Weight-loss drugs are reshaping how we think about appetite, health and what it means to eat well. These medications, often hailed as breakthroughs, are changing lives and offering new hope in the face of chronic disease. But as the focus shifts towards eating less, is a fundamental question being overlooked? Here, Dr Lucy Williamson — award-winning public health nutritionist, author and former vet — draws on 30 years’ experience across soil, livestock, food and human health to explore what’s being left out of the conversation.

The rapid rise of weight-loss drugs has sparked a global conversation about appetite, health and how we eat. For many, these medications are life-changing, supporting weight loss and improving metabolic health, in particular, type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Where other approaches have fallen short, they are offering new hope and the potential for longer, healthier lives. That matters.

Currently:

• The hidden cost of chronic disease in the UK attributable to the food system is £268 billion
• Ten percent of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, the majority on type 2
• Over 50% of UK energy intake comes from ultra-processed foods (UPFs), rising to nearly 70% in 11-18-year-olds

But as this conversation gathers pace, it risks narrowing our focus. Much of the attention is on eating less – on appetite suppression, portion control and reduced intake. While this is part of the picture, it leaves a more fundamental question largely unasked: what is the quality of the food we are eating, and where does it come from?

At the centre of this discussion is GLP-1, a hormone naturally produced in the gut. It helps regulate appetite by slowing digestion, balancing blood sugar and signalling fullness. The latest medications work by mimicking or enhancing this process. But if the focus remains solely on suppressing appetite, without improving food quality, we risk overlooking the very systems that support health in the first place: our biology, our vital gut microbiome, our food and the soils that grow it.

Appetite, food and the gut

Appetite is not simply a matter of willpower, but a biological process shaped by signals between the gut, brain and metabolism, and influenced by our environment. At the heart of this system lies the gut microbiome, the vast community of microbes living in our large intestine; it supports our wider health, protecting it from immunity and inflammation, against allergy, overweight and obesity, cholesterol imbalance, cognitive decline and even cancer.

A healthy gut microbiome depends on a diverse diet rich in plant fibres and ‘bioactive’ compounds like antioxidants. UPFs in which nutrients have been displaced by high energy sugars and fats, reduce this diversity, weakening its protective role in overall health, including its influence on appetite. Food itself is more than nutrients – it should be a multi-sensory experience – a complex ‘matrix’ of structure and chemistry that determines how quickly its nutrients are absorbed, how full we feel and how long that fullness lasts. When this matrix is disrupted by processing or lower nutrient density, our biology no longer recognises this ‘food’ and our finely tuned appetite system just doesn’t work for us.

The gut microbiome and GLP-1

Our gut microbes are constantly producing probiotics for us – healthful compounds that work closely with our biology, for example stimulating cells in our gut wall to produce GLP-1, directly contributing to feelings of fullness. Prebiotics in our diet (types of fibre) further support this process by encouraging certain microbes to increase GLP-1 production. There is also emerging evidence linking our natural production of GLP-1 with higher levels of butyrate-producing gut microbes. Butyrate is our natural anti-inflammatory compound.

In this way, beneficial gut microbes help regulate appetite by enhancing GLP-1 signalling. In contrast, diets high in processed foods can reduce microbial diversity and weaken these mechanisms. Appetite, then, is not just about how much we eat, but what we eat, and how that food interacts with our internal ecosystem.

Inflammation: the root of chronic disease

Many of the chronic health conditions of our time – obesity and metabolic illness, allergies, cancers and digestive disorders, share a common root – inflammation. While inflammation is designed to be short-lived and protective, it is now often persistent. The gut microbiome is deeply involved in regulating this process.

The goal, therefore, is not simply to override appetite, but to restore the body’s natural ability to regulate it and in doing so protect our long-term health. To do that, we need to look beyond the plate.

Soil: where the story begins

To fully understand the connection between food and health, we must look to the soil in which our food is grown. The “soil to gut” connection is largely invisible, yet fundamental to the quality of our food and, ultimately, our health.

Healthy soil is a living ecosystem, rich in microbes, fungi and organic matter. These organisms support plant health and influence the nutrient content of crops and pastures being grazed for meat and milk. When soil is healthy, plants are more resilient and better nourished. In turn, foods grown in these systems can provide a richer array of nutrients and compounds that support our gut microbiome.

Antioxidants such as polyphenols and carotenoids, linked to reduced inflammation and improved heart and metabolic health, are often found in higher levels in crops grown in healthier soils. This emerging research shows a trend that organic produce often contains significantly higher levels of certain polyphenols, including flavanols and anthocyanins. Vitamins such as C, E and A are also often higher in food farmed in harmony with nature, reflecting the ability of microbe-rich soils to unlock nutrients for plants.

In contrast, the use of agrochemicals has been linked to poorer gut microbial health. Exposure to pesticides is linked with inflammatory changes in the small intestine, shifts in the gut microbiome and disruption to the gut’s mucous layer, an essential barrier that helps protect against inflammation.

It’s not only food that shapes our microbiome. Increasing evidence suggests our environment plays a role. Time spent in nature, such as gardens, green spaces or farmland, has been linked to greater microbial diversity. Contact with soil and plants exposes us to a wider range of microbes, helping to build a more resilient internal ecosystem. We don’t just eat to support our microbes; we live among them.

There’s still much to understand about these complex ecosystems, with soil health shaping the gut microbiome and, ultimately, human health, via food. Our microbiome is not separate from the wider ecosystem and in many ways, it is an extension of it.

