taught us to all eat the same food instead of eating the diverse real foods our cultures have given to us.

Our conversations at the ORFC are so valuable, especially as we move forward in a world that sits on a tipping point. We need to share these conversations with people outside our relatively small circle of believers. We need our movement to grow and that won’t happen if we only talk to ourselves. So, next year, reach out, bring the neighbourly farmer who wonders why you farm the way you do and share your thoughts and listen to theirs.

The majority of the ORFC 2022 sessions can be replayed here

‘They are tiny, but they are mighty’. That is how Sally Ann Spence described the diminutive dung beetle in a session that unexpectedly turned out to be my highlight of the Oxford Real Farming Conference (ORFC) 2022.

For the second year in a row, COVID-19 had forced the conference to go online. This was something of a double-edged sword for me. On the one hand, technology cannot replace the atmosphere of Oxford Town Hall crammed with a diverse mix of enthusiastic delegates. On the other, I was struggling to keep all my plates spinning, with a complex grazing crisis and a family bereavement threatening to scupper my attendance entirely. This way, I had a chance of attending at least some of the sessions.

Things started well. In Healing Our Connection with Food in the Fake Food Era, the breathtaking enthusiasm of Vandana Shiva ripped through the old dogma that would have us believe only biotech companies can adequately feed the world. Balanced by the calm statesman-like presence of former Jain monk Satish Kumar, an eloquent case was made for re-establishing our ’connection with eating as an ecological act in defiance of the false solutions that separate us from life and nature’.

I first came across Satish Kumar forty years ago when, as an idealistic teenager, I volunteered at one of the early Schumacher Lectures. Then, I was in awe of the towering figures of speakers such as the American Indian Movement’s Russell Means. Satish was kind and generous with his knowledge and oversaw everything with a quick but calm efficiency. Now I am less easily awed, but have retained that idealism, believing in a sustainable future for our planet and ourselves. I was delighted to see that Satish, at the age of 85, had lost none of his sparkling campaigning spirit.

On the second day of the conference, I opted for three practical sessions out of an extensive and somewhat bewildering choice. This is where the mighty dung beetle came to the fore.

Canadian First Nations Chief, actor and poet, Dan George says in his beautiful, moving book, My Heart Soars, ‘Little things are important. Because they are little, we see them but we do not understand them.’ This came back to me as Sally Ann Spence explained, with extraordinary clarity and simplicity, just why dung beetles are so important. Not only do most of us not understand them but to see them you have to be prepared to really look. Spence made it easy for us, running quickly through types of dung beetles preferred habitats (‘a tower of dung is more suitable than a splatter’) and the mind-boggling array of life, both above and below ground, that depends on this ‘keystone species’.

It was a session that made you think very carefully about how to manage your land and livestock. Along with co-speakers, Bruce Thompson, Claire Whittle and James Allen, Spence helped us negotiate the perils of chemical treatments, grazing patterns and habitat loss. Thompson gets the prize for deadpan humour when, explaining that dung beetles are often species specific, told us that Australian dung beetles were not impressed with the alien livestock of European immigrants –‘They took one bite out of the new dung and thought it tasted like crap!’

Joking aside, the difficulties caused by the relocation of large numbers of grazing animals have been sufficient to require the import of dung beetles to Australia, at significant cost, since the 1960s. I’m sure Bruce Pascoe, (whose session on First Peoples’ approach to agriculture was sadly cancelled), would have an opinion on this.

My other two sessions of the morning were Hedgerows – The Green Veins of Our Landscape and the rather clumsily titled How Meadows and Healthy Soil Can Fight Climate Change as well as Reconnect Us to Cultural Landscapes. Again, these were detailed and practical, giving much food for thought on how we can improve the carbon storing potential and biodiversity of our own farms.

In the afternoon, I had to take a break from the day’s sessions to help my cousin with the plans for my uncle’s funeral. It would be easy to imagine this to be an incongruous turn of events in the middle of a farming conference, but it felt strangely appropriate. My uncle was a true countryman in every way. He was old enough to remember the days of riding the draught horse to the village smithy and taking calves to market by horse and cart. ‘Going along quietly,’ he liked to say, meaning steadily and unhurried, in the West Country sense of the words. Of the many tributes that have come to us since his death, this from a neighbour, summed up the consensus of opinion: ‘Such a character – a lovely, gentle, talented man. One of the old village stalwarts and we were privileged to know such people. The young now don’t have many role models like this.’

