The National Food Strategy

Independent Review
THE
PLAN.
Contents
Introduction 4
Executive summary 9
1. Why it matters 13
The Health of the Planet 15
Our Health 24
2. Systems thinking 29
3. How did we get here? 37
4. Escaping the Junk Food Cycle 43
5. Inequality 56
6. Exposing the invisibility of nature 64
7. Food and climate 71
8. The complexities of meat 79
9. A nature-positive, carbon-negative food system 85
10. A Three Compartment Model 95
11. Can we have it all? 105

The National Food Strategy: The Plan – July 2021
12. At what price? 111
13. The protein transition 119
14. Food security 128
15. Trade 135
16. The Plan 140
Chapter references 165
2
Appendices 192
Appendix 1 – Recommendation 1 193

Introduce a sugar and salt reformulation tax. Use some of the revenue to help get fresh fruit
and vegetables to low income families.
Introduce mandatory reporting for large food companies.
Launch a new “Eat and Learn” initiative for schools.
Extend eligibility for free school meals.
Fund the Holiday Activities and Food programme for the next three years.
Expand the Healthy Start scheme.
Trial a “Community Eatwell” programme, supporting those on low incomes to improve their diets.
Guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help farmers transition
to more sustainable land use.
Create a rural land use framework based on the Three Compartment Model.
Define minimum standards for trade, and a mechanism for protecting them.
Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system.
Create a National Food System Data programme.
Strengthen Government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy
and sustainable food.
Set clear targets and bring in legislation for long-term change.
Appendix 15 – Acknowledgments 264
Appendix 16 – Who we have met 268
Appendix 17 – Additional reading list 275
Appendix 18 – Terms of Reference 276
Appendix 19 – The problems of BMI measurement in children 278
Appendix 20 – Call for Evidence 280
Glossary 282
Acronyms 286
3
Introduction
In July of last year, I published Part One of the been lucky enough to work with a dedicated and
National Food Strategy, a Government-commissioned extraordinary group of civil servants and consultants,
independent review into the food system. This had led by the indefatigable Tamsin Cooper. Together, we
originally been intended as a broad analysis of the have spent the past two years travelling the country,
strengths and flaws of the entire food system from holding Zoom meetings, talking to people from all
farm to fork, with Part Two following on behind with over the food system, crunching numbers, digging
recommendations. But COVID-19 intervened, and Part into research, questioning received wisdoms, running
One became instead an urgent response to the issues mathematic models and inspecting policy ideas for
of hunger and ill health raised by the pandemic, as hidden bear traps. I usually refer to “us” and “we” in
well as the trade and food standards issues created this report because it has been such a collaborative
by the end of the EU Exit transition period. effort.
Part One contained seven specific recommendations, In the course of researching this strategy, we – the
intended to help the most disadvantaged families eat National Food Strategy team – conducted extensive
well, protect the UK’s high food standards and ensure interviews with people at the sharp end of the food
proper scrutiny of any trade deals. The Government system. We also held “deliberative dialogues” with
has already agreed to implement four of those. I will citizens across the country to establish what changes
be returning to the other three in this report. the public is willing to embrace. The recommendations
(Please see the box on page 5 for details.) we have put together are intended to create the kind
of food system the people of this country say they
For Part Two, I have returned to the original brief. In want – and need.
these pages, we will take a close look at how the
food system really works, the damage it is doing to The food system we have now has evolved over
our bodies and our ecosystem, and the interventions many years. It won’t be easy to reshape it. But time
we could make to prevent these harms. We will is not on our side. The effects of climate change are
consider the characteristics of complex systems and already becoming apparent around the world. Diet-
the mechanisms that cause system failures. And we related disease is putting an intolerable strain on our
will set out a strategy for the future, based not just nation’s health and finances – and COVID-19 has only
on rigorous science but on the needs and wishes of increased the pressure. For our own health, and that
ordinary citizens. of our planet, we must act now.
In writing this strategy, I have been able to call

upon the research, commitment, energy and insight
of academics, farmers, scientists, business leaders,
charity workers, politicians and experts from many
fields, some of whom are on our Advisory Panel
(see Acknowledgements, p. 264). Above all, I have
4
Government’s response
to Part One
The Government has already acted on four of the •T
he Government adopted the recommendation
seven recommendations in Part One of the National that it should commission an independent
Food Strategy: report on any proposed trade agreement,
assessing its impact on economic productivity,
• The Government extended the Holiday Activities food safety and public health, the environment
and Food programme (HAF) to all areas in and climate change, society and labour, human
England for the duration of 2021. These holiday rights and animal welfare; and that this report
clubs will run four days a week for four weeks should be presented alongside a Government
over the summer, and again this Christmas. They response when any final trade treaty is laid
provide hot food, cooking lessons, sports and before Parliament.
fun activities for children, as well as advice for
families and carers on how to source, prepare and The Government has not implemented two of
cook nutritious, low-cost food. They are free to the other recommendations on trade. It has not
all children in receipt of free school meals (FSM). committed to giving preferential tariffs to food
The majority of local authorities are also making products which meet our core standards, nor
these clubs available to children who aren’t eligible to giving Parliament the time and opportunity
for FSM, for a small fee. The Government has to properly scrutinise any new trade deal.
made a total of £220 million available to fund HAF The first of these is particularly concerning, and
programmes in 2021.1 we return to it in Chapter 15. The Government
appears to be heading in a direction on trade that
• The Government increased the value of Healthy not only means it will break its own manifesto
Start vouchers from £3.10 to £4.25 per week.2 commitments, it will undermine the huge efforts it
Parents or carers of babies under 12 months now is making domestically to mitigate climate change,
receive two Healthy Start vouchers per week restore nature and improve animal welfare.
to spend on vitamins, fruit, vegetables and milk.
Several national supermarket chains have also The Government has not implemented the
stepped forward to supplement the value of the recommendation to expand the eligibility for
vouchers. For example, Sainsbury’s agreed to top the free school meal scheme to include every
up the vouchers by a further £2, Waitrose by £1.50 child (up to the age of 16) from a household where
and Tesco, Iceland and Co-op by £1.3 a parent or guardian is in receipt of Universal
Credit, or equivalent benefits. We return to this in
• The Government agreed to continue collecting, Chapter 16.
assessing, and monitoring data on the number
of people suffering from food insecurity.
The Department for Work and Pensions has
established a Cost of Living Roundtable, where
food vulnerability is discussed (alongside other
issues affecting those living in poverty) across
Government. The UK Food Security Assessment
and DWP’s Family Resource Survey has also been
updated to cover the issue of household food
security.
5
Our scope
England and the United Kingdom No form of fishing has caused more harm than
Introduction
bottom trawling. Since the 1890s, when fossil-

The Terms of Reference for this report set its fuel powered bottom trawling began, there
geographic scope as England but ask us also has been a staggering decline in overall fish
to consider our “relationship with the devolved abundance. Cod landings have declined by
administrations, the European Union and our other 87%, hake by 95%. For halibut, the decline is a
trading partners”. Policy responsibility for food and catastrophic 99.8%.5 To put this in perspective,
health is largely devolved to Scotland, Wales and in the 1830s small sailing vessels around the
Northern Ireland. The notable exceptions are trade, Dogger Bank could catch a tonne of halibut per
taxation and welfare. day. Today, all fishing across the entire Dogger
Bank lands less than two tonnes of halibut a
However, our food systems are so tightly year.6
interwoven as to be in places inextricable: for
example, almost 600 farms straddle England’s Recent research suggests that, as well as
borders with Scotland or Wales. So we have causing biodiversity collapse, stirring up the
worked closely with, and learned much from, the seabed releases large quantities of so-called
food strategy teams of the devolved authorities. “blue carbon” from marine sediments, which
I hope they might in turn find some useful ideas in would otherwise remain locked away in the
this document. seabed.7
The UK is already proposing to establish Marine

Food vs Drink Protected Areas (MPAs) covering nearly half of
the UK’s territorial waters.8 Similar preservation
The strategy covers the production, marketing, areas in Scotland and South Africa have seen fish
processing, sale and purchase of food and non- stocks recover fast.9 But they are not without
alcoholic drinks for consumption in the home and their opponents. According to the National
out of it. Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations,
the MPAs are being implemented as part of
an “insanely rushed” policy10 – a “blitzkrieg
The Oceans approach” – run by “a cohort of environmental
zealots”.11
In this report we have concentrated our energies
on the two most urgent problems embedded in the Inevitably, both camps have some pertinent
food system: what we have termed the Junk Food insights. Changing the way we use our oceans
Cycle and the Invisibility of Nature. Addressing the will be a huge transition. It will require a similarly
nuanced, and diverse, approach to the one we
harms caused just by these destructive feedback

loops, particularly against our most deprived are proposing for the land.
communities, is a daunting task.
We have deliberately narrowed our focus onto the Allergens

land, but there is a parallel story to be told about
the seas. One of the less-discussed symptoms of our
flawed food system is the extraordinary rise in
Between 1970 and 2012, global marine biodiversity food allergies.
is estimated to have fallen by 49%. That means
that nearly half of all our marine mammals, birds, There has been a 338% increase in children’s
reptiles and fish species have experienced a A&E admissions caused by food allergies since
substantial loss in a relatively short space of time.4
6
1998.12 There are now two million people in the UK work necessary to create a sustainable domestic
suffering from food allergies (1–2% of adults, and up food system only to find the market flooded
to 5–8% of children).13 with food imports produced in ways that cause
environmental devastation abroad.
The reasons for this rise are still unclear –
environment, genetics and the gut microbiome Measuring the emissions created by domestic
might all play a part. Clearly, we need more and production remains vitally important (not least
better scientific research to help us understand because of the Government’s legal commitment
what causes food allergies, and how to treat them. to reaching net zero). In this report, however, we
consider consumption, as well as production, when
In the meantime, the Government has introduced measuring the environmental damage caused by
new legislation to improve allergy labelling – known our food system. This enables us to assess more
as Natasha’s Law after Natasha Ednan-Laperouse, honestly the effect our consumption of food has
who died in 2016 after eating unlabelled sesame on the environment, both here and abroad.
seed flour in a sandwich. This law will come into
force in October 2021 and requires businesses to
label all packaged food with full ingredients.
Production vs Consumption
The Government has committed to reducing the
UK’s carbon production to 78% below 1990 levels by
2035, and to Net Zero by 2050.14 This is one of the
most ambitious targets in the world, and has been
justly praised. But it contains an accounting error.
This target only measures the carbon produced
within the UK; it ignores the carbon generated by
goods that are produced or manufactured abroad
and then imported into this country.
Logically, in fact, the quickest way for this country

to reach Net Zero would be simply to shut down all
domestic agriculture and manufacturing, and import
everything we need from abroad – shrugging off
our carbon responsibilities altogether. This is clearly
an absurd notion, but following the logic of an
idea to its absurd conclusion can help us grasp its
unintended consequences.
The danger of outsourcing environmental damage

is especially acute for the food system, which
is the predominant cause of biodiversity loss
and rainforest destruction, and the second-
largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the global
economy.15 It makes no sense for politicians, farmers
and manufacturers in this country to put in all the
7
Where we have been
and who we have met
Introduction
Over the course of developing this report, our We also held three town hall events in York,
team has travelled all over the UK, and to parts Manchester and Birmingham, where over 100
of Europe, to experience first-hand some of the people, local businesses, community groups,
moving parts of the food system. We have watched healthcare professionals and elected members
drones whizzing around food distribution centres, came together to explore food issues.
visited soilless fruit farms, walked across newly
restored peat fields, spongy underfoot, eaten in The Food Foundation carried out consultations
community kitchens and holiday food clubs, and with young people on our behalf. Over 400
toured abattoirs, agro-forests and processing young people came together in 24 workshops
plants. We also witnessed at close quarters how at 15 secondary schools and 9 youth groups
the food system responded and adapted to its to discuss food in relation to their health, the
biggest disruption in recent history: the COVID-19 environment and affordability.
pandemic.
The food industry provides employment to nearly
On top of the 300-plus organisations we consulted one in every seven people in this country, in
for ideas, advice and data (see full list on page 268), both town and country. And absolutely everyone
our team engaged with just under 180 citizens in participates in it as a consumer. We wanted this
a series of “deliberative dialogues” in five locations strategy to be informed by the broadest possible
(Grimsby, Bristol, Lewisham, Kendal and Norwich). range of experiences. The map below (Figure 1)
Fifty of these people joined us at a Citizen Summit shows the locations we have visited.
in April 2021, where they got a chance to discuss
their insights and experiences of the food system
with senior civil servants, MPs and the heads of
food businesses and NGOs.
Figure 1
Locations we visited
Conferences and roundtables

Farm or food chain visit
Research organisation
Public dialogues and youth workshops
Food banks and social enterprises
Schools and hospitals
8
Executive
summary
9
T
HE food system we have today is
both a miracle and a disaster. Defying
Malthusian predictions of mass famine,
Executive summary
modern intensive agriculture produces

more than enough calories (albeit unevenly
distributed) to feed 7.8 billion of us: the
biggest global population in human history.1
But the food we eat – and the way we produce it We have become trapped in a vicious circle – the
– is doing terrible damage to our planet and to our Junk Food Cycle. The consequences for our health
health. The global food system is the single biggest are devastating. The UK is now the third-fattest
contributor to biodiversity loss, deforestation, drought, country in the G7, with almost three in ten of our adult
freshwater pollution and the collapse of aquatic population obese.5 The Institute for Health Metrics
wildlife. It is the second-biggest contributor to climate and Evaluation (IHME) does an annual estimate of how
change, after the energy industry. many years of healthy life have been lost to avoidable
illness, disability and death. Four out of the top five
Our eating habits are destroying the environment. risk factors are diet related.6
And this in turn threatens our food security. The next
big shock to our food supply will almost certainly This plague of dietary ill health crept up on us slowly,
be caused by climate change in the form of extreme without generating much public uproar. But the
weather events and catastrophic harvest failures. COVID-19 pandemic has provided a painful reality
Agriculture alone produces 10% of UK greenhouse gas check. Our obesity problem has been a major factor in
emissions, despite constituting less than 1% of our the UK’s tragically high death rate.
GDP.2
The UK now has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity
Cheap, highly processed food is also taking a toll on to reshape the food system. The pandemic has
our bodies. Eighty per cent of processed food sold created a momentum for change – in Government
in the UK is unhealthy.3 There is a sound commercial and in industry, as well as among the public. There is
reason for this: unhealthy food is more popular. The widespread recognition that we need to change our
human appetite evolved in a world where calories national diet as a matter of urgency.
were hard to come by. We are predisposed to pounce

on any food that is high in fat and sugar. And once The CEOs of several major food companies have
we start eating this kind of food, we are programmed told us that the pandemic has shocked them into
to keep going: our hormones take longer to send out wanting to do things better. As one put it: “You
satiety signals (the feeling of fullness) than they do wouldn’t believe it if you look at our collective record
with lower-calorie foods. in the past, but it is without doubt true. Something
has changed fundamentally.” They also told us,
Because there is a bigger market for unhealthy food, however, that some changes will require legislation to
companies invest more into developing and marketing ensure a level playing field. If food companies are to
it. This in turn expands the market further still. The start making their products healthier, they must be
bigger the market, the greater the economies of confident that the competition won’t simply move in
scale. Highly processed foods – high in salt, refined and undercut them.
carbohydrates, sugar and fats, and low in fibre – are
on average three times cheaper per calorie than The environmental damage caused by intensive
healthier foods. This is one reason why bad diet is a agriculture must also be addressed. Our exit from the
particularly acute problem among the least affluent.4 European Union has already required the Government
10
to draw up a new system of agricultural subsidies. The citizens in our "deliberative dialogues". It would
proposed Environmental Land Management scheme also have the consequence of penalising poorer
(ELMs) will – if properly implemented – reward those households, because the tax would have to be
farmers who manage their land sustainably and work imposed by weight. The price hike on cheap cuts or
to restore biodiversity. But it won’t be enough on its mince would be proportionally much bigger than on,
own. say, steak.
The Government has made a legal commitment to For now, at least, we believe the Government would
reduce the UK’s carbon emissions to net zero by be better off nudging consumers into changing their
2050 and pledged to ensure that 30% of our land is habits while investing in methane-reduction projects
protected for nature by 2030. In order to meet these and the development of alternative proteins. In much
commitments, we will have to ask a lot from our land – the same way that multiple state interventions have
and from those who tend it. made renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels, this
would create a shift in behaviour without the need for
The farming sector itself will have to become carbon an unpopular and regressive tax.
neutral, something the National Farmers’ Union has
already committed to. But some areas of farmland will Farmers must be at the centre of this transition in our
also have to be repurposed or adapted so that they food system. They are the custodians of the land. They
actively sequester carbon, mopping up the emissions know better than anyone how depleted the soil is and
from those industries (such as air travel and heavy how reduced wildlife numbers are. Many farmers are
industry) that will still largely depend on fossil fuels already trialling new ways to manage their land for the
for the foreseeable future; all this, while maintaining benefit of nature.
a steady supply of affordable food. We will have to
produce more food from the remaining land without But farms are businesses, not philanthropic hobbies.
resorting to the kind of intensive farming practices They need to make a profit. They cannot be expected
that have already done so much damage. to develop and adopt more sustainable practices –
including some that will deliberately lower their yields,
This feat of acrobatics is achievable – but only with and some that return the land entirely to nature – if it
a concerted effort of will. We will need to draw on destroys their balance sheet. We are asking farmers
diverse methods of agriculture, including regenerative to change the way they work for the public good. We
farming practices that work with nature instead of must ensure they are properly recompensed. And we
against it. We must invest in the latest science – AI, must protect them from unfair competition.
robots and new breeding techniques – to increase
yields without polluting the land. We must unleash the This will be impossible if we don’t get our trade deals
potential of soilless farming, develop new proteins, and right. There is no point making UK farmers do all the
tap the plant-farming potential of the oceans instead hard work necessary to reduce carbon emissions and
of just pillaging them for fish. restore biodiversity only to open up the market to
cheap food produced to lower standards abroad. This
Some farmers are introducing livestock back into would mean exporting all the environmental harms
traditional rotations, to improve the soil and reduce we wish to avoid, while undercutting – and potentially
the need for fertilisers. Careful livestock farming bankrupting – our own farmers.
can be a boon to the environment, but our current
appetite for meat is unsustainable: 85% of total land The Government needs a trade policy that supports
that produces UK food is used to graze livestock or its environmental ambitions. Otherwise we will end up
produce crops to feed to animals.7 We need some of transferring damaging practices from one part of the
that land back. planet to another and driving thousands of our own
farmers to the wall.
The Government’s Climate Change Committee has
said we must reduce the amount of meat we eat The National Food Strategy contains recommendations
by 20–50% in order for the UK to reach net zero by to address the major issues facing the food system:
2050.8 In this strategy, we have set a goal of a 30% climate change, biodiversity loss, land use, diet-related
reduction over ten years. This is significant, and it disease, health inequality, food security and trade. We
won’t be easy to achieve. have grouped them under four main National Food
Strategy objectives (see box on following page):
One idea that has been proposed is the imposition
of a “meat tax”. We quickly realised this would be
politically impossible. It was – by a long way – the
least popular of any measure we discussed with
11
Transforming the food system will require change
at all levels: structural, cultural, local and individual.
Strategic Objectives But it is work that must be done. If we seize this
opportunity, we can improve our health, protect our
environment and build a better future for our children
Executive summary
and grandchildren.
1. Escape the junk food
cycle to protect the NHS.
Please see
2. Reduce diet-related Chapter 16 for our
inequality. recommendations
3. Make the best use of

our land.
4. Create a long-term shift

in our food culture.
Some of our recommendations will be met with

protests from those industries whose business models
are shaped to fit the current food system. Change is
never easy. But we cannot build a sustainable, healthy
and fair food system by doing business as usual.
This is an interventionist strategy. Even without the

exacerbating effect of COVID-19, the damage being
done to our health and our planet by the food system
demands urgent action.
However, state intervention is rarely, if ever, sufficient

by itself. You can’t send in the army to improve the
cooking in schools, or imprison people for serving bad
hospital meals. Every delicious and nourishing plate of
food that has ever been set before a hungry person

tasted good because of the skill, effort and care of
the individual who made it. Every school that serves
its pupils appetising, nutritious lunches instead of
fodder that is bland, boring, beige and bad for you
does so because of a head teacher, school cook or
business manager who aspired to something better.
Change starts at a local level, with talented and
dedicated people.
Some of our recommendations are designed to

encourage and harness this individual energy,
by making connections within neighbourhoods,
communities and professions, investing in skills, and
challenging unspoken assumptions about how things
work and what is possible.
12
Chapter 1
13
1
Why it
matters
14
The Health
of the Planet
Why it matters
Chapter 1
Worried about biodiversity loss? Focus on food.

Worried about freshwater supply and quality? Focus on food.
Worried about deforestation? Focus on food.
Worried about overfishing? Focus on food.
Worried about climate change? Focus on energy, and food.
Richard Waite, World Resources Institute, April 20211
B
EFORE we get into the faulty mechanics of
the food system, let us take a moment to
consider its extraordinary achievement.
It feeds us. Billions of us. More humans
than ever before in history.
The two graphics on page 16 illustrate how extinction event caused by humans), destruction of
successfully humans have thrived since we first habitats, pollution and environmental damage. The
began to farm our own food. The first shows the animals we keep, as pets and for leisure (green circle),
estimated biomass of humans and wild land- now weigh almost as much as all the wild mammals
dwelling vertebrates (mammals and birds) on the and birds on the planet put together.2
planet in 10,000 BC. This was the start of the
Holocene era, when global temperatures entered Success breeds its own problems. We have a lot of
an unprecedented era of stability, and agriculture mouths to feed. Around 50% of Earth’s habitable land
became possible. At this point, there were 2.5 million is now used for agriculture. Our appetite for meat and
humans on Earth – a population dwarfed by the dairy products puts a particular strain on the Earth’s
multitude of wild animals. resources: 77% of the world’s farmland3 is used to
graze animals or to produce crops to feed to animals
Figure 1.2 shows the situation today. The population (see Figure 1.3). The combined weight of animals bred
of humans has swollen to 7.8 billion. The biomass for food is now ten times the combined weight of all
of wild animals has withered, in part thanks to our wild mammals and birds put together.
enthusiastic hunting of megafauna (the first big
15
Figure 1.1
12,000 years ago humans were a tiny proportion

of biomass compared to wild animals4
Wild
animals
People
Catt
Figure 1.2
Today, the combined weight of animals bred for food dwarfs that of the combined
weight of all wild mammals and birds put together5
Animals kept
by humans
Camels Goats U A S
Horses Dogs
Cats
Other
Cattle LAND AN
Sheep
ALS THAT PEOPLE EAT People
Pigs Wild
animals
Chickens
Note: for this visualisation “animals”

refers to terrestrial vertebrates.
Livestock for human Terrestrial invertebrates and all life
consumption in the oceans are excluded.
16
Figure 1.3
More than 77% of the world’s farmland, crops to feed to animals6
Earth’s 29% Land

Why it matters
surface 149 million km2

71% Ocean
Chapter 1
Land 71% Habitable land 10% 19% Barren

surface 104 million km2
Glaciers Land
15 million km2 12 million km2
11%
Habitable 50% Agriculture 37% Forests Shrub 1% Freshwater
land 51 million km2 39 km2 12 million 1.5 million km2
km2
1% Urban and
built-up land
Agricultural 77% Livestock 23% Crops 1.5 million km2
land 4 million km2 11 million km2
Global
calorie 18% 82%
supply
Global
protein 37% 63%
supply
from from
meat plant
and based
dairy food
Biodiversity
The ingenuity with which the human race has used the He starts from a utilitarian standpoint. It is
Earth to feed itself has been disastrous for the global impossible to put a true value on genetic diversity,
ecosystem. As Homo sapiens have thrived, almost all he points out, because we cannot know its worth to
other forms of wildlife have declined. The wild biomass future generations. He takes as an example the rosy
of mammals has fallen by 85% since the rise of human periwinkle (Catharanthus Roseus) of Madagascar. In
civilisation.7 A quarter of all remaining mammal species the fifties, this pretty herbaceous flower was found
are currently threatened with extinction as their to produce two alkaloids† that cure most victims
natural habitats are converted to food production.8 of two deadly cancers – Hodgkin’s disease, which
mostly afflicts young adults, and acute lymphocytic
The state of our oceans is no better. The Food and leukaemia, which used to be a death sentence for
Agriculture Organisation of the UN estimates that 35% children. By the early nineties, the income from the
of stocks globally are being fished at unsustainable manufacture and sale of these two substances
levels, up from 10% in 1974 (see Figure 1.4). exceeded $180 million.Over 40% of today’s
medicines are extracted from plants, microorganisms
It might seem an odd question, but why does this or animals.9 Yet, as Wilson notes, 99% of all of the
collapse in natural abundance matter? The American species that ever lived are now extinct. Who knows
biologist Edward O. Wilson sets out the answer in his what medicinal potential has vanished with them?
seminal work, The Diversity of Life.
17
†
Vinblastine and vincristine.
Figure 1.4
Globally, 35% of stocks are being fished at unsustainable levels10
100%
Overfished
Unsustainable
Maximally sustainably fished

50%
Sustainable
Underfished
0%
1974 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017
Biologically sustainable Biologically unsustainable Underfished stocks
Another utilitarian argument for genetic diversity

is that it could help future-proof the food system.
Currently, while 300,000 species of plant have edible
parts, just 20 species account for 90% of the world’s
food, and three – wheat, maize and rice – supply more
than half.11 To be so heavily reliant on a tiny handful of
Only 20
crops puts humanity in a precarious position. “This thin
cushion of diversity,” writes Wilson, “is biased toward species make
cooler climates, and in most parts of the world is sown up 90% of the
in monocultures sensitive to disease and attacks from
insects and nematode worms. Modern agriculture world’s food
is only a sliver of what it could be. Waiting in the
wings are tens of thousands of unused plants.” These
alternative crops could be farmed as they are, or their
traits bred into other plants to increase the resilience
of the food system as our climate changes.
Beyond the utilitarian arguments, there is the intrinsic

– to some even sacred – value of nature. “Wilderness
settles peace on the soul because it needs no help; it
is beyond human contrivance,” writes Wilson.
Being in nature, having access to wild spaces, enriches
the human spirit. It raises the quality of human life.
And leaving humans out of the equation altogether,
the natural world is precious in and of itself.
18
The precise motive doesn’t matter as much as the failure, famine and even war – are more apparent
shared imperative: to halt the destruction of nature, abroad than in the wet, temperate climate of the UK,
and to restore it to abundance. “The stewardship of although we contribute to the problem by importing
environment,” Wilson concludes, “is a domain on the foods from drier regions (see Figure 1.5). But even in
nearside of metaphysics where all reflective persons this country, the pumping of ground water to irrigate
can surely find common ground”. fields is a key contributor to droughts during hot
summers.
Why it matters
Chapter 1
Abiotic systems The second major abiotic cycle is the nitrogen cycle.
Plants need certain forms of nitrogen – chiefly
Biodiversity is not the only element of the natural nitrates and nitrites – to perform many of their
world that has been radically disrupted by our food critical functions. Bacteria in the soil, and attached
system. Its effect on nature’s abiotic systems has also to the roots of some plants, convert nitrogen from
been dire. An abiotic system is a cycle in which nature the atmosphere and turn it into nitrates and nitrites,
recycles non-living things. The three most important of which are then absorbed by plants. When the plant
these are the water, nitrogen and carbon cycles, all of dies (or is eaten) and eventually returns to the soil, a
which are vital to maintaining the delicate balance of different set of “denitrifying” bacteria convert these
life on Earth. chemicals back into nitrogen gas and release it into
the atmosphere.
The water cycle sees water enter our atmosphere,
largely through the evaporation of sea water. When
warm air hits cold air, it condenses and falls out of the
sky as rain, snow or hail. Fresh water makes up only
3% of the world’s water and yet is essential to life for
almost all land-based creatures.12 Farming uses 70%
of all the fresh water on Earth.13 The impacts of this
– ranging from water shortages to drought, harvest
Figure 1.5
The UK is relatively water secure, but not in every region14

0–0.2 0.2–0.5 0.5–1.0

0–0.2 1.0–1.5
0.2–0.5 1.5–2.0 1.0–1.5
0.5–1.0 2.0–3.0
1.5–2.03.0–5.0
2.0–3.0 >3.0–5.0
5.0 No> 5.0
data No data
Low Low
LowtoLow to Medium
Medium High
High Extremely
Extremely
medium to high high
medium to high high
(<10%) (10-20%) (20-40%) (40-80%) (>80%)
(<10%) (10-20%) (20-40%) (40-80%) (>80%)
Note: this global map measures the ratio of blue water footprint in grid cells of 30 x 30 arc min
to total blue water availability in the cell. The inset map measures the ratio of total annual water
withdrawals to total available annual renewable supply, accounting for upstream consumptive use.
Higher values indicate less water availability and more competition among users.
19
Figure 1.6
The UK has some of the most polluted waters in Europe15
Canary Islands (ES)
Azores Islands (PT)
Madeira Islands (PT)
Guadeloupe and
Martinique Islands (FR)
French Guiana (FR)
Mayotte Island (FR)
Reunion Island (FR)
s
0% 100% River basin district areas without data No data Outside coverage
Percentage of water bodies not in good e

ecological status per river basin district
Intensive farming has played havoc with this cycle. Nitrogen run-off from farms is leading to high levels
The invention of the Haber–Bosch process at the start of eutrophication: excessive plant and algal blooms
of the 20th century allowed scientists to use intense in both fresh and sea water. These blooms stop light
heat and pressure to combine nitrogen from the penetrating the water, plunging entire ecosystems
atmosphere with hydrogen to create ammonia, from into darkness. Other plants can’t grow. Fish and
which all industrial fertilisers are made. This process other animals cannot see to hunt, so they starve.
releases a huge amount of carbon in itself: 1% of Eutrophication can also raise the pH of water, making
global greenhouse gas emissions.16 Once on the soil, it uninhabitable for many species. When the algal
man-made fertiliser – together with the vast quantity blooms eventually die, their decomposing cells
of slurry produced by our livestock – often leaches suck oxygen out of the water, creating hypoxic or
into our watercourses, with disastrous results. anoxic dead zones in lakes and oceans. Run-off from
farmland causes more than three-quarters of global
20
eutrophication. In England, just 16% of our surface and which contribute to climate change in different ways.)
ground waters meet the criteria for “good ecological Globally, the food system is responsible for up to
status”, and none of our lakes or rivers meet the one-third of all greenhouse gases (GHG), a figure that
criteria for “good chemical status”. We have some of dwarfs the 3.5% caused by air travel.17 In the UK, our
the most polluted waters in Europe (see Figure 1.6). domestic food system alone (ignoring the GHGs from
the food we import) accounts for around 20% of our
Finally, there’s the carbon cycle – which we will be greenhouse gas emissions.†18 The UK’s food system
Why it matters
returning to again and again in this strategy. For now, has decarbonised at half the pace of the wider
Chapter 1
suffice to say that the food system produces a huge economy, and agriculture hasn’t decarbonised at all in
amount of greenhouse gases. (This catch-all term over a decade (Figure 1.7).
is used to cover several different gases – primarily
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – all of
Figure 1.7
Since 2008, the food system has decarbonised at less than half the pace of
the wider economy19
Food emissions have fallen at less than half

the rate of the wider economy – mainly
because agriculture emissions have not
fallen at all
Economy-wide
GHGs 2018
-32% since 2008
Food GHGs
2018
-13% since 2008
No change Change due to clean energy + efficiency
Food GHGs
2008
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Agriculture Fertiliser mfg Food mfg Packaging Transport Home related Retail Catering Waste disposal
Antimicrobial resistance and The closer we live to animals – and the closer animals
live to each other – the bigger the threat of zoonotic
zoonotic diseases diseases. Unfortunately, cramming livestock together in
The history of infectious disease goes hand in hand intensive systems is one of the simplest ways to reduce
with that of farming. It wasn’t until early humans the price of meat. On a purely commercial front, it has
started to keep livestock that infectious diseases proved successful: the cost of chicken, for example, is
such as smallpox, malaria and yellow fever began to nearly three times cheaper today than in the 1960s in
jump the species barrier and spread through human real terms. (This accounts for its simultaneous rise in
populations.20 popularity, from 10% to 40% of UK meat consumption
over the same period.)21
The relationship between the rearing of ruminant livestock and climate change is complicated and we
†
21 will go into it in much more detail in Chapter 7.

When chickens, pigs or cows are forced to live in But the microbes have fought back, becoming
crowded conditions – sometimes by the tens of resistant to many antibiotics – including some that
thousands (see Figure 1.8) – disease is inevitable. are used to treat humans. Intensive farming of
This has led to the widespread use, and overuse, of pigs and chickens is responsible for the majority of
antimicrobial drugs in farming. In some countries, antimicrobial resistance worldwide. In some parts
antibiotics are routinely added to livestock feed, of the world, microbes have already evolved to
regardless of the health of the animals (see Figure resist 80% of the antibiotics used on animals.22 Drug
1.9), because it can make them grow faster: immune resistant infections could eventually make some
systems that aren’t fighting off infections use less surgeries, including caesarean sections, and cancer
energy, leaving more for growth. treatments too dangerous to perform.23
Figure 1.8
An intensive 12-storey pig production unit near Guigang in Southern China
22
Alongside the threat of antibiotic resistance, we Figure 1.9
must contend with the emergence of new zoonotic In OECD countries, agricultural
diseases – those that jump between species. antibiotic use is highest in pig meat26
When forests and wild areas are cleared to make
way for livestock farming, the animals that manage to 0.02
survive the clearance tend to be rats and bats. These
Why it matters
also happen to be the animals most likely to carry

Cattle Chickens Pigs
Probability density
Chapter 1
viruses that can infect other species.
Once such a virus passes into a livestock population,

it can incubate and mutate until it is capable of
infecting people.24 Intensively reared animals, which
are selectively bred to have nearly identical genomes,
act as vast replication vessels for some viruses.
0
Research shows that eight in ten of the animals that
0 100 200 300
host viruses that cross into human populations are
domesticated, with livestock in the lead.25 Antimicrobial (mg) / Population Correction Unit
Over the past year we have seen how a new

infectious disease – even one with a relatively low
mortality rate – can devastate our health, economies
and wellbeing.
Figure 1.10
Globally, land use change has been the predominant

cause of emerging infectious disease (EID)†27
Land-use change
Agriculture industry change
Int’l travel and commerce
Medical industry change
War and famine
Climate and weather

Human demography
& behaviour
Other
Breakdown of public health
Bushmeat
Food industry change
0 10 20 30 40
Number of EID events
Emerging infectious diseases are those that are either newly recognised or which existed but are rapidly increasing
†
23 in incidence or geographic range.