Reconnecting the system

All of this brings us back to appetite and weight. Reducing overconsumption, particularly of ultra-processed foods, will undoubtedly benefit health. For some, weight-loss drugs are an important and necessary intervention.

But eating less of a poor-quality diet is not a long-term solution. If we focus only on suppression, reducing intake without improving food quality, we risk overlooking the systems that sustain our health.

The goal is not simply to control appetite, but to support it. That means looking beyond the individual to the wider system, from the food we eat to the soil it grows in.

Food produced from healthier soils, within farming systems that prioritise diversity and ecological balance, has the potential to better support the gut microbiome and the biological processes that regulate appetite and our metabolism. This is not a quick fix, but a shift in perspective.

It moves us away from seeing health as something to control, and towards understanding it as something to cultivate. Human health does not exist in isolation. It’s shaped by the health of our soils, our food systems and the environments we are part of.

If we want to improve public health, we need to look beyond the plate and reconnect the system from soil to gut.

Register to pre-order Lucy’s upcoming book, Soil to Gut: https://mailchi.mp/cfb2bb5b34ac/soiltogut

Connect with Lucy: https://lwnutrition.co.uk/

Food trends come and go, shaping what we eat and how we think about health. From plant-based to low-carb, with each new wave comes a surge of products designed to cash in. But behind the marketing, what does the evidence on health really say? And how do these trends relate to the realities of farming and food production? Joanna Blythman takes a closer look, through the lens of protein.

Suggest to the beefy blokes lifting weights in the gym that ‘high protein’ is merely the latest food-fad, and they’ll put you right. They have long seen a high protein diet as the only way to build muscle and need no persuading that a daily plate of steak and eggs could only be a good thing. But in recent years, high protein diets have crossed over from the sports nutrition domain to capture a much wider market, one with a more feminine demographic.

We were probably ready for that change of message. The ubiquitous ‘plant-based’ trend peaked in 2021 and has been losing ground ever since; UK plant-based food sales fell 4.5% in the year to January 2025.

Veganism, its most extreme incarnation, is right off the boil. An eating pattern that always appealed more to women than men, its Waterloo moment in the UK, came last year when the former head of communications at Veganuary quit her role to advocate a shift away from veganism to ‘less and better’ meat-eating. The proposition that populations would eventually transition to a diet free of animal-sourced foods proved to be a harder sell than its ardent proponents had hoped.

But another significant factor powering the taste for high protein is the arrival on the market of GLP-1 weight loss drugs, such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro. Available from GPs, or unsupervised over the internet, these drugs suppress appetite and reduce overall calorie intake, but they also cause loss of lean muscle mass.

Nutrition advisers of a ‘Keto’ inclination have habitually stressed the value of protein-rich foods as a means to feel fuller longer. But now that so many people – once again, a majority of them women – use weight loss drugs, higher protein intake is advanced as the prescription for muscle repair during periods of rapid, drug-induced weight loss. “Muscle mummies”, who are full of the joys of a high protein diet combined with resistance training, attract more social media ‘likes’ than ‘cardio bunnies’ who remain loyal to Zumba and low-fat as the formula for weight control and health.

Perhaps it’s a reaction to the plant-based craze, but more people now seem to understand the fact that animal-sourced foods – meat, fish, dairy and eggs – are typically nutrient-dense, much higher in protein, weight for weight, than plant-sourced foods. Furthermore, it is gradually becoming more widely appreciated that the protein in meat, dairy, eggs and fish is more ‘complete’ in terms of providing the nine essential amino acids we need, in their most easily absorbable, digestible forms; the Sustainable Food Trust’s Grazing Livestock report has noted that, “…grass-fed meat and dairy tend to have superior nutritional profiles compared to their grain-fed equivalents”.

The Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS), endorsed by the FAO as the most accurate method of assessing protein quality, measures amino acid absorption in the small intestine. By this score, animal proteins (meat, egg, dairy, fish) score higher than plant proteins. On the DIAAS scale, beef and eggs, for instance, score 1.22 and 1.12 respectively, while kidney beans and oats score 0.61 and 0.44 respectively.

Soy is one of the highest-quality plant proteins, with a DIAAS score of 0.92, but consumer attitudes towards it are mixed, with taste preferences and perceptions varying widely across populations.

The role protein plays in supporting hormonal health, by regulating our appetite and stress hormones, has now emerged as a talking point. In women’s health circles, where the perimenopause and health in ageing are big issues, protein is commonly discussed as a strategy to combat muscle loss, stabilise metabolism, manage weight and maintain bone health, as oestrogen declines. The logic here is that women need to get less energy from carbohydrates and fats, and more from protein, to compensate for the biological changes that occur at menopause.

Over the years, government ‘healthy eating’ guidance has told us that overconsumption of fat is making us sick and obese. The low-carb lobby has argued back that carbohydrates, so rapidly digested as sugar, are the real culprit – not fat. Enter the ‘Protein Leverage Effect’ theory. It focuses on the satiating effect of protein and postulates the idea that without an adequate proportion of protein, the body’s drive to reach its target protein intake will make us continue to over-eat unnecessary energy from fats and carbs until we get the protein we need.

Heightened awareness of protein’s critical role in maintaining good health is, of course, good news for livestock farmers. UK meat sales saw a substantial upswing in 2025. We spent £500 million more on meat products.