My uncle was a practical and unsentimental man whose life was framed by the rhythms of the year. I believe it is important that, while we strive to turn the trajectory of farming from the suicidal course that it’s been on for over half a century, we remember to listen to the quiet native voices of our countryside. Although the life of a man is brief and death is natural, we cannot afford to let the knowledge handed down through centuries come to an end at this critical time.

Indigenous Concepts of Wellbeing in Relation to Food and Agriculture took me back to the conference. My uncle would have fitted in well with Alfredo Cortez, Gerald Miles and Iwan Evans Coedfadre whose understanding of ‘the old way of thinking’ is now being passed on to a new generation. Gerald’s 20-year search for the black oats of his ancestors is detailed in the beautiful short film, Llafur Ni (Our Grains). He believes that ‘these old ways are going to create food for us in this world we live in, where we have disease and the weather changing’. ‘This,’ he concludes, ‘is more important than we realise’.

Whether it is from Wales, Guatemala or Malawi, the quiet voices need to be heard. In the film, The Ants and The Grasshopper, the remarkable Malawian farmer and activist, Anita Chitaya, takes her campaign for climate justice from rural Africa to America. Travelling across the United States, Anita attempts to use her impressive powers of persuasion to convince farmers, politicians and sceptics of the reality of climate chaos and the need for many of them to change their ways. With disarming simplicity and understated intelligence, much of what is at the source of the crisis reveals itself under Anita’s patient gaze.

On the final day of the conference, real life and real farming finally prevailed. I found myself back out in the horizontal rain. I have many sessions to catch up on once the recordings are released but I have seen enough to be going on with.

In Malawi, an ant cannot move a grasshopper alone – it takes cooperation among many ants to do that. ‘They are tiny but they are mighty.’

So, are we.

ORFC 2022 sessions can be viewed here

Supply chains and routes to market are an integral part of the food system but are often a missing piece of the puzzle when talking about sustainability and fairness.

In recent decades, supply chains have become highly centralised and increasingly opaque, with several issues that are impacting our food system, the environment and the people it feeds, making it difficult for farmers and food producers to meet their bottom lines and provide healthy, sustainable and fair food for everyone. The question is, how we can create positive change in our supply chains and what could that mean for food and farming?

What are some of the key issues?

In the UK, just 12 supermarkets dominate food retail, making up 95% of the market. The oligopoly of our food system and the reliance on the just-in-time model they use, has inevitably led to a complex of problems.

• Farmers and small and medium suppliers aren’t paid fairly for the food they produce nor rewarded for doing good for climate, nature and health.
• The food we eat has become increasingly monocultural, with the world relying heavily on fewer and fewer crops for a significant proportion of our nutrition.
• Our health is taking a toll because of the way supermarkets and other large supply chain actors market and sell ultra-processed food.
• Healthy food that is produced in a sustainable way is too expensive for a considerable number of people.
• UK agri-food supply chains have been directly linked with deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado of Brazil, sourcing both chicken and dairy animal feed from producers in those regions who have deforested land to produce soy.
• Workers who are the lifeblood of the food system are paid low wages and have insecure working rights and conditions.

If we want farmers to be part of the climate and nature emergency solution, we need supportive supply chains and markets. Without them, farmers will find it difficult if left to compete in global markets that are very volatile and which do not reward the delivery of public goods. If we want all citizens to have access to healthy food, we need markets that prioritise this.

A recent report that Sustain did with the RSPB, found that local food systems deliver positive environmental, economic and social outcomes. For instance, for every £1 spent on a veg box scheme, there was £3 in economic and environmental returns. We also found that local markets are much more likely to supply produce from agroecological farmers who deliver greater outcomes for climate, nature and the environment. For example, the majority of veg box schemes in the UK are supplied by farmers who are either certified organic or using agroecological practices. We also found that regenerative farmers are turning more towards supplying local markets.

Sustain has also just published a report that outlines a survey of 500 farmers across England and Wales. We wanted to get a better understanding of farmers thoughts towards supply chains and what the barriers are to change. We found that 85% of farmers supply to supermarkets or large processors and manufacturers. However, just 5% would prefer to sell to supermarkets, while the majority would rather sell to food hubs, direct to customer (e.g. through their own box scheme), through independent retailers (butchers, grocers, bakers), or to caterers and hospitality (pubs, restaurants and hotels).

Farmers clearly want to change their market and diversify into different types of markets – but why? And what are the barriers? The common reasons for wanting change was: to be paid fairly; to create greater business resilience; to have a more direct relationship with the customer; and to deliver more for climate and nature. But issues of not being able to access affordable finance to invest in change, not having the time or know-how to do marketing, not having access to a local market, and no access to local infrastructure were key challenges to overcome.