Our Health
A
LMOST one in three people over 45 in England
is clinically obese.28 This can be a tiring,
depressing condition in itself. And it brings with
it all sorts of attendant health problems. Being obese is
like carrying around an enormous rucksack all day long:
it takes a toll on your bones and joints.29
It also massively increases your risk of developing a strongly associated with dietary ill health.33 Some
chronic, life-changing illness, and of dying young.30 of these people register as obese; some are not
There is a strong association between obesity and even overweight. People with Type 2 diabetes (both
the likelihood of becoming severely ill or dying from controlled and uncontrolled) are 81% more likely to die
COVID-19.31 You are 1.5 times more likely to die from from COVID-19.34
COVID-19 if you are obese, and this rises to 2.25 times
more likely if you are severely obese.32 Figure 1.11 shows the number of years lost to ill health
or death in the UK as a result of avoidable causes.
But you don’t have to be fat to be made ill by bad All the circles in pink represent conditions that are
diet. In England, one in three people over the age of caused or exacerbated by poor diet. Even smoking
45 has diabetes or a heart condition – both conditions doesn’t come close to doing the same amount of
damage.
Figure 1.11
Proportion of years lost to avoidable ill health and death by cause35
Low Other
physical environmental
activity risks
High systolic
blood pressure
Dietary
risks High LDL
cholesterol
Kidney
dysfunction “Even before COVID-19 we
Child and
maternal had pressure on the NHS, and
malnutrition
I think that is going to have a
Tobacco
High fasting big impact in terms of making
plasma glucose
us think about food, because
Unsafe sex
of the amount of sugar we’re
Air
pollution eating, red meat and all that
Drug kind of stuff.”
use
Non-optimal
temperature "Deliberative dialogue" participant,
High body mass London & the South East
Alcohol index
use
Childhood
sexual abuse and
bullying
Low bone mineral

density
24
It’s extraordinary, really, that there isn’t public uproar The cost of bad diet is astronomical, both in terms
about this. Imagine if a novel virus suddenly started of human misery and actual money. The Government
killing and disabling people on such a scale, and with spends an estimated £18 billion – 8% of all Government
no end in sight. You don’t have to imagine it: we now healthcare expenditure – on conditions related to
know the lengths that politicians and the public would high BMI every year.38 (This is before you account for
go to combat such a plague. diet-related disease not linked to weight.) In 2019/20,
there were just over 1 million hospital admissions
The trouble is, this disaster has crept up on us so where obesity was recorded as the primary or
Why it matters
slowly that we have forgotten to be shocked by it. This secondary diagnosis – a 17% increase on 2018/19.39 If
is a classic “systems trap”, as described in Chapter 4. In
Chapter 1
we don’t get diet-related disease under control, we

this particular trap, sometimes called “boiling the frog”, risk overwhelming the NHS – or having to cut other
a system drifts downhill slowly enough that no-one public services to pay for it. Currently it is projected
panics about the decline until it’s too late. Everyone is that by 2035/36 type 2 diabetes alone will cost the
gently lulled into lower and lower expectations. NHS 1.5 times the amount currently spent on treating
all cancers.40
The average Brit now consumes five times the volume
of crisps that we did in 1972 (see Figure 1.12). We eat Ill people are also less able to work. The Organisation
1.5 times the amount of breakfast cereal that we did of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
in 1970 (and breakfast cereals have become much estimates that the combined cost of conditions related
more sugary over the same period).36 Similar shifts to high BMI, in lost workforce productivity, reduction
in behaviour have been repeated across the whole in life expectancy and NHS funds, is £74 billion every
spectrum of our national diet. In 1980, on average, year. This is equivalent to cutting the UK’s GDP by
57% of a household’s grocery budget was spent on 3.4%.41 To cover these costs, each person in the United
ingredients for home-cooked food. By 2000, this had Kingdom pays an additional £409 in taxes
fallen to 35%, while the share of processed foods per year.42
which required little preparation rose from 26% to
45%.37
Figure 1.12
Purchasing of crisps and sweetened breakfast cereals has

risen sharply since the 1970s43
Crisps: Breakfast
100 Crisps: 500
Percentage change from baseline (breakfast cereals)
1996 = 69g cereals:

2005 = 135g 2019 = 62g
90 450
Percentage change from baseline (crisps)

80 400
70 350
60 300
50 250
40 200
Breakfast Breakfast
30 cereals: cereals: 150
1970 = 78g 2019 = 122g
20 100
10 50
Crisps:
0 1972 = 12g 0
-10 -50
70
75
95
90
85
15
80
10
20
05
00
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Crisps Sweetened breakfast cereals
25
But perhaps the heaviest toll is on us as individuals:
all those good years lost to sickness and early death.
It is estimated that 1.5 million years of healthy life
are lost to diet-related illness, disease and premature
death each year.44 Bringing everyone into the healthy
BMI range alone could increase life expectancy by 2.7
years.45 That could be the difference between getting
to know your grandchildren or dying before they are
born. For people in the poorest areas – who are more
likely to suffer from diet related illness – the added
years would be even greater.46
Changing the food system isn’t just about averting

disaster. It is also an opportunity to create something
wonderful for ourselves. We can increase the beauty
of our countryside, create more woodland, clearer
waters and abundant wildlife. We can leave the Earth
in better shape for our children – and ensure they
have longer, healthier lives to enjoy it.
26
Figure 1.13
High BMI is strongly correlated with

the chances of hospital admission47
Annual hospital admissions per 1,000 person-years
Why it matters
Chapter 1
400
200
+
5
4
9
40
4
9
8.
9
2.
9.
4.
7.
4.
9.
9.
<1
–1
–2
–2
–2
–3
–3
–2
.5
20
.5
25
35
.5
30
18
22
BMI 27
Females Males
Figure 1.14
There is a link between excess NHS

costs and BMI upon admission48
% Mean excess hospital costs per person
140
70
) + 3)
7.4 lass
1 .9 2) 4.9 s 1) 9.9 2) 40 lass
–2 29 ass –3 s –3 ss C
25 ght C 7.5– t Cl 30 Cla 35 Cla es
e
2 igh e se b
ei e b es be (O
erw erw (O (O
(Ov (Ov
Females Males
Note: Excess costs relative to healthy weight cohort.
27
Figure 1.15
Obesity is projected to keep rising49
Projection
% Obesity prevalence in adult population
40
32%
increase in
obesity rate
20
0
95
10
15
20
25
30
35
00
05
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
28
Chapter 2
29
2
Systems
thinking
30
F
IRST things first. What do we actually
mean by the “food system”? The dictionary
definition of a system is any set of things
Systems thinking
working together as a larger whole, towards some

Chapter 2
purpose or end. The railway system, for example,

is made up of tracks, trains, stations, train drivers
and so on, all combining to get us about.
The food system is the combination of all of the we got several different responses. Some pointed
elements – natural and man-made – that combine to to the Foresight Obesity Map, now famous in the
produce, process, market and sell the food we eat field, which was produced in work commissioned by
and the connections between them. It can be said to Government to tackle obesity in 2007 (see Figure 2.1).
include everything from the sun and the soil to the till This intricate spider’s web of a chart does a great job
at the corner shop. of illustrating the multifactorial nature of obesity, but
it is of limited help in devising policy. In fact, the “it’s
When we started this report, we were urged by many complicated” approach to changing systems can be so
experts in the field to take a “systems” approach. But demoralising that it actually stops us making progress.
when we asked what that approach would look like, If change is this hard, is it even worth trying?
Figure 2.1
The Foresight Obesity System Map is mind-bogglingly complicated1

Media
Social
Psychological
Media
Economic
Social
Psychological
Food
Economic
Activity
Food
Infrastructure
Activity
Infrastructure
Developmental
Developmental
Biological
Biological
Medical
Medical
Positive Influence
Positive Influence
Negative Influence
Negative Influence
31
Another chart that was regularly pressed on us policy.
shows how responsibility for decision making on
food policy is spread, like a thin layer of jam on toast, But the food system is not unique in being regulated
across Government (Figure 2.2). There is no single by multiple arms of Government. An understanding of
department with responsibility for food, goes the these relationships is important in policy making but
argument: instead, every department gets a shout, not fundamental to understanding the system itself.
and so chaos ensues. There is much to learn from this
Another form of systems thinking which inevitably
excellent chart, which was produced by Kelly Parsons
arises when considering food policy is the need
for the Centre For Food Policy at City University,
to consider trade-offs. We want food to be more
London.2 We shall see how a lack of joined-up thinking
sustainable, but will that make it more expensive? Is
between Government departments has led to
there enough land to grow food sustainably and still
particular incoherence in the areas of trade and health
feed the world? These are important questions, and
we will address them explicitly.
Figure 2.2
Food Research Collaboration Guidance Note
Responsibility for food must
Coordination policy
be keyin
to England is highly
how governments respond todispersed 3
Covid-19 food impacts: a view from England
Food Research Collaboration Guidance Note
Coordination must be key to how governments respond to Covid-19 food impacts: a view from England
Figure 1. Government departments with role in food policy-making in England, 2020
Main policy making
Figure 1. making
Main policy Government
department departments with role in food policy-making in England, 2020
Main department
department on overseas
on housing and built aid (including food aid),
environment, plus liaison with supporting justice overseas agriculture,
Local Authorities on resilience Overall policy oversight Overall control of system, with role as Main
andpolicy making
the Sustainable
Mainand
policy making department
emergencies (including and coordination government spending food provider to prisons department
Developmenton overseas
Goals
on housing and
food built
supply) Main department aid (including food aid),
environment, plus liaison with supporting justice overseas agriculture, Main policy making
Local Authorities on resilience Overall policy oversight Overall control of system, with role as and the Sustainable department on diet-related
and emergencies (including and coordination government spending food provider to prisons Development Goals health and ill-health
food supply)
Main policy making
ities & Lo inet O c Treasur Justice al Deve & Socia department on diet-related
un ab HM ion l th l health and ill-health
ng, Comm
t
ca
op
Ca
l
e
tInterna
Hea
l Governm
re
ment
ities & Lo inet O c Treasur Justice al Deve & Socia

un ab HM ion l th l
ing, Comim
y
ca
op
Ca
l
e
Interna
Hea
us
l Governm
en
re
ment
Ho t
us
en
y & Indu ood & R
t, F
Ho t
rg
viro men
st
e
ura
ess, Eneess, En
rial Strartieal Strate
y & Indu ood & R

Government departments with
l A airs
t, F
vironmen n
Main policy making department

on business, industrial strategy, rg
st
climate change, energy, science,

ura
sin
En
research and innovation (all with gy
role in fooddepartments
Government policy making in
with
l A airs
Main policy making department Bu Main policy making

food relevance)
on business, industrial strategy, department on food, farming,
climate change, energy, science,
sin
environment, animal welfare,

En
research and innovation (all with

ucation & Pensio
gy
role in food policy

England, making in
2020
Bu
food relevance) Ed rk Main policy making
department on food, farming,
Wo
ns
environment, animal welfare,

ucation & Pensio
Ed
England, 2020 rk
Wo
ns
Main policy making department Main policy making

on education, skills and department on welfare and
curriculum, with role as food pensions, with role in
Main educator and food
policy making provider
department supporting
Main low-paid or
policy making
on education, skills and ealth En ational Tr ltu
re, Med me O ce tan
dards A
Tra
nsport unemployed food workers,
and or
cH
department on welfare
curriculum, with role as food rn Ho people with
pensions, experiencing
role in food
D u i l, Cu
S
gl
poverty low-paid or
ia
Inte
ge
ad
educator and food provider

bli
supporting
S Food
and and
&
ealth En ational Tr re, Med me O ce dards A nsport

ncy
e
Publ Pu
unemployed food workers, or

ltu tan Tra
ta
cH rn Ho
Sport
people experiencing food

Digi l, Cig
gl
poverty
ia
Inte
ge
ad
i
Food
& Sport
ncy
e
ta
Main advisory body to

government on nutrition and Main policy making
nutrition-related health Main policy making Main policy making Main policy making Leads on regulation of department on transport, with
inequalities department on department on media department on safety, composition and role in supporting
Main advisory body to infrastructure for food
government on nutrition and international food trade (with role on food immigration (including hygiene of human food Main policy making
advertising) distribution
department on and public with
transport,
nutrition-related health Main policy making Main policyand digital
making migrant
Main workers
policy makingfor food and on
Leads animal feed of
regulation
inequalities department on economy (with
department role on
on media supply chain)
department on and law safety, composition and roletransport (including for food
in supporting
broadband workers andfor
infrastructure customers)
food
international food trade (with roleaccess
on foodfor and order (including
immigration hygiene of human food
food businesses
advertising) and
and digital migrant workers for food and animal feed distribution and public
economy (withcustomers)
role on supply chain) and law transport (including for food
broadband access for and order workers and customers)
food businesses and
Source: Adapted from Parsons, K. (2020). Who makes food policy in England? A map of governance
customers) actors and activities. Rethinking Food Governance Report 1. London: Food Research Collaboration
Source: Adapted from Parsons, K. (2020). Who makes food policy in England? A map of governance actors and activities. Rethinking Food Governance Report 1. London: Food Research Collaboration
32
What has been most helpful to us in understanding Stocks within a system do not need to be
the food system as a whole is the study of “system homogeneous physical substances – they could be
dynamics”. This was developed in the early 1950s to more complex physical entities, such as biodiversity
enable scientists to create mathematical models to levels within a given area of land. They don’t even
understand complex system behaviour.4 It breaks all need to be physical things. It is possible to model
systems down into four component parts, each of what happens in a system when the “stock” of trust in
Systems thinking
which may be repeated many times: a “stock” (which a regulator declines, for example, or when the stock of
is a quantity of something); a “flow” (the movement of skill in a workforce increases.
Chapter 2
that something from one place to another); “feedback

loops” (which control the flow); and the “purpose” or Feedback loops also take many forms. A feedback
“output” of the system. loop could be an automatic prompt (telling a
supermarket manager to restock a product), or a piece
Let us examine one tiny example: one of the countless of information (the speedometer on a car showing the
smaller systems contained within the food system. driver she is going too fast), or a chemical signal (the
Every leaf of every wheat plant is peppered with tiny hormone prolactin telling a mother’s body to produce
holes called stomata: thousands of them per square more milk).
centimetre.5 Each stoma (the singular of the noun)
is formed by two long, thin guard cells, connected
to each other at both ends. These cells are banana
shaped when full of water, bending outwards to create Figure 2.3
an oval hole in the middle. When empty, they lie
straight alongside one another, sealing off the interior Stomata
of the leaf.
Open stomata
The purpose of the stoma is to allow carbon dioxide CO2
(CO2) into the leaf, where it is combined with water
to produce glucose using the energy of the sun: H2O
photosynthesis. But while the hole is open, the Closed
plant loses precious water vapour through it. So stomata
the stomata must stay open long enough to let in
sufficient CO2, but not so long as to desiccate the
plant. To perform this balancing act, the plant employs
a series of feedback mechanisms.
As the sun rises, specialised proteins in the guard cells

absorb photons. This changes their chemical structure, O2
which in turn causes the plant to pump salt into the
guard cells. The salt causes the cells to suck in water.
They become banana shaped, and the stomata open.
At night – when photosynthesis cannot take place –
they close.
In the language of systems dynamics, these feedback

mechanisms control the flow of stocks (CO2 and
water) so that the system can fulfil its purpose of
enabling photosynthesis.
It is one of innumerable feedback systems in nature

– in the plant, in the soil, in the atmosphere – that
must all function properly for a single wheat plant to
grow. And wheat, although providing 20% of our total
calories, is only a small part of the food system we rely
on to keep us nourished.6 That system is made up of
billions of interlinked smaller systems such as this one
– some created by nature and some by man.
33
There are two kinds of feedback loop: “balancing” and First we need to be clear on what the purpose of the
“reinforcing”. Balancing feedback loops (also known as system is and to ensure that every actor in the system
negative feedback loops, although their effects can be is united in pursuit of this purpose. Since the Second
positive) serve to maintain the stocks at certain levels. World War, the chief purpose of our food system
They limit, or reverse, whatever direction of change has been to maximise the production of cheap food
is imposed on the system. Our appetite, for example, above all other objectives. As we shall see in the next
responds to the levels of a suite of chemicals in our chapter, this purpose needs to change.
blood and gut to regulate how much we eat. If we eat
too much, we feel full, and that stops us eating more. Once we are clear on our purpose, we need to identify
If we eat too little, we get hungry and go in search of the feedback loops within the food system that are
more food. (Quite clearly, this feedback mechanism most destructive or dysfunctional, and propose policy
doesn’t always work as well as it should. We will responses designed to break or mend those loops. We
examine why in Chapter 4.) will identify two which we call the Junk Food Cycle
and the Invisibility of Nature.
Reinforcing feedback loops amplify the direction of
change. They are also known as positive feedback Finally, we need to gather the best possible data.
loops, although they can have negative effects. They Measuring the impact of any intervention means
create both virtuous circles (more people buy free you can see whether it is working, and how well; it
range eggs, there is more investment in free range also makes it much easier to adjust your course if
egg production, the cost of free-range eggs comes unintended consequences arise.
down, more people buy free range eggs) and vicious
circles (an over reliance on chemical inputs reduces
soil quality, necessitating yet more chemical inputs).
These reinforcing feedback loops can create runaway
systems that are very hard to stop, such as nuclear
fission or melting polar ice caps.
Mathematical modelling shows that complex systems

are hard to predict, even across small timescales.
Miniscule changes in starting conditions can, over
time, lead to huge differences in outcomes. Systems
can appear stable and then collapse without warning
(as we witnessed in the 2008 financial crash).
Attempting to control them (even loosely) is extremely
difficult, and many well-intentioned endeavours fail.
But this is not a counsel of despair. Systems science

also shows that different systems from very different
fields – the stomata of a leaf, the stock ordering
system of a supermarket, the entire carbon cycle
– exhibit similar and predictable behaviours, which
depend on the nature of the feedback loops that
connect their stocks. There is a common set of
identifiable patterns in system failures (see the box
below on systems traps). And, depending on the
structure of the system, some interventions are more
likely than others to create sustained positive change.
The key to employing a systems approach is not

simply to recognise that everything is connected,
that there are trade-offs, that life is complex – it is
to follow an established process that will give us the
best chance of successful intervention.
34
Systems traps
The field of system dynamics – the study of complex We do not even attempt to measure the other
systems using mathematical modelling – was created stocks that are critical for our long-term survival
Systems thinking
by Jay Forrester at the Massachusetts Institute of and happiness: those of natural and human capital.
Technology in the mid-fifties.7 To begin with, Forrester Because they are not written into the system, the
Chapter 2
did his calculations by hand on paper, painstakingly system does not value them. We describe this in
modelling the workings of various systems more detail in Chapter 6.
(predominantly within businesses). As computer
power increased exponentially, so did the complexity
and number of the systems that could be studied. Policy resistance
Donella Meadows was one of the early members of This trap occurs when balancing feedback loops
Forrester’s group. In Thinking in Systems, she drew on keep bringing the system back to the same spot, no
thousands of such studies to identify archetypal ways matter how hard you try to shift it. Take traditional
in which systems can go wrong – some of which we drug prevention policies. No matter how many
describe here.8 She called these systems traps. wars on drugs are fought, drug dealing remains a
“The destruction [system traps] cause is often blamed problem. This is because if enforcement is successful,
on particular actors or events,” she wrote, “although it reduces the stock (drugs) within the system,
it is actually a consequence of system structure.” which increases its value and incentivises drug
Depending on the structure of the system, promising- smugglers to circumvent the system. Together, these
sounding remedies might prove bafflingly ineffective. countermoves produce a standoff, and the stock
“Blaming, disciplining, firing, twisting policy levers remains unchanged. Everyone makes a huge effort
harder, hoping for a more favourable sequence of to achieve their own objectives, but the system is
events, tinkering at the margins – these standard unmoved.
responses will not fix structural problems … But
system traps can be escaped – by recognizing them
in advance and not getting caught in them, or by The tragedy of the commons
altering the structure – by reformulating goals, by
weakening, strengthening, or altering feedback loops, This phrase was coined by the American ecologist
[or] by adding new feedback loops.” Garrett Hardin in a 1968 article of the same name,
although the problem was first identified by 19th-
As we will see in the following chapters, many of the century English economist William Forster Lloyd.9
structural traps described by Meadows exist in our
current food system. It occurs when an erodible resource is accessible to
everyone. Rather than preserve the resource, each
actor in the system is incentivised to take as much of
it for themselves as they can before it runs out.
Seeking the wrong goal
If the goals of the system are defined inaccurately

or incompletely, the system may work obediently to
produce a result that is not really intended.
We have a system of national accounting, for
example, that – as Partha Dasgupta points out in his
groundbreaking review on the value of biodiversity
– bears no real relation to our national wealth or A recent example is the collapse of the cod
wellbeing. Even on its own terms it doesn’t work. populations on Newfoundland's Grand Banks. When
GDP is not the record of our material wealth but the Europeans first became aware of these thriving
fever chart of our consumption. It is a measure of the shoals, in the twilight of the 15th century, they were
gross addition to stocks – the flows of stuff made “so thicke by the shoare that we heardlie have been
and purchased in a year – rather than the stocks able to row a Boate through them”.10
themselves: the houses, cars, and computers that are
in themselves sources of pleasure and indications of
wealth.
35
As long as there was a technological limit on how have evolved to like calorie-dense food. Food
much each fishing boat could catch, the cod provided companies respond to this innate desire by
an abundant source of food and livelihoods. But putting more effort into the development and
technology moved fast in the 20th century, with marketing of calorie-dense food, which increases
the invention of bottom trawling, on-board freezing the consumption of that food, which in turn
and larger boats. Fearing to be outdone by their increases the incentive for companies to make and
competitors, each fishing boat became better market it. Increasing sales increases marketing
equipped and increased its catch until, in 1992, the spend which increases sales. We describe this
cod population collapsed almost completely, signalling problem in greater depth in Chapter 4.
not just an end to the cod but to the entire ecosystem
of the local coast. Despite a fishing moratorium, the
cod population has still not recovered.11 Shifting the burden to the
“Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush,” intervenor
wrote Hardin in his essay, “each pursuing his own best
Colloquially this phenomenon is known as
interest in a society that believes in the freedom of
addiction or dependence. “Addiction is finding a
the commons.”
quick and dirty solution to the symptom of the
problem,” wrote Meadows, “which prevents or
distracts one from the harder and longer-term
Drift to low performance task of solving the real problem.”
Also known as “boiled frog syndrome”, “eroding goals” We can see this in intensive agriculture, where
or “shifting baselines”, this trap occurs when a system an over-reliance on fertilisers and pesticides
drifts downhill slowly enough for the actors in the has damaged the ecosystem and depleted the
system to forget how much better things used to be. soil. This in turn results in increased reliance on
Everyone is lulled into lower and lower expectations, fertilisers and pesticides, to make crops grow in
lower effort, lower performance. The system requires such unfertile conditions.
a balancing feedback mechanism, a burst of energy
to raise standards to where they once were. But
instead, a reinforcing feedback loop is created as low
expectations lead to less corrective action, which
Rule beating
leads to continuous degradation of the system. This is a trap that anyone attempting to change
a system must be particularly alert to. Wherever
In the School Food Plan, which I co-authored in 2013,
there are rules, there is likely to be rule beating.
we argued that this is what had happened to the food
Rule beating means evasive action to get around
served in schools, until Jamie Oliver intervened and
the intent of a system’s rules – abiding by the
made everyone realise how bad things had become.
letter, but not the spirit, of the law. Rule beating
Standards are now increasing, slowly, as expectations
becomes a problem when it leads a system into
in the system have been raised.12
large distortions or unnatural behaviours that
would make no sense at all in the absence of
the rules.
Escalation
We saw this in the food system when European
This happens when the goal of a system is not countries restricted imported feed grains in the
absolute but is related to another variable in the 1960s to support local farmers. Cassava – a good
system. I raise my voice to be heard over you, you yell animal feed – was not restricted. So corn imports
a bit louder and soon we are both shouting at the top from the USA were replaced by cassava imports
of our voices. A reinforcing feedback loop carries us from Asia. European farmers did not benefit.
into escalating loudness, escalating violence, an arms Regardless of whether you agree with the policy in
race, a wealth race. the first place, it did not achieve its objective.
We can see this in the food system. Humans
36
Chapter 3
37
3
How did we
get here?
38
H
OW did we end up with a food system
that can feed the world but makes
How did we get here?
us so ill? One that destroys wildlife,

pollutes our rivers and air, and produces
Chapter 3
almost a third of our greenhouse gases?
Norman Borlaug, Green Revolution pioneer
How did we get into this strange predicament? our farmers did during the Second World War. Before
the war, the UK produced just over 30% of the food it
The story of how the modern world feeds itself is a
consumed.3 Our dependence on food imports, brought
triumph of human ingenuity – but also of devastating
in from the empire and beyond, put us in constant
unintended consequences. It can be told using three
peril. German U-Boats attempted to starve the
lines on a chart.
country into submission by sinking the ships carrying
our food imports. In every month of the war before
May 1943, more merchant ships were destroyed by
Three lines on a chart: a story of U-boats in the North Atlantic than could be built.4 The
unintended consequences.
vital supply lines between Britain and the US were

almost severed. Churchill later said “the U-boat peril”
In 1945, as the Second World War ground to a close,
was the thing that frightened him most during the
humanity faced an even greater existential threat.
War.5
Despite all the bloodshed, the global population had
more than doubled over the last 150 years – from It was farmers who saved the day, with a mass
one billion to two-and-a-half billion people.1 And conversion of scrubland to farmland. They grubbed up
thanks to huge advances in medicine and hygiene, heather and tore down hedges in order to farm every
scientists were anticipating an even bigger surge precious inch of land. By the end of the war, British
to come. Within the next 100 years, they predicted food production had increased from 30% to 75% of
(probably correctly) there would be nine billion demand.6
people on the planet.2 How on earth were we to
It seemed obvious back then that in order to produce
feed them all?
more food, you had to cultivate more land. Indeed,
At one time, the answer would have been simple: this correlation between the number of mouths
dig up more land to produce more food. This is what to feed, the quantity of food produced and the
39
Figure 3.1
The same amount of land now produces much more food, for more people7
Global food
1000 production
Index 1920 = 100
Population
500
Total
agricultural
land
0
00
00
00
20
19
18
proportion of land in cultivation had stayed true for nourishment in the soil are so low that wheat plants
centuries. Figure 3.1 shows three lines representing produce only a few grains … I don’t know what we
how those three variables changed over time with the can do to help, but we’ve got to do something.”8
increase in global population. You can see that from
the start of the 19th century to the early 20th century Borlaug spent his days in the heat-blasted fields,
they rise together gradually at an almost identical painstakingly crossbreeding wheat plants. He
rate. tweezered off stamen, placed tiny hoods over
hundreds of thousands of individual heads of
By the end of the war, however, most of the world’s wheat, snipped florets and mingled pollens by hand.
decent farming land was already taken. With the Completely absorbed in his work, he often slept on
population explosion already underway, it seemed the dirt floor of his research hut. The Mexican farm
there simply wouldn’t be enough land to cultivate the workers thought he was crazy.
extra food needed. Mass starvation looked inevitable.
But he pressed on, and his efforts paid off. When
But no one had reckoned on Norman Borlaug. The Borlaug first arrived in Mexico, it imported 60% of the
botanist had grown up on a small farm in Iowa during wheat it consumed. By 1956† – thanks to the high-
the Great Depression. He had seen starving people yielding, short-stemmed, rust-resistant wheat
begging on the streets and rioting over food. It set he developed – Mexico was self-sufficient.9
him on a mission to fight hunger.
This miracle was repeated in India and Pakistan and
Borlaug moved to Mexico in 1944, hoping to develop then across the world. New breeds of wheat, rice and
more productive strains of wheat. The living conditions corn, combined with modern irrigation techniques and
of the half-starved local population were even worse industrial fertilisers and pesticides, created a new era
than the things he had seen in his youth. of high-yield, high-input, intensive farming.
“These places I’ve seen have clubbed my mind,” he As expected, the global population soared. (In 1950,
wrote to his wife Margaret. “The earth is so lacking in the average global life expectancy was 46; today, it
life force; the plants just cling to existence. They don’t is 73.10) There are almost eight billion humans alive on
really grow; they just fight to stay alive. The levels of Earth – more than ever before – and yet the threat of
mass starvation has receded.11
†
Borlaug saw the genetically superior plants as part of a three-part system that also
included irrigation infrastructure and chemical fertiliser. 40
For the first time in agricultural history, the increase therefore a more interesting commercial proposition.
in food production, and in calories harvested per Eighteen of the largest food and drink companies rely
person, has massively outstripped the additional on product portfolios of which 85% are so unhealthy
land being farmed. We now need just a third of the as to be considered unsuitable for marketing to
land to produce the same amount of food as in the children under World Health Organization guidelines.15
sixties.12 Population has risen, but the world produces
This isn’t a corporate conspiracy, dreamed up by an
How did we get here?
1.7 times more food per person than it did in 1960.13

This is what has become known as the Green evil genius bent on making us ill. It is the economics of
Revolution. By adopting Borlaug’s methods, farmers supply and demand. (We shall examine the causes and
saved billions of people from starvation.† effects of this “Junk Food Cycle” in more detail in the
Chapter 3
next chapter.)
But as so often happens, the solution to one problem
created others. The side effects of the Green Revolution are not
limited to our health.†† As the amount of food being
As the amount of food available per person produced from a given area of land has increased,
increased – and as companies found increasingly the amount of other life occupying that same area
innovative ways to process, package and market this of land has decreased. In the UK, where 70% of
surplus – we became heavier. our landmass is occupied by farmland, intensive
agriculture has devastated the habitats of many wild
Humans evolved in a world where food was scarce. animals and insects.16 Since 1930, we have lost 97% of
We are programmed to seek out calorie-rich foods. our wildflower meadows, half our ancient woodland,
We have a palate that finds fat and sugar almost 56% of our heathland, and 90% of our lowland ponds.17
irresistible and when they are within arm’s reach, we As wheat yields in the UK doubled from 1970 to today,
tend to eat more of them than is good for us. The the number of farmland birds decreased by 54%.18
Green Revolution made calorie-dense foods – refined The UK now sits in last place on the European
wheat, sugar, vegetable fats – abundant and cheap. farmland bird index.19 More broadly, as Figure 3.2
shows, there has been a 60% decline in priority UK
It is bizarre, but not really surprising, that in the UK
species since 1970, with a 22% decline since 2011.20
you can buy 28 different kinds of KitKat.14 Chocolate
snacks are an easier sell than runner beans, and
Figure 3.2
As agricultural production has intensified, biodiversity has declined21
200
UK wheat
production
(tonnes/hectare)
Index (1990 = 100)
100
UK priority
species
(relative abundance)
0
00
10
80
90
70
20
19
19
19
20
†
he Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO) estimates that 50% of the world’s population were undernourished in 1945 versus 11%
T
in 2018 (Ritchie, H and Roser, M. (2019). Hunger and Undernourishment. OurWorldInData.org. [online]. Available at https://ourworldindata.org/
hunger-and-undernourishment). To point out that the world is a better place than it once was does not mean that, for many, existence is not
still cruel and brutish: the FOA also estimates that 820 million people today face chronic food deprivation, leaving 150 million children stunted,
while the United States Government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2 billion people, including half of the world’s
children aged six months to five years, suffer from one or more micronutrient deficiency.
††
Our diagnosis features health and environment impacts. There were other consequences of the green revolution that shape today’s food
41 system. Impact on peasant farmers, agrarian tradition (some of the points the Landworker’s Alliance made to us).
On top of all this, we now know something that consume (see Figure 3.3).23
Borlaug couldn’t have. Every stage of food production
This, then, is the story of how we reached this point.
exacerbates the carbon crisis: the forests cleared
We concentrated on an existential risk – growing
to plant crops; the energy-intensive manufacture of
enough food to avoid mass starvation – and we largely
fertiliser; the release of carbon from degrading soils;
solved that problem. But the food system we ended
the methane produced by rice paddies and livestock;
up with prioritises quantity over nutritional quality. We
the energy used by manufacturing plants and retail
have changed our diets to match what the system is
outlets; and the fuel used to power the vehicles in the
now producing, and this diet is now making both us
supply chain. In total the food system is responsible
and our planet ill.
for an estimated 20–30% of global greenhouse gas
emissions.22 In the UK the food sector’s emissions But we can draw hope from this story. It shows us that
represent just under 20% of everything we produce, humans are capable of solving enormous, existential
but that rises to close to the global average if you threats. We must now muster our ingenuity and
factor in the carbon from the imported food that we determination once more.
Figure 3.3
In 2008, a fifth of all UK emissions were from the food system24
Food GHGs
6% 1% Waste
All Source GHGs Catering disposal
7%
Retail
10% Home
food related
40%
Agriculture
81% 19% Food (mainly N20 and CH₄)
Other related
GHGs GHGs
12%
Transport
7% Packaging
5% Fertiliser
Clean electricity has already reduced these - 12% Food manufacturing
innovation from outside the food sector manufacturing
42
Chapter 4
43
4
Escaping
the Junk
Food Cycle
44
M
OST people in this country believe
Escaping the Junk Food Cycle
there is a simple formula for tackling

dietary ill health: education, exercise,
food labelling and willpower. Provide
Chapter 4
information through schools and public health

campaigns, encourage people to move more,
and leave the rest to individual willpower.
One tabloid newspaper made this argument with feedback loops involving numerous hormones to
typical vigour in a recent editorial attacking proposals ensure that we eat the nutrients we need without
to ban junk food adverts before 9pm. Citing flawed even having to think about it. This isn’t just a case of
data suggesting that such a ban would only trim feeling hungry or full. Our appetite prompts us to seek
two calories off a child’s daily intake, the newspaper out specific nutrients if we are short of them. Some
poured scorn on other “nanny state” interventions people, when short of iron, will even eat soil. (This is
such as the (actually quite successful) Soft Drinks known as geophagia.3) The appetite is a miraculous
Industry Levy. The Government, it said, should mechanism, and hard to resist.
abandon such “ludicrous” measures in favour of the
“common sense” solution: “Better education on diet – But not all appetites are the same. Our genes create
and exercise.”1 differences in how our appetites are regulated.4 For
social animals like humans, there is an evolutionary
The underlying belief here is that we are getting benefit to this diversity. It makes sense to have some
fat and ill because we are too lazy to take exercise, people with bigger fat reserves, who will be better
and too ignorant to eat well. If only we were able to survive a famine. Others are predisposed
better informed about healthy eating, and more to stay lean, meaning they can move fast against
conscientious about getting up off our enormous predators and other sudden threats.
bottoms, the obesity crisis would melt away. (The
unspoken corollary, incidentally, is that if you do know This does not mean that some people are doomed to
how to eat healthily but still resort to processed get fat. It just means that, in an environment where
foods, you deserve to be miserable and ill.) calories are easy to come by, some of us need to work
much harder than others to maintain a healthy weight.
Opinion polls show that this is a majority opinion even You have to swim against the powerful current of your
among those most likely to suffer from diet-related ill appetite.
health.2 The idea of free will is precious to us. We want

to believe we have control over our own appetites The variation in levels of appetite produces a
and behaviours; and to some extent, of course, we distribution of weight in the population that follows a
do. But humans are part of the food system too, and classic bell curve. Figure 4.1 shows what this looked
our behaviour has been radically affected by the like in 1950, when calorie-dense food was still in
malfunctioning of its feedback loops. relatively modest supply.5
The solid vertical line on this chart represents a BMI of

25: defined today as overweight. The dotted vertical
Why is our appetite failing us? line represents a BMI of 30: defined today as obese.
The human appetite is one of the miracles of evolution. You can see that the average BMI in 1950 was about
Our bodies deploy a series of delicately interwoven 20: in today’s terms, somewhere between the ideal
weight and a little underweight.
45
Evenly distributed either side of that, some people Let’s roll the clock forward slowly to the eighties
were underweight, some overweight. But very few (see Figure 4.2).
were obese.
Figure 4.1
In 1950, weight distribution in the UK followed a classic bell curve6
Overweight Obese
16
Proportion of population %
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
BMI
Figure 4.2
By the 1980s, people in the UK had become on average heavier,

meaning the bell curve moved to the right7
16
Overweight Obese
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
BMI
46
During this time, calorie-dense food became much Numerous studies have shown that most people
cheaper and more available. As we consumed more, already know what a healthy diet looks like. More
we became heavier. Everyone – even the naturally than 90% of us know we should restrict our intake of
slender – put on some weight, but those with a foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS), and
genetic predisposition to lay down fat began to tip 99% know eating fruit and vegetables is important for
over into obesity. These people are represented by a healthy lifestyle.12 The problem is not information,
the red slope on the right of the bell curve, where it but implementation. We find it incredibly hard to
crosses the 30 BMI marker. resist sugary, fatty foods because our appetites keep
overriding our good intentions.13 (There is, as we shall
Now let’s roll the clock forward again to the current discuss later on, important work to be done on food
Chapter 4
day. Figure 4.3 shows the red slope growing much education, but this is more about imparting kitchen
longer and thicker, and crossing the line that marks skills and expanding palates than preaching about
a BMI of 40: defined today as severely obese. A diet.)
significant chunk of the population is now severely
obese. Our appetite steers us towards calorie-dense foods
because these are rare and precious in the wild.
Taken together, these charts illustrate the momentum We find these kinds of foods particularly delicious.
of our so-called obesity epidemic. It hasn’t been a Research has found that if they are also low in water
sudden disaster, but more like a slow-moving landslide. content and insoluble fibre – as is the case with many
processed foods – they interfere with the feedback
It’s not just an abundance of food that has caused this
mechanisms of our appetite.14 Our hormones take
landslide. It is also the particular nature of the food.Overweight
longer to convey satiety signals (the feeling of fullness)
The appetite is a classic complex system, controlled when we eat processed foods.15 And because these
by multiple feedback loops. Sophisticated nutrient products are high in calories, eating just a few extra
sensors in our cells and hormones feed information mouthfuls means consuming a lot more calories.16
to the hypothalamus in the brain.9 These hormones
There are hormonal reward mechanisms built into our
include ghrelin, adiponectin, insulin and glucagon. The
appetite, which is where poor diet and mental health
release of appetite-inducing or -supressing hormones
problems sometimes overlap.17 You can give yourself a
can be triggered by the level of sugar in your blood,
temporary dopamine rush by eating a chocolate bar or
the amount of fat you are already carrying, even how
a burger.18 People who are stressed, tired and anxious
full different parts of your stomach or intestines are.10
often respond by overeating.19
Our responses to flavour, and the pleasure we get
from eating, are also part of the appetite system.11
Figure 4.3
Today, many more people in the UK are obese and severely obese8
16
Overweight Obese Severely obese
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
BMI
47
It’s a cheap and modest high: one that, unlike drugs Health England found that volume promotions such
or alcohol, doesn’t cause immediate incapacitation or as BOGOFs increase purchases of a product by an
interfere with your ability to get stuff done. average of 15%.22
The way appetite malfunctions in the modern world Marketeers pore over academic papers with
creates a huge market for unhealthy foods. Not only equations showing which promotions are most likely
are they easier to sell, they are also cheaper to make to lead to increased consumption.
Figure 4.4
Healthy food tends to cost more per calorie†20
1.8 The PHE classifies food

baking potatoes
raspberries
cauliflower to the right of this line
broccoli
as High Fat Sugar and
Salt (HFSS)
carrots
tomatoes
peppers
green beans
Price (pence) per calorie
mixed veg
rocket
cucumbers
easy peelers
bread
eggs
cooked meat nut cornflakes
0.9 Frosties
peas bread
garlic baked beans ketchup
sweetcorn grapes beef corned beef
cooked meat sausages
cream cakes
chocolate bars cookies
Cheerios Peperami
lentils crisps
beans yoghurt spread butter
(kidney, soya) bacon cheddar toffee
Quavers digestives fudge
chocolate
Condiments
Vegetables Fruit Ready meals Red meat Desserts Cheese Confectionery
and Deli
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Most healthy Least healthy
because they use ingredients that have been made

abundant by the Green Revolution, such as refined “I tried to eat healthy, but I found that more
sugar, flour and vegetable oil.21 This has led to a expensive as time went on, trying to feed a
situation where healthier food tends to be much more family of six. I’ve given up.”
expensive, per calorie, than HFSS food (see Figure 4.4). East of England participant, “deliberative dialogue”
For sound commercial reasons, then, companies
invest more money into researching, developing and
marketing unhealthy foods (see Figure 4.5). This
investment is intended not just to help capture a
bigger slice of the market, but to grow the market
“If you’re going to keep chucking cheap beer
itself.
and two tubs of Celebrations for £7 ... I’m
Young marketeers are taught about the “consumption lucky, I don’t put a lot of weight on
effect” – meaning that consumers who have more food me but in four years’ time, I’ll be a right
in their house will eat more of it. In-store promotions heifer, won’t I? I just think we’ve got
such as the classic BOGOF deal (buy-one-get-one- it all wrong, haven’t we?”
free) are explicitly designed to persuade shoppers
North East England participant,
to buy and take home more than they actually need, “deliberative dialogue”
as are attempts to create “new eating occasions”
outside of classic mealtimes. Research by Public
†
The scale on this chart ranges from most to least healthy based on PHE’s nutrient profile scoring. The Nutrient Profile Model scores
food and drink according to their overall nutritional composition rather than just calories. Points are awarded for unhealthy qualities (e.g.
energy density, saturated fat, sugar and salt) and for healthy qualities (e.g. fruit, vegetables and nut content, fibre and protein). A score 48
is calculated by subtracting the healthy points from the unhealthy points. Foods which score over 4 points (shown by the geen dashed
line) and drinks which score over 1 are defined as HFSS.
Figure 4.5
Most marketing money is spent promoting unhealthy products23