Meat is off the naughty step, at last. The ‘yuk’ reaction towards meat has taken another knock from soaring interest in bone broth. Our grandmothers and great-grandmothers always had a stock pot of bones and carcasses bubbling away and saw that precious liquid as a foundation for good health. Bone broth contains collagen, which breaks down into gelatine during cooking, providing amino acids that are essential for joint health, gut lining integrity and connective tissue repair, along with useful micronutrients – magnesium, potassium and more – and fat-soluble vitamins from the bone marrow. As the currently strong growth in demand for ready-made bone broth products shows, previously squeamish meat avoiders can nevertheless be persuaded to purchase 500 ml of liquid bone broth at £7 a time, or keep powdered bone broth beside the kettle. Might concentrated powdered bone broth be the new Bovril?

But it is minimally processed dairy products, such as Skyr, that have benefited particularly handsomely from the protein quest. Witness the fortunes of cottage cheese. For decades, it looked like a legacy product from the 1960s, but now, powered by a TikTok buzz, cottage cheese is hot, hot, hot.

Grahams, the Scottish family, reported cottage cheese sales growth of 40%, just in 2024 alone. Propelled by the appetite for protein, its new Protein Cottage Cheese, with 25% more protein than standard cottage cheese, is flying off the shelves.

Manufacturers of ultra-processed foods are, naturally, only too glad to surf the protein wave. A ‘high protein’ label is the latest way to imbue products that least deserve it, with a halo of health. So, you can buy high protein everything, from crisps and energy bars, through meal replacement shakes and smoothies, to pizza dough and wraps.

A closer look at the composition of M&S’s High Protein Chocolate Porridge gives a flavour of the less processed products of this type.

It contains more than 21% sugar, which qualifies as high in sugar by even the most forgiving dietetic measure. It also contains chicory fibre (inulin). Fibre, in particular chicory fibre, is having a moment in some weight loss circles and is used in many ultra-processed food formulations, not exclusively high protein ones. But it can produce bloating, gas and other irritable bowel symptoms, particularly when taken in large doses in the form of supplements and powders.

Most high-protein supplements and snacks are based on concentrated ingredients, such as whey protein isolate, milk protein concentrate, pea protein isolates and soy fractions. Inclusion in a formulation of these hyper-processed substances allow manufacturers to keep the protein-seekers happy, but their creations lack the pleasing taste and texture of protein found in natural forms. Protein isolates can make products overly dry and chalky, with a challenging dense texture. Like soy, they often taste bitter. At this point, food technologists and product developers reach for emulsifiers, stabilisers, sweeteners and flavourings to make them palatable. Meanwhile the marketing departments are hard at work, positioning such novel creations as convenient tools for sating appetites and building muscle.

But there is no robust research on how these highly synthesised, industrial forms of protein might impact on human health in the long term. It’s more than likely that such new-fangled protein forms won’t be as well adapted to our body needs as protein in its more traditional forms.

So, should we be cynical about the high protein trend? It has to be said that our forebears were well aware that protein ‘keeps you going longer’, as they put it. The costliness of protein foods was the only reason they saw to restrict their consumption. But now over 50% of the food we eat in the UK is ultra-processed. If that mirrors your diet, watch out for any high protein sales pitch designed to convince you that the product you’re buying is great for you when, in fact, it is anything but.

Yet for people who cook for themselves routinely and actively avoid ultra-processed products, this current focus on protein is surely welcome. The prominence of protein in diet debates demonstrates that many more of us are now actively seeking out nutrient density, as opposed to counting carbs. That’s a welcome corrective to the stale plant-based, vegan fixation. Protein’s prominence puts animal-sourced foods back at the heart of our diets, which is where they always used to be.

To find out more about how we can produce nutrient-dense foods from sustainable livestock farming, read our report, Grazing Livestock: It’s not the cow but the how.

In the 1970s there were 2,500 abattoirs in the UK – today there are only 203. Wicked Leeks’s Anna Zuurmond takes a closer look at the ways in which farmers have been affected by the loss of their local abattoir, as well as what this means for consumers and access to higher-welfare, organic meat.

This article was originally published in Wicked Leeks magazine.

The number of abattoirs in the UK has diminished from 2,500 in the 1970s to just 203 today, meaning animals are travelling further and longer to slaughter and fewer farmers are able to sell quality meat direct to consumers.

A recent survey of over 850 farmers by the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT) found that many small farmers would struggle to sell direct to consumers if their local abattoir were to close – smaller abattoirs offer services like private kill, where farmers’ own meat is returned to them by the abattoir for them to sell.

In the absence of this service, many farmers would be forced to sell their meat directly into wholesale markets, which over 58 per cent of farmers in the SFT’s survey deemed to be unprofitable for their business; the knock-on effect then being that consumers have less access to quality local meat.

The survey found that, as a direct result of small abattoir closure forcing them to use larger facilities, 18 per cent of farmers have already been forced to sell off their livestock, and almost a fifth of organically certified respondents (19%) said they have had to stop selling their meat as organic due to lack of access to organic abattoir services.

Challacombe farm, based on Duchy of Cornwall land on Dartmoor, Devon, has 20 Welsh Black Bullock cows and 200 Shetland X Icelandic sheep, a small, hardy and non-commercial rare breed which they keep mainly to manage their land.

They use local abattoir Gages, just nine miles down the road in Buckfastleigh, for all of their private kill, and then send on the skins to Devonia Sheepskins tannery, a further two miles down the road and the oldest tannery in Britain, to be made into rugs.

“The only journey the animals take off the farm is to the abattoir, and we know exactly what happens to them,” said farm co-owner Mark Owen, who runs the farm with his wife, Naomi Oakley.