3%
0% Eggs 2% Other diary
Cheese
0% Plant-based
protein 4% Yoghurt
Chapter 4
5% Meat
2% Fish
3% Other
1% Oil and spreads 32% Brand

advertising
3% Fruit & veg
6%
31% HFSS Carbohydrates
(discretionary)
8%
Convenience
The majority of
advertising in
these categories
is for HFSS food
or brands
Chocolate, for example, has an “expandability” of it the Junk Food Cycle. We have a predilection for
93%.24 This means that if you run a buy-one-get-one- calorie dense foods, which means food companies
free on chocolate, customers will on average consume invest more time and money creating these foods,
almost twice as much as they would have without which makes us eat more of them and expands the
the BOGOF. market, which leads to more investment, which makes
us eat more.
Readers of a libertarian bent may be thinking: so
what? If a person wants to spend their hard-earned It’s not just the consumer who is trapped in this
cash on junk food – even if they keep eating such cycle: food companies are too. Of the manufactured
food until they make themselves ill – that is nobody’s food products sold in the UK, 85% are deemed to
business but their own. be so unhealthy they are unsuitable for marketing
to children.25 (In 2018, the home-grown fruit and
In fact, though, very few people who are overweight vegetables market in the UK was worth £2.2bn,
or suffering from diet-related disease are happy with whereas confectionery alone – one small section of
their situation. And even if they were, the state cannot the processed food market – was worth £4.2bn.26) The
afford to keep picking up the tab. booming market in online food deliveries is heading
down the same route; Kantar reports that a third of all
In systems terms, we have become stuck in a
online delivery orders included pizza in 2019/20.27
reinforcing feedback loop – a vicious circle. Let’s call
49
But what are company bosses supposed to do? If they developed a new technique for measuring people’s
stop making and selling unhealthy foods, someone exact energy expenditure as they went about their
else will. They will lose their competitive edge, and daily lives, rather than making an estimate based on
their shareholders will have a conniption. observation. This new technique, the doubly labelled
water method,† allowed scientists to calculate exactly
This is why several company bosses have told us how much carbon dioxide a subject breathed out over
they would actually welcome legislation designed to the course of a day by measuring changing levels of
improve the food they sell. They want to do the right oxygen and hydrogen isotopes in their urine. The CO2
thing, but they need a level playing field. Tim Rycroft, a we breathe out is directly correlated to the energy we
spokesman for the Food and Drink Federation, hinted burn.
at this dilemma in the recent BBC documentary "What
are we Feeding our Kids?" Asked whether the priority As soon as they started using this method, researchers
of food companies should be profit or public health, he found a weirdly counterintuitive pattern emerging.
answered without hesitation: “Profit”. But, he added, The daily energy expenditure of very physically active
“The industry has to be guided by the Government. populations turned out to be almost the same as that of
If the Government says there is a reason why these more sedentary industrialised populations.
[foods] are no longer acceptable, of course we will
change.”28 A study of Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania found
that they burned the same number of calories per
We will not succeed in transforming the food system day as urban-dwelling Americans.33 Another study
until we break the most destructive feedback loops showed that children of the indigenous Shuar people
between appetite and commerce, and make it harder of Amazonian Ecuador burned the same number of
to make money from foods that make us ill. calories regardless of whether they moved into towns
and adopted a more sedentary life, or lived like their
parents as foraging horticulturalists.34 Women in rural
You can’t outrun a bad diet farming populations in Nigeria have been shown to have
similar calorie expenditures to women in metropolitan
We have seen how the Junk Food Cycle overrides Chicago.35 And a global meta-study found that across
both education and willpower. But what about the board, people in less developed, more physically
exercise? Is it possible to outrun a bad diet? active populations have the same daily calorie
expenditures as their more sedentary counterparts in
It seems logical to assume that one of the major
rich countries.36
causes of the rise in obesity has been a steep decline
in physical activity. At the start of the 20th century, There is clearly a balancing feedback loop in play here,
28% of Britons worked in manufacturing, most of them whereby the body seeks to regulate its daily energy
doing manual labour, and 11% in agriculture.29 They expenditure just as it regulates body temperature,
would have used up a huge number of calories just blood glucose levels and so forth. It works to keep daily
getting through the working day. (The Institute for calorific output within a narrow range, regardless of
Fiscal Studies has calculated that to burn the same lifestyle.
number of calories as a coal miner, you would have to
jog for over ten hours a week.)31 There are (at least) two possible mechanisms for this.
The first – proposed by the evolutionary anthropologist
By the end of the 20th century, working patterns Herman Pontzer, who conducted many of the doubly
had changed dramatically: just 14% of the population labelled water experiments – is that if you burn less
remained in manufacturing, and 2% in agriculture.30 energy through exercise, your body will use much of the
leftover energy elsewhere, particularly on boosting your
Technology has taken the sweat out of household
immune system and reproductive system.
chores, and even getting from A to B has become
more sedentary. The average person in the UK walked In evolutionary terms, our bodies are still lagging at the
255 miles per year in the mid-seventies, but only 179 hunter-gatherer stage: a condition in which lives could
miles in 2010.32 All this amounts to a fundamental be cut short by violence or illness at any moment. The
change in the way humans interact with the world. We evolutionary imperative, therefore, is to invest as much
used to do it with muscle power; now we do it with energy as possible into your health and reproduction.
machines. Live fast, pass on your genes, die in a hunting accident.
Pontzer suggests this might explain why diseases of
It may seem obvious, therefore, that we are burning
the immune and reproductive systems have become so
fewer calories than previous generations. But it turns
common in developed societies.
out this isn’t the case. In the eighties, scientists
They do this using the double water method which measures how much carbon dioxide they produce during the day by measuring
†
hydrogen and oxygen concentrations in their urine. 50

We eat so much and move so little that our bodies because historically starvation has been a much
are investing too much surplus energy into these bigger threat to humanity than obesity.
systems, leading to chronic inflammation, stress and

reproductive cancers in industrialised populations.37 The idea that exercise is a good way to lose weight is
not just incorrect: it is actively harmful. Every January,
The second widely accepted theory is that our bodies people take out gym memberships in droves, hoping
simply compensate for increased exercise.38 So when to lose weight.40 When the scales don’t budge, they
we consciously increase our deliberate exercise – by become disheartened and give up.
Chapter 4
going for a run, say – we then unconsciously limit our

physical activity for the rest of the day. We may fidget But there are so many other benefits to exercising.
less, for example, or drive to the shops instead of It lowers blood pressure, reduces the risks of cancer,
walking. diabetes and osteoporosis, boosts the immune system
and has a huge impact on mental health.41 Exercise
It is possible, of course, that both these mechanisms benefits just about everyone, regardless of weight. It
are at work simultaneously. What is clear is that is also the case that – for reasons scientists have not
exercise is not a good way to lose weight. If you yet fully understood – exercising does seem to help
increase your exercise level, your body will soon adapt people maintain a healthy BMI once they have lost
to moderate your calorie output. Studies examining weight (see Figure 4.6).
the relative effects of exercise and diet on weight loss
have consistently shown that diet is by far the most If exercise could be prescribed it would be one of our
important factor (see Figure 4.6). most powerful and multi-functional drugs. But in the
public imagination it is associated almost exclusively
Even the small weight loss benefits that might come with weight loss. And because it doesn’t work for that
from exercise – the body doesn’t appear to offset all purpose, people think it doesn’t work. The amazing
changes in energy expenditure – are compromised by things that exercise can do are eclipsed by the one
changes in our appetite. When we exercise we tend thing it can’t.
to get hungry and eat more.39 Our body’s feedback
mechanisms work hard to stop us losing weight,
Figure 4.6
Exercise had a minimal impact helping Boston’s policemen lose weight, but
it was effective in preventing weight gain (after the weight-loss phase)42
Diet
Weight loss (kg)
-7
Diet + exercise
-14
0 4 8 40 80 Week
Treatment Follow-up
A 1989 study of Boston policemen showed that adding exercise to a reduced calorie diet only marginally
improved weight loss during the two-month active weight-loss phase. However, men who exercised
afterwards kept the weight off. Those who didn’t exercise in the months following the weight-loss phase
51 gained all the weight back.43
Ultra-processed food
What if it’s not just the ingredients in processed Based on these definitions, 50% of UK household
food that interfere with our appetite? What if the food purchases are ultra-processed. This compares
processing itself is part of the problem? to 46% for Germany, 14% for France and 13% for
Chapter 4
Italy.45
This idea was first developed by the Brazilian
physician Carlos Monteiro and his team at the Monteiro argues that ultra-processed food has
Centre for Epidemiological Research on Nutrition and a particularly acute effect on weight and health,
Health (NUPENS) at the University of São Paulo. It is compared to equivalent food cooked from scratch.
now being investigated by scientists in many other In 2015 – to the fury of large food manufacturers
countries. – his food group definitions were adopted into the
Brazilian Government’s “Dietary Guidelines for the
Monteiro devised a categorisation system, known as Brazilian Population”.46 Since then other countries
NOVA,44 to divide commercially available foods into have encouraged their citizens to reduce the
four groups: amount of ultra-processed food they eat: Canada,
Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay have introduced dietary
Group 1: Unprocessed or minimally processed
guidance recommending citizens eat less ultra-
foods. This group includes anything from a tomato
processed food, and the Pan American Health
to a bunch of mint, a pork chop to a walnut. They
Organization, has introduced a new approach to
are obtained directly from plants or animals and
“profiling” food which includes looking at whether
go through minimal processing (such as cleaning or
products are high in fat, salt and sugar, (or
freezing) before reaching our kitchens.
sweeteners), to determine whether a product
Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients. This is healthy.47
includes things like butter, sugar and honey. They are
The science of all this is still uncertain. Studies
extracted from nature by processes such as pressing,
show a high correlation between consumption
grinding, crushing, pulverizing, and refining. They are
of ultra-processed food and a range of non-
often used sparingly to make other foods delicious.
communicable diseases. An incremental 10%
Group 3: Processed foods. These contain elements increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods
from groups one or two, processed by manufacturers in a person’s diet is correlated with a 12% increase
– often salted, fermented, or pickled. They include in cancers, a 21% increase in depressive symptoms
bacon, cheeses, canned fruit and vegetables, smoked and a 12% increase in cardiovascular disease risk.48
salmon, and traditionally made bread.
Sceptics, however, argue that “ultra-processed”
Group 4: Ultra-processed foods. These are quite is just another way to describe foods that are
different from the other groups. They tend to contain sugary or fatty, or both at once. Why not blame
the sugars, oils and starches from group 2, but instead the contents of the food, rather than the degree of
of being used sparingly, these ingredients make processing in its manufacture?
up the bulk of the dish. Ultra-processed foods also

One former sceptic, Dr Kevin Hall of the US
contain ingredients unfamiliar to domestic kitchens,
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
such as soy protein isolates or dextrose. Colourings,
Kidney Diseases ran a study that attempted to
emulsifiers, flavourings and other additives are added
adjust for these factors. Hall gathered ten men
to make the products better-looking, tastier, more
and ten women at the National Institute of Health
stable and longer-lasting. This makes them extremely
Clinical Center just outside Washington DC.49
moreish – or “hyperpalatable”, in Monteiro’s jargon.
Over a four-week residential stay, they were fed
Foods in this group include most shop-bought biscuits
different diets under controlled conditions. For
and cakes, mass-produced bread, reconstituted meat
two weeks, the participants ate mostly ultra-
products, mass produced desserts, and many ready
processed meals, such as turkey sandwiches with
meals.
crisps, and for another two weeks they ate mostly
unprocessed food such as spinach omelettes with
sweet potato hash.
52
The diets were broadly matched for fat, sugar, calories protective effects against cardiovascular disease.
and fibre. The researchers also worked hard to design
both sets of meals to be tasty and familiar to all Barabási and Menichetti are using machine
participants. When participants were asked to rate the learning to search and draw from all the
food for pleasure, there was little difference. academic papers and nutritional databases
available online. In this way, they hope to build a
Blood tests showed that levels of the appetite digital catalogue of every nutritional biochemical,
suppressing hormone PYY were significantly lower along with all the research done on each so far,
when participants were on the processed food diet. to better understand how they react with each
By contrast, levels of the hunger hormone, ghrelin, other and with our bodies to make us healthy or
were lower on the unprocessed diets decreased. On sick. They call this a study of “the dark matter of
the unprocessed diet, participants lost weight: an nutrition”.
average of 0.9kg. On the ultra-processed diet, they
ate an average of 500 calories more per day than on They have compared the chemical composition
the unprocessed diet, and they gained an average of of a range of ultra-processed foods with similar
0.9kg. home-cooked dishes and raw ingredients. They
found that, even where the macronutrient
The exact mechanism responsible for these differences profiles looked similar – sugars, vitamins, fatty
is not yet fully understood. Hall has received a deluge acids, minerals, and flavonoids – the other
of suggestions since publishing his report. Could it be chemical components of ultra-processed foods
linked to the gut microbiome, or the satiating effect were different in quantity and type. The reason
of specific types of protein? Hall himself thinks that it for this is still unknown. Is it the processing that
might be because the ultra-processed food was more causes the difference or the specific selection of
calorie-dense, contained less water and, although ingredients and recipes?
matched for fibre, contained less insoluble fibre than
the unprocessed food. In other words, it’s about the What all this shows us is how little we still
ingredients rather than the process. He is about to understand about the way food works. Nutrition
embark on a new trial to test this theory. has long been the Cinderella of scientific
research, perhaps because diet-related disease
The Boston-based physicist Albert-László Barabási, is a slower, more stealthy killer than, say, cancer.
who specialises in the topography of networks, has There is a huge amount of work to be done
his own theory about ultra-processed foods. Having to unravel the full complexity of our diets. As
already mapped the complex reactions between Barabási says: “We are as close to knowing
different proteins inside human cells, Barabási and everything there is to know about the pieces.
fellow physicist Giulia Menichetti have turned their But we are as far as we have ever been from
attention to nutrition. understanding nature as a whole.”
Scientists, they note, have recorded 70,296 distinct

biochemicals across the entire range of foods eaten
by humans.50 Yet most nutritional research is centred
on the 150 key nutritional components tracked and
catalogued by the United States Department of
Agriculture. Some of this research has been vital,
transforming our understanding of the role of calories,
sugar, fat vitamins and other nutrients. But without
studying how the thousands of other chemicals
within any given food interact, how can we properly
understand its impact on health?
Consider garlic, a key ingredient of the Mediterranean

diet. The USDA quantifies 67 nutritional components
in raw garlic, but each clove actually contains more
than 2,306 distinct chemical components – from
allicin, an organosulfur compound responsible for the
distinct aroma of the freshly crushed clove, to luteolin,
a colourless crystalline compound with reported
53
Changing Diets
The dietary choices we make as individuals • Taste Learned behaviours, family culture and
are influenced by multiple factors, often highly individual preferences all contribute to our
personal. At a population level, however, it is food choices. But modern processed foods are
Chapter 4
possible to identify five major factors that have designed to appeal to the broadest possible
combined to change the way we eat since the base. They tend to be simultaneously bland
Second World War: (no strange or unfamiliar flavours) and highly
moreish, packed full of the salt, sugar and fat
• Price/Affordability Rising incomes and more that our evolutionary appetites crave. Large
efficient (and intensive) farming techniques have food companies spend a huge amount of money
made some products much cheaper relative to perfecting the flavour and “mouth feel” of every
household income. Foods made from refined product. The more of this kind of food we eat,
flour, sugar and vegetable oil have become the more we prefer it.
especially cheap.
Some countries have done better than others
• Availability The range of products on offer
at stopping themselves getting caught in the
affects what people choose.51 The proliferation
Junk Food Cycle. South Korea and Japan, for
of supermarkets in the 1960s meant it became
example, have much lower rates of obesity than
possible to stock a larger variety of produce
most developed countries and diets which are
from across the world at more affordable prices.
still high in fish and plants and low in meat and
Consumers could compare products and select
sugary drinks.58 Both countries have achieved this
their preferred choice.52 We now buy four times
by bringing in policies to protect their traditional
as much pasta and rice, half as much bread and
cuisines, such as compulsory school lunches,
two-thirds less potatoes than we did in the
Government-funded lessons on how to prepare
1970s.53
traditional food, and strong marketing campaigns.60
• Convenience The enormous social changes that However, even with these protective measures,
followed the Sexual Revolution – in particular, the obesity is rising in these countries as citizens shift
rise in women working and in people living alone to more Western style diets.61
– have made convenience a much bigger priority.
Modern technology – freezers, microwaves and, Unfortunately, it is too late for the UK to take
most recently, delivery apps – has accelerated similar preventative measures. Junk food has
this trend. Once you factor in the time it takes already become embedded in our food culture
to cook a meal from scratch, the cost of home- and childhood memories. For example, our packed
cooked food has risen since the 1980s, whereas lunches and picnics invariably include a packet
the cost of processed convenience food has of crisps and a chocolate bar, and our religious
declined.54 This has helped create a four-fold festivals – most notably Easter – are dominated by
rise in ready meals and takeaway food.55 The junk food marketing. Even activities such as gaming
are closely linked with consumption of unhealthy
pandemic has reinforced this shift: during

lockdown the delivery market increased by 41%, foods, with KFC recently launching a games
and many people say they will stick with it.56 console with an inbuilt chicken warmer.62
• Marketing Both commercial marketing So far, Government attempts to shift diets have
(promoting new products or maintaining brand relied heavily on interventions – such as labelling,
loyalty) and public health marketing can play leaflets and marketing campaigns – which
an important part in shaping our food choices. require individuals to make a conscious effort to
Since 2007, studies have shown that food and change their behaviour. But as we have seen, it
drink advertising contributes to increased calorie is unrealistic to expect the junk food cycle to be
intake in children.58 broken solely through individual willpower.63
54
Voluntary schemes developed with the food industry
have also had limited sustained impact because
companies have been allowed to opt out and thus
secure a competitive advantage.
Mandatory interventions have had much more impact,

over a shorter period. The UK’s Soft Drinks Industry
Levy led to a 29% reduction in the average sugar
content of soft drinks within three years.64 Similar
results can be seen in Hungary and Mexico, where
taxes on unhealthy foods have encouraged food
companies to reformulate their products and have
reduced purchases of unhealthy foods.65 These taxes
have been in place since 2011 and 2014 respectively,
and there are now signs of detectable health
impacts.66
But no country has successfully reversed the drift

towards obesity. While some interventions are
more effective than others, there is no silver bullet.
Given the power of the Junk Food Cycle, multiple
interventions are needed, much like those that have
led to the decline in smoking since the 1950s.67
Even then we are unlikely to see immediate

improvements. Changes in dietary behaviour across
populations take time to reach a scale where the
benefits (or otherwise) can clearly be seen. Today’s
dietary patterns have formed over a period of at
least 70 years. We will need long-term political
commitments to reverse them.
55
Chapter 5
56
5
Inequality
57
A
T Glasgow’s book festival earlier
this year, the BBC presenter Andrew
Marr was asked about his student
flirtation with Marxism, which earned him
Chapter 5
Inequality
the nickname “Red Andy”. He explained

that in later life he had come to appreciate
the power of the free market – albeit with
reservations.
“The market is something we live in all the time,” he The inequalities within, and created by, our food
said. “It’s almost the water we swim in, and it gives system are stark. Analysis of the annual National
us all the things we take for granted about ourselves. Diet and Nutrition Survey shows that adults on low
It’s a great machine for inventiveness and ingenuity, incomes are more likely to have diets which are
but it presents two really serious problems. One is high in sugar but low in fibre, fruits, vegetables and
dirt: it produces filth and pollution. The second is fish. Children from the least well-off 20% of families
that it produces huge and unacceptable levels of consume around 29% less fruits and vegetables, 75%
inequality. For me, the job of politics is to remove the less oily fish, and 17% less fibre per day than children
dirt, and reduce inequality.” from the most well off 20%.2 The effects of this
dietary disparity are all too predictable.
Much of this report will be about the “dirt” – or
externalities, in economics jargon – created by the Figure 5.1 shows how the rates of different diet-
food system. But in this chapter, we want to focus on related conditions vary according to the affluence
inequality. of an area. People living in the most deprived decile
are almost twice as likely to die from all preventable
It isn’t just capitalism that creates inequality. In fact,
causes, compared to those in the richest decile. They
ever since humans began to farm, keep livestock,
are 2.1 times more likely to die from preventable heart
and pass on their assets to future generations,
disease; 1.7 times more likely to die from preventable
inequality has been a defining feature of human
cancer; and 3 times more likely to have tooth decay
societies – regardless of their political structure.
at age 5. Their children are nearly twice as likely to be
In his book The Great Leveler, the Stanford-based
overweight or obese at age 11.3
historian Walter Scheidel1 showed that only the “Four
Horsemen” of social levelling – mass-mobilisation This pre-existing divide in diet-related health is one
warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, reason why people in the most deprived areas have
and catastrophic plagues – have ever significantly been twice as likely to die from COVID-19, compared
reduced inequality. It never goes peacefully. to those in the least deprived areas.4
COVID-19 has, so far, served mainly to exacerbate Even before Covid, however, the upward trajectory
inequalities in the UK. But it has also generated a of life expectancy in the UK had begun to slow – and
new sense of urgency about addressing them. in some areas, go into reverse.5 Women in the most
deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England now die
3.6 months younger than they did in 2010.6 Their life
expectancy is 7.7 years shorter than that of women in
the richest areas.
58
Figure 5.1
People on low incomes are more likely to suffer, and die from, diet-related conditions7
Preventable mortality Preventable CVD mortality Preventable cancer mortality

200 40 80
100 20 40
0 0 0
Dental decay Childhood overweight and obesity

40 40
20 20
0 0
Most to least deprived decile
Y axis in all charts shows relative risk, expressed as percentages,

rate per 100,000 people, or mortality per 100,000 people.
Figure 5.2
Poorer children tend to be shorter than their wealthier counterparts8
145
Average height (cm)
144
143
142
1 5 10
Most Least
deprived Deprivation Decile deprived
Year 6 children (aged 10–11)
Female White British 2019–20 Male White British 2019–20
59
Figure 5.3
Average height in high income Western countries: female, aged 5, 20199
120
Average height (cm)
Chapter 5
Inequality
115
110

UK
Po ada
Ze al
itz nd
Cy nd
er s
y
M
Fr
Ire e
en d
st
Sp
An n
Fi a
m d
Is
Sw l
N en
G y
e
Au y
Ic ia
N nm
rla
s
m
A
ta
Au and
lia
De nd
he ark
e
u
nd
r
rr
c
ec
ai
an
ur
al
G lan
n
US
ed
ra
g
iu
la
st
al
pr
an
w
ra
Sw ala
a
do
It
n
ew u
bo
re
m
er
lg
Lu nl
el
or
Ca
r t
Be
re
G
xe
et
N
Figure 5.4
Average height in high income Western countries: male, aged 5, 201910
120
Average height (cm)
115
110
UK
Ca d
da
al
Ze m
Cy d
Ire s
Fr d
ce
er ta
Sw ny
re en
nd
Au ain
An lia
Fi ra
Au d
N ia
ay
G el
e
De ly
m k
c g
he nd
s
ec
xe ar
ur
n
an
an
US
nd
ra
ug
Ita
ew lgiu
r
al
pr
an
w
ra
a
na
la
la
la
et ela
st
do
Sp
Lu nm
bo
re
m
e
al
nl
Is
M
or
rla
rt
er
en
st
Be
Po
itz
I
G
G
Sw
N
N
The differential for men is 9.5 years.11 For healthy nourished. Children in the poorest areas of England
life expectancy there is an even greater disparity are both fatter and significantly shorter than those
between rich and poor with a gap of 19 years.12 in the richest areas at age 10–11 (see Figures 5.1 and
5.2). (This also has an impact at a national level. The
It shouldn’t have taken a global pandemic to make
average five-year-old in the UK is shorter than his
us pay proper attention to dietary inequality. It has
or her peers in nearly all other high-income western
long been visible to the naked eye. A modern diet
countries.13)
of cheap junk food has the peculiar quality that it
can make you simultaneously overweight and poorly
60
Figure 5.5
There is a strong correlation between income, educational attainment,

and fruit and vegetable consumption14
Fruit & veg
Smoothies & 100%

£50,000 or more
fruit juice
Salad & other
raw vegetables Vegetables, not raw
Fruit
Fruit
Fruit juice
Fruit juice
Other potatoes, Salad & other raw
potato salads Other potatoes, vegetables
potato salads
Other potatoes,
potato salads
£25,000 to £49,999
Smoothies & 100%

fruit juice
Income
Salad & other raw

vegetables
Fruit
Fruit
Smoothies
& 100% Fruit juice
fruit juice
Vegetables,
not raw
Less than £25,000
Other potatoes,
potato salads
Fruit juice
Salad & other raw vegetables
Vegetables, not raw
Fruit
Up to GCSE or equivalent A-level or equivalent Degree or equivalent, or higher
Education
Based on years 1–3 of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008/09–2010/11). Note: Foods appear in this graphic only if they are consumed
in quantities that exceed the 95% upper confidence interval of the population mean. The foods represented here are those which stand out
on a statistical basis, and do not represent the totality of the diet within each demographic group. The size of the circle is proportional to the
relative difference between the level of consumption within a specific income-education category and that of the population overall.
Obesity can also co-exist with outright hunger. By now some readers may be writhing irritably in their
The same households that struggle to eat well may seats, wondering whatever happened to personal
sometimes find themselves unable to eat at all. Data responsibility. The wartime generation managed to
collected in 2019 by the Department of Work and survive on scraps, through careful budgeting and
Pensions found that, even before the pandemic, 4% menu planning. Lentils are cheap. Isn’t eating badly a
of UK families experienced disrupted eating patterns symptom of laziness, rather than just poverty?
or were forced to cut back on food due to a lack of
resources.15 (The Government calls this “very low It is true that a little can be made to go a long way –
food security”.) Among those on Universal Credit, this provided you know where to buy cheap ingredients,
proportion rose to 26%.16 The economic disruption you have the means to get there and back, and
caused by the pandemic has increased the number of you are skilled enough to turn raw ingredients into
households struggling to put food on the table.17
61
something appetising. But those are significant The stress of poverty also interferes with the
provisos. Culinary skills and knowledge have hormones that regulate appetite. The more exhausted
diminished across every social class since convenience and strung out you are, the harder it is to resist
food became widely available, and they are still temptation.24 Not coincidentally, people in deprived
diminishing as one generation after another grows up areas tend to be surrounded by the temptations of
without seeing or trying cookery at home.18 (This is junk food. There is a clear correlation between poverty
another example of a reinforcing feedback loop.) and the density of fast-food outlets, with almost twice
as many in the most deprived areas compared to the
The fact is, we live in a completely different food least (see Figure 5.6). In one deprived area in North-
landscape from that of our thrifty grandparents. As we West England, there are 230 fast food outlets for
Chapter 5
Inequality
saw in the previous chapter, unhealthy food is cheaper every 100,000 people, compared to an England-wide
per calorie than healthy food. This is especially true average of 96.25
when you factor in the opportunity cost of cooking
from scratch. If you’re tired and short of time – and In these so-called “food swamps, junk food is
especially if you’re not a confident cook – it makes everywhere but fresh ingredients are harder to find.
economic sense to buy a box of chicken and chips Roughly 3.3 million people cannot reach any food
instead of toiling at the stove. Especially as you can stores selling raw ingredients within 15 minutes by
be sure the kids will eat it, so there’s no danger of it public transport, and 40% of the lowest income
going to waste. households lack access to a car – almost twice as
many as the national average.26 Without a local
There are capital costs to eating well, too. Cooking shop selling fresh ingredients, or a car to get you to
requires technology, even at the most basic level. the supermarket, or a fridge to keep perishables in,
There are currently an estimated 1.9 million people cooking from scratch becomes dauntingly difficult.
in the UK living without a cooker, 2.8 million people
without a freezer, and 900,000 people without a The economic inequalities in this country are not
fridge.19 Some households have the relevant white about to vanish overnight. Whatever the Government’s
goods in place, but not enough money to run them. other “levelling up” priorities may be, there is a
particular urgency to the problem of helping low-
There’s also a strong psychological component to income families eat well. Improving the diets of the
what people buy and eat. poorest households would have both immediate and
long-term benefits, not just for those people who
Poverty causes high levels of stress, sleeplessness and
would live longer and in better health, but for the
cognitive overload.20 Numerous studies have shown
economic outlook of the whole country.
how scarcity of money, food or time affects cognitive
processes, in effect narrowing mental “bandwidth”.21
This can result in people making decisions that go
against their long-term interests.22 People from the
poorest households are much less likely to adopt
healthy behaviours – such as planning and cooking
meals from scratch – because all their energy is taken
up with coping in the short term.23
Figure 5.6
The most deprived areas tend to have more fast food outlets27
Most
deprived
1
Decile
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
10
11
Least
deprived
Fast food outlets per 100,000 of the population
62
Welfare
Our Terms of Reference tasked us with creating a
Food Strategy that, among other things, enables
people to access “safe, healthy, affordable food;
regardless of where they live or how much they
earn”. We have outlined in this chapter how
social inequalities in the UK are reflected in,
and exacerbated by, inequalities of diet. Our
recommendations also set out how these can be
alleviated, in part, by using taxation to encourage
corporations to reformulate unhealthy food, and
using some of that money to help the least affluent
access healthy food.
Our scope does not cover the economic measures

required to structure a fairer society, nor have we
been asked to suggest changes to the benefits
system more broadly. Ideally, of course, the true cost
of eating healthily should be calculated into benefits
payments.
There is a widespread notion that giving low-income

households extra money to spend on food is a waste
of time. We heard this again and again during our
consultations with citizens – even from those who
were themselves on benefits. “They’d just spend it on
booze and fags” was a common refrain, only partially
in jest.
But all the evidence suggests this is a myth.

Studies in this country have shown that, as poorer
families’ income goes up, they spend more on fruit,
vegetables, fibre, oily fish and other foods rich in
vitamins and minerals. And families actually cut
their spending on alcohol and tobacco as their
income rises.
63
Chapter 6
64
6
Exposing
the invisibility
of nature
“Statistics are the lens through which we see the world, but they
have made nature invisible to policymakers. Twenty-first century
progress cannot be measured using twentieth century statistics.”
Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy

at the University of Cambridge1
65
W
E have seen how the Junk Food
Exposing the invisibility of nature
Cycle – a reinforcing feedback

loop between commercial
incentives and the human appetite – is
Chapter 6
damaging our health. Now we must turn

our attention to the system failures that are
causing so much harm to our environment.
The manufacture, production and distribution of food

has become an ecological disaster. Globally (and
“I feel like [climate change is] the defining
domestically), it is the single largest contributor to
issue of our time and we’ll look back on it
the destruction of habitats, biodiversity and major
like we look back on the slave trade and
abiotic systems (water, nitrogen and carbon).2
things like that. Almost in a way of, ‘How
In systems terms, the reason for this is simple. There could we not have seen sooner what was
is no balancing feedback loop to stop us destroying happening?’”
nature. By almost all of the measurements that we “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
use to value human activity, nature is invisible. South West England
“Nature” is everywhere, yet almost impossible to

measure. It doesn’t sit in bank accounts or wallets,
waiting to be counted. Much of it is silent, invisible
or mobile. The biome of microscopic bacteria in the
soil quietly breaks down nutrients to make them
accessible to plants. Populations of deep water fish
rise and fall unseen on the ocean floor. Winds blow,
rivers flow, oceans circulate, and insects and birds
flitter across national borders, belonging to no one
but the Earth. (See Figure 6.1 drawn from Dasgupta’s
review.)
What we don’t notice, we don’t tend to value. It

is no surprise that the most eye-catching parts of

nature get the most attention. Campaigns to save
charismatic megafauna, such as giant pandas, long
preceded widespread concern for the biodiversity of
life in our soil. If carbon dioxide smelled bad, you can
be certain we would have done more about cutting
down on greenhouse gas emissions.
66
Figure 6.1
Redrawn from Partha Dasgupta’s "The Economics of Biodiversity”;

Nature is silent, invisible and mobile
Silent What we don’t

notice, we don’t
tend to value.
Invisible
Mobile
Crucially, we do not place a financial value on nature. Our economic systems treat natural resources as if
A farmer who ploughs up an area of rich peatland, they were both costless and infinite. In fact, it is worse
for example, does not have to pay for carbon that is than that. As the economist Partha Dasgupta pointed
emitted from the peat in the process, accelerating out in The Economics of Diversity, his recent review
climate change. Nor is the cost passed on to for the UK Treasury, Governments around the world
the consumer. Intensive farming has made food actively encourage the destruction of nature.3 Every
unprecedentedly cheap, in terms of household outlay, year, $500 billion-worth of Government subsidies
even as the cost to the planet spirals out of control. are spent globally on supporting practices – such as
No one pays for the damage, so everyone does. intensive agriculture, fisheries, fossil fuel mining and
fertiliser manufacture – that destroy nature. These
Environmental destruction and climate change impose economic incentives are estimated to cause $4 to
a huge financial burden on the taxpayer. Yet none of $6 trillion of environmental damage every year. In
this is recorded on our financial spreadsheets. It is economic terms, we have actually given nature a
not factored into the GDP with which we measure a negative value.
nation’s economic health, or the financial statements
of our companies. As Dasgupta’s review makes plain, we are currently
living way beyond the planet’s means. Technological
Nature has an intrinsic and universal value which advances alone will not save us. Unless we make
exceeds any economic measurement. But the fact that dramatic changes to our agricultural, industrial and
it simply doesn’t exist within the financial calculations consumer patterns, we will destroy the lives of future
that shape so much of human, and Governmental, generations. Once ecosystems are lost it is hugely
decision making, makes it extremely vulnerable to bad expensive – and often impossible – to rebuild them.
decisions.
67
The world is slowly waking up to this reality. Farmers, Figure 6.2, a work in progress, illustrates the many
for example, are increasingly paid by Governments factors the GFM currently believe should be measured
to deliver environmental benefits as well as food. But in order to understand the impact of a farm – not only
these interventions have been small compared to the on nature, but also on society. These range from water
scale of change required. Around 4% of the subsidy quality to soil structure, to animal welfare and the
money provided by the Common Agricultural Policy skills of the human workforce.
goes on supporting low carbon, environmentally
friendly farming.4 For each of these elements, and more, the GFM is
Chapter 6
devising a metric of measurement. This is easier in

In 2011, the Government commissioned a team of some cases than others. The methods for quantifying
economists and environmental academics to work out greenhouse gas emissions are already well debated
how we could become “the first generation to leave (although, as we shall see in the next chapter, not fully
the environment in a better state than it inherited”.5 agreed). But the science of measuring, say, carbon
The final report of the Natural Capital Committee, sequestration has a long way to go. No one has yet
published last year, set out three “guiding principles”:6 worked out how to measure the carbon stored in
soils systematically and reproducibly over large areas.
1. Net environmental gain It is not enough to stop And we are only just beginning to think about how
destroying nature, we need to start rebuilding it. to quantify many other elements of nature, such as
biodiversity.
2. Public money for public goods The Government
should spend taxpayers’ money on things that Assuming the world can eventually agree on the
benefit everyone in society. From a farming metrics by which to measure nature, we still have
perspective, this might include habitats with better to find a way to place values on these metrics. This,
biodiversity, which capture water and prevent again, is fraught with difficulty.
floods, or which are simply beautiful. By definition,
public goods are non-excludable (their benefits In devising the £2.4 billion of subsidies that will be
cannot be confined just to those who have paid paid to farmers in place of the Common Agricultural
for them), and non-rivalrous (consumption by one Policy, our Government has pledged to only subsidise
person does not restrict consumption by others). public goods.7 (Not, say, the production of food,
which is both excludable and rivalrous. I can stop
3. The polluter pays Any individual who destroys the you eating my apple; and once I have eaten it, you
natural habitat must be made to pay to restore the can’t.) But how should it weigh up the various public
harm they have done. goods against one another? What is a beautiful view
of pasture and dry-stone walls worth, compared to
As we pursue these principles, we need to be able
a biodiverse riparian woodland along a stream, or a
to measure our progress. And to do that, we must
flood-preventing wetland?
decide which elements of the environment to measure,
and how; what value to attach to each of these There is also, still, intense debate over exactly how
measurements; and finally, how to build that value into one makes the polluter pay. The British economist
our food system (whether in the form of a public good, Arthur Cecil Pigou, in his 1920 work The Economics
or by using the polluter pays principle). None of this is of Welfare, argued that this should be done through
easy. taxation.8 But in 1960, the America economist Ronald
Coase argued that such “Pigouvian” taxes could

The Global Farm Metric (GFM) coalition has recently
“lead to results which are not necessarily, or even
been wrestling with the first part of this problem:
usually, desirable”.9 Today, economists are still divided
what to measure on farms, and how. A collaboration
between these two camps. We will examine their
between farmers, food producers, supermarkets,
arguments further in Chapter 12.
environmental NGOs, banks and investors, the GFM
is attempting to create an internationally agreed set Politically, too, there are dangers in making the polluter
of indicators for assessing the sustainability of any pay. The cost is often born by the consumer, and
farm: the Global Farm Metric. That is the limit of their tends to be felt most keenly by the poorest. Just look
scope: just agreeing on the indicators, not assigning at the recent Gilets Jaunes protests in France, sparked
any value to them. They simply want to establish by rises in fuel duty, or our own fuel protests in 2000.
an international language for quantifying various
elements of nature – much as the International Bureau
of Weights and Measures in Paris defines the metrics
used in science and engineering. (The precise length
of a metre, for example.)
68
Figure 6.2
A selection of the metrics for understanding the impact of a farm10
ivity Human
duct C ap
Pro ital
orkers
So
Physical ou
dge
ci
Fina
Tru a
owle
e
Health of w
ncia
cos
ent
lC
il
So
s/kn
ap
ym
t
l out
So
ba
tput
ita
il o
plo
t
lan
en
Skill
put
rg
l
Em
alt
m
a
ce
e
nic
ag
He
St
she
ru ng
ma
ct e
ity
et
ur
tte
e
un
r
Bio m n
div m tio
ers Co uca
ity Ed
e
sc ap
Biodiv
So u r
ce Land
Water
ersity
Quality Natural
n Agricultural
Sedimentatio
urce Nutr
itiona
by so l quali
is sions Pes ty
Em t&
n
ealth
tio dis
es tra Cr ec
eas
u op
Se q ont
Air
sg rol
pH
ro
Nu
ce wn
lan
&
tri
/ro
Cro
Ba
ix
Div
tio
Clim
ta
m
tio
y
e/
ers
ls
nc
&
n
ag
eria
&
Ma n
Management efficiences
in
i
ffie
Nutrien
ate
t
us
pu
y, h
nt
mat
y
te
ag e
rg
Pla
lf-s
outputs
ea
ffi
e
En
lth
cie
cled
se
me n
t balanc
nc
&
rgy
y
ecy
we
t sy
Inputs/
e
ne
En
lfa
ry
te/r
E
rg
stem
nd
re
e sheet
y a
&
Was
Re sb
so
urc l Hu
a
e im
Use An
Nutrient Management
69
Finally, there are some environmentalists who dislike
the very idea of putting a price tag on nature. The

journalist George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, “I think that as human beings we are short -
derided the concept of “natural capital” as “morally sighted in a crisis. We need to take a longer
wrong, intellectually vacuous, emotionally alienating view of our time here and what it means to
and self-defeating”.11 It “reinforces the notion that be a citizen in modern society if we are to
nature has no value unless you can extract cash from make any lasting changes.”
it,” he argued. It turns the natural world into just “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
Chapter 6
another tradeable commodity, subject to the corrosive London & the South East
values of the marketplace.
Dasgupta’s report was criticised along similar lines,

by people who don’t appear to have read it. In
fact, Dasgupta is keenly aware of the dangers of
abandoning the environment to an unregulated free
market. “Markets alone are inadequate for protecting
ecosystems from overuse,” he writes. He recognises
that the value of some ecosystems may essentially
be infinite, either because they have sacred value or
because they are close to a tipping point past which
they will be lost forever.
Dasgupta also accepts that often it will be impossible

to measure and value the true harm done to a
system. We know, for example, that the extraordinary
complexity of mycelia, bacteria, protists, archaea, and
the vast array of microorganisms and invertebrates
in our soils, are essential to both agriculture and
the natural world. But we are a long way from truly
understanding this miniature ecosystem, let alone
being able to put a price on it. If we just hazard a
guess, and slap on a price tag that undervalues a
vital part of the natural world by mistake, we might
accelerate its destruction. In many cases, says
Dasgupta, it would be simpler and safer to impose
legal restrictions to stop people exploiting certain
habitats, rather than relying on taxation.
The “invisibility” of nature is what makes it acutely

vulnerable to human activity. But there is no
straightforward way to make it visible. Clumsy reform
could easily lead to unintended consequences.
Doing nothing, however, is more dangerous still. To

properly disincentivise environmental destruction, we
must find a way to build its true cost into the system –
even if we can’t value it to the last penny.
In the following chapters we will examine what a food

system in which nature was visible and valued might
look like. Is there a way of getting all the food we
need from the land while simultaneously restoring
nature and sequestering carbon? And if so, how do we
reach this promised land?
70
Chapter 7
71
7
Food and
climate
72
T
HE food system – agriculture, food production,
distribution and retail combined – releases more
greenhouse gases than any other sector apart
Food and climate
from energy. It is responsible for 25–30% of global