Meanwhile, 10 per cent of the 850 farmers surveyed travelled more than 60 miles with their livestock, and many voiced concerns about how, if animal travel time to abattoir increased, it would undermine high on-farm welfare standards, which consumers also want and are willing to pay more for.

“The local abattoir is essential. We take the sheep in the morning, in the afternoon the skins are ready to pick up. You go down there and you see how hard everyone is working, the care that is taken, nothing is hanging around for too long, it’s very quiet in the holding pens – no banging and crashing,” said Owen.

Challacombe Farm’s livestock is organic and 100% grass-fed, with welfare approved by ‘A Greener World’, a strict certification only given when livestock have all-year-round access to fields.

As a result of their local abattoir, which they travel to most weeks, and the tannery next door, Challacombe is able to sell skins and meat direct to people “who understand how we produce [our meat], the impact on the environment, and animal welfare”.

The Lang family, who have run Gages abattoir alongside Dartmoor Butchers for more than 80 years through multiple generations, explained how they offer a mixture of private kill to local farmers, particularly rare breeds, as well as selling local farm meat at their Butchers, and to Riverford.

“Obviously we have complete control in what we’re getting”, said the Lang family, “we didn’t want to start just buying in stuff. We’ve always done our own thing.”

Succession issues

One of the greatest challenges to both their abattoir and Butchers is staffing, particularly with finding young people who are interested, and the Langs said this is something that is “unlikely to improve”.

The average age of abattoir owners in the UK is between 60-70, and getting young people into the industry and succession planning has been a key issue for many small abattoirs, and a factor in the closure of some.

Everything from the lairage, where livestock are held in pens before slaughter, to moving animals and carcasses, makes working in an abattoir a very physically demanding role, particularly with an ageing workforce, even with mechanisation of certain elements.

There are specialised government-funded meat apprenticeships for roles such as butchers, meat processors and abattoir technicians, however between 2019-2025 only 22 abattoir apprentices completed their apprenticeships (just five a year) despite the fact that 82 per cent of abattoirs and butchers said they would welcome an apprentice according to a 2023 National Craft Butchers survey.

A big part of the battle, perhaps unsurprisingly, is making the meat sector an attractive place for young people to want to work, despite the fact it’s a highly skilled job.

Sarah Dyke, Lib Dem MP for Glastonbury and Somerton, who is responsible for securing a debate in parliament for small abattoirs, said: “There should be more on the curriculum on food and farming – all that connection with food, but with rearing animals as well.”

Perhaps abattoir trips for school children would be a step too far, but some kind of secondary school education on how meat is produced is integral to an understanding of food provenance as well as forming a surer route into the meat industry and its potential career paths.

Sheepskins for sale

The falling price that abattoirs get for sheepskins and hides has also been a key driver in small abattoir collapse. The Lang family told me that 15 years ago, you would get £6-8 for a sheepskin, whereas now you have to pay £1.60 per skin to have them taken away, whilst cow hides have reduced from around £45-50 per hide to £4-5 in the last 15 years.

Over this short period of time, skins and hides have gone from a valuable byproduct, that many farmers say covered the operational costs of slaughter, to an additional cost-to-bear for farmers, particularly as collectors and renderers charge small abattoirs more to carry out small scale collections of skins and hides.

The Langs commented on how this is largely a result of the Chinese and Turkish markets which account for 84 per cent of the value of all worldwide sheepskin exports, adding that, “There’s no UK market for it now.”

As a result of this cost, only around 1 per cent of UK sheepskins are believed to be used, with over 15 million discarded every year, and some abattoirs even paying for hide shredders to effectively dispose of it themselves.

Owen told me how people “absolutely love” their organic sheepskin rugs, produced at Devonia Sheepskins, one of few remaining of 21 UK tanneries; a small-scale example which shows how skins and hides could be viewed as a valuable and beautiful byproduct once again and help the meat industry close that loop.

This is before we factor in the other costs that consumers don’t see – all the waste, such as entrails, that gets sent to renderers to be processed into biofuel and pet food, as well as the compulsory staining and later incineration of certain parts of the animals for disease prevention.

Whilst it’s not the loveliest conversation to have over your Sunday roast, it’s another reason, along with how an animal is reared, that a consumer may consider paying a bit more for your small-scale butcher-bought lamb that was killed in a small abattoir, rather than something that was both industrially produced and killed.

Support for local abattoirs

A huge win for abattoirs this year was the retention of the FSA (Food Standards Agency) 90 per cent discount on veterinary charges for small abattoirs – a massive relief when the hourly rate of on-site vets, who must oversee the abattoir at all times, increased by 17.7 per cent in 2025 alone.

Now the Abattoir Sector Group (ASG) are calling for more ring-fenced funding support for this sector.

This could include the reopening of the Small Abattoir Fund, a £4m budget opened under the conservatives, of which just over a 1m has ever been allocated, and has now been discontinued.

This is particularly important in keeping small famers in business, but also in keeping prices of quality meat accessible for consumers, with one third of farmers surveyed by the SFT saying they will have to push meat price hikes onto consumers if slaughtering charges by the FSA continue to rise.

Sarah Dyke MP has said that the whole relationship with the FSA must go further:

“I want to see a marked change in the FSA’s relationship with these businesses. Yes, of course food safety is paramount but we’ve got to look at it differently. Small abattoirs do a different job to high output abattoirs. They deal with rare breeds, organic, bespoke slaughtering – that job needs to be recognised.”

She criticised the punitive nature of surprise arbitrary inspections by the FSA, and the lack of administrative co-operation in working with smaller businesses.