Chapter 7
emissions: a tally that dwarfs, say, the 3.5% contributed

by air travel.1 In the UK, the food system accounts for
a fifth of domestic emissions – but that figure rises to
around 30% if we factor in the emissions produced by
all the food we import.2
There are four major ways in which the food system A more recent calamity in this country is the
contributes to climate change: destruction of our peat bogs. Peat is created when
plants growing on top of a bog – typically mosses,
1. The damage done when wild areas are converted
sedges and reeds – sink into wet, acidic and anaerobic
to farmland, or when farmland is prevented from
conditions below. Under these conditions they do
reverting to forest.
not fully decay. Instead of rotting and releasing
2. The release of carbon from farmland soil – carbon back into the atmosphere, like most dying
particularly peat soils. things, these plants retain their carbon as they sink
in layers down into the bog. By this process, a peat
3. The use of fossil fuels in every part of the food
bog might sequester 0.4 to 1.1 tonnes of carbon per
system.
hectare per year.6 (This compares to 5 to 40 tonnes for
4. The release of two potent greenhouse gases, growing woodland, with temperate forests typically
methane and nitrous oxide, from agriculture – by far sequestering 10–20 tonnes per year.)7
the largest factor in the UK.
It takes thousands of years for a peat bog to form,
Wherever land is converted for farming, it exacts a but a matter of days to plough it up. Because peat
terrible toll on the environment. The most famous is so rich in nutrients, it makes wonderfully fertile
example is the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, farmland. Over the past couple of centuries, 56% of
which – as well as destroying vast areas of ancient the UK’s peat land has been drained and converted
beauty and biodiversity – has released a vast amount to agricultural use – either for grazing animals or for
of carbon into the atmosphere. During the 2010s, tree- growing crops.8 When peat dries out, the organic
burning in the Amazon released more carbon than matter that has built up for thousands of years begins
seven years’ worth of UK fossil fuel emissions.3 to be eaten by bacteria in the soil. This process
converts the carbon in the peat into carbon dioxide,
In this country, we destroyed our forests long ago. In which is then released into the atmosphere.
5,000 BC, 75% of the UK was covered in wildwoods.4
But as human settlements spread and became more Emissions from converted peat bogs can be huge –
sophisticated, trees were chopped down to clear land, each hectare of lowland peat used for crop farming
to build houses and boats, and to burn for fuel. By emits an average of around 4 tonnes of carbon dioxide
1086, when the Doomsday Book was completed, the equivalent per year.9 And of course, this land doesn’t
proportion of land in England covered by forest had just emit carbon; like deforested land, it also loses the
shrunk to 15%. That figure currently sits at just 10% (up ability to sequester carbon.10
from a low point of 6% at the end of the Second World
War).5
73
Once a farm is up and running, it typically uses a lot of begins: processing, packaging, transport, retail, cold
energy to produce crops. Most farming in this country storage, cooking in homes and restaurants, waste
relies heavily on man-made herbicides, pesticides and, disposal. The good news is that these parts of the
above all, fertiliser. These days most fertiliser is not food system increasingly benefit from innovations in
created from manure or nitrogen-fixing crops but from clean and efficient energy. Now that we have made
ammonia, which itself is produced in vast factories. clean electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, many food
Nitrogen from the atmosphere is synthesized with manufacturers and retailers have been able to cut
hydrogen atoms ripped from fossil fuels at high their carbon footprints dramatically. Nestlé UK and
temperature and under high pressure. This process on Ireland has, for example, reduced its operational
its own accounts for 1% of global carbon emissions.11† emissions by more than 60% since 2007.12
Once spread onto the land, any fertiliser that isn’t Figure 7.1 shows how greenhouse gas emissions
taken up by plants sinks into the soil. From there, are distributed across the various parts of the food
it is either washed into our rivers and underground system. It is worth noting that the transport of food
aquifers, contaminating both, or converted by bacteria – the famous “food mile” – actually accounts for
into nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas roughly 265 only 13% of the food system’s total carbon footprint.
times more potent than carbon dioxide. This adds a Airfreight is a small percentage of that (estimated at
further 2% to global emissions. around 1% and 1.5% of total emissions from food),††
though flying does turn low carbon food into high
Farm machinery and buildings require a lot of energy
carbon food: the carbon footprint of South American
to run. And once the raw ingredients have left the
asparagus, for example, increases by more than 25
farm, another long chain of energy consumption
times when it is flown to the UK.13
Figure 7.1
Agriculture is the biggest contributor to GHG emissions in the food system14
Waste disposal 1%
Catering
5%
Retail
6%
Home
related
8%
Agriculture
46%
Transport
13%
Packaging
7%
Food
mfg Fertiliser
9% mfg
6%
†
1 % of global emissions come from ammonia production and 12% of total agricultural emissions (2.9% of total emissions) from synthetic
ammonia use. In total, then, synthetic fertiliser is about 4% of global GHGs.
††
Air freight only represents a very small percentage of food miles (estimated at 0.16%) as it is so expensive. Only 1.5% of UK fruit and 74
vegetables are air freighted. Overall, air freighting accounts for 1–1.5% of food emissions.
The relative potency of
CO2, CH4 and N2O
Food and climate
Three man-made greenhouse gases account for Arrhenius sat down on Christmas eve of 1894 to
Chapter 7
the bulk of the warming associated with climate begin the “tedious calculations” required to work out
change: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and whether this effect could be significant. They proved
Nitrous Oxide (N2O). The food system is the only so tedious that by the time he finished, in December
field of human activity that emits all three. 1895, his new and pregnant wife (formerly his
laboratory assistant) had left him to go to live alone
For a long time, it was thought water vapour
on a remote island.
and clouds were solely responsible for regulating
the temperature of our planet. To a large degree But Arrhenius had made a remarkable discovery.
this is true. The sun washes the Earth with every Small changes in airborne carbon dioxide, he
imaginable wavelength of light. A third of that light concluded, could have a huge effect on the climate.
is reflected back by clouds and a sixth is absorbed The burning of fossil fuels would lead to the gradual
by airborne water vapour. The remaining half – warming of the planet over time. “In the future,”
most of it visible – makes it to the Earth's surface he wrote from the perspective of Sweden’s frigid
and is almost all absorbed by the land, oceans climate, “our descendants [will] live under a warmer
and vegetation. The Earth heats up and emits sky and a less harsh environment than we were
this heat back into the atmosphere in the form granted.”
of infra-red light, some of which gets trapped in
We now know that it is not just carbon dioxide
the atmospheric water vapour, and some of which
that has this effect but other gases too. They all
makes it back out into space. In total, the water
have different qualities: each is better or worse at
vapour traps just enough heat to make the world
absorbing heat and each remains in the atmosphere
warm enough for us to live in and releases enough
for different periods of time.
to ensure we don’t get too hot.
In terms of volume, methane (CH4) is only a middling
Man-made greenhouse gases, exist in our
player: there is 210 times less methane in the
atmosphere in such tiny quantities (by comparison
atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but five times more
with water vapour) that for a long time no one
methane than nitrous oxide.15† The problem is that
imagined they could have any significant effect on
methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. A tonne of
our climate. If you were to fill a million balloons with
methane released into the atmosphere will trap 85
air from the Earth’s atmosphere, the total quantity
times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year
of water vapour would be enough to fill 25,000
period.16
balloons. The carbon dioxide would fill only 300
balloons. The methane would fill less than one and To enable us to compare their relative potency,
a half balloons, and the nitrous oxide just under a and therefore to prioritise our actions to mitigate
quarter of one balloon. climate change, scientists have created the Global
Warming Potential (GWP) scale. The GWP of a gas
Until the late 19th century, scientists believed that
is calculated over a specific time horizon, commonly
changes in water vapour alone must account for the
20 or 100 years. The benchmark gas, carbon dioxide,
world’s hot and cold phases. It took an impulsive
is defined as having GWP of 1. Over twenty years,
and energetic Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius,
methane has a GWP of 85. But over 100 years its
to prove them wrong.
GWP is 34, because – unlike carbon, which lingers for
Arrhenius realised that the wavelengths of light centuries – methane disappears from the atmosphere
absorbed by carbon dioxide were different from relatively quickly. Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 265
those absorbed by water vapour. So carbon dioxide over both periods.17
could theoretically “sweep up” the heat that got
So although methane and nitrous oxide fill many
through those gaps in the absorption spectrum
fewer balloons than carbon dioxide, each balloon
of the vapour. Without a computer to aid him,
created packs a much bigger punch.
†
Approximately 1,900 and 330 parts per billion respectively vs 400,000 parts per billion for carbon dioxide.
75
But the food system’s two biggest climate sins are Imagine a landscape with a herd of cows grazing
methane and manure. Agriculture is responsible for on the left, and a power station on the right. As the
50% of global methane emissions.18 Most of this is cows keep burping, their total contribution to the
generated by just two foodstuffs: rice (fermenting amount of methane in the atmosphere keeps growing
bacteria in the wet soil of rice paddies give off large – but only for 12 years. After that, the methane they
quantities of methane) and ruminant livestock, chiefly burped out in the early days will start to fall out of the
cows and sheep.† atmosphere. As long as the herd stays the same
size,†††† its total methane contribution will stabilise,
Ruminant stomachs have to work hard to ferment
as new methane goes up and old methane vanishes
plant cellulose into digestible starches. This process
from the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide emitted by
creates methane, which the animals burp out.
the power station, by contrast, will keep building up
Ruminant manure – the run-off from which pollutes
because it lingers in the atmosphere for centuries.
watercourses and leads to freshwater eutrophication
– also releases methane and nitrous oxide. Taken As Figure 7.2 shows, the global demand for meat
together, the burping and manure of ruminant is in fact already slowing. In developed countries,
animals account for two thirds of the UK’s farming consumption of beef and lamb seems to be in
emissions.19 (modest) decline, perhaps because of perceived health
or environmental concerns. Some commentators have
The methane produced by ruminants is estimated to
suggested the world may be reaching “peak meat”.
have caused a third of total global warming since the
If that is the case (which remains to be seen), it may
industrial revolution.20 And, as we have seen, there
be possible to cap methane emissions at their current
are currently more animals being reared for food
level simply by eating the same number of ruminants
than ever before. The combined mass of agricultural
as we do today.
livestock is now 1.8 times bigger than all the humans
on Earth.21 Every year, around the world, around 1.3 It follows from this that if we actually reduced the
billion ruminants are slaughtered for food.22 number of ruminants on the planet (or the methane
produced by each ruminant), over time the quantity of
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas
methane in the atmosphere would reduce. This would
than carbon dioxide. (To understand the different
have a cooling effect. If all the ruminants on Earth
qualities of the main greenhouse gases, please read
mysteriously vanished tomorrow, it would take roughly
the box above.) But it also has the singular quality
twelve years for the methane they have already
of impermanence. While carbon dioxide and nitrous
produced to leave the atmosphere almost completely.
oxide both linger in the atmosphere,†† methane
After a couple more decades, the temperature of the
transforms itself. It reacts with hydroxyl radicals
planet would have cooled to the same temperature as
(OH) – oxidising chemicals that are abundant in the
if those animals had never existed.†††††
upper atmosphere – to turn into water vapour or
(much less potent) carbon dioxide.††† The average There is no comparable vanishing trick that can be
methane molecule is thought to remain in the performed with carbon or nitrous oxide. Only methane
atmosphere for only 12 years. (This is why the GWP can disappear like this. Cutting back on methane is
– see box – of methane is 85 over twenty years, but therefore one of the very few methods by which we
only 34 over 100 years.) could put a relatively sharp brake on climate change.
This is why, in recent years, meat-eating has risen up
This has two important implications.
the environmental agenda.
The first is that, if we stopped increasing the number
Rapidly reducing methane emissions†††††† from both
of ruminant animals on the planet, it would take
agriculture and the fossil fuel industry, could reduce
around 12 years for the amount of methane in the
temperature rises this century by 0.25 degrees.23
atmosphere to stabilise.
†
Pigs and chickens also produce methane and emissions from manure, though at much lower levels.
††
Nitrous oxide for around 120 years, CO2 for at least several hundred years.
†††
Hydroxyl radicals are often known as the detergent of the troposphere because they react with many pollutants to remove them from
the atmosphere. The increase in methane in the atmosphere is leading to a reduction in these radicals. This has leads to the removal
of methane in the atmosphere slowing down. In 1990 it took, an average of ten years, vs the twelve today.
Strictly speaking and for reasons too complicated to go into here, you would need to reduce the amount of livestock by 1% per
††††
annum to stabilise methane.

†††††
This thought experiment ignores the effect of carbon feedback loops, but is accurate enough as to make no difference.
††††††
Though there are a range of scenarios in the recent UN Global Methane Assessment, 45% less is achievable by 2030.
76
Figure 7.2
There are tentative signs that the world may be reaching peak meat consumption24
Total meat
Food and climate
Chapter 7
60 60 60
kg per capita/year
40 40 40
Developed
countries
20 20 20
Developing World
countries
0 0 0
06
20
92
20
06
20
06
92
92
19
20
20
19
19
20
20
20
20
Beef and veal
15 15 15
kg per capita/year
10 10 10
Developing
countries
5 5 5
Developed
World countries
0 0 0
00
20
10
00
00
20
20
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Data incomplete pre year 2000

Sheep meat
3 3 3
kg per capita/year
2 2 2
1 Developing 1 1
countries Developed
World countries
0 0 0
00
20
10
00
00
20
20
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
77
This is a huge deal when the world is striving to The combined effect of reducing our overall meat
limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. Hence, the UK’s consumption, while also buying meat and milk that
Committee on Climate Change† has suggested a has been reared in methane-reducing ways – could
minimum reduction of 37% in methane levels from have a significant impact on overall emissions.
farming by 2050.25††
Structural change can be slow, however, and peak
However, one could argue that – precisely because of temperature is forecast to occur between 2050 and
its impermanence – methane is a less urgent problem 2070. So while we may have a bit of time to work out
than other greenhouse gases. Every tonne of carbon what Net Zero farming looks like, we cannot afford to
that gets released into the atmosphere stays there be complacent.
forever. Stopping carbon emissions now will have a
Figure 7.3 shows the implications of delaying short-
much bigger cumulative effect in the future.
lived climate pollutants (SLCP), which are mostly
But going slow on methane reductions would be a methane, and CO2. It shows that reducing methane
missed opportunity. The magic disappearing qualities without also rapidly reducing CO2 isn’t very useful:
of methane mean early reductions can limit peak this doesn’t limit peak warming meaningfully (both
warming.26 purple lines go above 2°C by 2100). But it also shows
that a climate strategy that cuts both methane and
Some farmers have already started experimenting
CO2 over the course of the next decade can limit
with rearing ruminants in ways that reduce their
peak warming to 1.5°C (dashed pink line). Waiting to
emissions – by feeding them supplements that
lower methane emissions for a decade or so (solid
reduce their methane emissions, or by selectively
pink line) means that warming will peak above 1.5°C,
breeding animals that do this naturally. Nestlé told
with the attendant risks outlined above. The UK is
us that by supporting their dairy farmers to change
cutting CO2 emissions rapidly and early, and so it
to regenerative practices, including mob grazing and
makes sense to also lower methane emissions quickly.
the use of natural feed supplements, it believes it can
halve the carbon footprint of its fresh milk supply in
the UK, by 2025.27
Figure 7.3
Reducing CO2 early is essential to preventing harmful warming, but early

methane reduction plays a crucial role in keeping emissions below 1.5°C28
2.5
Climate strategy that
cuts both methane and
CO2 over the course of
Both delayed the next decade can limit
2.0
peak warming to 1.5°C.
Delayed CO2
Warming °C
Delayed SLCP
“I don’t know how many more
statistics and David Attenborough
1.5 documentaries there have to be …
Both early we need to get on with this and
produce our food in a different way
and a much more sustainable way.”
Delayed cuts
Early cuts “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
1.0 North West England
2020 2060 2100
†
See Glossary for Climate Change Committee.
The CCC’s “further ambition” scenario suggests a roughly 37% reduction in methane emissions, but this scenario does not quite reach
††
net zero. Additional emissions reductions, possibly including further methane reductions, are needed to meet the UK’s net zero target. 78
Chapter 8
79
8
The
complexities
of meat
80
N
OT all meat is created equal.
Our taste for ruminants, as we have
The complexities of meat
already seen, is a major contributor

to climate change. But there are many
Chapter 8
other factors that make some meat more

ecologically damaging than others – and
not always in the ways you might expect.
Figure 8.1 shows the kilograms of carbon dioxide Alas, no: the more intensively you rear some animals,
emitted in the production of 100 grams of protein the more carbon-efficient they tend to be. Leaving
from various foodstuffs. The undulations within each aside other important concerns – including animal
foodstuff occur where they are being farmed or welfare, the pollution caused by manure run-off, and
processed in a particular way, with higher or lower ammonia emissions into the atmosphere – intensively
resulting emissions. You can see, predictably, that farmed chicken has a lower carbon footprint than free-
vegetable proteins hug the left-hand side of the range chicken. This is because the birds gain weight
chart, meaning they are low in emissions, while meat more quickly when housed indoors, they catch fewer
and dairy extends much further towards the carbon- viruses, get sick less often, and fewer die before they
heavy right. But you can also see that the picture is are ready to be slaughtered. This higher survival rate
complex. means you get more output (a portion of chicken) for
less input (bags of chicken feed).
Most fish farming, for example, ranks on the left-
hand side of the chart. This is one of the lowest-
carbon forms of animal protein. But if – as sometimes
happens – ponds are left warm and unaerated,
the feed and excreta that falls to the bottom can

ferment and emit more methane per kg of protein
than cattle. Hence, the long thin tail extending
towards the right of the chart.
Chicken is also a relatively low-carbon protein, but Figure 8.1 – Greenhouse gas emissions from protein-
the chart shows a bumpy tail to the right. This is rich foods are shown per 100 grams of protein
because some methods of chicken farming are much across a global sample of 38,700 commercially
higher in emissions than others. Instinctively, one viable farms in 119 countries.The height of the curve
would expect the villains to be intensive, indoor represents the amount of production globally with
farms. Surely it must be more climate-friendly to raise that specific footprint.The white dot marks the
chickens outside, rather than in huge temperature- median greenhouse gas emissions for each
controlled, strip-lit warehouses? food product.
81
Figure 8.1
Vegetable proteins have low carbon footprints, while dairy and meat tends to be
more carbon heavy1 †
The dairy sector provides half Producing 100 grams of protein from beef
of the world’s beef. This beef emits 25 kilograms of CO2eq, on average. But
creates 60% lower emissions than this ranges from 9kg (10th percentile) to 105
dedicated beef herds. kgCO2eq (90th percentile).
25
Beef
20
Lamb
Farmed
10
shrimp
8.4
Cheese
6.5
Pork
Chicken 4.3 61% of pork, 81% of chicken, and 86% of eggs

are produced intensively. These systems are
fairly similar wherever they are in the world.
3.8
Eggs
Feed and excreta at the bottom of
warm, unaerated fish ponds can create
Farmed more methane than cows.
fish
3.5
1.6 Only a fraction of the soy used to make tofu and soymilk
Tofu
is linked to deforestation. More than 96% of soy from South
America ends up as animal feed or cooking oil.
Beans 0.65
Symbiotic bacteria fix nitrogen in the roots of
legumes, meaning they need little or no nitrogen
fertiliser, leading to low emissions.
Peas
0.36
Many nut producers are carbon negative – even after accounting

for other emissions and transport. This is because tree nuts are
Nuts -0.8 expanding onto cropland, removing CO2 from the air.
Sum of all
protein-rich
foods
0 10 20 30
Greenhouse gas emissions per 100 grams of protein

(kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents, kgCO2e)
75% of protein production 25% of production (between 11 kg CO2 and 250 kg CO2e) generates
creates between -3 kg CO2 and 70% of emissions from protein. In total, this is equivalent to 5 billion
11 kg CO2e per 100g of protein. tonnes of CO2e – this is more than the EU’s total emissions.
†
Data refers to the greenhouse gas emissions of food products across a global sample of 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119
countries. Emissions are measured across the full supply chain, from land use change through to the retailer and includes on-farm
processing, transport, packaging and retail emissions. 82
The livestock sector with the biggest variations in land to create nutritious grass); and whether dairy
emissions is cattle. Figure 8.2 shows the average kg cattle are subsequently used for beef.
of carbon released per kg of beef† in various countries
While UK emissions from cattle farming are much
The complexities of meat
(overlaid with the amount of beef each country

produces). lower than the worst producers, they are higher than
some OECD countries - including the United States,
The range is huge, with Paraguay emitting over 200kg with its vast and (to most British eyes) dystopian
of carbon per kg of meat and Denmark emitting under feedlot systems.3 Once again, intensive livestock
Chapter 8
15kg. The reasons for this are various. Clearing forest rearing has its carbon benefits. Feeding cows on
to create pasture – which is still being done in many grain (which is more calorific than grass), and giving
countries†† – massively increases emissions.2 (This them growth hormones, means they gain weight
chart is somewhat unfair, as it doesn’t reflect the more quickly, go to the slaughterhouse younger and
historic deforestation done in the UK and elsewhere in therefore have less opportunity to emit methane than
the developed world. But that damage is a sunk cost.) cows reared on pasture. It may not be the life you
Other factors include: how intensively the animals would wish upon a sentient animal, but the methane
are reared; the suitability of the land for pasture (how cost is unquestionably lower.4
much carbon-intensive fertiliser must be put on the
Figure 8.2
Carbon emissions from cattle vary significantly by country5
12
GHG footprint (kg CO2e / kg bovine meat, carcass wt)
Bovine meat production (megatonnes / year)

200
100
0
0
Paraguay
Chile
Nicaragua
Angola
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Viet Nam
Burkina Faso
Philippines
Niger
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Nigeria
Brazil
Thailand
Bangladesh
India
Indonesia
Mali
Madagascar
Peru
Colombia
Zimbabwe
Nepal
Myanmar
Australia
China, mainland
Ecuador
Ethiopia
Argentina
Ireland
South Africa
Uruguay
Mexico
Yemen
United Kingdom
Afghanistan
Kenya
Uganda
France
Turkmenistan
Belgium
Japan
Israel
Sudan
Spain
United States of America
Pakistan
Uzbekistan
New Zealand
Egypt
Canada
Morocco
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Austria
Algeria
Armenia
Poland
Romania
Turkey
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Italy
Switzerland
Netherlands
Germany
Ukraine
Denmark
Land use change CO2 from feed crops Land use change CO2 from pasture expansion Other GHG Bovine meat production
†
Note that Figure 8.2 shows emissions per kg of beef. Figure 8.1 shows emissions per 100g of protein.
83 ††
73% of all deforestation in Queensland, Australia, for example, is due to beef production.
The countries with the lowest emissions from cattle,
such as Denmark, combine intensive farming with
an appetite for ex-dairy meat. Because dairy cattle I’ve made a decision based on
produce protein throughout their lifetimes, in the form some of what I’ve learned, and
of milk, the overall ratio of emissions per kg of total I am a great meat eater I love
protein is lower. Ex-dairy beef is a taste we haven’t meat, but I’m only going to have
developed in this country, although on the continent red meat once a month”
the dense, highly marbled, strongly flavoured meat is
often considered a delicacy. East of England participant,
deliberative dialogue
The case for and against meat is further complicated
by the fact that we get more than just sustenance
from our livestock farmers. In this country, beef,
dairy and lamb farming is largely responsible for the
appearance of our “traditional” pastured countryside.
These animals are, literally, part of the landscape.
They have their ecological uses, too. Some native

breeds of cattle are being used in rewilding projects
to create “pastured woodland”. Where trees and scrub
are being allowed to spread, the trampling and grazing
of small herd of cows creates clearings in the budding
forest: places where sunlight can get through, creating
an abundance of biodiversity.6
Some conventional farmers, too, are reintroducing

cows and sheep as part of a crop rotation system.
This traditional practice, of allowing animals to graze
on fallow land, fell out of favour after the Green
Revolution. But growing numbers of farmers have
realised that it can improve soil quality, reducing the
need for expensive fertilisers and pesticides.
In the right circumstances, and used in the right way,

cattle have even been shown to sequester carbon.
It is important to encourage this kind of imaginative,

ecological livestock farming in the UK. Realistically,
however, it could never produce enough meat to cater
to our current appetite for beef and lamb. Neither,
come to that, could large-scale intensive livestock
farming – even if the British public were prepared
to see their countryside transformed into giant
American-style feedlots. We simply cannot reduce
methane emissions to a safe level, nor free up the land
we need for sequestering carbon, without reducing
the amount of meat we eat.
84
Chapter 9
85
9
A nature-positive,
carbon-negative
food system
86
T
HE food system is about to be asked to
A nature-positive, carbon-negative
perform a feat of acrobatics. In order to

meet the UK’s legal commitment to reach
“net zero” emissions by 2050, the food system
food system
Chapter 9
must first dramatically cut its own emissions: no

small achievement in itself. On top of that, it must
relinquish agricultural land to be used in ways that
sequester carbon.
Every credible model for reaching net zero requires Various interpretations of this juggling act are
this. There are some industries that will remain visualised in the graph below (Figure 9.1). The bar
heavily dependent on fossil fuels for years. (Steel on the left shows the situation today. Agriculture in
production, for example, or air travel.) Using land – the UK currently emits 54.6 million tonnes of carbon
especially peat bogs and woodland – to sequester (MtCO2e) per year. Land use – mainly carbon emissions
carbon is the only large-scale method we have for from soil converted for agriculture – emits a further
mopping up these emissions. And we must begin this 12.8 MtCO2e.4 As the yellow stripe shows us, this tots
work now. It takes around ten years for trees to grow up to total carbon emissions of just over 67 MtCO2e
big enough to sequester significant levels of carbon.1 per year. (A figure, incidentally, that has remained
virtually unchanged since 2008. Over the same period
The Government has also – rightly – committed of time, emissions from the whole of our economy
to restoring the diminished biodiversity of our have decreased by 32%.)5
countryside. Since the 1970s, populations of
wild animals and insects in the UK have been in The next bar along shows what would happen if we
continuous decline.2 In September of last year, the followed all the recommendations made to Parliament
Government made a pledge to protect 30% of UK by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), in its 2020
land “for nature” by 2030. (The Government has report The Sixth Carbon Budget – The UK’s Path to
since secured a similar “30x30” commitment from the Net Zero. In this future, the carbon emitted directly
leaders of all the G7 countries.) by agriculture would fall to 35 MtCO2e. This would be
achieved through a mixture of improved productivity,
Nature protection isn’t incompatible with farming. In an overall reduction in meat-eating, and measures to
fact – as we will see in Chapter 10 – some species reduce fertiliser use and prevent the release of nitrous
have evolved to thrive on the kind of old-fashioned oxide from slurry. (For example, the modern technique
farms that were, until the Green Revolution, the of injecting slurry into the soil, instead of spreading
norm: plenty of hedgerows, mixed crops, low-density it over the top; or introducing perennial plants into
livestock and traditional rotations involving ruminant arable crop rotations to increase microbial activity in
cattle to improve the soil.3 Encouraging more of this the soil.)
kind of nature-friendly farming – sometimes called
agroecological farming – must be part of the plan for The CCC model also has 21% of current farmland
restoring the UK’s struggling wildlife. converted for carbon sequestration by 2050. This
could be done by rewetting peat, planting trees
But agroecological farming produces lower yields and growing bioenergy crops. (These crops – which
than modern intensive farming. We must somehow sequester carbon as they grow – would be burnt to
find a way to repurpose large areas of farmland, generate electricity, using specialist power plants
lowering yields in some places and returning others which capture all the carbon dioxide emitted in the
entirely to nature, while still producing enough to process. This is known known as BECCS – bioenergy
remain comfortably food-secure. with carbon capture and storage.)
87
Figure 9.1
Different visions for the future of farming lead to different carbon emissions6
67.4
0
16.5
50 -16.6 2.1 15.4
Annual emissions (MtCO2e)
-50
on
A
s
ay
YF
on
ni
w
10
si
ro s U
th
is
CC
Pa
Ze er
Em
et m
FF
ed
18
N Far
I/
nc
20
DR
la
l
na
Ba
ID
io
C
at
CC
Emissions from agriculture Net emissions from land use, land use change and forestry
Emissions savings from domestic supply of biomass for BECCs and timber Net total emissions
Under the CCC plan, net emissions from the land as 2050, in the FFCC scenario, we would still have all
a whole, including repurposed farmland, would go of the beef and two-thirds of the lamb we produce
right down into negative figures: −16.6 MtCO2e per today, whereas production of poultry, pigs, milk and
year.7 This would be enough to soak up some of the eggs would be halved in order to eliminate imports of
projected emissions from other sectors. feed crops.
This is more ambitious than the plan recently put None of these three models quite succeeds in keeping
forward by the National Farmers Union, represented all the necessary balls in the air. The CCC model is
by the third bar along.8 Under the NFU’s plan, strong on carbon but says little about biodiversity. The
farming itself would just about reach net zero – a NFU model is not ambitious enough on carbon and
huge turnaround, not to be sniffed at – but without says little about nature. And the FFCC model is strong
providing enough carbon sequestration to offset on farmland biodiversity but falls short on carbon.
remaining land emissions and mop up any of the
pollution produced by other sectors. (The NFU’s plan Moreover, they all make radically different assumptions
foresees farmers producing much more food from the about our future diet. The CCC model lowers meat
land used for farming today, while sequestering more and dairy eating by at least a third and a fifth
carbon in that soil, and growing more bioenergy.) respectively. The NFU model assumes no change in
our diet, and therefore no change in food production.
The fourth bar on Figure 9.1, based on the calculations The agroecological approach envisages significant –
of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission maybe unrealistic – changes to our eating habits: one
(FFCC), shows what would happen if UK agriculture and a half times more fruit and veg than we currently
shifted en masse to lower-yield, nature-friendly consume, five times more nuts, a third less beef (and
agroecological farming.9 In this future, there would no beef imports at all), half the chicken, two-thirds
be almost no need for fertilisers or pesticides. But less pork and eggs, and 80% less sugar.†
emissions would remain relatively high, because this
plan retains the most carbon-intensive livestock. By
†
In this scenario, beef, milk, chicken, pork and egg consumption fall much more than UK production because imports of feed crops
– broadly speaking, cereals, soya and rapeseed and palm oil – are eliminated. Sugar production falls by 95% and is offset by
increased imports. The UK remains a net importer of fruit and vegetables, albeit with a higher domestic share of production. 88
All these models would reduce carbon emissions, Figure 9.2

albeit to varying degrees. But what about restoring A significant area of land (red) is well
nature? The good news is that – to use an unsuitable suited simultaneously to sequester
metaphor – it is possible to kill both these birds with
one stone.
carbon and protect nature11
A 2013 research paper conducted a detailed analysis

of which areas of UK farmland are best suited
food system
Chapter 9
to each of these purposes – carbon storage or

biodiversity restoration – using data collected by the
Natural Environment Research Council and Natural
England, among others.10
Although the two purposes don’t overlap perfectly

(the areas that are most important for biodiversity
are more geographically diffuse than those with the
greatest carbon sequestering potential), there is a
significant area of land that is very well suited to
both. Figure 9.2 shows the computer modelling for
this, cropped to show England only. The red areas
are where biodiversity and carbon sequestering
projects could best be done simultaneously. Most
are on the uplands, the downs and around the New
Forest, as well as some in the Fens. This map shows
that there doesn’t have to be a conflict between
nature and net zero.
What about food production, though? If we turn over

some of this land to environmental projects, will we
produce enough food to feed ourselves? To answer
that, we need to look at how we currently farm our
land.
Figure 9.3 shows, on the left, the different ways

we use our land in the UK – not geographically, but
as proportions of the whole. The hexagons on the
right, which are drawn to the same scale, show the
agricultural land abroad that is used to cater for
the UK market. It includes not only the plants and
animals that we import to eat directly, but also the
land used to grow animal feed for UK livestock.
A few things immediately catch the eye. Agriculture

currently takes up 70% of UK landmass. Yet golf
courses occupy five times as much of our land as
orchards. And all the UK’s built-up areas combined
are only two-thirds the size of our peat bogs. But
what is most striking is how much land we use to
rear lamb, beef and dairy cattle. The green coloured
areas represent both pasture and the additional land
used to grow feed for these animals. The total area
of this land, here and abroad, is a bit larger than the
entire landmass of Great Britain.
89
Figure 9.3
We use our land for a great diversity of purposes, but

rearing lamb, beef and dairy cattle predominates12
Fruit and veg

Golf courses
Overseas land
Orchards used to feed UK
Beaches
Inland Conifers
water Beef and lamb
pastures
Broadleaf
woods
Beef
feed
Potatoes
Christmas
trees Beef and Pig
lamb feed
pastures Fruit,
vegetables
Poultry and cereals
Pigs
Poultry
feed
Dairy
pastures
Dairy Beef
feed feed
Dairy Dairy
pastures feed
Built
up
Cereals
Peat
Note: this analysis draws on de Ruiter et al. (which uses a top-down methodology) and Poore and Nemecek (which uses a
bottom-up methodology). These have a high degree of agreement other than for total land footprint and share of land footprint
overseas. The overall size area of land associated with UK diets is estimated to be between 24 and 38 million hectares, and the
relative share of this land that is in the UK versus overseas is around 50% (43–54%). 90
Figure 9.4
85% of the farmland that feeds the UK is used to rear animals13
Share of
Share
land
Shareof
footprint
ofland footprint
land footprint Share
Share of
Share
of calories/protein
of calories/protein
calories/protein
food system
Chapter 9
Protein: 22%
Protein:Protein:
22% 22%
Grasslands: Calories: 14%
63% of land Calories:
Calories:
14% 14%
Grasslands:
Grasslands:
63% of 63%
land of land
Feed crops:
22% of land Protein: 26%
Feed crops:
Feed crops:
22% of 22% Protein:
land of land Protein:
26%18% 26%
Calories:
Diet
Food crops:
15% of land Calories:
Calories:
18% 18%
Diet Diet
Protein: 52%
Food crops:
Food crops:
15% of land
15% of land
Protein:Protein:
52% 52%
Calories: 68%
Note: includes overseas land used

to grow food consumed in the UK
Calories:
Calories:
68% 68%
Looked at from a calorie perspective, this is a very uplands, is treated with fertiliser to make it grassy
inefficient way to use our land. Figure 9.4 shows enough to sustain grazing animals profitably. And
that 85% of the farmland that feeds the UK, both although ruminants are experts at turning grass into
here and abroad, is used to rear animals – even delicious meat, that is not the only useful purpose this
though meat, dairy and eggs only provide 32% of land could serve.
the calories we eat. By contrast, the 15% of farmland
(roughly half in the UK, half overseas) that is used to Upland areas, as we have mentioned, provide bountiful
grow plant crops for human consumption provides opportunities for carbon sequestration. Most have
68% of our calories. peat bogs which could be rewetted, as well as areas
that would be ideal for growing trees and shrubs.
It is true that much of the land in the UK is not viable Many upland areas were once covered in temperate
for arable farming. “We have an excellent climate for rainforests. Now they are covered in sheep, which
growing grass” is a common refrain. But in fact much nibble very close to the ground and make it difficult
of the pasture in this country, even in the rolling for tree saplings to grow.
91
Figure 9.5 shows how the carbon footprint of countryside.14 Culturally and aesthetically, it forms
producing various foods increases when you add part of our national self-image – those rolling green
in the “opportunity cost” of not using that land to hills covered in fluffy white dots. Sheep farming is a
capture carbon. Globally, the biggest potential carbon working tradition that in some communities goes back
benefit of eating less meat would not actually be centuries.
the reduction in emissions, but the opportunity to
repurpose land so that it sequesters carbon. Goats But at present too much of our land is given over to
and sheep, both of which roam over large areas livestock. The Climate Change Committee has said
and have a taste for tree saplings, are reared at the that we need to create new woodlands covering an
greatest opportunity cost. area the size of East Anglia. This will mostly be land
converted from agriculture. It makes sense to use the
Unlike the environmentalist George Monbiot, who least productive farmland, so that we sacrifice as little
memorably denounced sheep as “woolly maggots”, food security as possible.
we believe there is a place for sheep farming in our
Figure 9.5
The biggest potential carbon benefit of eating less meat is

the opportunity to repurpose land to sequester carbon15
Lamb/mutton & goat meat
Beef & buffalo meat
Cheese
Pork (pig meat)
Fish (farmed)
Poultry (chicken, turkey)
Tree nuts and seeds
Eggs
Vegetable oils
Milk (cow's milk)
Legumes
Rice
Corn (Maize)
Wheat/Rye (Bread, pasta, baked goods)
Sugars and sweeteners
Fruits
Roots and Tubers
Vegetables
0
0
0
15
30
Total food-related carbon costs per kg of product (kgCo₂e)
Emissions from agricultural supply chain Carbon opportunity costs

92
Figure 9.6 shows (in red) the areas of land most If we properly incentivised farmers on this land,
suited to carbon sequestration and biodiversity making environmental projects more attractive
restoration, overlayed (in green) with our least than conventional farming, we could meet the
productive farmland. There is a serendipitous overlap Government’s targets for both carbon sequestration
between some of the areas that produce the least and nature restoration. Most of this land could still
food and those which are best suited to nature be used for low intensity farming. We calculate that
restoration and carbon removal. only 5%–8% of our total farmland would need to be
food system
freed from production almost entirely, largely to plant

Chapter 9
This combination of low productivity and broadleaf woodland and restore peat bogs.
environmental potential is what makes our juggling
act possible. The least productive 20% of our land
produces only 3% of our calories.
Figure 9.6
Much of the land that is best suited to nature restoration

and carbon removal produces little food16
Red:
Areas of land most suited
to carbon sequestration and
biodiversity restoration
Green:
Our least productive farmland
93
People and the land
We have talked a lot about land and food in this And I see other people in our community who
chapter. But what about people? Much of our aren’t farmers also planting trees and hedges,
agricultural land was created by sweeping people off or creating wetlands, or helping to coordinate
the countryside to create sheep ranches – starting our efforts. These things bring separate worlds
with the enclosures of the 13th century and ending together, and the old ‘us’ and ‘them’ divide is
with the brutal Scottish clearances of the 18th and fading. There is a love of this place that unites us
19th centuries. If you were to read the debate over all”.17
restoring nature to farmland in some newspapers,
you would imagine that turning land over to carbon But all this depends on farmers getting sufficient
sequestration and nature recovery might involve Government support – cleverly targeted, and
something similar. guaranteed for the long term. The way in which
the Government’s Future Farming programme is
This does not need to be the case. Many upland rolled out could make them or break them.
farmers are already reducing the number of sheep
they graze, introducing hardy native cattle into their
grazing, allowing areas of land to flood, building
ponds and hedges, and planting trees.
This approach is described evocatively by the