“You need big abattoirs for supermarkets and small abattoirs for small producers”, says Mark Owen from Challacombe, as a larger facility is not designed to take the 2-3 animals that he’ll bring to slaughter.

This debate becomes paramount as we see an influx of international trade deals on meat, including a trade deal with the US that will lift tariffs and open up the UK market to US beef, whilst ASDA has proudly started stocking Uruguayan beef.

These threaten to undercut the prices of UK meat, just as milk and butter imports did in late autumn last year, causing a tumbling farmgate price, and many consumers unknowingly buying US butter and milk from supermarkets.

It’s therefore all the more integral that we support our local infrastructure – from farm to abattoir, to butcher, to tannery – and ensure that the small businesses working together to provide consumers with high-welfare British meat will not become a figment of the past.

 

To find out more about the SFT’s work with local abattoirs, click here.

Featured image by Christian Kay.

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.

In February 2026, a new Prison Food Policy framework comes into force for all prisons across England and Wales. SFT’s Senior Research Officer, Imogen Crossland, takes a closer look at the framework and explores what it could mean for the quality and procurement of the food served in prisons.

For years, prison inspections have painted a bleak picture of the food served behind bars, with serious and wide-ranging consequences for those who eat it. Unlike schools or hospitals, prisons are responsible for providing virtually all the food that people eat, often for months or years at a time. What ends up on the plate, therefore, matters enormously.

However, for the past 16 years, the guidance available to prison governors and their catering teams has been shockingly minimal. A four-page document published in 2010 set out plenty of food safety regulations, but as far as the meals themselves were concerned, the advice was lifted from the ‘Prison Rules’ legislation written in 1999: 

“The food provided shall be wholesome, nutritious, well prepared and served, reasonably varied and sufficient in quantity.”

Unsurprisingly, this did little to guarantee a healthy, balanced and enjoyable diet for people in prison.

That may now be about to change. In July 2025, the Government published an updated Food in Prisons Policy Framework, due to take effect in February 2026. The new document is ten pages long, accompanied by a 106-page guidance manual. While the document’s length does not guarantee better food on the plate, clearly a little more thought has gone into it this time around.

Bonnie Welch, Head of Projects, and Megan Perry, Head of Policy and Campaigns, reflect on this year’s Oxford Real Farming Conference. Attending alongside colleagues from the Sustainable Food Trust and Global Farm Metric teams, they capture the energy, ideas and practical insights that emerged from sessions, workshops and conversations across ORFC.

Ultra-processed foods are everywhere – and now some of the world’s biggest food companies are being called to account. Victoria Halliday, the Sustainable Food Trust’s Communications Manager, looks at the evidence behind the health risks, cultural impacts and rising scrutiny of these products.

Recently, the city of San Francisco sued 10 leading food makers over their ultra-processed products. The accusation is that these companies are knowingly selling foods that have been linked to a rise in serious diseases, with comparisons being made to the tobacco industry. These ultra-processed foods (UPFs) make up an ever-increasing proportion of our diets – now accounting for over half of the food we’re eating in the UK and 60% in the US. Given that the latest research shows UPFs are associated with rising ill-health across the globe – from heart disease to depression – this raises urgent questions.

While our appetite for highly processed products is seemingly growing, it’s encouraging that the subject of better food and farming is breaking into both mainstream and fringe cultural discourse, from prime-time TV to post-punk poetry. Confrontational ‘no-wave’ poet and musician, Lydia Lunch (pictured), speaks of how heavily processed foods mean “we end up consuming so much poison”, while Happy Mondays’ lead singer, Bez, talks about replacing processed juices with fresh oranges, “preferably organic so there’s no pesticide sh*t in them”. And the issue is being covered through more mainstream channels too – from Joe Wicks’ Licensed to Kill on Channel 4, to Tim Spector’s popular science work on gut health and diet.

These voices can be incredibly powerful in helping to shape opinions and behaviours – most of us are much more likely to pay attention to a cultural figure whose work or opinions resonate with us, than to the earnest words of NGOs, politicians or policy experts. But whoever might be delivering the message, the facts on UPFs are becoming hard to ignore. As San Francisco’s case makes its way through the courts, it highlights three core claims that sit at the heart of the growing challenge to ultra-processed foods.

1. They’re engineered to be addictive

UPFs are designed to reel us in and keep us hooked. Food companies pour vast sums into engineering foods – or “food-like substances” as author Michael Pollan refers to them – that light up our brains’ reward centres due to their ‘hyper-palatability’. Combinations of high levels of sugar, salt and fat, as well as softer textures and artificially intense flavours, lead to cravings and a desire to eat more – so we end up eating too many calories but not enough nutrients.

The corporations behind these ‘foods’ are using increasingly aggressive tactics to drive consumption, influence research and prevent regulation. Although these companies put a lot of resources into advertising, seeking to persuade us that we have endless choice and novelty, the proliferation of UPFs means that we are, in fact, finding ourselves with fewer and fewer real options – just picture a supermarket shelf stocked with 20 different brands of ultra-processed, plastic-wrapped bread.

While addiction and craving are baked into the UPF business model, we’re encouraged to push blame onto each other (and ourselves) for not making better food choices as individuals. Our personal choices are powerful, and we can advocate for the type of food system we want by directing our spending accordingly – but the reality is that ultra-processed foods make up an ever-increasing proportion of what is available to buy in many supermarkets, especially in lower-income areas. The finger-pointing narrative serves as a smokescreen, diverting our frustration away from those making vast profits at the expense of public health and wellbeing.