Cumbrian shepherd James Rebanks in his book
English Pastoral.
“As we travel into the valley bottom, I see around

me on all sides an ancient working landscape that
still lives and breathes, but also with twenty years of
changes written across its surface.
"I see ancient oak woodland above us trying to

regenerate. Little mountain ash trees are sprouting
up all over the wilding fell, trying to beat the deer.
The vegetation is growing denser and deeper, with
alder and thorny scrub creeping up the ghylls. The
floodplain is half-abandoned and half-wild. The valley
has become much shaggier and wilder than it ever
was in my childhood, with far fewer sheep dotted
around. Some of my neighbours are confused or
angry about that, while others are adapting, keeping
more cattle or finding other ways to earn a living
from the land.
"I see farmers starting to work together to make this

place even better, finding ways to farm around wilder
rivers. Miles of hedges are being laid once more,
drystone walls rebuilt, and old stone barns and field
houses restored. I see river corridors fenced off and
ponds dug; the blanket peat bog on our common
land has been restored. Wild flower meadows
liberated from artificial fertilisers and pesticides are
now shimmering with clouds of insects, butterflies,
moths and birds.
94
Chapter 10
95
10
A Three
Compartment
Model
96
W
HAT about the remaining farmland
A Three Compartment Model
– the higher-yielding 80%? That’s

a huge chunk of our national
surface area – 55%, in fact. How should it be
Chapter 10
managed for maximum food production and

environmental benefit? There are currently
two main schools of thought on this question,
which – with dreadful inevitability – have
become quite polarised.
One is the “land sparing” school. In this model, you currents; botanists dipping maize seeds into a solution
make some farmland as productive as possible, thus of nitrogen-fixing bacteria to reduce the need for
freeing up other land for environmental projects. By fertiliser; and farmers using drones and AI to treat
producing more food from a smaller area, you create outbreaks of disease in their crops before the effects
the necessary elbow room for all the other purposes are even noticeable to the human eye.
required of our land.
We met one entrepreneur whose AI can already
This idea rings alarm bells among some identify every one of millions of plants in a field, and
environmentalists, who point out that pushing up alert the farmer to any change in their condition.
productivity almost always comes at a heavy cost Sam Watson-Jones, co-founder of the Small Robot
to nature. Since the Green Revolution, especially, Company, foresees a future of “per plant” farming
farming has become what environmentalists call where multiple different crops are mixed together. For
a “mining” operation: productivity has increased example, arable crops could be planted with legumes
hugely, but we have achieved this in an entirely (to fix nitrogen in the soil) and flowers (to attract
unsustainable way, by digging up fossil fuels to pollinators). This kind of symbiotic farming dates right
create manufactured fertilisers and pesticides while back to the Mesopotamians, and there are farmers
simultaneously wreaking havoc on water courses and in the UK experimenting with similar models today.1
wildlife habitats. Agricultural robots could make it easier to harvest

such fields, by separating the plants as they go.
Proponents of the land-sparing school, however,
say that emerging technologies are breaking the There is no doubt that science and technology
link between productivity and environmental will be used to make high-yield farming much less
damage. The future, they say, lies in “sustainable destructive. But we can’t know yet which of the
intensification”. Thousands of new techniques are techniques currently in development will turn out to
being trialled which promise to wean farming from be most transformational and cost effective, or when
its reliance on industrial fertiliser and “red diesel”. they will be ready for large-scale use.
(Diesel for agricultural machinery is not taxed in the
UK; it is dyed red to prevent it being sold on the
black market for other uses.)
In our researches, we have seen some amazing new
technologies at work. We met engineers developing
robots that zap weeds with powerful electric
97
In the meantime, there is a model of farming that Land-sharing farmers – in all their many guises – farm
we already know to have huge benefits for wildlife. in a gentler way. They use pesticides and fertilisers in
Some people call this model “land sharing”, because much smaller quantities, if at all; maintain hedgerows,
it performs two functions simultaneously: producing meadows and wild margins; and often deploy ruminant
food and sustaining wildlife. Other people call it “high animals in rotations to help churn up and fertilise the
nature value farming” or “agroecological farming”. It is soil. The end result is lower yields (typically 20–40%
an approach that overlaps with organic principles but smaller), but a farmland that is much more hospitable
covers a larger variety of farms. The terminology is to wildlife.4
unsettled and each of the categories is blurry at the
edges. However, this model does require more land to
produce less food. It is kinder to those species that
But the basic principle of land-sharing is that farmers thrive on traditional farmland, but does not free up
consciously and deliberately share their land with land to be restored to the kind of wilderness that
nature. Although some insects, birds and animals some species prefer.
require a truly wild environment to thrive, others
actually do better living on a certain kind of traditional, A detailed 2019 study considered the competing
lower-yield farmland.2 virtues of these two approaches.5 Researchers studied
the population levels of almost 200 species of birds in
For most of this country’s history, we farmed in the Fenlands of Eastern England and on the Salisbury
roughly the same way: on smaller plots of land, divided Plain, assessing how well the various species seemed
by trees and hedgerows, cultivating many different to fare in different agricultural and wild terrains (see
kinds of produce and using rotations of crops and Figure 10.1). They then set a target of food production
livestock to ensure the health of the soil. We farmed for each area of land, and ran mathematical models
like this for so long that some species have adapted to work out how each bird species in these two
to thrive alongside us. Skylarks, for example, flourish areas would fare under three different scenarios: (1)
on farms that practise crop rotations, foraging in high land sparing (through conventional intensification);
cereal stubbles in the winter, but preferring lower (2) land sharing, with all farms in the area switching
and less dense crops for spring and summer breeding to agroecological methods; and (3) a “Three
season.3 Legume fallows – planted to restore the soil Compartment Model” which had some agroecological
– offer habitats for butterflies and brown hares. The farms, some conventiona high-yield farms, and some
yellowhammer requires scrub for nesting (hedges are land freed for nature (but not as much as in the land
perfect), insect-rich open habitats in summer (such as sparing model).
flower-rich field margins) and seed-rich open habitats
in winter (as provided by overwinter stubbles). These Unsurprisingly, the modelling predicted that species
resources are generally most abundant on traditional, that rely on wilder ecosystems would fare best within
low-yield farmland. the land sparing model, where some tracts of land
could be returned to nature entirely. 59% of the bird
The Green Revolution, in response to the post-War species on the Fens and 37% of those on Salisbury
drive for food security, created a new kind of farming Plain did best under this model.
landscape which wiped out the habitats of many
species. Even the most carefully-managed high- However, the birds that prefer to live on
yield farms are currently, by necessity, inhospitable sympathetically-managed farmland –32% of species
to much wildlife. They produce large monocultural on the fens and 20% on the plain – would fare better
crops or livestock herds, often in fields, without the under the land-sharing model. Some species – 9% in
weeds, trees, ponds and hedgerows that give rise to the fens and 43% on the plain – would do best with a
abundant biodiversity. mix of both approaches.
98
Figure 10.1
A combination of land sparing and land sharing produces the best outcomes for nature6
Land sparing Land sharing

Chapter 10
Semi-natural High-yield Low-yield

land farmland farmland
Fens: 59% of species do best Fens: 32% of species do best

Salisbury: 37% of species do best Salisbury: 20% of species do best
Three Compartment Model
Fens: 80% larger

population across
all food production
Semi-natural High-yield
levels
land farmland
Salisbury: 60% larger
population at high food
Low-yield production levels; similar
farmland populations at current
production level
In terms of overall population numbers, however, as if the two were mutually incompatible. Yet both
the most successful model was often the Three these newer models share a common goal: to end
Compartment Model. Creating a mosaic of different the agricultural system’s reliance on fossil fuels and
landscapes – wild land, low intensity farmland and environmental destruction. Both schools are striving
higher intensity farming had the broadest beneficial to create regenerative forms of farming, albeit by
effect for the most species. different routes.
In the past, land sharing and land sparing have been We need an agricultural system that draws on
seen as conflicting schools of thought, when in fact traditional farming wisdom as well as cutting edge
the greatest benefits come from using both together. science. Diversity of method is a virtue in itself.
In much the same way, “agroecological” farming is
often lined up against “sustainable intensification”
99
Farming in England7
Of the 106,000 farm holdings in England, 62% rear,
or predominantly rear, livestock.
Number of holdings by farm type
Figure 10.2
Farms in England by type

Pig
Poultry 2,200
2,700
Mixed
8,800
Cereals
18,600
Grazing livestock LFA

12,700
General cropping
17,500
Grazing livestock, lowland

32,700
Dairy
6,200
Horticulture
4,000
100
Figure 10.3
Large farms produce 71% of English farms are small or very small, taking up 28% of the
more output per area land in total and producing 13% of all agricultural output. The largest
farms make up only 8% of farms but occupy 30% of farmland and

than other farm types produce 57% of farming output.†
Number of farm businesses % Total farm area % Total farm output

Chapter 10
100,000 100 100
90,000 7,100 90 90
8,600 33
80,000 80 80
70,000 10,800 70 70 57
60,000 60 60
21
28,200
50,000 50 50
40,000 40 40
18
18
30,000 30 30
20,000 38,700 20 20 12
21
10,000 10 10
11
7
0 0 0
ea
es m
ut
ss ar
ar
tp
ne f F
ou
m
si o
ar
m
Bu ber
lf
ar
ta
lf
um
to
ta
N
to
%
%
Very small Small Medium Large Very large
Figure 10.4
One in seven farms is exclusively tenanted,

though nearly half of farms are partly tenanted
% Farm Holdings Tenanted
Average net worth,

per farm business: Average net worth,
per farm business:
Mainly owner occupied:
£2.77m Owner occupied:
£1.93m
Mainly tenanted:
£1.41m
Mixed tenure
34%
Owner occupied
52%
Nearly half of farms are fully or

partly tenanted – although tenant
Wholly tenanted farmland only occupies around
14%
a third of the total agricultural
land area. Unsurprisingly,
wholly tenanted farms have a
comparatively small net worth:
Average net worth,
per farm business: most of the value in most farms
Tenanted: lies in the land.
£0.29m
†
arm size here is defined by Defra based on either farm business turnover or the theoretical number of workers required to run a
F
holding, rather than physical size.
101
Figure 10.5
Income in farming is precarious. Across all farm types, more than half of income is
Farm profits from “direct payments” (subsidies that, using the old CAP format, pay for the land area
farmed). Grazing and mixed farms on average made a loss from agricultural activities.†
% Direct Average farm business Agriculture Agri-environment Diversification Direct payments

payments income (£)
7% Horticulture £51,100
74% Mixed £41,300
10% Poultry £93,000
25% Pigs £54,200

91% Lowland grazing livestock £17,700
104% LFA grazing livestock £22,800
32% Dairy £89,400
49% General cropping £78,600
61% Cereals £52,800
53% All farms £47,600
£0
Figure 10.6
Average farm On average small and part time farms make a loss on their agricultural
business income activities. Large farms receive a greater share of direct payments.
Average farm business income (£)
£160,000
£143,100
Direct payment
£140,000
Diversification
£120,000 Agri-environment
£100,000 Agriculture
£80,000 £68,300
£60,000 £47,000 £45,000
£40,000 £28,100
£18,500
£20,000
£0
-£20,000
All Very Large Medium Small Spare/
farms large part time
% Direct
53% 42% 48% 58% 70% 70%
payments
†
L FA means “less favoured areas” – typically the uplands. “General cropping” refers to farms that produce both cereals and
horticulture in broadly similar shares. Mixed farms produce cereals, horticulture, and livestock.
102
When split by income, half of farms make a Netherlands, 55% in France, 45% in Spain and 17%
significant loss on their agricultural activities – that in Germany.8
is, the price they sell their produce for doesn’t even
cover the costs of growing or raising it. A further “I think the thing that’s going to drive people to
quarter make a tiny profit, with the bulk of their look more closely into collaboration will be the
income coming from support payments. However, reduction in the BPS [Basic Payment Scheme]
the top 25% of farms make a good income from payments,” says a leader of one of the UK’s best-
agriculture. known farming co-operatives. “You can bumble
Chapter 10
along making profit some years and not making

Farms in England are unlike those on the continent profit other years on your farming, but comfortable
in one major way: farmers in England tend not to in the knowledge that come December or January
work together. For example, co-operatives are you’ve got £20k coming to you… So I think without
widely used across Europe both to pool resources that money, suddenly farmers are going to think
and to increase the share of the value chain ‘Oh Christ, I’ve got to make a profit out of this
they capture. In the UK, the combined turnover farming activity, what am I going to do?’”9
of co-operatives in in 2018 was £7.7 billion. That
represents just 6% of business in relevant sectors
where co-operatives are present (e.g. farming
supply and farming), compared with 68% in the
Figure 10.7
Relative contributions to farm business

income (or profit)
£ per farm Contributions to farm business income (or profit)

£200,000
£150,000
£100,000
£50,000
-£50,000 All farms Bottom 25% 50%-75% Top 25%

25-50%%
of all farms of farms
Income from
agriculture £7,300 -£27,000 -£7,000 £2,200 £60,500
Farm business
£47,600 -£7,300 £16,300 £38,300 £142,600
income
Agriculture Agri-environment Diversification Direct payments
103
Regenerative
farming
Craig Livingstone, who sits on our advisory board,
farms what was previously a very conventional
arable farm in Hampshire. Craig has set a target
to reach net zero by January 2023 and not emit
carbon at all.
Over the past five years, Craig has reduced

pesticide use by 42% and industrial fertiliser by
32% without reducing yields. He has done this by
focusing on soil health: diversifying the crops and
varieties he grows; reintroducing a rotation system;
growing cover crops and capturing solar energy;
introducing grazing sheep back to the arable
fields; and importing bulky organic fertilisers and
soil conditioners, such as green waste compost
and farm yard manure, to reduce his reliance on
inorganic inputs.
After harvesting his commercial crops, Craig plants

cover crops to protect his soil over winter. When
the time comes to sow again, he brings in sheep
to clear the field. (Many farmers would use the
herbicide glyphosate.) Instead of ploughing up
the whole field before sowing, he uses a shallow,
“minimum-till” method which protects the integrity
of his soil. In some fields he is doing “zero-till” Craig Livingstone, Farm and Estate Manager,
sowing, which means drilling seed directly into the Lockerley Estate
ground. He hopes eventually to use this method
right across his farm, dispensing with manufactured
fertiliser altogether. “Our soil isn’t good enough to
do that yet. It is like weaning yourself off drugs,” he
says.
Craig is a high-yield farmer, yet many of his

priorities – and, increasingly, his methods – are
similar to those of an agroecological farmer. In
the future, and especially as more sustainable
technologies feed into the mainstream, these
two schools of thought will become more closely
aligned.
104
Chapter 11
105
11
Can we
have it all?
106
O
NE way of freeing up enough land to meet
our environmental targets is to tackle
the vast amount of waste in the system.
Can we have it all?
This isn’t just the literal waste that first springs

Chapter 11
to mind: the excess lettuces ploughed back into

the soil, the wonky carrots cast aside, the food
we guiltily throw away at home because our eyes
were bigger than our stomachs. It is systemic
waste, which comes in three principal forms.
1. Food that’s not eaten

The first form of waste is the one described above. “It ties in with what you were saying about
Over a quarter of all the food grown in the UK is never best before dates. People throw away
eaten.1 This wasted harvest accounts for between perfectly good food, because you panic.
6% and 7% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.2 You panic it will make you ill. You never had
Just under a third is wasted before it even leaves the those dates on before. You just ate what
farm gate because it doesn’t meet specifications or you ate.”
because market fluctuations mean a crop suddenly
becomes almost worthless. (Tomatoes, for example, “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
are highly vulnerable to the vagaries of the British North West England
weather. A spell of hot weather will produce a glut
of delicious ripe tomatoes. But if the skies suddenly
cloud over, those tomatoes won’t sell. People eat much
less salad when it is cold.)
Beyond the farm gate, the biggest contributors
to food waste are households (70%), followed by Sources of post-farm-gate food waste
manufacturers (18%), the hospitality and food industry
(10%) and then retailers (2%).3
100%
The UK has committed to reducing food waste to 50%

of 2007 levels by 2030.4 The anti-waste charity WRAP
estimates that we have already achieved half of this
target, putting us on a promising trajectory.5
The Climate Change Committee also believes this 70% Households
target is feasible. It believes we could go further still
– reaching 60% waste reduction by 2050 – by using
policy levers such as increased household collection of
food waste (which seems to make people more aware
of what they are wasting), improving the clarity of
best before labels and removing them from fruit and 18% Manufacturers
vegetables, and incentivising food manufacturers to
reduce portions sizes.6 10% H
ospitality and food
0% 2% Retailers
We can also draw confidence from the success of
neighbouring countries (see Figure 11.17).
107
Figure 11.1
We produce more food waste than many of our European neighbours8
160
kg/capita household food waste
80
0
ia
ia
Be a
he m
Un Ger y
ay
Sw k
en
xe nce
Hu g
ta
e
nd
nd
d
nd
ec
ri
ni
ar
ai
al
an
ur
ar
an
ss
en
iu
do
al
w
ed
st
la
la
It
Sp
to
nm
ng
bo
re
a
rla
m
g
M
Ru
nl
or
ov
ng
Au
Fr
Ire
Po
l
Es
G
m
Fi
De
Sl
Ki
et
Lu
N
ite
2. How we farm
The second form of reducible waste is caused by
inefficient farming. In the UK we grow cereals on "One of my concerns is food waste. There
over 3 million hectares of land (13% of our total are always loads of promotions going on,
land).9 Compared to most European countries we multi-buy and so forth, and you do end up
get a high yield out of this land. We have long buying more than you need. When you get
summer days, good soil, and world-class rainfall. For it home you don’t necessarily finish them,
wheat we average around 9 tonnes per hectare.10 so that does cause a lot of food waste.”
The UK record wheat yield, set in 2015 by Rod
South West England participant,
Smith, a farmer from Northumberland, is 16.5 tonnes
deliberative dialogue
per hectare. This was also the world record until
2017, when it was beaten by a New Zealander, Eric
Watson, who managed to squeeze out an extra 0.9
tonnes per hectare.11
But there is a huge variation in how much food each
farmer manages to produce from each hectare of Potential to improve
land. A recent academic study concluded that the yields by 13-15%
UK could realistically improve its yields by 13–15%
if it were able to share best practice between
farmers.12
And this estimate didn’t consider the huge
improvements that could be made through crop
genetics. Another paper, in the science journal
Nature, suggests that UK wheat production could
rise by over 30% if you include possible advances
through crop breeding.13
The Climate Change Committee, having studied
detailed assessments of UK crop yields, concluded
that they could be increased by 25% through crop
breeding and improved farming practices.14 It also
believes that new precision technologies – such as AI
which can monitor the health of every plant within a
field – could increase yields further still.
108
3. What we farm
The third kind of waste takes the form of land use.
What we choose to grow and eat has a huge impact
on how much land we need to feed ourselves.
Can we have it all?
As we saw in Chapter 9, meat and dairy make up only

a third of the calories we eat. Yet 85% of UK farmland
Chapter 11
is used for feeding and rearing livestock.15 Around

one-sixth of this is used to grow crops for animal feed
(although we buy a lot of feed in from abroad), and
the remaining land is used for grazing.16 This is a wildly
inefficient use of land. Growing plants for human
consumption generates around 12 times more calories
per hectare than using the land for meat production.
Reducing meat consumption is the single most

effective lever we can pull to improve the productivity
of our land.
This is not a summons for everyone to go vegan. If The route to having it all
we all just ate the amount of meat recommended by
the Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on The benefits of cutting all this systemic waste are hard
Nutrition – most people do, but about a third of the to overstate. To take a perfectly plausible scenario, if
population eats more – national meat consumption we were to reduce our food waste by 50%, increase
would fall by at least 15%, and our red and processed our farm yields by 15%, and reduce meat consumption
meat consumption by at least 27%.17 The CCC says by 30%, we could produce the same amount of
meat reduction will need to fall by 20–50% by 2050. calories from 30% less land (see Figure 11.2).
Its central scenario calls for a 35% reduction in order
for the UK to meet its net zero commitments.18 If we were to set our sights higher, increasing
productivity by 30% and reducing meat eating by
Eating less meat would be a lifestyle change for many, 35%, we could produce the same amount of food from
but it can hardly be described as a privation. If you 40% less land.
usually eat meat and dairy at every meal, it could
mean going without on Mondays and Tuesdays. Both these scenarios free up enough land not just to
Job done. achieve our climate goals but also to make space for
nature, both in wilder areas and on our farms, without
However, the idea of being forced to cut back on meat compromising our levels of food self-sufficiency.
is unpopular with many consumers. There is something
culturally sacred about a freeborn Englishman’s right But self-sufficiency is not the only issue. Price is just
to a plate of bangers or a Sunday roast. It may prove as important, if not more so. People will struggle to
easier to reduce the meat content in ready meals and accept the transition to a sustainable food system
convenience foods, where alternative proteins may if it makes it harder to feed their families. For that
soon match the taste and texture of, say, mince, but reason, it is politically risky too. Nothing brings down
at a fraction of the price (see Chapter 13). Around half Governments quicker than soaring food prices.
of the meat we currently consume is contained within
processed foods.19
However we go about it, the rewards of eating less

meat would be immense. Cutting our meat and dairy
intake by one-third by 2050 could give us back a fifth
of our farmland.
109
Figure 11.2
Halving food waste, increasing crop yields by 15%

and eating 30% less meat would make it possible
to feed the UK on a third less land20
Net reduction in land required

100%
Share of land used to grow our food, globally
One-third less
land
Pasture
50%
Pasture
Feed crops
Feed crops
Food crops Food crops

0%
er
nt
d
t
di sed
ea
o
tt
et ri
fo
di otp
be
UK d u
et
ss
ss
g
UK fo
ow lan
le
le
in
of and
g
m
g
gr nt
tin
tin
r
Fa
to rre
l
as
Ea
ew
Cu
110
Chapter 12
111
12
At what
price?
“If you want to predict where political instability, revolution, coups
d’état or interstate warfare will occur, the best factor to keep an eye
on is not GDP, the human development index, or energy prices. If I
were to pick a single indicator – economic, political, social – that I
think will tell us more than any other, it would be the price of grain.”
Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, 2011
112
O
N 2 October 1766, a riot broke out at
the annual Nottingham Goose Fair.
There were no geese involved. Instead,
the row was about cheese, which was being
At what price?
Chapter 12
sold by Lincolnshire traders for inflated prices.

The locals, finding they could not afford the
cheese, cut up rough. A mob began stealing
cheese wheels and rolling them away.
According to The Date Book of Remarkable and In the UK, in the early part of the 21st century, the
Memorable Events Connected with Nottingham and cost of food is about as low as it has ever been.
Its Neighbourhood (1880): Wheat, to take one example, costs a fifth of what it
did in the fifties.3 Chicken costs a third of what it did
“The people were so exasperated that their violence in 1970.4 Food prices more broadly have fallen by 25%
broke loose like a torrent; cheeses were rolled since the 1970s, while our average household incomes
down Wheeler-gate and Peck-lane in abundance, have doubled in real terms.5 In 1957, the British spent
many others were carried away, and the Mayor, in 33% of our income on food. By 2017 that proportion
endeavouring to restore peace, was knocked down had shrunk to 8%.6
with one in the open fair.”
America is the only major nation whose citizens spend
You can find a vivid account of The Great Cheese a lower proportion of their income on food (see Figure
Riot on the website Amusingplanet.com. The name of 12.1). Both the US and the UK have very competitive
the website is instructive in itself. In affluent nations, wholesale and retail sectors which drive down farm
the idea of rioting over cheese prices now seems so margins. The same is true of countries such as Italy
unlikely as to be comic. But food riots were once a and France, but consumers in those countries spend
common part of our national life – especially in the more on higher quality produce, which pushes up the
18th and early 19th centuries, when wars and harvest overall spend.7
failures led to periods of excruciatingly high food
prices. And elsewhere in the world, the price of food This a luxurious position to be in. But it is also a
remains a pressing political problem. The Arab Spring dishonest one. As we saw in Chapter 1, our historically
of 2011 was preceded, and to some extent sparked, low food prices carry huge hidden costs, both to our
by food riots in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.1 planet and to our health.
The Covid pandemic caused global food commodity Suppose, for example, a farmer has a contract to
prices to rise sharply – by just under 40% between supply potatoes to a supermarket. In growing the
May 2020 and May 2021, according to UN figures potatoes, he pollutes a nearby watercourse with
– because of disruptions to production, labour and fertiliser. The cost of that pollution falls on us, the
transport.2 But bumper cereal harvests are expected public, because our environment is polluted. If neither
to ease these price pressures, and the overall picture the farmer nor the supermarket (nor indeed the end
(at least in the developed world) looks relatively consumer) is forced to cover the cost of cleaning
stable. For now.
113
Figure 12.1
At 8%, UK households spend a relatively small proportion of their income on food8
United States 6%
United Kingdom 8%
Canada 9%
Austria 10%
Germany 11%
Norway 12%
France 13%
Italy 14%
Slovenia 15%
Greece 17%
Bulgaria 19%
Estonia 21%
Lithuania 23%
Costa Rica 26%
Romania 30%
Eqypt 37%
Pakistan 42%
Cameroon 45%
Share of consumer expenditure spent of food eaten in the home (per person)
up the watercourse, there is no market incentive for taxes on the relevant goods. (The externalities that
the farmer to avoid such destructive practices. The troubled Pigou were of their time. They included
cost to the environment is not factored in anywhere. smoke from factory chimneys: “for this smoke in
The same is true of harm to animals, air pollution, large towns inflicts a heavy uncharged loss on the
biodiversity destruction and any number of deleterious community, in injury to buildings and vegetables,
side effects of food production. expenses for washing clothes and cleaning rooms,
expenses for the provision of extra artificial light, and
These kinds of hidden costs – consequences of in many other ways”.)9
commercial activity that are not reflected in the
price of that activity – are known by economists as Pigouvian taxes are designed to be equal to the cost
externalities. Precisely because they are external, of the externality so that the private and social costs
because their cost is not incorporated into the of the transaction can be fully incorporated into the
transactions of the free market, they are often price tag. Once the true cost of a product is reflected
allowed to run rampant. No one picks up the cost, but in its price, argued Pigou, the free market can be left
everyone pays the price. to work its magic. Producers have a built-in financial
incentive to keep damaging externalities to a minimum.
In 1920, the British economist Arthur Pigou proposed
that externalities should be dealt with by levelling
114
Figure 12.2
Estimates put the hidden cost of food in the UK at £40bn–£96bn per year10
£49bn £94bn £53bn £40bn

At what price?
2%
Chapter 12
6% 3%
0% 2% 12% 10%
0% 7%
1%
11% 23%
66% 58%
49% 30%
12%
6% 12%
8%
21% 25%
18% 19%
Growing Better Sustainable Ellen True cost of food

Report Food Trust MacArthur working group
Foundation
Production: Health costs Production: Environmental costs Natural capital degradation

Consumption: Health costs GHG emissions Food loss and waste
Imagine, however, the effect of adding Pigouvian taxes But Pigouvian taxes are a blunt instrument, and
to food. A handful of recent studies (see Figure 12.2) not the only one available. In his response to Pigou,
have done just this for the UK. They found that if all The Problem of Social Cost (1960), the American
the externalities of our food system – including the economist Ronald Coase pointed out that there are
costs to the health service and to the environment plenty of other methods for encouraging modes of
– were factored into the price of our food, the price production with fewer harmful externalities.11 Grants
of the average weekly shop could double. If the and subsidies, legal rights, prohibitions and obligations
Government were to inflict such a drastic price hike are all existing tools in the legislator’s box. The job
on its citizens, food riots would no longer be distant of Government is to use the most effective tools for
history. They would be front-page news. any given set of circumstances – the ones that it
believes will do the job most effectively, that are the
This is one reason why many policy makers and most politically acceptable and least likely to create
commentators tend to be sceptical, verging on unintended consequences.
defeatist, about the possibility of radical change in
the food system. They see it as a choice between two
evils: we can either stick with our damaging but cheap
food, or risk civil unrest.
115
A good example is the UK’s transition from fossil fuels Would it be possible to pursue a similar approach
to more sustainable forms of energy. A strict Pigouvian to food? Rather than forcing the system to shift by
approach would have been to slap a huge carbon tax suddenly adding the huge costs of externalities at
on everyone’s fossil fuel-powered energy bills. This the till – a burden that would fall hardest on the least
would undoubtedly have encouraged companies to affluent – could we use a similar portfolio of incentives
invest in renewable energy, which over time would and restraints to shift the food system to a more
have become cheaper and overtaken coal. But the sustainable mode of production, without the need for
political and social jeopardy of imposing such a big tax drastic price increases?
would have been prohibitive – or at least beyond the
Theoretically this is possible, but only if we can
appetite of politicians.
imagine a future model of farming that is sustainable
Instead, the UK Government chose to introduce without being significantly more expensive than our
subsidies (for wind and solar energy providers), system today.
bans (no new coal-fired power stations) and legal
obligations (an air pollution requirement that was
almost impossible for coal-fired power stations to
meet cost-effectively). As a result of these combined
measures, the cost of wind power is now cheaper
than the cheapest coal station (the cost of storing
solar and wind energy for use on cloudy and still days
is high, but in sunny places like California, solar-plus-
storage† is already outcompeting new fossil power
plants).12 This has been achieved with only the most
modest carbon tax.13
Figure 12.3
Organic food is sold at a premium14
1,823
Supermarket own brand prices (Pence per item)
510
375
355
330 320
250
200 190 180
149
115
70 80 89
55
Sainsbury’s Tesco Beef Sainsbury’s Tesco Tesco Maris Sainsbury’s Tesco 6 Tesco
British Fresh Rump Steak Beef Mince Mature Piper Soft Eggs -
Semi
Medium 20% fat Cheddar Potatoes Medium skimmed
Whole Sliced White Milk
Chicken Bread
1.6kg
Own brand Own brand organic
†
his refers to solar photovoltaic plants that have integrated battery storage, enabling them to operate into the evening
T
and to respond to changing electricity demand. 116
It is often assumed that this is hopelessly unrealistic. association in Belgium to help them improve the
“Look at organic food,” sceptics will say. “Most people quality of their soil. They planted cover crops in their
can’t afford it.” And this is true. Figure 12.3 shows the fields in winter, to stop the soil being washed away
cost of organic food relative to similar non-organic by heavy rain and improve its health, and used less
products in March 2021. The price premium for organic invasive ploughing when readying the soil for planting.
produce ranges from 11% (for organic milk) to over Over time this significantly improved soil quality,
400% (for organic chicken). Although the average which meant they were able to reduce fertiliser
At what price?
UK household spend on food is, as we have said, and pesticide use by a third, at no cost to yields.16
Chapter 12
historically low at 8%, that is only an average. For the Research in the UK and US corn belt yielded similar
least affluent 20% of the population the proportion results.17
goes up to 15%.15 These households would not be able
afford to feed themselves at organic prices. Figure 12.4 shows the results of our analysis.† What
you see is that in the future both kinds of sustainable
But the current price of organic food is not an farming methods – agroecological and higher yielding
accurate benchmark for what the sustainable food – should produce cheaper food than current organic
of the future might cost. Organic food itself could prices. However, agroecological farming would remain
certainly become cheaper through innovation and more expensive than current conventional farming
market growth. But it will not be the only source of even if it went mass market. Sustainable forms of
sustainably farmed food in the future. There will also high-yield farming, by contrast, could produce even
be more farms using modern science – robots, drones, cheaper food than current conventional farming (a
improved genetics and AI – to produce carbon neutral mirror of what has happened in the energy system),
and non-polluting crops. Other farms will combine new because it can maintain the same yields with lower
technology with traditional practices – for example, input costs. (Of course unsustainable farming will
by using mixed crop rotations alongside modern no-till probably become even cheaper too. That is always
systems to keep carbon and moisture in the soil. a danger until the costs of carbon and harms to the
environment are properly built into the system.)
It is hard to predict exactly how the new wave of
sustainable farming technology will affect food prices. These findings, however, only apply to fruit,
Innovation moves in fits and starts, not smoothly or vegetables, and grains. Meat is a different story. As
in a straight line. Nevertheless, our team has looked we showed in Chapter 11, there is currently no way to
closely at current trends, and at the results of existing produce enough food, restore nature and sequester
trials into new farming techniques, to extrapolate carbon while eating the same amount of meat. To get
some numbers. It is reasonable to suppose that, everything we need from the land, we will have to cut
for many crops, innovation will remove much of the overall meat consumption by 30%. How on earth do
expense of sustainable farming – and in some cases, we persuade a meat loving public to do that?
actually make it cheaper than conventional farming.
We started by looking at the detailed economics

of conventional farms today, using Defra’s Farm
Accounts: an annual report compiled by surveying
farmers across England about their revenues, crop
yields, livestock densities, costs of inputs for plants
(such as fertiliser, seeds, pesticide and diesel) and for

animals (such as feed and veterinary bills), and other “Why do we have to be dictated to, that
costs such as rent, labour and machinery. we need to stop eating meat and dairy
products? Everybody likes a choice in life.
We then made assumptions about how these We’ve seen what it’s like when we don’t
elements might change in future farming systems. have free democratic countries like,
What would happen to average yields and input North Korea.”
costs if farms adopted more sustainable forms of
higher yield farming or switched to an agroecological “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
West of England
system? There is a wealth of available information
to help with these estimates, including the accounts
books of existing farms. For example, the regenerative
advisory firm Soil Capital worked with a farmers’
117 †
This analysis is available as a supplementary document on https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/
Figure 12.4
Changing farming practices should not have a large impact

on prices for plant-based products18
245 233
Change in price per item (% over conventional)
156
117
13
9 8
2
-1 -3 -3
-5
Sainsbury’s Soft Tesco Sainsbury’s Tesco Maris
Medium Sliced Garden Peas Whole Piper Potatoes
White Bread Cucumber
Organic Range for sustainable farming methods
118
Chapter 13
119
13
The protein
transition
120
I
N February of 2019, shortly before COVID-19
reached these shores, our team gathered in a
small tearoom overlooking a graveyard in Bristol
The protein transition
to discuss food policy with 36 strangers. This