2. They’re harming our bodies – and more

UPFs have been linked to harm in all our major body organs. The Lancet recently published major new research showing that the more UPFs we eat, the more likely that we will suffer from obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, Crohn’s disease, kidney disease, depression and many more conditions that result in ill-health and mortality. Professor Carlos Monteiro, one of the Lancet series authors, says this latest evidence “strongly suggests that humans are not biologically adapted to consume [UPFs]”.

Of key importance is the impact that UPFs have upon our gut microbiome – an intricate community of around 100 trillion microbes that live in our intestines. This microbiome is a major modifiable factor in our health and wellbeing, as explained by Tim Spector on the SFT Podcast: “A lot of the chemicals in your brain that transmit mood – and other states like fullness and hunger – are produced as chemicals, as your microbes digest plants. [These chemicals] go up into the bloodstream, into your brain, into the vagus nerve and can make the difference between you feeling happy or sad.” As well as mood, our gut microbiome influences many other aspects of health, including immunity, metabolic health and disease prevention.

While consumption of gut-damaging UPFs is on the up, the amount of fresh produce we consume is falling – a big problem for the health of our gut microbiome which depends upon a wide diversity of fresh foods. Fresh foods that have been grown in healthy soils and without agrichemicals provide us with unique fibres, polyphenols, and nutrients that feed different beneficial gut microbes. Which leads us to…

3. They’re crowding real foods off our plates

UPFs are pushing whole foods off our plates. This is a pattern being repeated across the globe – with the UK and US leading the charge. The impact on our health alone should be reason enough to resist this trend, yet the effects extend beyond this.

Food processing used to be mainly concerned with preservation of whole foods, as well as making them easier to use in the kitchen. Processing techniques varied from place to place – from fermenting cabbage to produce kimchi in Korea, to jellying eels in London’s East End. Now, industrial food processing is increasingly aimed at creating food-derived substances that take the place of whole foods entirely.

Long-established methods like freezing, drying, canning, pasteurisation and salting, largely preserve the natural composition of foods, whereas UPF technologies significantly alter them, mixing in industrial additives like plant protein isolates, mechanically separated meat, modified starches and oils, artificial colours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners and emulsifiers.

As UPFs become ever more ubiquitous, they flatten regional food cultures, replacing distinctive local cuisines with the same globally standardised products. Food that once reflected place, season and tradition is reduced to a uniform commodity – weakening local food economies, eroding cooking skills and severing the connection between people and the land that feeds them.

Will 2026 dish up a moment of reckoning for UPFs?

So, as the evidence mounts against UPFs, what comes next? Putting limits on the influence and reach of UPF manufacturers through regulation and taxation is essential; the ban on pre-9pm junk food adverts, which came into effect this week, is a small but significant step forward.

The costs of the harm caused by these foods – or, at least, a significant proportion of those costs – needs to be borne by those who profit from them, not by the public, an approach that the SFT advocates through its True Cost Accounting work. We as citizens also need to be educated, encouraged and supported to make healthier food choices – and those healthy choices must become the easier, more affordable option.

While the outcome is yet to be decided, the San Francisco lawsuit marks a significant escalation in how local governments are challenging food industry practices on public health grounds and could be the beginning of serious change. With mounting evidence, stronger regulation and growing public awareness, UPF manufacturers may finally be facing a crunch point.

Interested to learn more about what’s in our food? We recommend this episode of the SFT Podcast where Patrick Holden and Stuart Oates discuss UPFs, chemicals in food and what we can do about it.

Image credits: Image 1 (Lydia Lunch): Creative Commons; Image 3 (serving food at market): Mike Swigunski

With Christmas approaching – a time for stories and renewed hope – Robert Barbour, Senior Research Manager at the Sustainable Food Trust, reflects on the six months since the launch of Grazing Livestock: It’s not the cow but the how. He examines why we urgently need the ability to imagine a different future for food and farming, and how a research-backed vision for such a future has drawn both praise and pushback.

Earlier this year, the SFT published a report looking at the debate surrounding grazing livestock. It was a labour of love (amongst other emotions) started by our late colleague and friend Richard Young, that set out to make the case that cattle and sheep actually have a hugely positive role to play in a future UK food system – one where farming practices and diets are based on the land’s ecological carrying capacity.

Since its publication, we’ve had some really engaging conversations on the issues the report covered. But with lengthening nights and the dismal advent of Christmas hyper-consumption having soured my mood this week, I’ve decided to instead tap into my inner Scrooge and reflect on some of the criticisms the report has received.

The critiques: Tough questions to consider

Most of these have posed some interesting challenges. Wouldn’t, for instance, a future that involves smaller amounts of sustainably produced meat and dairy send food prices soaring? By talking about the positives that grazing systems can deliver, or by arguing that ruminant methane is a nuanced topic, aren’t we just pushing ‘Big Livestock’ talking points? And even if our arguments do have some validity, they only apply to a fraction of the animals reared today, and therefore surely only serve to justify continued, unsustainable patterns of meat consumption?

These are important questions, which I don’t have the space to do justice to here. One key point to make, though, is that these critiques are not universally applicable in every context. Yes, arguments for nuance around methane, for instance, are abused by parts of the livestock sector – but this doesn’t mean they constitute industry denial in every instance. And yes, the pasture-based, low input ruminant systems the report argues for only supply a small percentage of the meat and dairy we consume today – but that doesn’t mean that this need always be the case.

Is it all just “romantic cottagecore”?