Chapter 13
was the first of five “deliberative dialogues” that

we staged around the country to get a better
understanding of how the citizens of England feel
about our food system, and how far they would be
prepared to go to improve it.
Each panel was selected to be demographically- It is easy to understand why. A meat tax might be
representative of their region. They came from all the quickest way to reduce consumption, but it would
walks of life and every political affiliation (or none). be expensive and regressive. If it were devised as a
They spent a total of 12.5 hours with us over four straightforward Pigouvian tax, and the cost of carbon
days – switching to Zoom once the pandemic emissions (as assessed by the Treasury) simply added
took hold. They were able to question experts to the price tag, the cost of beef and lamb would
from different parts of the food system, as well as rocket overnight. This alone would cause public fury.
discussing their own experiences of its strengths To make matters worse, the biggest price increases
and weaknesses. They also debated which political would be on the cheapest cuts of meat. (Because
or commercial interventions they would be prepared carbon emissions are measured by the weight of the
to tolerate for the sake of improving the environment product, not the cut.) The cost of rump steak – which
and public health. is already expensive – would rise by 31%. But the cost
of mince – one of the most popular and economical
Although there were differences of opinion within ingredients for feeding a family – would rise by 145%.
each panel and between the regions, some subjects A kilo of lean beef mince would go from £4.80 per kilo
elicited a remarkable degree of agreement. There to £11.76.1
was overwhelming support for much stronger
restrictions on the advertising and promotion of junk After our deliberative dialogues, we ran a public poll
food. Some participants wanted a ban on fast food on the idea of a meat tax, and got a similar response
joints opening near schools, and tougher regulations (Figure 13.1). Although 50% of people believe the
for retailers selling junk food. Government should set a target for meat reduction,
only 26% like the idea of a tax on fresh meat. 48%
Across the board, there was a higher tolerance for oppose the idea.
state intervention than we had anticipated – except
in one respect. The idea of introducing a “meat
tax” was a non-starter. Every time we raised it, the
atmosphere would suddenly crackle with hostility.
Although a minority of our panellists liked the idea,
many more were vehemently opposed – and the
arguments between these instantaneous tribes were
fierce.
121
Figure 13.1
The public is suspicious of mandatory measures to reduce meat consumption2
Set a target for supermarkets

and fast food chains to sell
Set a target for supermarkets
10% less meat by 2030 to food chains to sell22%
and fast
28% 25% 11% 12%
tackle climate change
10% less meat by 2030 to 22% 28% 25% 11% 12%
tackle climate change
Increase taxes on
processed meat Increase taxes on 20% 28% 26% 13% 11%
processed meat 20% 28% 26% 13% 11%
Increase taxes on
fresh meat Increase taxes9%
on 17% 24% 23% 25%
fresh meat 9% 17% 24% 23% 25%
0%
%
30 %
20 %
%
%%
0%%
%
400%
0%
0%
0%
%
%
%
%
8%
10 %
90%
0%
10
0
0
20
5600
10
670
70
90
80
4
3
10
Strongly support Somewhat
Strongly support supportSomewhat
Neither support Neither
support nor oppose Somewhat oppose
support nor oppose Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose Don’t knowDon’t know
Strongly oppose
The Government is attuned to this public mood. When

asked about the potential for a meat tax earlier this
year, a Number 10 official was quoted as saying: “This “I don’t know about the rest of you, but the
is categorically not going to happen. We will not be only time I ever have beef is in mince. I can’t
imposing a meat tax on the great British banger or afford to buy a joint of meat unless it’s been
anything else.” reduced, or is on special offer, because it’s
so expensive. I think that’s the reason we buy
Attitudes do change, and as the impact of climate cheap meat, the stuff that is mass produced,
change is increasingly felt, people’s views about what because it’s cheap.”
interventions are acceptable might change. But we
cannot afford to wait for the day the public ask for a “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
East of England
meat tax. So what can we do in the meantime?
We propose a three-pronged approach: one that

nudges people away from meat and makes alternatives
cheaper. We should reduce the environmental impact
of the meat we make, eat more alternatives to meat,
and find ways for the Government and supermarkets
to help us cut down on our total meat consumption.
122
1. Cutting methane 2. Alternative proteins
We can assume that the vast majority of people will One way to help consumers change their habits is
continue to eat some meat, milk and eggs for some to give them a cheaper alternative. In the 1960s, we
time to come. Britain has always had an omnivorous ate four times more beef than chicken in the UK.
food culture, and we produce some of the best (Although considerably less meat overall than we do
meat, milk and cheese in the world. This feeds into today.)8 By 1990, when intensive farmed chicken had
our broader sense of identity. Once nicknamed “Les massively reduced the price of chicken, sales matched
Chapter 13
Rosbifs” by the French because of our appetite for red those of beef. Now, 40% of all meat comes from
meat, we still invest considerable pride in “the great chicken (see Figure 13.2).
British banger”.
The good news is that farmers and food companies Figure 13.2
are already developing ways to cut the carbon We have changed our meat preferences
footprint of cows – the single largest source of
emissions in our food system. For example, some
significantly since 1961. We now eat much
breeds of cattle naturally emit less methane: a careful more chicken and less beef and lamb.9
breeding programme could reduce emissions further
still.3 Augmenting cattle feed with certain ingredients, 90
such as seaweed, can also reduce the amount of
methane they produce – perhaps by up to 80%.4
Nestlé in the UK recently announced a plan to halve

the carbon footprint of its milk supply by 2025 – in
large part by working with their dairy suppliers to
kg per capita / year
60
reduce methane emissions using feed supplements Other
and regenerative farming practices.5 This kind of
Poultry
commercial pressure is a powerful engine of change.
Pig
Providing Government investment in research and Sheep
innovation would speed things up further still, and 30
Beef
have the added benefit of boosting the “green
economy”. But we must be realistic. There are
drawbacks associated with methane reduction
technologies, and limits to how they can be used.6
Food additives need to be given regularly, which
means they aren’t suitable for cows that spend most 0
of their days in fields. We estimate that the methane 1961 2017
reduction techniques currently in development could
cut farming emissions by around 10%.7 A good start,
but not enough on its own.
We may now be on the brink of an even more
dramatic shift, this time from farmed meat to hi-tech

alternatives.
“For us it is the whole smell, the taste, The headline-grabber is lab-grown meat. This involves
the look forward to the Sunday roast; harvesting stem cells from a small stock of animals,
it’s all part of my heritage.” which are then fed with a nutrient-rich solution
typically including bovine fetal serum (blood drawn
“Deliberative dialogue” participant, from the foetus of a cow), until they grow into a sort
West of England of meaty pulp.
No one has yet worked out how to manufacture lab-

grown meat at scale. Last year’s news stories about
a Singapore restaurant serving lab-grown chicken
nuggets neglected to mention that each £12 nugget
only contained a tiny amount of lab grown meat,
mixed with plant protein for bulk.10
123
Notwithstanding all this – and an inevitable degree of
public squeamishness – lab-grown meat might yet turn
“Lab grown meat sounds
out to be the tastiest alternative to farmed meat, so we
unnatural. The compounds,
shouldn’t write it off.
the elements that make it up
For now, however, a more appealing (and commercial) might be the same, but there’s
option is using plants to create products that can take something that doesn’t sit well
the place of meat. So far, most companies have been with me.”
using wheat, soy or pea protein as their base, although “Deliberative dialogue” participant,
other plants may follow. The British start-up SuSeWi has North West England
been developing a sustainable, protein-rich food source
from algae held in huge pools in the desert, filled with
water pumped from the Atlantic. (Their algal production
plant, in Morocco, is pictured in Figure 13.3 below.)
Figure 13.3
SuSeWi algae production plant in Morocco11
The American company Impossible Foods adds soy A third source of alternative protein comes from the
leghemoglobin to its products to give them a meaty science of “precision fermentation”. This involves
flavour. This is a red protein, originally produced by genetically engineering yeast cells so that they
nodules on the roots of soy plants but now fermented produce a particular kind of protein as a by-product
in tanks, which contains the same heme iron that of their fermentation. The yeast cells are then put in
gives meat its distinctive bloody taste. Leghemoglobin a vat and fed either a sugar solution or a mixture of
has not yet been approved for human consumption carbon dioxide and hydrogen, so that they ferment
in the UK, but in America it has helped move plant- and produce large amounts of protein.
based products into the mainstream. The so-called
Impossible Burger – a vegetarian patty that “bleeds” This technique is already used to produce rennet for
when cooked, like a real burger – already accounts for setting cheeses, and the insulin with which diabetics
10% of all the Whoppers sold by Burger King in the inject themselves. It is also similar to the process that
US.12 Most of the people who buy Impossible Burgers makes Quorn. But in recent years, scientists have
will also eat the beef variety, according to US retail been engineering yeast to produce all sorts of new
sales data.13 A wholesale conversion to vegetarianism proteins in large fermentation tanks – including the
is not necessary if the plant-based option is appealing leghemoglobin that goes into Impossible Burgers.
enough.
124
The Israeli start-up Imagindairy are starting to thin air – will never match the nutritional richness
produce a “milk” protein from yeast which they say is of plants. “Unlike food from plants, no industrially
indistinguishable from the real thing.14 If this is true – generated food could provide the right mix of dietary
and if the public is willing to accept the substitution constituents essential for health, such as balanced
– the commercial opportunities (and environmental vitamins, minerals and bulk fibre,” he wrote in a recent
benefits) could be massive. Almost 30% of Chinese letter to The Guardian.20
milk imports, for example, are not drunk as a liquid or
Dr Hanke is surely right. For optimal health we should
eaten as yoghurt or cheese, but converted into milk

all be eating more plants, not fake meat. But we have
powder before being used in processed foods.15 If milk
to recognise how people actually behave, rather than
powder produced by precision fermentation became
just wishing they would behave differently. The UK
Chapter 13
cheaper than that from cows (a tipping point that

is now a nation that eats vast quantities of burgers,
some commentators believe is not far off) this would
processed meat and ready meals (see Figure 13.4). The
significantly disrupt the global dairy market.
trend towards convenience food has been at least
We cannot know exactly how fast the alternative five decades in the making, and will not be quickly
proteins industry will scale up, or what consumers reversed.
will ultimately decide they want from these new
It so happens that this kind of food is particularly well-
foods. But a report in 2019 by the Royal Society
suited to alternative proteins. A processed ready meal
predicted that 10% of the global meat industry could
may contain several ingredients – from mince to dairy
be replaced by alternative proteins within ten years.16
powder – that could easily be replaced with more
The think tank RethinkX is even more bullish in its
environmentally-friendly alternatives. There is, as yet,
predictions, estimating that by 2030, 50% of dairy and
no novel protein that that can directly substitute or
beef products will have been replaced by alternative
imitate a Sunday roast. But the meat in a ready-made
proteins.17
lasagne, or even a takeaway sandwich, could plausibly
The environmental benefits of these new foods are be replaced.
clear; the health benefits, less so.18 The Impossible
The UK should be positioning itself at the forefront
Burger, for example, uses 96% less land than beef, 87%
of this new industry. We have the right appetite for
less water, and emits 89% less greenhouse gases.19
it, with our devotion to ready meals and our growing
But it also contains a quarter of your daily allowance
tendency towards “flexitarianism”. Already, the
of salt, and just as much saturated fat as a regular
UK buys a third of all the plant-based alternatives
burger. This isn’t really surprising: most alternative
sold in Europe.21 We estimate that developing and
protein companies are targeting meat eaters and the
manufacturing alternative proteins in the UK, rather
fast food market, so one might expect them to be
than importing them, would create an estimated
unhealthy.
10,000 new factory jobs and secure 6,500 jobs
Precision fermentation has its flaws too. Dr David in farming (to produce inputs for manufacturing
Hanke, from the Department of Plant Sciences at processes).22 It would also make it much easier to
the University of Cambridge, argues that ingredients regulate this new industry, and to monitor its impact
made this way – in giant vats, often literally from on health and the environment.
Figure 13.4
Over the last 50 years we have increased our consumption of

ready meals and decreased our consumption of cuts of meat23
200
Grams per person / week
Ready meals and

convenience
meat product
100
Beef joints and steak

0
75
90
95
80
85
10
15
20
00
05
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
125
So far, the Government has been slow to offer support
and investment to companies developing novel proteins.
As a result, most of this work is currently happening
elsewhere (chiefly Singapore, Israel, The Netherlands
and Canada), fostered by initiatives such as Canada’s
Protein Industries Supercluster.24 We are in danger of
missing a prime opportunity for green growth.
3. Government and industry leadership

Currently, 5.5% of all the food served outside the home
is procured by state funded institutions.25 This includes
all the meals served in prisons, hospitals, Government
buildings, the armed forces, and of course schools.
When food is being produced in such bulk, small
changes can have a big impact. Including minced
mushrooms in beef burgers, for example, or putting
more beans and less beef in a chilli, can significantly
reduce the environmental impact of a dish.
In other words, the Government has a big commercial
lever at its fingertips. Making health and sustainability
central to the Government’s food procurement
guidelines would improve the food served in all state-
funded institutions.
But most of the impetus to improve the food we eat
will have to come from consumers, and from those who
serve them. There is already a clear desire among the
public to move towards a healthier, more sustainable
diet (even if desire doesn’t always translate into reality).
In one recent poll 76% of UK adults said health is a
major motivation for their choice of foods, and 53%
cited the environment.26 The retail industry, with its
highly-developed powers of persuasion, can do a great
deal to help consumers follow through on their good
intentions. Consumer habits are affected by all sorts of
subtle but deliberate factors, ranging from the layout
of a supermarket aisle to the way in which dishes are
ordered on a menu.
Supermarkets and chain restaurants sell us the majority
of the meat we eat. They will therefore have a vital role
to play in tempting us to eat more plants and a bit less
meat.
In a complex system it is hard to predict the result of
any single action. We have therefore placed three bets
on meat: invest in technology to reduce the methane
that ruminants emit; invest in alternative proteins
which can replace some animal products, especially
in processed foods; and nudge consumer behaviour
through industry action and public sector procurement.
The detail of all three recommendations is set out in
Chapter 16.
126
What does this mean
for our countryside?
Chapter 13
The essence of rural England, wrote Stanley It’s not just the call for reduced meat consumption
Baldwin, is “the sight of a plough team coming that worries them. There is also the imminent
over the brow of a hill, the sight that has been in loss of the “direct payments” which make up the
England since England was a land”. But what will majority of income for farmers in the uplands and
become of England’s livestock farmers now? Where in lowland livestock farming. And there appears
do they fit in this future of high-tech alternative to be a growing threat that new trade deals may
proteins and vegetable-based diets? The answer is: allow in cheap, lower-standard imports of meat,
right at the centre. which will undercut and potentially bankrupt our
own livestock farmers.
For one thing, the change we are recommending is
not a wholesale transformation. Even if everything There must be joined-up thinking across
in this report happens exactly to plan, with a Government to address all these issues, and
successful shift in land use and the commercial create a new deal for livestock farming.
development of cheap alternative proteins, the
overwhelming majority of England will still be
farmed: 63–65% of total land area, compared to
70% today.27
Moreover, the recommendations in this strategy

– particularly those concerning agricultural
subsidies – are intended to broaden the range
of good practise for which farmers can be paid.
Rewarding better farming, rather than just carbon
sequestration, will allow a continuation of the warp
and weft of field and hedge that defines England.
Under the three-compartment model of farming

described in Chapter 10, 2–4% of existing farmland
might be given over to native woodland – and even
this would contain large areas of semi-natural heath
and species-rich grassland maintained by extensive
grazing. We would still use over 53% of England’s

total land area to farm beef, dairy, and lamb.
But these reassurances may not be enough to quell

the deep – and understandable – anxieties of some
farmers. Our team has spoken to many livestock
farmers – especially those on tenant farms – who
feel that red meat is being unfairly vilified, and that
their jobs and way of life are at risk.
127
Chapter 14
128
14
Food
security
129
S
ECURING the nation’s food supply has
been a central role of all states since
history began. It was a standing item
at every meeting of the assembly in ancient
Food Security
Chapter 14
Athens. In Genesis, we learn how Joseph –

he of the multicoloured dreamcoat – saved
the people of Egypt from famine (and in the
process enslaved them).†
These days, in wealthy countries like the UK, As Tim Lang points out in his book Feeding Britain,
food security has become one of those largely food security is a many-tentacled beast.2 It depends
invisible political issues that the public tends not on an array of different factors, including the
to think about much – until something goes wrong. defence of supply lines (being confident they are
The disruption to food supplies caused by the not vulnerable to attack), the resilience of all parts
first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was actually of the food system, separately and combined (how
remarkably well-contained, thanks to the nimbleness quickly they can adapt in the face of sudden shocks),
of food businesses and their close collaboration with capacity (the skills and capabilities in the system)
Government. Yet even temporary shortages of a and control (how concentrated is ownership of the
handful of products (tinned tomatoes, pasta, flour) system and what risks might arise from high levels of
caused consumers to panic, and in some cases concentration).
to stockpile.
Being self-sufficient does not guarantee food security.
Behind the scenes, therefore, food security remains In the event of a harvest failure or other local crisis, it
a major political issue. But the question of how best is good to have alternative supply routes to fall back
to achieve it is unresolved. Even the precise meaning on. We have not been self-sufficient in Britain since
of “food security” is disputed. One study on the 1846, when the hated Corn Laws – which protected
topic identified over 200 definitions of the term in farming landowners from cheap European grain
academic literature.1 imports, but led to high food prices and even famine –
were repealed.3
In Part One of this Strategy, we distinguished
between food security and self-sufficiency. Self- Our self-sufficiency fell steadily after that as food
sufficiency is the ability to feed a nation from its own imports grew (see Figure 14.1), accelerating with the
produce, rather than from imports. Food security, as development of new technologies such as refrigerated
we defined it, is being able to feed the population at shipping.†† As we saw in Chapter 3, it reached a low
a reasonable cost, even in the face of future shocks point of 30% by the eve of the Second World War.4
such as a global pandemic, massive harvest failure, (The percentage figure for self-sufficiency is always
or a general crisis of agricultural productivity caused a net total, allowing for the flow of exports as well as
by climate change. imports.) The huge wartime effort to grow more food
†
It’s a much less jolly story than the musical. Joseph, working on behalf of the Pharaoh, makes the starving Egyptians hand
over all their money in exchange for the grain he has hoarded for seven years. When they run out of money he takes their
livestock, and finally their land and freedom. “The land became Pharaoh’s, and Joseph reduced the people to servitude,
from one end of Egypt to another.”
††
ontrary to received wisdom, the pre-war British food system was not based on the colonies. They played a relatively
C
130 small role in imports until the first tariffs were imposed on food in 1931. Up until then, the majority of UK imports came
from the US, South America and continental Europe (especially Denmark for pork and butter).
Figure 14.1
UK self sufficiency over time5

End of End of
WW1 WW2
100%
Indicative British self sufficiency ratio
50%
0%
0 0 00 20 40 60 80 00 20 40 60 80 00 20
176 178 18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 20 20
meant that Britain’s self-sufficiency soared to 75% by Since then, subsidies and protective tariffs have
1945.6 It dipped briefly after the War, but Government been reduced, and our domestic food production has
subsidies, combined with protective tariffs, pushed it declined accordingly. We now produce about 65% of
back up. the total value of the food we eat.8
And when Britain joined the Common Agricultural Our Government no longer sets a target for the
Policy (CAP), our farmers became entitled to European amount of food that we should grow to feed
subsidies designed to encourage bigger yields, ourselves, as it used to in the Seventies.9 Instead, it
along with protectionist tariffs designed to keep out relies on two methods to assess the nation’s food
produce from beyond the Common Market. Once security.
it was no longer cheaper to import, say, Canadian
wheat, British farmers had a financial incentive to First, it conducts occasional reviews to understand
produce more of it themselves. whether we have what you might call “U-Boat food
security”. That’s to say, if we were cut off completely
By the mid-eighties, when CAP subsidies and tariffs from all other countries, but could rely on rationing
were at their height, Britain’s self-sufficiency reached and other forms of drastic Government intervention,
a peak of almost 80%. But this feat was achieved would we be able to restore ourselves to full self-
through distorted economics. Farmers within the sufficiency before we starved?
Common Market were receiving twice as much for
their produce as they would have done without such Defra’s 2010 UK Food Security Assessment concluded
protectionist measures – with most of that bonus paid that we already grow much more of our own food than
by the state and the rest by shoppers. Unsurprisingly, we did before the War, so we would have a better
these incentives resulted in huge surpluses of food. starting point. And a shift from livestock production
The EU was sometimes forced to buy up produce just to grains and vegetables could make up the remaining
to maintain prices.7 No one who was alive at the time gap, “particularly if this extreme scenario included a
can forget the headlines about warehouses full of reduction in the level of food waste … Maximising
“butter mountains” and “milk lakes”. calorie production would require a dramatic reduction
131
in livestock production, with all crop production used steak on their hands. This surplus was sold into the
for human food where possible instead of animal retail system, with supermarkets agreeing to promote
feed.”10 In such a scenario, they estimated, we could the “back half of the cow” so that it didn’t go to
produce more than enough calories per person per waste.)
day.
The next big shock to our food system, however, will
Defra also conducts internal monitoring of food probably be very different – and less easily mitigated.
Food Security
security. These are shorter but more wide-ranging The most likely threat is widespread harvest failure
Chapter 14
than the 2010 report. They assess the risk of various caused by climate change. Figure 14.3 shows the UN’s
dangers across the system: how global harvests assessment of how climate change is likely to affect
might change because of climate change and other crop yields globally. Red means harvests are likely to
pressures; the geographical diversity of our food shrink, green means they are likely to grow. It paints
imports, and how exposed we would be in the event a picture of the kind of extreme inequality that is
of a harvest failure in one region; the diversity and certain to have extreme consequences: famine, mass
security of ports, roads and warehouses along our migration, even war.
import routes; and so forth.
Moreover, the “green” status of our own country is
At the start of the pandemic, the market had to not assured. The additional warmth and wetness of
work closely with the Government to maintain food climate change may lead to better harvests, but if
supplies. The particular circumstances of this crisis melting glaciers cause the gulf stream to slow to a
made that easier. Disruption to the food chain was standstill, UK temperatures would fall abruptly – as
mainly caused by the national lockdowns implemented would rainfall. This could dramatically reduce our
across the world. Because Governments had imposed yields.11 This is one of many potential existential
these lockdowns, they were also well placed to threats created by climate change (see box).
mitigate them – for example, by exempting farm
workers and lorry drivers from lockdown restrictions. The known unknowns of climate change are the most
In this country, the Government suspended elements dangerous uncertainties we face. But this country is
of competition law to allow food companies to co- itself in a state of transition. Our trading relationships
operate, share information and pool resources. (One and our agricultural system are both in flux. This
example: the abrupt closure of all restaurants meant creates potential for good, but we must also be alert
that meat suppliers suddenly had a huge surplus of to possible pitfalls.
Figure 14.2
The UK is 77% self-sufficient in foods that can grow in our climate

and 64% self-sufficient overall12
100%
Indicative British self sufficiency ratio
50%
0%
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
10
15
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
20
20
All food % Indigenous type food %
132
The 2020 Agriculture Act formalised Defra’s food climate change, which in turn threatens our food
security review, creating a statutory duty to publish supply. As we have seen in previous chapters, the
a report at least every three years. We will propose UK is quite capable of building a better agricultural
in Chapter 16 that that this review should in fact be future, with high-yield, low-impact farming
annual, given the significant changes ahead, and that sitting alongside nature restoration and carbon
it should involve broader consultation, bringing in sequestration.
organisations responsible for nutrition, cybersecurity
infrastructure, climate change and the environment. But there is one critical problem: trade. There is no
We need the widest possible foresight to help point trying to build a low-carbon, nature-friendly,
prepare us for the future. world class food system in this country if it can
be undercut by imported food produced to lower
Changing the way we farm is bound to create new standards from abroad. We need to get trade right.
uncertainties. But it is also, in itself, a food security
measure. Modern agriculture is stuck in a vicious
cycle of its own: the way we produce food is causing
Figure 14.3
By 2050 large parts of the southern hemisphere will see crop yields
fall while the northern hemisphere will see increases in yield8
Decrease Increase
Decrease Increase
133
Existential threats to
the food system
Food Security
Chapter 14
One paradox of modern food production is that the pursuit of food security has
led to such high levels of environmental harm, it puts the entire food system at
risk. Asaf Tzachor, a researcher at Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study
of Existential Risk, describes the problem thus.13
1. Demand for agricultural 3. Climate change drives crop

commodities worsens failures, migration and civil
climate change unrest
As the global population continues to grow, Some evidence suggests change in global
there is a greater demand for food, specifically climates will decrease crop yields, which
wheat, maize, rice and soybean, which account could lead to higher prices and make
for half of the global cropland under cultivation.14 societies more vulnerable to famine, food
Increase in demand requires intensification riots and conflict.18
of production, which has led to higher levels
of deforestation and agrochemical use, both
of which have significant contribution to 4. Climate change will increase
greenhouse gas emissions.15
the volatility of global food
supply chains
2. Demand for animal-source foods Crop pests and livestock diseases are likely
(meat, dairy, and eggs) drives the to increase with warmer temperatures.19
collapse of marine ecosystems Extreme weather events will damage
infrastructure for production, transportation
and harms those who depend on and processing of food.
them for their livelihoods
Fish consumption is also being driven by the
demand for food, yet this has led to severe
overexploitation which jeopardizes future fish

stocks and livelihoods. 31% of marine fish stocks
are rated as over exploited16 by the FAO, 58%
are fully exploited. Hundreds of millions of
people depend on fisheries for their livelihoods
around the globe.17
134
Chapter 15
135
15
Trade
136
T
RADE is a vital part of our food system.
At the most basic level, foreign
imports underpin our food security:
the UK has not been self-sufficient
Chapter 15
in food since the early 19th century,

Trade
in part because having a diverse

supply of food creates resilience.
The quality as well as the quantity of our food is Knowing the strength of public feeling, the
improved by trade. Over the past 30 years, Britain’s Conservative Party pledged in its 2019 election
restaurant scene has undergone a remarkable manifesto that: “In all of our trade negotiations, we will
renaissance – due, in large part, to an expansion of not compromise on our high environmental protection,
tastes and skills created by generations of immigrants, animal welfare and food standards”.
and the diverse range of products we now import to
In Part One of this strategy, published in July of
serve those tastes. A similar flourishing of choice and
last year, we proposed a mechanism that would
quality has spread through our supermarket shelves.
allow the Government to keep this promise without
Perhaps more surprisingly, trade can reduce the falling foul of the WTO’s anti-protectionism rules. We
environmental impact of our diet. Importing tomatoes suggested that the independent Trade and Agriculture
from Spain generates less carbon than growing them Commission should be asked to define a set of core
in greenhouses in the UK, because Spain has such a UK standards. In any future trade deals, the UK would
natural abundance of sun. then agree to remove import tariffs only on those
products that meet these standards.
In other cases, though, food imports can have a
sharply negative effect on our environmental balance Our report was followed by a report from the Trade
sheet. The carbon footprint of Brazilian beef is almost and Agriculture Commission (TAC), which made the
twice as big as UK beef.1 Australian beef, too, has a same recommendation. It suggested that “if trading
higher carbon footprint than our own, in part because partners could not demonstrate equivalence with core
Australian forests are still being cleared to create standards, then they would not be considered for zero
pasture.2 This is already negating our attempts at tariff, zero quota access for those products to which
reforestation at home: between 2010 and 2013, the the core standards applied.” The TAC was clear that
UK consumed imported products that had been these standards should cover not just food safety but
produced at a cost of 31,000 hectares a year of forest “climate change, environmental, ethical and animal
overseas, but we only managed to increase our own welfare measures”.
coverage by 17,000 hectares.3
It’s not just about carbon. The UK is a global leader
in animal welfare and livestock husbandry – unlike
some of the countries that would like to sell us meat.
Allowing cheap imports from such countries would
undermine our own standards, as well as undercutting
our farmers. This is something the British public feels
very strongly about: 94% of the public want existing
food standards to be maintained in any trade deals
the UK does.4
137
At a time when the Government is asking our own
farmers to raise their environmental standards higher
“My big thing really is getting back to some than ever, this would be an extraordinary failure of
kind of British pride and standard in our joined-up thinking. It would make it much harder to
food where we produce it from, you know, achieve the other goals we have set for our food
from rearing it to eating it, from farmyard system and undermine many of the recommendations
to table, and supporting the local farmers.” we have made elsewhere in this Strategy. Our true
carbon footprint – including that from imports – would
Tony, 56, Burnley
be larger than ever, as would the impact our food has
on biodiversity. It would also imperil our own farming
sector, by undercutting it with cheap imports made to
lower standards than our own. And it would infuriate
the British public, who could hardly have made their
feelings clearer.
This conclusion was all the more notable because the To protect farmers and ensure that the British people
TAC panel contained some devout free-traders, as well can have confidence in our imported food, the
as farming representatives. There had been scepticism Government must draw up a set of “core standards”
that such an ideologically disparate group would be that it can use for all future trade deals. It should then
able find a consensus on trade policy. But both sides explain how it intends to enforce them and thereby
agreed that it was vital to protect good farming help to raise standards both here and abroad.
practices from being undercut by cheap imports.
The Government is now facing the first significant test
of its manifesto promise, in the form of the recently
concluded trade deal with Australia. Australian
farmers – although heavily regulated – are permitted
to use practices that most reasonable observers
would not deem to be in line with UK standards. For
example, battery cages for laying hens are still legal in
Australia, and cattle are held in greater densities than
in the UK.
Perhaps most distressingly, the practise of “mulesing”
is commonplace in Australia. This is when the skin is
cut off a lamb’s rump, in two crescent-shaped flaps, to
encourage large scabs to form. The idea is to prevent
flies infesting the area. It is done to female breeding
lambs: those that will grow up to become ewes. Lambs
destined for the supermarket shelves are slaughtered
too young to require the practice. Around 30% of the
time, no anaesthetic is used.5
When it announced the Australian deal, the
Government said it would include measures to protect
our standards. The deal does contain a chapter on
animal welfare, which is in itself a world first, and
we look forward to seeing the detail. Until we do,
however, it is unclear how the Government plans to
maintain its commitments.
The way we do one trade deal inevitably feeds into
how we do the next. Brazil – which has significantly
worse environmental and welfare standards than our
own, or indeed Australia’s (see Figure 15.1) – is also
being lined up for a trade deal. If we are seen to lower
our standards for the Australia deal, it will make it
much harder to hold the line with Brazil – or the next
potential trading partner, or the next.
138
Equal or better than UK
Figure 15.1 Lower standard that is less likely
to distort competition
Comparison of food standards with potential trade partners Likely trade distorting
UK US Australia Brazil
Laying hens All cages must have a perch, No federal standard; Legally binding federal No legislation. Some laying
nest box and litter and voluntary guidelines suggest standards for poultry welfare hens are housed with as
provide at least 750 cm2 of cages should be at least 432 are in the final stages of little as 357 cm2 of space
space per bird.4 cm2. California will require development. Current per bird.7
entirely cage-free housing voluntary guidelines suggest
from 2022, with other states cages should have at least
expected to follow. 550 cm2 of space per bird.6
Broiler chickens Stocking density may not No federal legal maximum Voluntary guidelines suggest No legislation.9
Chapter 15
be higher than 39 kg/m2. stocking density. Chemical stocking density should not
Chemical washes banned. washes widely used. be higher than 46 kg/m2.8
Trade
Beef cattle Growth hormones banned Growth hormones widely Growth hormones used on Use of hormones in beef
since 1981. used. about 40% of cattle.10 cattle prohibited by
Normative Instruction No 55
of 2011.11
Dairy cattle Bovine somatotropin (BST) BST widely used. SCC BST banned. Industry BST widely used.14
hormone banned since 1990. maximum 750,000/ml. standard maximum SCC Maximum SCC
Maximum somatic cell count 400,000/ml (but not in 1,000,000/ml.15
(SCC) 400,000/ml. . federal statute and may
vary).12, 13
Sheep Tail docking using rubber ring No federal legislation; Castration and tail docking No legislation
permitted in lambs under 7 the American Sheep Industry may be performed without or guidance.19
days without anaesthesia, Association’s Sheep Care anaesthetic up to 6 months.
to prevent blowfly; after 7 Guide suggests that Mulesing practised in
days, anaesthetic required. castration and tail docking sheep for wool production;
Castration without may be performed without anaesthesia should be used
anaesthetic permitted in anaesthesia up to “where practical and cost-
lambs under 3 months. 8 weeks.17 effective”.18
Mulesing and other
mutilations prohibited.16
Animals in organic Antibiotic use permitted Total ban on antibiotic use. Antibiotic use permitted Antibiotics may be used
systems for therapeutic use on a for therapeutic use on a therapeutically, but the
veterinarian’s prescription. veterinarian’s prescription, animal products may not
but the meat cannot then be sold as organic before a
be sold as organic and waiting period.21
products (such as milk) may
be sold as organic only after
a waiting period.20
Pigs Sow stalls banned since 1999. Sow stalls legal in 41 states Sow stalls banned in 2 No legislation on sow stalls.24
Ractopamine (beta-agonist (but banned in California and states; elsewhere sows Ractopamine in use.25
used as growth promoter) several others). Ractopamine may be confined in stalls
banned. used in 60-80% of pigs for no more than 6 weeks.
Voluntary initiative to phase
out use.22
Ractopamine use legal.23

Welfare in Maximum legal journey time Maximum journey time 28 Maximum journey times Regulated by National Traffic
transport 12 hours; livestock density hours; no maximum legal vary by species: eg 48 hours Council Regulation No 675 of
set by law. stock density. for adult sheep and cattle; 2017. Basic standards for the
24 hours for pigs. Loading construction of vehicles but
densities set in national no maximum journey time
guidelines, implemented in and no maximum stocking
state legislation.26 density.27
Antibiotic use Average antibiotic use in Average antibiotic use in Administration of antibiotics Some antibiotics widely
food animals limited to 29.5 food animals limited to 160.7 as growth promoters used as growth promoters,
mg/kg. mg/kg. (Except organic) legal.28 Some high-priority but many categories are
human antibiotics banned prohibited. Average use is
for use in animals.29 Use reported to be lower than
is concentrated in largely some EU countries, but there
domestically-focused pig is a lack of data.31
and poultry industries.30
Carbon emissions 30 kgCO2e/kg beef 25 kgCO2e/kg beef 45 kgCO2e/kg beef 70 kgCO2e/kg beef
from beef32
Tree cover loss 42 ha 2,970 ha 7,620 ha 835,000 ha

due to shifting
agriculture (2018)33
139
Chapter 16
140
16
The Plan
141
I
N this report we have examined
at length the things that have
gone wrong with the food
system. Now we must address an
Chapter 16
even more urgent question: how

The Plan
do we put them right?
The food system of the future must meet will need to change across the next ten years if we are
these goals: to meet the Government’s existing commitments on
• Make us well instead of sick health, climate and nature.
• Be resilient enough to withstand global shocks We will need to use more of our countryside to
• Help to restore nature and halt climate change sequester carbon and restore nature, which means
so that we hand on a healthier planet to our encouraging diverse methods of land management.
children A small amount of our farming land will be given over
• Meet the standards the public expect, on to native woodland, peatland, heath and species-rich
health, environment, and animal welfare grassland maintained by conservation grazing. On the
remaining farmland, lower intensity, agroecological
This will require significant – although not necessarily farms will sit alongside higher-yielding farms that
painful – changes to our national diet, and to the way use the latest technology to maintain yields without
we grow our food. Figure 16.1 shows how our diets polluting. And there will be any number of farms in
between, drawing from both traditions.
Figure 16.1
Changes are needed to the national diet by 2032 (compared to 2019)

to meet health, climate and nature commitments†
Fibre
Fruit and +50%
Vegetables
+30%
HFSS Foods Meat

-25% -30%
†
hree of the diet-related targets are based on advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. A 30% increase in fruit and
T
vegetables would bring us in line with the Eatwell recommendation to eat five pieces of fruit and vegetables per day; a 50% increase
in fibre would bring us in line with the SACN recommended 30g/day; a 25% reduction in consumption of HFSS foods will take us
towards the required 60% reduction in salt, 20% reduction in saturated fat; and 50% reduction in free sugars. A 30% reduction in meat
is required to achieve the fifth carbon budget and the 30x30 nature commitment – this represents the creation and maintenance of at
least 410,000 hectares of woodland, maintaining and restoring 325,000 hectares of peatlands, and managing 200,000 hectares mainly
142 for nature (for example, heathland and species-rich grassland, some of which would be managed through conservation grazing.)
The recommendations in this strategy are designed
to intervene in the system at multiple levels. We
arrived at them after reviewing and assessing
policy ideas from around the world, as well as the
hundreds of proposals that were submitted to our
public Call for Evidence. We narrowed these down
to a few dozen, which we then analysed in detail,
modelling their potential impact and cost, consulting
our Advisory Panel along with other experts and
stakeholders, and testing the most challenging ideas
in focus groups and with citizens at the “deliberative
dialogues” we held around the country.
This is not a wish list of ideas that we hope might

help. These are concrete proposals for immediate
action, which we have explored in depth and are
confident will work. More detail and evidence on
each recommendation can be found in Appendices
1 to 14.
Designed to be implemented over the next three

years, they are essential first steps in a longer-term
transition.
143
Recommendations
1. Escape the junk food cycle and protect the NHS
Recommendation 1
Chapter 16
Introduce a Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax. Use some of the revenue
The Plan
to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low-income families.

Recommendation 2
Introduce mandatory reporting for large food companies.
Recommendation 3
Launch a new “Eat and Learn” initiative for schools.
2. Reduce diet-related inequality

Recommendation 4
Extend eligibility for free school meals.
Recommendation 5
Fund the Holiday Activities and Food programme for the next three years.
Recommendation 6
Expand the Healthy Start scheme.
Recommendation 7
Trial a “Community Eatwell” programme, supporting those on low incomes to improve their diets.
3. Make the best use of our land

Recommendation 8
Guarantee the budget for agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help farmers transition to
more sustainable land use.
Recommendation 9
Create a Rural Land Use Framework based on the three compartment model.
Recommendation 10
Define minimum standards for trade and a mechanism for protecting them.
4. Create a long-term shift in our food culture

Recommendation 11
Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system.
Recommendation 12
Create a National Food System Data programme.
Recommendation 13
Strengthen Government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy
and sustainable food.
Recommendation 14
Set clear targets and bring in legislation for long-term change.
144
Chapter 16
145
The Plan
NHS
Cycle and
Junk Food
1. Escape the
protect the
The way appetite malfunctions in the modern world The public, too, supports this kind of intervention. One
has created a huge market for unhealthy foods. poll found that 63% of people in the UK would like the
Sugary Drinks Levy to be expanded to include other
We have a predilection for calorie dense foods, which sugary foods such as sweets and biscuits.6
means food companies invest more time and money
creating these foods, which makes us eat more of Our modelling suggests this tax would lower the
them and expands the market, which leads to more average sugar intake by 4–10g per person per day, and
investment, which makes us eat more. Company the salt intake by 0.2–0.6g per person per day. This
bosses do not dare to stop investing in these foods, in would reduce the average calories eaten per person
case they lose their competitive edge. Both consumers per day by 15-38 kcal.7 According to the UK’s expert
and food companies are stuck in a reinforcing group on calorie reduction, this could completely halt
feedback loop – a Junk Food Cycle. weight gain at a population level (which would require
an average reduction of 24kcal per person per day).8
The results are dire. Poor diet contributes to an
estimated 64,000 deaths every year in England.1 More High salt intake raises blood pressure and increases
than half of over-45s are living with diet-related health the risk of stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis,
conditions.2 This is putting an enormous strain on NHS stomach cancer and kidney disease.
resources.
An estimated 300,000 years of healthy life are lost
One study has estimated that every unit of body mass to diet-related illness or disease in the UK every year,
index put on by every individual raises the UK’s annual with all the worry, work and logistical strain that such
healthcare costs by £16.3 As things stand, obesity is a situation entails. Once the years lost to premature
expected to continue increasing.4 By 2035/36, Type death are factored in, that rises to almost 1.5 million.9
2 diabetes is projected to cost the NHS £15 billion a According to our modelling, the Sugar and Salt Tax
year, or one and a half times as much as cancer does would save 37,000–97,000 of those years.
today.5 Halting this trajectory is the single biggest
thing we can do to protect the future of our health On top of the enormous personal benefits of
service. improving people’s health, there are financial gains to
be made. The Sugar and Salt Tax could raise £2.9–£3.9
Education and willpower are not enough. We cannot billion per year for the Treasury (£2.3–£2.8 billion from
escape this vicious circle without rebalancing the sugar and £570–£630 million from salt).
financial incentives within the food system.
We considered a wide range of fiscal and other
mechanisms to break the Junk Food Cycle. The Sugar
Recommendation 1 and Salt Reformulation Tax has the merit that it is
technically feasible, it is simple for consumers and
businesses to understand, and it enables industry to
Introduce a Sugar and Salt minimise the commercial impact and the impact on
Reformulation Tax. Use some of the consumers wallets through reformulation.
revenue to help get fresh fruit and
It also has a clear and effective precedent in the
vegetables to low-income families. form of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), which is
estimated to have already resulted in 36,000 fewer
The Government should introduce a £3/kg tax
cases of obesity in children and teenagers in England,
on sugar and a £6/kg tax on salt sold for use in
and 6,200 fewer decayed and missing teeth.10 (But
processed foods or in restaurants and catering
because the SDIL only covers sugary drinks, it has
businesses. This would create an incentive for
not been enough to really change people’s diets and
manufacturers to reduce the levels of sugar and salt
the health consequences that follow from them. For
in their products, by reformulating their recipes or
example, it has reduced average sugar consumption
reducing their portion sizes.
by 1.8g per person per day, but adults still consume
The CEOs of major food companies have told us 20g too much sugar every day.11)
privately that they cannot make these changes
This tax should be introduced in a 2024 Finance
without Government intervention. They need a level
Bill, to enable Government and business to get
playing field if they are to start making their products
implementation right. It should replace the current
healthier, otherwise the competition will simply move
SDIL.
in and undercut them.
While this tax is intended to encourage reformulation,
146
it is possible that the price of some products – We do believe that food retailers and hospitality
particularly those, such as value jam, that are almost businesses want to be part of the solution. However,
entirely made from sugar – will rise. We do not want to voluntary measures work best if they are monitored
place added financial pressures on those households and subject to public scrutiny.
that are already struggling to put food on the table.
We especially want to avoid the possible unintended We therefore recommend that there should be a
consequence that hard-pressed shoppers end up statutory duty for all food companies with more
cutting back on healthy foods. As we discussed in than 250 employees – including retailers, restaurant
Chapter 16
Chapter 4, unhealthy food is significantly cheaper per and quick service companies, contract caterers,
The Plan
calorie than healthy food – especially once you factor wholesalers, manufacturers and online ordering
in the opportunity cost of having to cook from scratch. platforms – to publish an annual report on the
following set of metrics:
We therefore propose a series of measures to get
fresh food and ingredients to low-income households • Sales of food and drink high in fat, sugar or salt
with children. Details of these measures are set (HFSS) excluding alcohol
out under Objective 2. They include expanding free
• Sales of protein by type (of meat, dairy, fish, plant,
school meals and extending the Holiday Activities
or alternative protein) and origin†
and Food programme for the next three years (to
support children during both term time and holidays); • Sales of vegetables††
an expansion of the Healthy Start scheme (to support
the diets of young children before they start school); • Sales of fruit
and the trial of a “Community Eatwell” programme
that enables GPs to prescribe fruit and vegetables to • Sales of major nutrients: fibre, saturated fat, sugar
people suffering, or at risk of suffering, from diet- and salt
related illness or food insecurity.
• Food waste
Over three years, the average annual cost to
Government of these four measures is £1.1 billion. • Total food and drink sales.
Companies of this size already have a legal obligation

to calculate calories on their foods, meaning the
Recommendation 2 majority already produce the raw data required to
calculate these figures.
Introduce mandatory reporting for
large food companies. Publishing these numbers will allow investors,
Government, and others to track whether businesses
Substantial shifts in the nation’s diet are required if we are heading in the right direction. It will enable better
are to reduce the environmental and health impacts of scrutiny and maintain public pressure on companies to
our consumption. do the right thing.
Voluntary action alone will not be enough which is Data reporting should be done via an online portal,
why we are calling for the world’s first Sugar and Salt and a summary of data by company made available
Reformulation Tax. However, we do detect a genuine to the public. The Food Standards Agency should
desire for change within the food industry. The CEOs develop the portal and ensure standardised reporting
of several major food companies have told us that the so that there is a common set of definitions and data
pandemic shocked them into wanting to do things standards in place. The data should form part of the
better. Food Standards Agency’s annual report to Parliament
on the state of the food system (see Recommendation
Supermarkets and the hospitality sector are extremely 14).
adept at nudging consumers towards certain products
and behaviours. They can do this by changing their
layouts and menus, using discounts and promotions,
reformulating their own products, changing their
packaging and labelling, and using their enormous
purchasing power selectively.
†
or all protein this should include country of origin. For pork, poultry, dairy, eggs and fish, it should additionally include welfare or
F
method of production accreditations (e.g. Red Tractor, RSPCA, Freedom Food, organic, pasture-fed, Better Chicken Commitment, MSC).
147 ††
“Fruit and vegetables” includes frozen, tinned and composite meals as well as fresh.
Recommendation 3 available to teach the subject in earlier years.
This decision should be reversed, and the food A
Launch a new “Eat and Learn” Level reinstated, with every school, primary and
secondary, required to have a cookery subject
initiative for schools. lead.
Eating well is much easier if you know how to cook c. Review other qualifications. The DfE should
from scratch. But culinary skills and knowledge have conduct a qualification review to ensure that
declined across every social class since convenience existing and new qualifications such as T Levels
food became widely available, and they are still in science and catering provide an adequate
declining, as one generation after another grows up focus on food and nutrition, and a progression
without seeing or trying cookery at home. route for students after GCSEs. This is
particularly important in light of the post-Brexit
Since the publication of the School Food Plan in
skills shortage in hospitality.
2014, schools have had a legal requirement to teach
cookery and nutrition to all children up to the age 2. Accreditation.
of 14. The curriculum states that schools should
attempt to “instil a love of cooking in pupils”, while The Government should require schools to work
teaching them the kitchen skills necessary “to with accreditation schemes such as Food for Life to
feed themselves and others affordably and well, improve food and food education in schools. These
now and in later life”.12 By 14, all pupils should be schemes would also provide training and support for
able to “understand the source, seasonality and leaders and staff.
characteristics of a broad range of ingredients” and
“cook a repertoire of predominantly savoury dishes”. 3. Inspection.
In too many schools, this is still not happening. Cookery and nutrition lessons should be inspected
“Food tech” remains a second-class subject – a fun with the same rigour as maths or English lessons.
but frivolous distraction from the real business of Whenever Ofsted inspectors visit a school, they
learning. conduct deep dives on four to six different subjects.
(The only subject that is always inspected is reading
It is time to take food education seriously. The in primary schools.) Ofsted should conduct deep
Eat and Learn initiative is a package of measures dives on cookery and nutrition lessons as often as
designed to achieve that. It includes five elements: they do other subjects. Ofsted should also set up
a team to create and publish a food and nutrition
1. Curriculum changes. “research review”, as they have started doing
with other subjects. These reviews are a powerful
a. Sensory education for early years. Children
influence on what is taught in schools and how it is
should start their food education as young
taught.
as possible, while their minds and palates are
still open to new experiences. Sensory food 4. Funding.
education should be added to the curriculum
for nursery and reception classes. This teaching a. We recommend that the Government pays for
method – in which children are introduced to the ingredients that children use in cooking
new foods and encouraged to explore them lessons (as they do for schoolbooks). The current
with all five senses – has been shown to system leads to waste – it is hard for parents to
increase children’s willingness to try fruit and buy ingredients in one-portion quantities – and
vegetables. to stigmatise children whose parents struggle to
afford them.
b. Reinstate the food A level. In 2016 the
food A Level was axed alongside a number b. We recommend that the Government doubles
of other subjects. This means that pupils who the current level of funding for the School Fruit
are interested in food and nutrition – whether and Vegetable Scheme (from £40.4 million to
for vocational reasons or just for love of the £80.8 million per year), but gives the money
subject – are cut off at the educational pass. directly to schools rather than administering
It has also led to an inevitable slump in the the scheme centrally. This will allow schools
number of cookery and nutrition teachers to procure higher quality produce from local
suppliers.
148
5. Recruitment.
The Government should ensure there are sufficient

training places, bursaries and recruitment strategies
in place to address the current shortage of food
teachers in secondary schools.13
The implementation of all of these things should

Chapter 16
be placed under a dedicated Eat and Learn team in

The Plan
DfE which works closely with the Office of Health

Promotion.
One thing that schools who do food well have in

common is that they adopt what is often called a
“whole-school approach”. This sounds like jargon, but
is actually a very simple concept. It means integrating
food into the life of the school: treating the dining hall
as the hub of the school, where children and teachers
eat together; lunch as part of the school day; the
cooks as important staff members; and food as part
of a rounded education.14 The Eat and Learn initiative
should actively champion this approach.