If we’re going to emerge from our current siloes, we need to be much more open-minded and imaginative when it comes to the arguments presented by different sides in this debate, and in our ability to imagine food systems that are very different to today’s. And this leads on to the main criticism I’ve come across of our position, which is that the less intensive, generally lower yielding approach to livestock and food production that the SFT supports is disconnected from reality – “romantic cottagecore” as George Monbiot dismissively put it.

It’s true that the vision we set out will be challenging to realise. A wholesale transition to agroecological farming practices, where livestock production is centred on pasture-based systems of mainly cattle and sheep, is not going to happen overnight. Achieving this whilst also aligning our diets to what we can sustainably produce, and in so doing reducing the amount of meat and dairy most of us consume, will be even trickier.

Taking a more strategic view

I completely disagree, however, that campaigning for a move towards this vision is naïve or detached from reality. For a start, making the case for a more agroecological future isn’t just about fostering better lives for the people, livestock and wildlife that live in our farmed landscapes (though these things are clearly worth fighting for in and of themselves). There are big strategic reasons for supporting this transition, too. Take the reintegration of grazed temporary grass and clover ‘leys’ into arable rotations. We know that this can bring all sorts of environmental benefits. But what’s probably less often considered is how valuable a role this transition could play in improving the long-term viability of arable production, by making it more resilient to climate-related shocks, and much less reliant on the energy- and fossil fuel-intensive inputs we are going to have to wean ourselves off moving forwards, whether we like it or not.

This strategic value also applies to the nutritional contribution of grazing animals. Contrary to what is often argued, this could be really significant, not just because of the quantity of key nutrients that could be produced, but also, crucially, because this would be a supply of nutrients from a feed source – forage – that humans can’t consume. And this means we’re talking here about animals which complement, rather than compete with, the crops produced from our finite and degraded arable area, unlike animals reared in heavily grain-fed, industrial systems. Again, this is a service that is only likely to become more valuable as climate change and its associated shocks increase the probability of major disruptions to domestic crop production and global agrifood trade.

Some would say that that’s all well and good, but that it doesn’t change the fact that realising this approach to livestock production and the smaller amounts of high-quality meat and dairy it would necessitate is wishful thinking. They have a point – getting people to change their diets requires overcoming all sorts of deeply embedded institutional and cultural barriers. But this is the case with any sufficiently transformative vision of a sustainable future food system! Take a future where all animal-sourced foods are replaced with analogues created through precision fermentation or other cultured techniques. It’s sometimes argued that this represents a much more plausible route to getting people to change their diets because, in effect, they’d still be eating the same foods – it’s just that they’d come from a vat rather than an animal. But is that really the case? As far as I can see, this represents a dietary shift every bit as radical and difficult to sell as the sort we support – in fact, arguably more so.

What about ‘sustainable intensification’?

The immense difficulty of the diet challenge is partly why others argue that making industrial livestock systems ever more ‘efficient’, to sate the planet’s growing demand for meat as ‘sustainably’ as possible, is the only plausible solution here. But even if we set aside the massive environmental and ethical challenges this poses, this vision also comes with big question marks over its future viability. Climate change and its associated geopolitical shocks are already having major impacts on the food system, and as these worsen, the input- and import-heavy intensive cropping systems which industrial livestock production relies on are only going to become more vulnerable – perhaps even untenable. We also know that we need to get fossil fuels out of the food system fast, and this will have massive implications for the production, and potentially availability, of the synthetic fertilisers and pesticides that form the lifeblood of industrial agriculture. It’s safe to say that the potential ramifications of this have not yet been widely enough grasped.

A realistic agroecological future – and what’s needed to get there

In short, I don’t think an agroecological future, where grazing animals play a central role, is any more implausible than the other more commonly supported visions of a sustainable food system. Neither is it a ‘fairytale’ – grazing animals can help improve the resilience of a UK food system that faces all sorts of major threats to its food security, in various ways.

There is a hugely positive story to tell here, in some ways more positive, I’d argue, than the livestock-free narrative, certainly when it comes to speaking to the farming community. And that matters, given we very obviously need farmers to be a key part of any transition. I think a lot of people and organisations realise this – it’s hugely encouraging, for instance, to see an increasing number of conservation groups showcasing pasture-based and organic livestock farms as examples of what sustainable meat and dairy production looks like in practice. All too often, though, there still seems to be a disconnect between the positioning of pasture-based livestock systems – and indeed, agroecological farming practices more generally – as case studies of sustainability on the one hand; but then, on the other, the promotion of policies or recommendations that actively work against the adoption of these systems at scale. The EAT-Lancet commission’s latest report is a recent example of this. It contains a lot of really good stuff, including positive words around the need for a shift towards agroecology. Frustratingly, though, some of its agricultural modelling assumptions (e.g. increased yields in regions where these are already high) and dietary recommendations (e.g. greater levels of chicken in the diet than red meat) are just not consistent with what a shift towards agroecology would look like in reality.

This criticism is perhaps a bit nit-picky, especially when most livestock production – irrespective of species – still has so many problems. The point, however, is that if we do want to support agroecology at scale, as many organisations say they do, then there needs to be much more clarity and joined-up thinking across all food system actors than is the case today, including of course, around the need to support a transition to low input, pasture-based grazing systems.

How do we do this? There are obviously lots of things to say here, but I’ll finish by focussing on the critical importance of measurement. Sustainability is still so often understood largely, or even solely, through the narrow lens of carbon and land use intensity metrics, that don’t just overlook a wide range of key public goods but also provide a very incomplete picture of actual climate and land use impact. Unless we develop and adopt more holistic measures of sustainability, we will find it impossible to create a food system that truly delivers for people, the planet and the landscapes that we rely upon.