Government to deliver this recommendation is £206
million†, of which £124 million is for food education
ingredients.
†
e have not included the cost of the first year (2022/23) in calculating this average because we assume that the implementation of this
W
149 scheme will not be until autumn 2023.
2. Reduce
diet-related
inequality
150
Health inequality in England is stark – and getting In Part One of this strategy, published last July, we
worse. A man in one of the 10% most affluent recommended that the Government extend free
postcodes will live, on average, 9.5 years longer school meals to everyone on Universal Credit, up to
than his peer living in one of the least affluent the age of 16. We estimated this would cost £670
postcodes.15 Women in the poorest areas of the UK million. However, since the pandemic began, a further
are actually dying younger than they did in 2010. 230,000 households with children in the UK have
registered for Universal Credit: an increase of 7%.
Children living in the poorest areas are four times This means that extending eligibility to everyone
Chapter 16
more likely than children from the richest areas to be on Universal Credit would now cost £790 million, at
The Plan
severely obese when they arrive at primary school.16 a time when the public finances are already under
They are five times more likely to be severely obese extreme pressure.
when they leave it. Sixteen per cent of people in
the lowest income group suffer from diabetes: this We have therefore revisited the figures on food
is more than twice the percentage of those in the insecurity, to see if there is a way to target those in
highest income group.17 most urgent need of free school meals. We found
that increasing the earnings threshold to £20,000
It is a peculiarity of the modern food system that before benefits would ensure that 82% of children in
obesity sometimes co-exists with hunger. Bad diets households with “very low food security” (as defined
are, per calorie, much cheaper than healthy diets. by the Government) would be eligible for free school
The same households that cannot afford to eat meals, as well as 70% of those facing “low food
healthily may sometimes find themselves struggling security”.20
to put food on the table.
Even this modified ambition would be expensive. Over
Data collected in 2019 by the Department of Work three years, the average annual cost to Government
and Pensions found that, even before the pandemic, to deliver this recommendation is £544 million. This
4% of families experienced disrupted eating patterns would extend free school meals to all the children in
or were forced to reduce their food consumption due households currently earning less than £20,000, as
to a lack of resources.18 (This is known as “very low well as those from households with No Recourse to
food security”.) Among those on Universal Credit, Public Funds (NRPF), to whom the Government has
this proportion rose to 26%. extended free school meals during the pandemic. It
would mean a total of 1.1 million additional children
The economic disruption caused by the pandemic
getting a freshly cooked, free lunch every day. As the
has increased the number of households struggling
economy recovers, and as earnings increase and fewer
to put food on the table. These people cannot wait
families become eligible, we expect this additional
around for the food system to be fixed: they need
cost to fall.
help now. The Government must give direct support
to the poorest households to help them eat well. The Free school meals are extremely popular with the
first priority should be children. public. One recent poll found that 75% of UK adults
agree with the statement “Parents are responsible for
feeding their children, but Government must step in
Recommendation 4 for children whose parents are unable to do so.”21 Over
half (51%) of respondents went further still, saying that
Extend eligibility for free “school meals should be free for all students so that
school meals. poor students are not stigmatised”.
In Key Stage 1 (Reception to Year 2), all children

receive free school meals (FSM). After that, the Recommendation 5
eligibility threshold is set at an annual household
income of less than £7,400 before benefits. In other Fund the Holiday Activities and Food
words, you have to be extremely poor to qualify.
programme for the next three years.
This means there are some children from low-income
households going hungry. Children with empty In response to Part One of this strategy the
stomachs struggle at school: they find it hard to Government made Holiday Activities and Food (HAF)
concentrate, their behaviour deteriorates, and they clubs available to all children on free school meals
are more likely to be disruptive in class.19 for the duration of 2021. (They had previously been
trialled in 17 local authorities.)
151
These programmes provide activities for children in As a response to our recommendations in Part One,
the school holidays: four days a week for four weeks the Government increased the value of the Healthy
in summer, and a week over each of the Easter and Start voucher from £3.10 per week to £4.25 per week
Christmas holidays. Children on HAF programmes (or double that for babies under 12 months). Several
also receive at least one hot meal a day, which meets national supermarket chains also stepped forward to
the School Food Standards. The majority of local supplement the value of the vouchers. For example,
authorities have also been offering the programmes Sainsbury’s agreed to top up the vouchers by a further
to non-FSM children, for a small fee. £2, Waitrose by £1.50, Lidl by £1.15 and Tesco, Iceland
and Co-op by £1.
Holidays are a particularly hard time for households
experiencing food insecurity. An estimated three Studies on the effects of Healthy Start have shown
million children are thought to be at risk of hunger that it plays an important role in helping pregnant
during the school holidays, and data from food banks women and their children access healthier foods.
show a surge in demand for emergency supplies over Women registered for the scheme report that it made
the summer.22 them think more about their health and diet and led to
better dietary choices.23
As well as ensuring that children from the poorest
households get at least one freshly cooked meal We propose that the Government use some of the
a day, HAF programmes provide social contact, proceeds from the Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax
exercise and enrichment activities. These are to expand the financial eligibility for Healthy Start
especially important in the wake of the pandemic, vouchers. The earnings threshold should be raised to
which has had such a detrimental effect on the £20,000 per year (before benefits).† This would bring
emotional and social development of many children. it in line with our recommended eligibility for free
school meals. The age limit should also be extended
Currently, these programmes are funded to run by a year, to cover children under the age of five. This
until the end of 2021. We recommend that the would bridge the year-long gap in nutritional support
Government extend them for at least the next that currently exists between the end of Healthy Start
three years, or until the next Spending Review. The eligibility and the start of free school meal eligibility.
programme should include children in households on
qualifying benefits earning less than £20,000. Over three years, the average annual cost to
Government to deliver this recommendation is
Over three years, the average annual cost to £82–£132 million.†† This would bring the total cost of
Government to deliver this recommendation is £449 the scheme to £165–£285 million per year, depending
million. This figure takes account of the uplift in the on uptake.
number of children that would be eligible for HAF if
our recommendation were adopted on FSM eligibility.
As the economy recovers, and as earnings increase Recommendation 7
and fewer families become eligible, we expect this
additional cost to fall.
Trial a “Community Eatwell”
programme, supporting those on low
Recommendation 6 incomes to improve their diets.
Expand the Healthy Start scheme. Before the pandemic, the Government spent £130
billion on the NHS every year. Of this, 95% was
Healthy Start is a means-tested scheme for spent on treating illness, with just 5% going towards
low-income pregnant women and families with prevention.24 Many medical professionals believe
children under the age of four. It is also a universal this is a topsy-turvy approach.25 It would be more
entitlement for mothers under 18 years of age. The cost effective to increase spending on preventative
scheme provides coupons for vitamins and vouchers measures so that fewer people get to the point where
which can be used to buy fruit and vegetables, as they need expensive medical treatments.
well as milk.
†
urrently, due to the complexity of the benefits system, there are two thresholds. For example, if you receive the Child Tax Credit,
C
your family’s income must be less than £16,190 per year; if you are on Universal Credit, it has to be less than £5,000 per year.
††
We have used the upper bound figure to calculate total aggregate costs elsewhere. 152
The Government has acknowledged this problem.26
Its new “Green Social Prescribing” programme,
currently being trialled in seven Primary Care
Networks (PCNs) around England, is intended to
improve patients’ mental and physical health before
they become acutely unwell. It enables GPs to
prescribe therapeutic activities such as walking
clubs, community gardening and food-growing
Chapter 16
projects.27
The Plan
We recommend that the Government should trial a

“Community Eatwell” programme, which would give
GPs the option to prescribe fruit and vegetables –
along with food-related education and social support
– to patients suffering the effects of poor diet or
food insecurity.
This recommendation is modelled on successful

programmes from around the world. The Produce
Prescription programme in Washington DC, for
example, allows doctors to prescribe vouchers
for fresh fruit and vegetables, along with cooking
lessons, nutritional education and guided tours
of shops and supermarkets to teach people how
to shop cleverly. The scheme has been shown to
increase consumption of fruit and vegetables and
improve nutritional understanding. Of the 120
patients who received vouchers between 2012
and 2017, 50% lost weight over the course of a
prescription.28
The Government should invite PCNs to bid for

the chance to design their own pilot “Community
Eatwell” programme, tailored to local needs and
building on existing neighbourhood initiatives. Funds
could also be used to invest in local infrastructure
and facilities that make it easier to eat healthily and
affordably, such as community kitchens, fruit and
vegetable street markets, community farms and
box schemes, and community cafes. If the evidence
shows that these trials have significantly improved
the diet and health of participants, while reducing
the cost of medication, the “Community Eatwell”

programme should be rolled out across all 1,250
PCNs in England.

Government to deliver this recommendation is £2
million.
153
3. Make the
best use
of our land
154
We already ask a lot from the land of this small and Recommendation 8
densely populated country. And in order to meet the
UK’s legal commitments on carbon emissions and Guarantee the budget for agricultural
nature restoration, we will have to ask a lot more.
payments until at least 2029 to help
Some farmland will have to be repurposed or farmers transition to more sustainable
adapted for environment projects. Some will have to
be farmed at lower yields to enable nature to thrive.
land use.
Chapter 16
Some will have to become higher-yielding, low- Under the Common Agricultural Policy, most farmers
The Plan
carbon farms, using new technologies to increase in the UK received the bulk of their subsidies in the
productivity without polluting the Earth. This form of what are called basic payments. These were
division of labour – sometimes known as the “three allocated according to the amount of land being
compartment model” of land use – is described in farmed rather than the way it was farmed. Although
detail in Chapter 10.29 the EU was (and still is) increasing the amount of
money available for environmental projects, the
This is a major transition and will only be made
balance of the payment system rewarded farms mainly
possible by the knowledge, creativity and energy
according to their size.
of farmers. Many farmers already opt to use
methods for producing food that are better for Since our exit from the EU, the UK has been in an
the environment, while others are pioneering new “Agricultural Transition Period”. This means that
approaches. But farms are not charitable enterprises. the Government has been maintaining agricultural
They are businesses, and some are already struggling subsidies at the same levels as under the Common
with wafer-thin profit margins. Livestock farmers Agricultural Policy. However, it has begun the process
– some of whom manage land that is uniquely of transforming the payment system to one of “public
well-suited to both nature restoration and carbon money for public goods”. Under the new Environmental
sequestration – will need particular support. Land Management scheme (ELMs), farmers will no
longer receive payments for commercial activities
Over the past 50 years, some farmers (particularly
(producing crops) or simply for owning land, but for
in the uplands) have seen their income and way of
activities that contribute to the common good. These
life eroded by forces beyond their control: declining
include nature restoration, managing woodland, flood
lamb consumption, poorly designed subsidies, and
prevention, soil improvement, animal welfare and
underinvestment in communities and infrastructure.
carbon sequestration.
They have put in the hard graft – up at dawn and
working into the night, 364 days a year – but have ELMs is being gradually introduced between now and
been left with some of the lowest incomes in the 2027. But it is not yet clear exactly how the money will
entire food system. Their farmland, too, has been be distributed, which makes it hard for farmers to plan
degraded in the process. And now they fear a final ahead. Moreover, the total budget is only guaranteed
blow. New trade deals could, unless very carefully up to the end of this Parliament, in 2024.
finessed, put many of them out of business.
We recommend that Defra should guarantee at
The Government is asking farmers to change the way least the current level of funding for agricultural
they work for the public good. We must ensure they
payments until 2029 (the end of the next Parliament).

are properly recompensed. And we must protect At present, 40% of all farmers depend on basic
them from unfair competition. The Government payments to remain solvent. The transition to ELMs
needs a trade policy that supports its environmental must be managed extremely carefully if the economy
ambitions. Otherwise we will simply end up and culture of the countryside is to survive. The
transferring damaging farming practices from one Government must ensure that ELMs payments are
part of the planet to another and driving thousands sufficiently generous to make it worthwhile for
of our own farmers to the wall in the process. farmers to switch from conventional farming to more
sustainable practices. Otherwise the temptation will
be to farm even more intensively to make up for lost
revenue – or to throw in the towel altogether.
We recommend that roughly a third of the ELMs

budget – £500–£700 million per year – should
go on paying farmers to manage the land in ways
that actively sequester carbon and restore nature.
Our calculations (see Appendix 8) suggest this
155
would provide a fair return for the work involved Recommendation 9
in managing the land required for these projects:
roughly 400,000 hectares of broadleaf woodland, Create a Rural Land Use Framework
325,000 hectares of restored upland peat, and
around 200,000 hectares of heath and species-rich based on the three compartment
grassland. model.
Accessing the schemes that support land use The UK’s net zero target is written into law, and its
change will need to be as straightforward for nature recovery commitments will soon follow. The
farmers as it is to access the Government’s only way to meet those targets is to change the way
Sustainable Farming Incentive. Otherwise uptake will we use the land. This creates, de facto, a new land
be limited by bureaucracy, despite the interest of use strategy – but one that is unstructured, unstated
farmers. This is as true for owner-occupied farms as and therefore unable to guide good local decision
for tenants, but tenants face particular challenges: making. Crucially, it leaves farmers to second-guess
short tenancy agreements can prohibit them from the Government’s priorities, further adding to the
making long-term changes such as planting trees.30 uncertainties they have to navigate.
Defra should ensure that it is easy for tenant farmers We recommend that the Government should create a
to enter the schemes, as well as for farmers who own Rural Land Use Framework, setting out which areas of
their land. Each scheme should be carefully proofed land would be best suited to the different functions of
to ensure it does not inadvertently disadvantage the “three compartment model” described in Chapter
tenants or commoners. 10. This should inform the payments and regulations
that are being designed to incentivise farmers across
As well as rewarding such changes of land use, England to make the transition.
ELMs will pay farmers to improve the environmental
conditions of working farms, by (among other The Framework must be clear and explicit about what
things) enriching and protecting the soil,† increasing the Government is trying to achieve, which incentives,
hedgerows and encouraging biodiversity. payments, and regulations it will use to achieve nature
recovery, climate and food goals, and the metrics it
Our models suggest the cost of adequately paying will use to monitor progress.
farmers for both on-farm nature improvements
and changes to land use would be £2.2 billion per At the heart of this strategy should be a National
year. If we add to that Defra’s 9–10% budget for Rural Land Map (see Recommendation 12), which
measures to improve farm productivity, we get a would supply detailed assessments of the uses to
total budget of £2.4–£2.5 billion. This means the which any given area of land would be best suited.
Government will need, at the very least, to maintain
its current budget commitment. This would not The Rural Land Use Framework should be used to
include money to improve people’s enjoyment of connect and inform the many existing incentive
the natural environment, which is a target in the 25 schemes and land-based strategies in Defra that
Year Environment Plan and a focus of public goods inform the way land is used. There are currently at
payments under the Agriculture Act 2020. That least eight different schemes – from the England Trees
would have to be funded separately. Action Plan to the ELM schemes – controlling funds
ranging from £10 million to £2.4 billion per year.
Developing the Rural Land Use Framework should be

one of the commitments in the upcoming green paper
on how to protect 30% of UK land for nature by 2030.
Defra should seek input from the Ministry for Housing

Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and
the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy (BEIS). Defra should publish its framework
by March 2022 and then publish an annual progress
report.
†
he Government should conduct a review of small abattoirs to ensure that the capacity exists to serve the expected increase in numbers
T
of farms using livestock in their rotations. 156
Recommendation 10 The Government should, as a matter of urgency,
draw up a list of core minimum standards which it will
Define minimum standards for trade, defend in any future trade deals. These should cover
animal welfare, environment and health protection,
and a mechanism for protecting them. carbon emissions, antimicrobial resistance and
zoonotic disease risk.
In its 2019 manifesto, the Conservative Party pledged
that “in all of our trade negotiations, we will not It must then set out which mechanisms it intends to
Chapter 16
compromise on our high environmental protection, use to protect these standards.

The Plan
animal welfare and food standards”.31
In Part One of this strategy, published in July 2020,

we proposed a mechanism that would enable the
Government to achieve this without breaking the anti-
protectionism rules of the WTO. When making new
trade deals, the Government “should only agree to cut
tariffs on products which meet our core standards”.
A subsequent report from the Trade and Agriculture

Commission made the same recommendation. It
proposed that the UK should only lower import tariffs
if the methods used to produce the imported food
matched “a core set” of standards representing “the
high standards of food production expected from UK
producers".32 These would include “climate change,
environmental, ethical and animal welfare measures”.
If trading partners cannot “demonstrate equivalence
with core standards, then they would not be
considered for zero tariff, zero quota access”.
So far, however, the Government has not specified

which standards it wishes to protect, nor the
mechanism with which it will protect them. (The trade
deal with Australia has a chapter on animal welfare – a
welcome first in international trade deals – but we do
not yet know what it says.)
Without such a mechanism, there is serious peril in

signing any trade deals with countries that have lower
environmental and welfare standards than our own. A
completely tariff-free trade deal on agriculture with,
say, Brazil or the USA would seriously compromise
our own attempts to protect animal welfare, restore

nature and sequester carbon in this country. It would
also allow cheap imported food to undercut – and
potentially bankrupt – our own farming sector.
This is an issue on which public opinion is clear. Polls

show that 93% want the UK’s high food standards
to be maintained in all post-EU Exit trade deals, and
81% are specifically worried about livestock farming
standards being compromised in order to secure trade
deals.33
157
4. Create a
long-term
shift in our
food culture
158
We cannot make lasting changes to the food system Recommendation 11
without innovation in the widest sense. We need
to change the way we use our land, reintroducing Invest £1 billion in innovation to create
forgotten farming wisdom while simultaneously
developing robots and AI to serve the farms of the a better food system.
future. We need businesses to innovate, creating
It is fortuitous timing that the Government will soon
new food products and reformulating old ones so
launch its £22 billion innovation strategy, which aims
that they do less damage. And we need to rethink
Chapter 16
to make the UK the world’s most innovative nation

how public policy works, finding more effective ways
The Plan
by 2035. We recommend that one of the first official

to improve our national eating habits.
“missions” for the innovation strategy should be to
Some of this is beyond the immediate remit of create a better food system.
Government. The state can never replace, or enforce,
This mission should be backed by a new “challenge
individual passion and entrepreneurialism. But it
fund” worth £500 million over five years, with
can invest to encourage creativity and help bring
investment distributed by UK Research and Innovation
new products to the market. It can set targets and
(UKRI). Crucially, the money should be spent on
institutional goals, bring in legislation and collect and
projects that make the food system better in practice
disseminate accurate data.
rather than simply on new ideas. At present, most
The importance of data cannot be overstated. of the Government money that goes into food-
Changing the outcomes of any complex system related innovation is directed towards scientists
requires detailed, consistent and accurate data, and academics. In many of the other areas where
arranged in such a way that it is easy to visualise and innovation happens – on farms, for example, or in
analyse. This is self-evident to those who spend their start-up businesses or community projects – there has
lives trying to influence complex systems, and yet it long been a funding drought.
is rarely done.
The challenge fund money should be used to help
In a 2018 article, the former UN Secretary General shift the national diet to meet the targets set out
Kofi Annan described how detailed data maps at the beginning of this chapter. This might include
developed by the University of Washington had accelerating work to reformulate processed foods,
transformed efforts to tackle malnutrition across trying out new ways of helping customers change
Africa.34 These interactive maps made it possible – their habits, and boosting locally led initiatives to
easy – to find statistics on nutritional indicators such improve diet and health. But it should also be used
as childhood stunting, “almost down to the village to help develop new ways of growing food, such as
level”. Not only did “such fine-grained insight bring vertical farming and precision fermentation.
tremendous responsibility to act”, but it also showed
Separately, Defra has already budgeted £280 million
Governments, NGOs and others precisely where
to support innovation as part of its Agricultural
to act, and which measures were likely to be most
Transition Plan. The fund’s welcome focus on “farmer-
effective. “Without good data, we’re flying blind,”
led” innovation recognises that the driving force
wrote Annan. “If you can’t see it, you can’t solve it.”
behind regenerative agriculture has usually been
During the COVID-19 pandemic our own Government the people on the ground, trying out new ideas. It
discovered the true importance of accurate, is important that this funding should be used to
well organised data. In order to get a better support a wide range of methods, both high-tech
understanding of infection and hospitalisation rates and traditional, that can reduce carbon emissions
across the country, and the various factors that may and improve the natural environment. We specifically
be creating regional disparities, the Government recommend targeting some investment towards
rapidly reorganised how it collects and visualises methane reduction technologies, such as feed
health data. One official told us this had massively additives for sheep and cattle. But it is also important
improved the effectiveness of the pandemic to get more support to the agroecological methods
response. that have been starved of investment up to now.
Changing the long-term culture of our food system Fruit and vegetable growing should be another priority
will require a mixture of structural excellence and for this innovation fund, and be applied across Defra’s
individual inspiration. We need the right ideas, the wider programme of investment to boost productivity.
right evidence, the right laws and the right targets We need a less bureaucratic, more inclusive and
– all of which, together, will help change the food better-funded successor to the previous EU Fruit and
system on the ground. Vegetable Aid Scheme.
159
One of the most effective ways to reduce carbon One of these centres should focus on diet, and the
emissions and free up land for nature is to cut back other on farming methods. The Evidence for Farming
on animal proteins. Even though meat and dairy only Initiative, already being piloted, could be expanded
account for one third of our calories, 85% of the land and formalised to take on the latter role. These centres
used to feed us is used for livestock farming. Plant- should be endowed with £150 million and £50 million
based proteins produce, on average, 70 times less respectively, to guarantee funding over ten years.
greenhouse gas emissions than an equivalent amount
of beef, and they use more than 150 times less land.35
Recommendation 12
The potential global market for alternative proteins
is huge. The US is currently leading the world on the
production front, with companies such as Impossible
Create a National Food System Data
Foods, Memphis Meats and Perfect Day raising $700 programme.
million, $161 million and $300 million respectively in
capital last year.36 The Netherlands has developed We recommend the Government creates a National
one of the largest agribusiness regions in Europe Food System Data Programme, to collect and share
– Food Valley – with universities, start-ups and data so that businesses and other organisations
multinationals working together to create new vegan involved in the food system can track progress and
foods.37 Singapore and Israel have both proactively plan ahead.
fostered alternative protein start-ups, and Singapore This programme should span and connect two main
was the first country to give regulatory approval to a areas of evidence. The first is data about the land,
cultured meat product.38 as collected for the Rural Land Use Framework
The UK must do more to foster our own start-ups or (Recommendation 9). The second is data from beyond
they simply will migrate abroad. the farm gate: on food production, distribution and
retail, and the environmental and health impacts of that
The Government should put £50 million towards food. These two tasks should be connected through a
building shared facilities in a commercial “cluster” for single programme.
entrepreneurs and scientists working on alternative
proteins. Having a physical centre where many The Chief Scientific Advisers at Defra, DHSC, BEIS and
different players in the same field can set up base the FSA should work together to establish a specialist
is known to encourage creativity and the cross- team of civil servants – including IT experts and
fertilisation of ideas. It should back this with annual strategists – to develop and manage the National Food
grants for start-ups of £15 million for five years from System Data Programme. Working with the Geospatial
the new Challenge Fund. Commission and the Office for National Statistics, this
team should start by setting baseline data definitions,
We estimate that developing and manufacturing standards and hierarchies, making it easier to collect
alternative proteins in the UK, rather than importing consistent data across different areas and at different
them, would create around 10,000 new factory jobs times, and to use it in multiple ways.
and secure 6,500 jobs in farming (to produce protein
crops and other inputs).39 The team should then identify gaps in the existing
data and broker agreements with third parties such
Alongside innovation, we need evidence. Without as retailers or unions to fill in these gaps without
good data, it is much harder to formulate good ideas, breaching confidentiality.
track their effectiveness or adjust them if they start
to go off track. In writing this strategy, we found The key data should be published using visualisation
ourselves having to fight through thickets of jargon dashboards to make it easier for users to find and
and dogma in order to get to the facts. We had to compare information, model future scenarios and
do a huge amount of data collection and analysis assess the effectiveness of different policies or
ourselves because so much of the evidence in logistical models. These dashboards should include a
circulation was not fit for purpose. National Rural Land Map (Recommendation 9).
We recommend that, as well as the National Food The benefit to large businesses, which already collect
System Data Programme (see Recommendation 12), extensive data, comes from making that data more
the Government should establish two What Works reliable and comparable. The food sector’s many small
Centres – modelled on the Education Endowment enterprises will benefit from having access to high-
Foundation – to collect and analyse evidence on the quality, free data, which they can use to shape their
effectiveness of food-related policies and business business models and project into the future.
practices.
160
Some data will be commercially sensitive, and working with existing certification bodies such as
businesses might be willing to share it with the Food for Life, to help them reach baseline standards
Government but not with industry competitors. and encourage them to aim higher still.
There would therefore need to be a “layered”
permissions model, to control access to different At present, public food procurement is dominated
layers of information. by a small number of larger suppliers.45 This quasi-
monopoly means there is little incentive for innovation
The food system is closely connected to many and improvement. To address this problem, the
Chapter 16
other systems, both national and international. Government is already developing a trial scheme in
The Plan
Over time, data on transport, energy, environment, South West England, in which local food suppliers
healthcare and so forth should be added to the can sell their produce via an online procurement
programme. This would give the Government and page. Trials of this purchasing system suggest that
the food industry an extremely powerful tool for it works extremely well, with users reporting more
devising, shaping and monitoring a better food choice, better quality and no increase in costs.46
system, to improve the nation’s health, wellbeing and The Government should accelerate the roll-out of
environment. this dynamic procurement scheme and use its new
procurement standards to encourage caterers to try a
This will complement the Government’s National broader range of suppliers.
Data Strategy, and contribute to the call from the
Council for Science and Technology to improve In its annual report to Parliament (see
analytical capability and flow of information across Recommendation 14), the Food Standards Agency
Government.40 should include an assessment of how procurement
budgets are being spent and the extent to which they
Over three years, the average annual cost to are meeting the new standards.
£3.5 million. Over three years, the average annual cost to
£1 million.
Recommendation 13
Strengthen Government procurement Recommendation 14
rules to ensure that taxpayer money
Set clear targets and bring in
is spent on healthy and sustainable
legislation for long-term change.
food.
The problems we have described in the food system
The Government spends £2.4 billion every year have come about over decades, and solving them will
buying food for schools, hospitals, the Armed Forces, be a long-term effort. To stay the course we need
prisons and Government offices.41 This represents clear, long-term targets, ongoing political attention,
5.5% of the total UK food service turnover.42 Every and a joined-up approach not only within Government,
year, a quarter of us will eat at least one meal but across the food industry and communities.
provided by the state.43 During term time children
consume as much as 50% of their food at school, and A strong framework of legal targets is essential to
for some, a free school lunch is their only substantial improve the food system. The Government has already
meal of the day.44 set itself a statutory target for carbon emissions. The
forthcoming Environment Act will do the same for
We recommend that the Government should the 30x30 pledge. We also recommend that it should
redesign the Government Buying Standards for Food include a legally binding target to halt biodiversity
(GBSF) to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on loss in England by 2030. And we recommend creating
food that is both healthy and sustainable. It should a statutory target to improve diet-related health
use the updated reference diet, discussed below in through a Good Food Bill (see below).
Recommendation 14, to set these standards. They
should be made mandatory for all public sector To maintain political focus, we recommend that the
organisations. role of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) should be
expanded to cover healthy and sustainable food
The Government should also introduce a mandatory as well as food safety. Asking the FSA to take on
accreditation scheme for all public institutions,
161
these additional duties would be less confusing All Local authorities should be required to put in place
and expensive than establishing a whole new a food strategy, developed with reference to the goals
body to monitor progress. The FSA is governed and metrics set out above, and in partnership with the
independently and is well-placed to take a whole- communities they serve. (Over 50 places are already
system perspective. It is already established and has doing this, with impressive results).47
experience relevant to all the tasks that are required,
although it would need additional resources to take The 2020 Agriculture Act requires Government to
on this responsibility. review the nation’s food security at least once every
three years. The Government should do this annually,
Specific new duties would include: with broad consultation, bringing in organisations
responsible for nutrition, cybersecurity, infrastructure,
• Reporting annually to Parliament on our national climate change and the environment. Several of these
progress towards a healthier and more sustainable measures – and others in this action plan – require
food system – using the goals defined in this plan primary legislation. We therefore recommend that
and the metrics collected through the National Defra should put a Good Food Bill before Parliament
Food System Data Programme (Recommendation in the fourth session of the 2019–2024 Parliament. A
12) as a starting point. The report should also full list of the measures requiring primary legislation is
propose potential strategies the Government shown in Table 16.2 below.
could adopt to accelerate progress, in the same
way that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) Over three years, the average annual cost to
gives advice on combating climate change. The Government to deliver this recommendation is
FSA should explicitly seek input from the Climate £5 million.
Change Committee, and the newly established
Offices for Environmental Protection and Health
Promotion, in drawing up this report.
• Collecting and analysing the nutritional and

environmental impacts of foods sold by food
companies, as set out in Recommendation 2.
• Developing an updated “reference diet” for the

nation, in line with our health and sustainability
goals, working closely with the OHP and Defra.
This would create a single reference point to
underpin policies and advice.
• Working with Defra and the IGD to develop a

harmonised and consistent food labelling system
to describe the environmental impacts of food
products.
162
Figure 16.2
Legislative framework for creating a healthier, more sustainable food system
Bill Provision For Duties (except where stated)
Define long-term health targets and put into

Health targets Government
secondary legislation
Chapter 16
Prepare and publish a Good Food Action Plan

The Plan
Government every five years, which sets out interim food

system targets and measures to meet them
Consult the FSA while developing its Good

Government
Food Action Plans
Provide a regular independent progress

Action plans and
FSA report to Parliament on the Government’s
independent reports
progress against the Good Food Action Plan
Consult with the OEP, the CCC and the OHP

FSA
in drawing up its advice and reports
Advise the FSA on emerging issues within

OEP, CCC and OHP the remit of each body that are relevant to
Good Food Bill the scope of the FSA
Establish and periodically update a healthy

FSA, working closely with and sustainable Reference Diet, to be used
the OHP and Defra by all public bodies in food-related policy
making and procurement
Establish and periodically update a healthy

and sustainable Reference Diet, to be used
Government
by all public bodies in food-related policy
making and procurement
Other duties
Develop local food strategies, with reference
Local authorities in England to national targets and in partnership with
the communities they serve
Expand obligation to promote consumer

interest to include our collective interest
Large food businesses
in tackling climate change, nature recovery
and health
Finance Bill Levy Government Powers to apply a tax to sugar and salt
163
Government to deliver these recommendations
is £1.4 billion.
In addition, there is a one-off cost, of £250

million, described under the innovation
recommendation (Recommendation 11).
This is new expenditure. It does not include

the costs of recommendations where funding
has already been secured (ELMs funding,
Recommendation 8, and Defra’s £280
million fund to support innovation, part of
Recommendation 11).
We estimate that the Sugar and Salt

Reformulation Tax would raise £2.9–£3.4
billion per year for the Treasury. We propose
using some of this money to fund a series
of measures to support the diets of those in
deprived communities.
These measures will have a long-term economic

benefit of up to £126 billion.
164
Chapter references
165
Chapter
references
Introduction
Chapter references
1
Department for Education. (2021). Holiday activities and food 12
Turner, P. et al. (2020). Food anaphylaxis in the United Kingdom:
programme 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/ analysis of national data, 1998–2018. British Medical Journal. Avail-
publications/holiday-activities-and-food-programme/holiday-activi- able at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n251
ties-and-food-programme-2021
13
Food Standards Agency. (2017). Food Standards Agency Board
2
NHS. (2021). Applying for Healthy Start. Available at: https:// meeting – 15 March 2017. FSA. Available at: https://www.food.gov.
www.healthystart.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions/applying-for- uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fsa170306.pdf
healthy-start-faqs/
14
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. (2021). UK
3
Sainsbury’s: Sainsbury’s. (2021). Sainsbury’s tops up Healthy enshrines new target in law to slash emissions by 78% by 2035. HMG.
Start vouchers to help feed over half a million families. 9 Feb 2021. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/news/uk-enshrines-
Available at: https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/news/latest- new-target-in-law-to-slash-emissions-by-78-by-2035
news/2021/09-02-2021-sainsburys-tops-up-healthy-start-vouch-
ers; Waitrose: John Lewis Partnership. (2021). Waitrose to top up
15
Biodiversity loss: Benton, T. G. et al. (2021). Food system impacts
Healthy Start Vouchers for new families. 3 February 2021. Available on biodiversity loss. Chatham House. Available at: https://www.
at: https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/media/press/y2021/ chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/2021-02-03-food-
waitrose-to-top-up-healthy-start-vouchers.html; Tesco: Tesco PLC. system-biodiversity-loss-benton-et-al_0.pdf; Rainforest destruction:
(2020). Tesco to offer free fruit and veg to 500,000 Healthy Start Hosonuma, N. et al. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and
families. 30 October 2020. Available at: https://www.tescoplc.com/ forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Re-
news/2020/tesco-to-offer-free-fruit-and-veg-to-500-000-healthy- search Letters, Volume 7, Number 4. Available at: https://iopscience.
start-families/; Co-op: Co-operative Group Ltd. (2020). Co-op’s iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009/pdf; GHG Emissions:
Christmas boost for families: retailer to top up Healthy Start vouchers Our World in Data. (2020). Sector by sector: where do global green-
by £1. 21 December 2020. Available at: https://www.co-operative. house gas emissions come from? Available at: https://ourworldindata.
coop/media/news-releases/co-ops-christmas-boost-for-families-re- org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
tailer-to-top-up-healthy-start
4
Tanzer, J. et al. (2015). Living Blue Planet Report. Species, habitats
and human well-being. WWF. Available at: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/
downloads/living_blue_planet_report_2015.pdf
5
Thurstan, R. H. et al. (2010). The effects of 118 years of industrial
fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries. Nature Communications 1, 15.
Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1013
6
Harrabin, R. (2021). Bottom trawling ban for key UK fishing sites.
BBC News. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-en-
vironment-55894608
7
See National Food Strategy. (2021). Evidence pack, page 66, avail-
able from: https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
8
Foreign & Commonwealth Office. (2019). Britannia Protects the
Waves: £7 million extra funding to protect UK marine life. HMG. Avail-
able at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/news/britannia-protects-
the-waves-7m-extra-funding-to-protect-uk-marine-life
9
South Africa MPA: Kerwath, S. E. et al. (2013). Marine protected area
improves yield without disadvantaging fishers. Nature Communica-
tions 4, 2347. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3347;
Scotland MPA: Stewart, B. D. et al. (2020). Marine Conservation