You can learn more about the role of livestock in a sustainable food system by downloading our Grazing Livestock report.

What’s in your food and how can you eat better? In this series, we look at some staple meals, considering what’s good for you and what’s maybe not – and how you can turn them into dishes that are healthier, better for the planet and alive with flavour.

Christmas Pudding is an enduring favourite for dessert at the end of the Christmas meal. But what it is today, is a long way from where it began, somewhere around the 14^th century. For starters, it included varied meats along with grains and it was cooked in a thickened broth called ‘frumenty’ which could include a range of ingredients, both savoury and sweet along with wine and spirits. It was traditionally aligned with reference to Christ and the twelve apostles, with thirteen ingredients in the recipe.

Through its history, it has evolved into a tastier and sweeter version, much thanks to the Victorians. The Nineteenth century cook Eliza Acton is credited with developing the first proper recipe for Christmas Pudding, appearing in her cookbook Modern Cookery for Private Families. Making your own Christmas Pudding isn’t as difficult as you might think, and it’s well worth having a go at it, because the ones bought in the supermarket are likely to have a number of not-so-good ingredients – almost all of the supermarket Christmas Puddings have palm oil and vegetable glycerol, along with emulsifiers such as E471 and E472e. And though organic versions are much better, you’d be surprised by what can slip in. In fact, many shop-bought puddings fall into the realm of ultra-processed food (UPF) – a category describing foods that are branded, commercial formulations made from cheap ingredients combined with additives, and mostly containing little to no whole foods. A recent study published in The Lancet reports that increased consumption of UPFs is driving multiple diet-related chronic diseases on a global scale.

There are myriad variant recipes for Christmas Pudding, but traditionally it started with mixed dried fruits and nuts playing an important role. Both are high in fibre and polyphenols, and they can sweeten food without the added sugar. They are also rich in antioxidants, and further, the spices in Christmas Pudding have both anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial properties, so you can feel good about your dessert! Suet is used in most Christmas Puddings to meld the mixture together and it’s generally easy to get from a good butcher. For vegetarians it’s a little trickier as vegetable suet can contain highly processed ingredients – but opting for organic and avoiding formulations that contain hydrogenated vegetable oil can help to steer you towards healthier, more sustainable variants.

Recipes

Here are three home recipes to try this Christmas, each offering a slightly different take – from a tried-and-tested classic to a pudding that makes the most of in-season fruit.

1. This Christmas pudding recipe from BBC Good Food takes a classic approach
2. This steamed pudding uses quince as the fruit – currently in-season in the UK
3. This recipe from Doves Farm is a nice alternative to the traditional Christmas favourite

 

To read the other articles in our ‘Making More of Your Meal’ series, click here.

With water an ongoing issue in California’s San Joaquin Valley, ranchers have stepped in to rethink how to restore the land, in valuable and creative ways. At the centre of this are cattle who play a key role in reviving native and non-native grasses, along with innovative farmers exploring diverse opportunities – from firebreaks to solar farm management.

The San Joaquin Valley stretches some 400 kilometres from California’s capital Sacramento to Bakersfield in the south. With its mild climate and fertile soils, the Valley is one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions; some 250 crops can be grown here, from lettuce to carrots, garlic, onions, melons and peppers and, most important of all, almonds. However, nothing grows without irrigation – the climate is semi-arid. California’s highly complex water system consists of hundreds of dams and reservoirs to catch rainwater and snow melt: a network of canals that measures roughly 6,500 kilometres distributes water to farms and cities like Los Angeles and San Diego.

In the past decades, California has seen long periods of drought. Farmers who could afford it paid for additional wells, some as deep as 400 meters. Thousands of these wells reach into the aquifer like straws, sucking it dry very quickly. Over-pumping has led to subsidence, causing roads to buckle and buildings to crack. To preserve what’s left of the groundwater, California has passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). From 2040, well owners can only pump as much water from the ground as can be recharged during the rainy winter months.

The consequences for agriculture in the Valley are stark: at least 20% of agricultural land will have to be fallowed for lack of water, and some estimates are even higher. But according to a recent study by the University of California Merced, the frequency of dust storms has already increased. Leaving ground bare on up to 900,000 acres, would be catastrophic.

Cows to the rescue

Before European settlers arrived in the 19th century, the San Joaquin Valley used to be a sea of grass, grazed not by bison, but Pronghorns and Tule elks. The native grasses were well adapted, and in winter, cold season grasses flourished, while in summer, heat tolerant warm season varieties dominated, and some grasses even tolerated highly saline soils on the west side of the valley. Could these grasses be reintroduced and could ranching make a comeback?

Diane Bohna is a fifth-generation rancher. In 2021, she rented 7,600 acres of land from UC Merced; the land was over grazed, showing more bare patches than remnants of grass. Bohna was an early adopter of Allan Savory’s principles of holistic management, and now, just three years later, 320 cow-calf pairs and a few bulls munch their way through a sea of knee-high grasses. “In the first year, we were lucky and got a wet winter,” says Bohna. There was still a seedbank of native grasses in the soil, and having the cattle graze them right – ‘bunched’ as a tight group and for a short period of time – helped re-establish those grasses. The animals will stay over winter, and during the summer months Bohna and her crew drive them to high altitude pastures in the Sierras on horseback, like the cowboys of old.