Begins at Home: How a Local Community and Protection of a Small
Bay Sent Waves of Change Around the UK and Beyond. Frontiers
in Marine Science. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/
articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00076/full; Global effect of MPAs:
Cabral, R. B. et al. (2020). A global network of marine protected
areas for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
117 (45) 28134–28139. Available from: https://www.pnas.org/con-
tent/117/45/28134
10
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations’ (2021).
Prepare for Displacement. NFFO. Available at: https://www.nffo.org.
uk/prepare-for-displacement/
11
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations’ (2021). 40
Marine Protected Areas in 3 Years. NFFO. Available at: https://www.
nffo.org.uk/40-marine-protected-areas-in-3-years/
166
Executive summary
Chapter references
1
Bahadue, K. C. et al. (2018). When too much isn’t enough: Does cur-
rent food production meet global nutritional needs? PLoS ONE 13(10).
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205683
2
Agriculture produces 10% of UK emissions: Climate Change
Committee. (2020). Sixth carbon budget. Available at: https://www.
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-
Budget-The-UKs-path-to-Net-Zero.pdf; Less than 1% of GDP: Farming
income from: Defra. (2021). Total Income from Farming in the United
Kingdom, first estimate for 2020. HMG. Available at: https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/989701/agricaccounts-tiffstatsnotice-27may21.
pdf; GDP from: Office for National Statistics. (2021). Gross Domestic
Product: chained volume measures: Seasonally adjusted £m. HMG.
Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticpro-
ductgdp/timeseries/abmi/ukea
3
~80 per cent of manufactured foods are unhealthy: Access to
Nutrition Initiative. (2019). U.K. Product Profile 2019. Access to
Nutrition Initiative. Available at: https://accesstonutrition.org/app/
uploads/2020/02/UK-Product-Profile_Full_Report_2019.pdf and
Euromonitor International. (2018). Consumers in 2019. Available at:
https://www.euromonitor.com/consumers-in-2019/report
4
Food Foundation. (2020). The Broken Plate 2020. Food Founda-
tion. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/up-
loads/2020/09/FF-Broken-Plate-2020-DIGITAL-FULL.pdf
5
UK is the third fattest country in the G7: World Health Organiza-
tion. (2016). Global Health Observatory data repository: Prevalence
of obesity among adults, BMI ≥ 30, age-standardized – Estimates
by county. Available at: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.
A900A?lang=en; 28% of adults are obese: NHS Digital. (2020). Health
Survey for England, 2019: Adult and Child Overweight and Obesity.
NHS Digital. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/
publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2019/health-sur-
vey-for-england-2019-data-tables
6
2019 data: Global Burden of Disease, accessed March 2021: Global
Health Data Exchange. (2021). GBD Results Tool. Institute for Health
Metrics and Evaluation. Available at: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/
gbd-results-tool
7
NFS analysis. See National Food Strategy Evidence Pack pages 42
and 56 for details. Available from https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.
org
8
Across the full range of scenarios considered under the 6th carbon
budget. See Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Land use:

Policies for a Net Zero UK. Committee on Climate Change. Sixth
carbon budget. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/
sixth-carbon-budget/
167
1. Why it matters
Chapter references
1
https://twitter.com/waiterich/status/1382001123595276290 17
Food system: Crippa, M. et al. (2021). Food systems are responsi-
ble for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2,
2
Broughton, J. and Weitzel, E. (2018). Population reconstructions for 198–209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9;
humans and megafauna suggest mixed causes for North American Aviation: Lee, D. and Forster, P. (2020). Guest post: Calculating the
Pleistocene extinctions. Nat Commun 9, 5441. Available at: https:// true climate impact of aviation emissions. Carbon Brief. Available at:
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07897-1 https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-calculating-the-true-cli-
mate-impact-of-aviation-emissions
3
Ruiter, H, et al. (2017). Total global agricultural land footprint asso-
ciated with UK food supply 1986–2011. ScienceDirect. Available at: 18
UK emissions: Garnett, T. et al. (2016). Food systems and green-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.007 house gas emissions. Food Climate Research Network. Available at:
https://www.tabledebates.org/chapter/food-systems-and-green-
4
National Food Strategy analysis based on: Bar-On, Y. M. et al.
house-gas-emissions
(2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the Nation-
al Academy of Sciences, 115(25), 6506–6511. 19
National Food Strategy analysis based on: Garnett, T. (2008). Cook-
ing up a storm. In: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing
5
National Food Strategy analysis based on: Bar-On, Y. M. et al.
climate. Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental
(2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the Nation-
Strategy; BEIS. (2019). Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national
al Academy of Sciences, 115(25), 6506–6511.
statistics. Data Tables; WRAP. (2020). Courtauld Commitment 2025,
6
Ritchie, H. and Roser, M. (2019). Land Use. Our World In Data. Avail- 2020 Annual Report.
able at: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
Kellehear, A. (2007). A Social History of Dying. UK: Cambridge
20
7
Ritchie, H. (2021). Wild mammals have declined by 85% since the University Press.
rise of humans, but there is a possible future where they flourish. Our 21
Change in the price of fresh chicken: Office for National Statistics.
World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mam-
(2021). Consumer price inflation time series. Available from: https://
mal-decline
www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/con-
8
IUCN. (2021). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version sumerpriceindices. Change in chicken consumption: UN Food and
2021-1. IUCN. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org Agriculture Organisation. (2020). Meat food supply quantity – food
available for human consumption. Available from: http://www.fao.
9
Wilson, E. O. (1992). The Diversity of Life. London, UK. Penguin Press org/faostat/en/#data/FBS
Science. 22
Global trends: Boeckel, T. et al. (2019). Global trends in antimicrobi-
10
FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. al resistance in animals in low- and middle-income countries. Science.
Sustainability in action. Available at: www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/ Available at: DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw1944;
ca9229en.pdf 23
Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. (2016). Tackling Drug-Resistant
11
Barnett, A. (2015). The Nature of Crops: Why do we eat so few of Infections Globally Final Report and Recommendation. Review on
the edible plants? New Scientist. Available at: https://institutions. Antimicrobial Resistance. Available at: https://amr-review.org/sites/
newscientist.com/article/mg22730301-400-the-nature-of-crops- default/files/160518_Final%20paper_with%20cover.pdf
why-do-we-eat-so-few-of-the-edible-plants/ 24
For a broad assessment of zoonotic disease risk, see: Jones, B. A.
12
World Wildlife Fund. (2021). Freshwater Systems. World Wildlife et al. (2013). Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification
Fund. Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/fresh- and environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy
water-systems of Sciences of the United States of America. Available at: https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208059110 For low genetic diversity enabling
13
FAO. (2017). Water for sustainable food and agriculture. FAO. Avail- rapid viral spread in factory farms: United Nations Environment
able at: http://www.fao.org/3/i7959e/i7959e.pdf Programme. (2020). Coronaviruses: are they here to stay? United
Nations Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.unep.
14
Global map: Mekonnen, M. & Hoekstra, A. (2016). Four billion peo-
org/news-and-stories/story/coronaviruses-are-they-here-stay; For
ple facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances, 2(2). Available cross-species pandemic-capable infection: A., Khatri, M. et al. (2012).
at: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500323.full; UK Identification of swine H1N2/pandemic H1N1 reassortant influenza
inset map: World Resources Institute. (2021). Aqueduct tools. WRI. virus in pigs, United States. Veterinary Microbiology. Available at:
Available at: https://www.wri.org/aqueduct accessed June 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2012.02.014; For related poultry data:
Rozins, C. and Day, T. (2016). The industrialization of farming may be
15
European Environment Agency. (2018). European waters Assess-
driving virulence evolution. Evolutionary applications, 10(2), 189–198.
ment of status and pressures 2018. Available at: https://www.eea.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12442. For agricultural intensi-
europa.eu/publications/state-of-water
fication’s effect on pandemic risk: Willyard, C. (2019). Flu on the farm.
16
1% of global emissions come from ammonia production: Gilbert, Nature. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-
P. and Thornley, P. (2010). Energy and carbon balance of ammonia 02757-4.
production from biomass gasification. In host publication. Available 25
Johnson, C.. et al. (2020). Global shifts in mammalian population
at: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/33615474/
trends reveal key predictors of virus spillover risk. the Royal Society.
FULL_TEXT.PDF; 12% of total ag emissions (2.9% of total emissions)
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2736
from synthetic ammonia use: Smith P., M. et al. (2014). Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate Change 2014: 26
Boeckel, T. et al. (2015). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the InterGovernmental Panel on at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503141112.
Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/up-
loads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf; In total then synthetic 27
Loh, E. H. et al. (2015). Targeting Transmission Pathways for Emerg-
fertiliser is about 4% of global GHGs and 12% of total ag emissions ing Zoonotic Disease Surveillance and Control. Vector Borne Zoonotic
(2.9% of total emissions) from synthetic ammonia use. Dis. 2015 Jul;15(7):432–7. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
168 gov/26186515/
28
NHS Digital. (2020). Health Survey for England, 2019: Adult and 41
3.4% of GDP: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and De-
Child Overweight and Obesity. NHS Digital. Available at: https://dig- velopment. (2019). The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of
ital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-sur- Prevention. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/
vey-for-england/2019/health-survey-for-england-2019-data-tables health/the-heavy-burden-of-obesity-67450d67-en.htm; The OECD
model predicts that high BMI will reduce UK GDP by 3.4% each year
29
Changulani et al. (2008). The relationship between obesity and the between 2020 and 2030. UK GDP was £2.17 trillion in 2019. Source:
age at which hip and knee replacement is undertaken. The Journal Gross Domestic Product in the United Kingdom from 1948 to 2020.
of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 90-B(3), pp.360–363. Statista. 3.4% of 2019 GDP is £73.78 billion: As above 3.4% of GDP is
Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18310761/ an average per year between 2020–2050.
30
Global Burden of Disease: Global Health Data Exchange. (2021). 42
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019).
GBD Results Tool. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Avail- The Heavy Burden of Obesity The Economics of Prevention, United
able at: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool Kingdom country note. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.
oecd.org/unitedkingdom/Heavy-burden-of-obesity-Media-country-
31
Public Health England. (2020). Excess weight and COVID-19:
note-UK.pdf
insights from new evidence. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
Government/publications/excess-weight-and-covid-19-insights-from- 43
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2020). Family
new-evidence Food Surveys. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/
collections/family-food-statistics
32
Williamson, E. et al. (2020). Factors associated with COVID-19-re-
lated death using OpenSAFELY. Nature 584, 430–436 Available at: 44
2019 data: accessed July 2021: Global Burden of Disease: Global
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2521-4 Health Data Exchange. (2021). GBD Results Tool. Institute for Health
33
National Food Strategy analysis using data from: NHS Digital.
gbd-results-tool
(2020). Health Survey for England 2019: Adult’s health. Available at:
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/ 45
health-survey-for-england/2019; NHS Digital. (2018). Health Survey The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention, OECD
for England 2017: Cardiovascular diseases. Available at: https:// Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.
digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health- org/10.1787/67450d67-en
survey-for-england/2017. Disease overlaps assumed to be the same
across all age groups. Population data from: ONS. (2020). Population 46
NFS estimate: 58% of people in the lowest Index of Multiple
estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Deprivation quintile have CVD, diabetes or obesity. National Food
Ireland: mid-2019. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peo- Strategy analysis using data from: NHS Digital. (2020). Health Survey
plepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationesti- for England 2019: Adult’s health. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/
mates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/latest data-and-information/publications/statistical/ health-survey-for-en-
gland/2019; NHS Digital. (2018). Health Survey for England 2017: Car-
34
Barron, E. et al. (2020). Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes and COVID-19 diovascular diseases. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-in-
Related Mortality in England: A Whole Population Study. SSRN Elec- formation/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-england/2017;
tronic Journal. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-con- NHS Digital. (2020). Healthy Survey for England 2019: overweight
tent/uploads/2020/05/valabhji-COVID-19-and-Diabetes-Paper-1.pdf and obesity in adults and children. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/
data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-survey-for-en-
35
2019 data: accessed March 2021: Global Burden of Disease: Global
gland/2019/health-survey-for-england-2019-data-tables. Population
Health Data Exchange. (2021). GBD Results Tool. Institute for Health
data from: ONS. (2017). Deaths and Populations by Index of Multiple
Deprivation (IMD) decile, England and Wales, 2001 to 2015. ONS.
gbd-results-tool
Available at:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcom-
36
NFS analysis of Family Food Surveys: Department for Environment, munity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/006518death-
Food and Rural Affairs. (2020). Family Food Surveys. HMG. Available sandpopulationsbyindexofmultipledeprivationimddecileenglandan-
at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/family-food-statis- dwales2001to2015. Overlap between diabetes and obesity, diabetes
tics and CVD and obesity and CVD from Health Survey for England.
Assumptions: Very high waist circumference (>102cm for men, >88cm
37
Griffith, R. et al. (2021). The decline of home cooked food. The IFS. for women) assumed to be obese for purposes of CVD and obese
Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/15482 overlap. The overlap between diseases is assumed to be the same
across IMDs. Not including diet-related cancers as overlap data not
38
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). available.
The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention. OECD
Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/health/the-heavy- 47
O’Halloran et al. (2020). Obesity, BMI and Cause-Specific Hospital
burden-of-obesity-67450d67-en.htm; The OECD model predicts that Admissions and Costs: The UK Biobank Cohort Study. Obesity. Avail-
high BMI will cost the Government 8% of the total spend on health- able at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22812
care on average per year between 2020–2050. They use an average
annual figure over 30 years because results for a single year can be
48
O’Halloran et al. (2020). Obesity. BMI and Cause-Specific Hospital
quite noisy due to a number of factors but have confirmed that the Admissions and Costs: The UK Biobank Cohort Study. Obesity. Avail-
percentage can be used as the current figure. able at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22812
39
NHS Digital. (2021). Statistics on Obesity, Physical Activity and
49
Historic trend: NHS Digital. Health Survey for England. Available at:
Diet, England 2021. NHS Digital. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/ https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/
data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-obesi- health-survey-for-england; Projection: Janssen, F., Bardoutsos, A., &
ty-physical-activity-and-diet/england-2021. Vidra, N. (2020). Obesity Prevalence in the Long-Term Future in 18
European Countries and in the USA. Obesity Facts, 13(5), 514-527.
40
Hofmarcher, T. et al. (2020). The cost of cancer in Europe 2018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1159/000511023
European Journal of Cancer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejca.2020.01.011. Hex, N. et al. (2012). Estimating the current and
50
Stoye, G. and Zaranko, B. (2019). UK Health Spending, Institute
future costs of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/R165-UK-
health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabetic health-spending1.pdf
Medicine, 29(7), pp.855–862. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/22537247/
169
2. Systems thinking
Chapter references
1
Government Office for Science. (2007). Tackling Obesities: Future
Choices – Obesity System Atlas. Department of Innovation Uni-
versities and Skills. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/295153/07–1177-obesity-system-atlas.pdf
2
Parsons, K. (2020). Who Makes Food Policy in England? A Map of
Government Actors and Activities. Rethinking Food Governance 1.
Food Research Collaboration. Available at: https://foodresearch.org.
uk/publications/who-makes-food-policy-in-england-map-Govern-
ment-actors/
3
Parsons, K. (2020). Who Makes Food Policy in England? A Map of
Government Actors and Activities. Rethinking Food Governance 1.
Food Research Collaboration. Available at: https://foodresearch.org.
uk/publications/who-makes-food-policy-in-england-map-Govern-
ment-actors/
4
Forrester, J. (1989). The Beginning of System Dynamics. Cambridge,
USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: http://web.
mit.edu/sysdyn/sd-intro/D-4165-1.pdf
5
Shahinnia, F. et al. (2016). Genetic association of stomatal traits and
yield in wheat grown in low rainfall environments. BMC Plant Biology,
16(1). Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81835099.pdf
6
Wheat: Shiferaw, B. et al. (2013). Crops that feed the world 10.
Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat
in global food security. Food Security, 5(3), pp.291–317. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-013-0263-y#:~:tex-
t=Wheat%20is%20fundamental%20to%20human,dietary%20calo-
ries%20and%20proteins%20worldwide
7
Forrester, J. (1989). The Beginning of System Dynamics. Cambridge,
USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: http://web.
mit.edu/sysdyn/sd-intro/D-4165-1.pdf
8
Meadows, D. H. (2015). Thinking in Systems. White River Junction,
VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
9
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859),
pp.1243–1248. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/con-
tent/162/3859/1243
10
Quoted in The New Yorker. (2010). The Scales Fall. Available at:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/02/the-scales-fall
11
Rose, G. and Sherrylynn, R., (2015). Northern cod comeback. Ca-
nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 72(12): 1789–1798.
Available at: https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0346
School Food Plan: Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School

12
Food Plan. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/
170
3. How did we get here?
Chapter references
1
Population data for 1800 (based on extrapolations form Madison): 15
Nestle. (2019). KitKat Chocolatory brings premium breaks to the
University of Groningen. (2018). Maddison Project Database 2018. UK. Nestle. Available at: https://www.nestle.co.uk/en-gb/media/
Available at: https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/mad- pressreleases/allpressreleases/kitkat-chocolatory-brings-premi-
dison/releases/maddison-project-database-2018 ; Population data um-breaks-uk
for 1950: UN.org. (2015). Population 2030 Demographic challenges
and opportunities for sustainable development planning. Available at:
16
Action on Salt. (2019). A Summary: Access to Nutrition Initiative:
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/ U.K. Product Profile 2019. Available at: http://www.actiononsalt.org.
pdf/trends/Population2030.pdf uk/news/news/2019/news-stories/-a-summary-access-to-nutri-
tion-initiative-uk-product-profile-2019.html
2
UN.org. (2017). World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in
2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Available at: https://www.un.org/devel-
17
Department for Food and Rural Affairs et al. (2018). Agriculture
opment/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017. in the United Kingdom 2018. HMG. Available at: https://assets.
html publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/848641/AUK_2018_09jul19a.pdf
3
Department for Food and Rural Affairs. (2008) Ensuring the UK’s
Food Security in a changing World: a Defra Discussion Paper. HMG.
18
Wildflower Meadows: Hayhow, D. B. et al. (2019). The State of Na-
Available at: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/ ture 2019. The State of Nature partnership. Available at: https://nbn.
DEP2008–2037/DEP2008–2037.pdf org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/State-of-Nature-2019-UK-full-
report.pdf; Ancient Woodland (decline since 1900): Woodland Trust.
4
Dimbleby, J. (2016). The Battle of the Atlantic: How the Allies Won (2000). Why the UK’s Ancient Woodland Is Still Under Threat. pp 3–5.
the War. London UK: Penguin Books Ltd Available at: http://www.wbrc.org.uk/atp/Ancient%20Woodland%20
Threats%20-%20Woodland%20Trust.pdf; Heathland (extrapolated
5
Winston, C. (1948). “Chapter 30, Ocean Peril” in The Second World from data on Dorset): Fagúndez, J. and Bot, A. (2013). Heathlands
War, Volume 2. Bloomsbury: London. Available at: https://www.chur- confronting global change: drivers of biodiversity loss from past to
chillarchive.com/explore/page?id=CHUR%204%2F176#image=5 future scenarios. Feb; 111(2): 151–172. Available at: https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555525/; Lowland Ponds: Hayhow, D.
6 Food Chain Analysis Group, Department for Environment Food and
B. et al. (2019). The State of Nature 2019. The State of Nature partner-
Rural Affairs. (2006). Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and
ship. Available at: https://nbn.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
Analysis Paper. National Archives. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/
State-of-Nature-2019-UK-full-report.pdf
apps/njlite/ar5wg2/njlite_download2.php?id=8916
19
Hayhow, D. B. et al. (2019). The State of Nature 2019. The State of
7 BAIN Analysis for the National Food Strategy (2019). Based on
Nature partnership. Available at: https://nbn.org.uk/wp-content/up-
Population data for 1800–1950: University of Groningen. (2018). Mad-
loads/2019/09/State-of-Nature-2019-UK-full-report.pdf
dison Project Database 2018. Available at: https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/
historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-da- 20
Eurostat. (2021). Common farmland bird index. European Union.
tabase-2018; Population data for 1950: UN.org. (2015). Population Available at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?data-
2030 Demographic challenges and opportunities for sustainable set=env_bio2&lang=en
development planning. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/devel-
opment/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Population2030. 21
BAIN analysis for National Food Strategy. Based on: Department
pdf; Global agricultural production data for 1960–2010: FAO. (2020). for Food and Rural Affairs. (2018). Agriculture in the UK. HMG.
Net Agricultural Production Index. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/agricul-
faostat/en/; Global agricultural data 2010 onward: FAO. (2018). The ture-in-the-united-kingdom-2018; Ritchie, H. and Roser, M. (2019).
Future of food and agriculture: Alternative Pathways to 2050. Avail- Crop Yields. Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.
able at: http://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/resources/ org/crop-yields
detail/en/c/1157074/
Garnett, T. et al. (2016). Food systems and greenhouse gas
22
9 Quoted in Mann, C. (2018). Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remark- emissions. Food Climate Research Network. Available at: https://
able Scientists and their Battle to Shape Tomorrow’s World. London: www.tabledebates.org/chapter/food-systems-and-greenhouse-gas-
Pac Macmillan, p.130. emissions
Rajaram, S. and Hettel, G. (1995). Wheat breeding at CIMMYT.

10 23
UK emissions: Garnett, T. et al. (2016). Food systems and green-
Mexico, D. F.: CIMMYT, p.iv-v. house gas emissions. Food Climate Research Network. Available at:
https://www.tabledebates.org/chapter/food-systems-and-green-
11
Roser, M. et al. (2013). Life Expectancy. Our World in Data. Available house-gas-emissions; Imports: WWF. (2010). Emissions from UK Food
at: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy Industry far Higher than Believed. WWF. Available at: https://assets.
wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_report_1.pdf
12
Population: UN.org. (2015). Population 2030 Demographic challeng-
es and opportunities for sustainable development planning. Available 24
Garnett, T. (2008). Cooking up a storm. In: Food, greenhouse gas
at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publica- emissions and our changing climate. Food Climate Research Network.
tions/pdf/trends/Population2030.pdf; Mass starvation: Hasell, J. and Available at: http://www.unscn.org/layout/modules/resources/files/
Roser, M. (2020). Famines. Our World in Data. Available at: https:// Cooking_up_a_Storm.pdf
ourworldindata.org/famines
13
Ritche, H. and Roser, M. (2013). Land Use. Our World in Data. Avail-
able at: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
14
Richtie, H. and Roser, M. (2021). Crop Yields. Our World in Data.
Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
171
4. Escaping the Junk Food Cycle
Chapter references
1 Cole, H. (2021). Online junk food ad ban to be axed as it would and Stomach: Suzuki, K. et al. (2011). The Gut Hormones in Appetite
have almost no effect on obesity. The Sun. 25/3/2021. Available at: Regulation. Journal of Obesity, 2011, pp.1–10. Available at: https://
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14470325/online-junk-food-ad-ban- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178198/
axed-cutting-700-calories/
11
Volkow, N. D. et al. (2011). Reward, dopamine and the control of food
2
Public Health England. (2015). Attitudes to obesity: Findings from intake: implications for obesity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1),
the 2015 British Social Attitudes survey. Public Health England. pp.37–46. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
Available at: https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39132/atti- PMC3124340/
tudes-to-obesity.pdf
12
Prior, G. et al. (2011). Exploring food attitudes and behaviours in the
3
Woywodt, A. and Kiss, A. (2002). Geophagia: the history of UK: Findings from the Food and You Survey 2010. FSA. Available at:
earth-eating. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(3), https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/food-
pp.143–146. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ and-you-2010-main-report.pdf
PMC1279487/
13
Lisle, D. J. and Goldhamer, A. (2006). The pleasure trap: mastering
4
Brunner, E. J. et al. (2021). Appetite disinhibition rather than hunger the hidden force that undermines health & happiness. Summertown,
explains genetic effects on adult BMI trajectory. Int J Obes 45, Tennessee: Healthy Living Publications.
758–765. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-00735-9
14
Hall, K. D. et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie
5
Bain analysis for the NFS. 1955 mean BMI interpolated from US his- Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of
toric BMI trends and UK BMI from 1977 onwards. Distribution before Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism. Available at: https://www.
1980 is directional using normal distributions around mean value sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413119302487
and, therefore, is not an exact representation. Source: NHS Digital.
(2018). Health Survey for England 2017 [NS]. NHS Digital. Available at:
15
de Graaf, C. and Kok, F. J. (2010). Slow food, fast food and the con-
https://digital.nhs. uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/ trol of food intake. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 6(5), pp.290–293.
health-surveyfor-england/2017; Euromonitor. (2019); NHS Digital. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrendo.2010.41;
(2019). National Child Measurement Programme; Gov.UK. (2018); Fardet, A. (2016). Minimally processed foods are more satiating and
Population Pyramid. (2019); Davey, R. (2003) The obesity epidemic: less hyperglycemic than ultra-processed foods: a preliminary study
too much food for thought?; The trend of BMI values of US adults with 98 ready-to-eat foods. Food & Function, 7(5), pp.2338–2346.
by centiles, birth cohorts 1882–1986, National Bureau of Economic Available at: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/
Research, 2010. FO/C6FO00107F#!divAbstract
6
National Food Strategy analysis of: NHS Digital. (2018). Health
16
Gupta, S. et al. (2019). Characterizing Ultra-Processed Foods by
Survey for England 2017 [NS]. NHS Digital. Available at: https:// Energy Density, Nutrient Density, and Cost. Frontiers in Nutri-
digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health- tion, 6. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
survey-for-england/2017; Euromonitor. (2019); NHS Digital. (2018). PMC6558394/
The National Child Measurement Programme. Available at: https:// 17
Cassidy, R. M. and Tong, Q. (2017). Hunger and Satiety Gauge Re-
digital.nhs.uk/services/national-child-measurement-programme/; and
ward Sensitivity. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 8. Available at: https://
National Bureau of Economic Research. (2010).
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5435754/; Reichelt, A. C.
7
National Food Strategy analysis of: NHS Digital. (2018). Health et al. (2015). Integration of reward signalling and appetite regulating
Survey for England 2017 [NS]. NHS Digital. Available at: https:// peptide systems in the control of food-cue responses. British Journal
digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health- of Pharmacology, 172(22), pp.5225–5238. Available at: https://www.
survey-for-england/2017; Euromonitor. (2019); NHS Digital. (2018). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341214/
The National Child Measurement Programme. Available at: https:// 18
Wise, R. A. (2006). Role of brain dopamine in food reward and
digital.nhs.uk/services/national-child-measurement-programme/; and
reinforcement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Bi-
National Bureau of Economic Research. (2010).
ological Sciences, 361(1471), pp.1149–1158. Available at: https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1642703/
8
National Food Strategy analysis of: NHS Digital. (2018). Health
Survey for England 2017 [NS]. NHS Digital. Available at: https:// 19
Yau, Y. H. C. and Potenza, M. N. (2013). Stress and eating behaviors.
digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-
Minerva endocrinologica, 38(3), pp.255–67. Available at: https://
survey-for-england/2017; Euromonitor. (2019); NHS Digital. (2018).
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4214609/
The National Child Measurement Programme. Available at: https://
digital.nhs.uk/services/national-child-measurement-programme/; and 20
Griffith, R. (2021). How does the price of different food products
National Bureau of Economic Research. (2010). vary with the healthiness of that product? University of Manchester
and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://ebbb60b1-
9
Timper, K. and Brüning, J. C. (2017). Hypothalamic circuits regulating
6870-4254-bdfd-a62c9c625e15.filesusr.com/ugd/9e5bac_baedc-
appetite and energy homeostasis: pathways to obesity. Disease Mod-
fe760e54ecf9ed564258518dfdd.pdf
els & Mechanisms, 10(6), pp.679–689. Available at: https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483000/ 21
Gómez, M. I. et al. (2013). Post-green revolution food systems
and the triple burden of malnutrition. Food Policy, 42, pp.129–138.
10
Blood Sugar: NHS Inform. (2021). Hypoglycaemia (low blood
Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/esa/Papers_
sugar) symptoms and treatment. NHS inform. Available at: https://
and_documents/WP_13–02_Gomez_et_al.pdf
www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/blood-and-lymph/
hypoglycaemia-low-blood-sugar; Fat: Allison, M. B. and Myers, M. G. 22
Smithson, M. et al. (2015). An analysis of the role of price promo-
(2014). 20 YEARS OF LEPTIN: Connecting leptin signaling to biological tions on the household purchases of food and drinks high in sugar.
function. Journal of Endocrinology, 223(1), pp.T25–T35. Available at: Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
https://joe.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/joe/223/1/T25.xml; Gut gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/470175/Annexe_4._Analysis_of_price_promotions.pdf
172
23
National Food Strategy analysis of Nielsen Ad Intel data, 2019. 39
Stensel, D. J. et al. (2016). Role of physical activity in regulating
appetite and body fat. Nutrition Bulletin, 41(4), pp.314–322. Available
24
Kantar Worldpanel Division. (2016). Expandability Study based on at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nbu.12234
FMCG panel. Kantar Worldpanel.
40
Poon, L. (2019). The Rise and Fall on New Year’s Fitness Resolutions,
25
Access to Nutrition Initiative. (2019). UK Product Profile 2019. in 5 charts. Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/
Access to Nutrition Initiative. Available at: https://accesstonutrition. news/articles/2019-–01-–16/here-s-how-quickly-people-ditch-
org/app/uploads/2020/02/UK-Product-Profile_Full_Report_2019.pdf weight-loss-resolutions
26
Just Eat. (2021). Most popular Just Eat dishes across the UK. Just 41
Obesity Prevention Source. (2016). Physical Activity: Exercise Can
Eat. Available at: https://www.just-eat.co.uk/explore/top-popu- Help Control Weight. Harvard School for Public Health. Available at:
lar-dishes; Kantar: Link Q Wave 4 – continue to buy delivery more or https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesi-
same % share of consumers/trips is vs total consumers 52 w/e Oct ty-causes/physical-activity-and-obesity/
20.
42
Pavlou, K. N., et al. (1989). Exercise as an adjunct to weight loss and
27
Fruit and Vegetables: Department for Environment Food and maintenance in moderately obese subjects. The American Journal of
Rural Affairs. (2020). Horticulture Statistics 2019. HMG. Available Clinical Nutrition, 49(5), pp.1115–1123. Available at: https://academic.
at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/ oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/49/5/1115/4651822?redirectedFrom=-
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/901689/hort-report-17jul20. fulltext
pdf; Confectionary: Office for National Statistics. (2020). UK manu-
facturers’ sales by product. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov. 43
Pontzer, H. (2021). Burn: the misunderstood science of metab-
uk/businessindustryandtrade/manufacturingandproductionindustry/ olism. London: Allen Lane. p255; Pavlou, K. N. et al. (1989). Exer-
datasets/ukmanufacturerssalesbyproductprodcom cise as an adjunct to weight loss and maintenance in moderately
obese subjects. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 49(5),
28
BBC. (2021). What Are We Feeding Our Kids? BBC. Available at: pp.1115–1123. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-ab-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wgcd stract/49/5/1115/4651822?redirectedFrom=fulltext
29
Lindsay, C. (2003). A century of labour market change: 1900 44
Monteiro, C. et al. (2018). The UN Decade of Nutrition, the
to 2000. Labour Market Trends. 111. Available at: https://www. NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing.
researchgate.net/publication/228480967_A_century_of_labour_mar- Public Health Nutrition, Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/
ket_change_1900_to_2000 core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutri-
tion-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocess-
30
Lindsay, C. (2003). A century of labour market change: 1900
ing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
to 2000. Labour Market Trends. 111. Available at: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/228480967_A_century_of_labour_mar- 45
Monteiro, C. et al. (2018). Household availability of ultra-processed
ket_change_1900_to_2000 foods and obesity in nineteen European countries. Public Health
Nutrition. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980017001379
31
Griffith, R. et al. (2016). Gluttony and sloth? Calories, labor market
activity and the rise of obesity. Journal of the European Economic 46
Ministry of Health of Brazil. (2015). Dietary Guidelines for the
Association, 14(6), pp.1253–1286. Available at: https://onlinelibrary. Brazilian Population. Ministry of Health of Brazil. Available at: https://
wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jeea.12183 bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazil-
ian_population.pdf
32
Townsend, N. et al. (2012). Physical activity statistics 2012. British
Heart Foundation. Available at: https://www.bhf.org.uk/~/media/ 47
Government of Canada (2018). Canada’s Food Guide. Canada.ca.
files/research/heart-statistics/m130-bhf_physical-activity-supple- Available at: https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/; Food and Agricul-
ment_2012.pdf ture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). Food-based dietary
guidelines – Ecuador. Available at: http://www.fao.org/nutrition/
33
Pontzer, H. et al. (2012). Hunter-gatherer energetics and human
education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/ecuador/en/;
obesity. PLoS One. Available at: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040503
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021).
34
Urlacher, S. S. et al. (2021). Childhood Daily Energy Expenditure Food-based dietary guidelines – Uruguay. Available at: http://
Does Not Decrease with Market Integration and Is Not Related to www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/
Adiposity in Amazonia. J Nutr. 2021 Mar 11;151(3):695–704. Available countries/uruguay/en/; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
at: 10.1093/jn/nxaa361 United Nations. (2021). Food-based dietary guidelines – Peru.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-di-
35
Ebersole, K. E. et al. (2008). Energy expenditure and adiposity in etary-guidelines/regions/countries/peru/en/; Pan American Health
Nigerian and African-American women. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2008 Organization. (2016). Pan American Health Organization Nutrient
Sep;16(9):2148–54. Available at: 10.1038/oby.2008.330 Profile Model. Available at: https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/han-
dle/10665.2/18621/9789275118733_eng.pdf
36
Dugas, R. et al. (2011). Energy expenditure in adults living in de-
veloping compared with industrialized countries: a meta-analysis of 48
Cancer: Fiolet, T. et al. (2018). Consumption of ultra-processed
doubly labeled water studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Feb;93(2):427–41. foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective co-
Available at: 10.3945/ajcn.110.007278 hort. BMJ. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k322; Depressive:
Adjibade, M. et al. (2019). Prospective association between ultra-pro-
37
Pontzer, H. (2018). Energy Constraint as a Novel Mechanism Linking cessed food consumption and incident depressive symptoms in the
Exercise and Health. Physiology (Bethesda). Available at: https://doi. French NutriNet-Santé cohort. BMC Med. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1152/physiol.00027.2018 org/10.1186/s12916-019-1312-y; Cardiovascular disease: Srour, B. et al.
(2019). Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease:
38
Melanson, E. L. et al. (2013). Resistance to Exercise-Induced Weight prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). BMJ. Available at: https://
Loss. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 45(8), pp.1600– doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451
1609. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC3696411/
173
49
Hall, K. D. et al. (2019). Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie 62
Packed Lunches: Evans, C. E. L., et al. (2020). A repeated cross-sec-
Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of tional survey assessing changes in diet and nutrient quality of English
Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell metabolism. Available at: https://doi. primary school children’s packed lunches between 2006 and 2016.
org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008 BMJ Open, 10(1), p.e029688. Available at: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/
content/10/1/e029688; KFC Games Console: Cooler Master. (2020).
50
Barabási, A. L. et al. (2019). The unmapped chemical complexity Introducing the KFConsole. Cooler Master. Available at: https://land-
Chapter references
of our diet. Nat Food 1, 33–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/ ing.coolermaster.com/kfconsole/

s43016-019-0005-1
63
Adams, J. et al. (2016). Why Are Some Population Interventions
51
Garnett, E. E. et al. (2019). Impact of increasing vegetarian avail- for Diet and Obesity More Equitable and Effective Than Others?
ability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proceedings of the The Role of Individual Agency. PLOS Medicine, 13(4) .Available at:
National Academy of Sciences. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/ https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.
content/pnas/early/2019/09/24/1907207116.full.pdf pmed.1001990
52
Foster, R. and Lunn, J. (2007). Food Availability and Our Changing 64
Scarborough, P. et al. (2020). Impact of the announcement and
Diet. British Nutrition Foundation. Available at: https://www.nutrition. implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar
org.uk/attachments/201_Food%20availability%20and%20our%20 content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in
changing%20diet%20summary.pdf the UK, 2015–19: A controlled interrupted time series analysis. PLOS
Medicine, 17(2), p.e1003025. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/
53
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2020. Family
plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025
Food Statistics. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Govern-
ment/collections/family-food-statistics 65
Soft Drinks: Scarborough, P. et al. (2020). Impact of the announce-
ment and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on
54
Griffith, R. et al. (2021). The decline of home cooked food. Institute
sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks
for Fiscal Studies. Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/uploads/WP202114-
in the UK, 2015–19: A controlled interrupted time series analysis.
The-decline-of-home-cooked-food.pdf
PLOS Medicine, 17(2). Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosmed-
55
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2020. Family icine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025; Hungary: Martos, E.,
Food Statistics. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Govern- et al. (2015). Assessment of the impact of a public health product tax:
ment/collections/family-food-statistics Final report. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.
euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/332882/assessment-im-
56
NFS Analysis of Office for National Statistics. (2018). Annual pact-PH-tax-report.pdf?ua=1; Mexico: Taillie, L. S. et al. (2017). Do
Business Survey. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/busi- high vs. low purchasers respond differently to a nonessential ener-
nessindustryandtrade/business/businessservices/methodologies/ gy-dense food tax? Two-year evaluation of Mexico’s 8% nonessential
annualbusinesssurveyabs food tax. Preventive medicine 105S, S37–S42. Available at: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28729195
57
Lock, S. (2021). Just Eat group revenue worldwide 2011–2018.
Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/579165/ 66
Mexico: Hernández-F, M. et al. (2021). Taxes to Unhealthy Food and
just-eat-group-revenue/#:~:text=This%20statistic%20presents%20 Beverages and Oral Health in Mexico: An Observational Study. Caries
the%20total,to%20779.5%20million%20in%202018 Research, 55(3), pp.183–192. Available at: https://www.karger.com/
Article/Abstract/515223; Soft Drinks Industry Levy: Cobiac, L. et al.
58
Mytton, O. T. et al (2020). The potential health impact of restricting (2021). Impact of the Soft Drink Industry Levy on health and health
less-healthy food and beverage advertising on UK television between inequalities of children and adolescents in England. [Pre Publication]
05.30 and 21.00 hours: A modelling study. PLOS Medicine, 17(10),
p.e1003212. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/arti- 67
Multiple policies needed to tackle obesity: Cecchini, M. and Sassi,
cle?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003212#sec007 F. (2012). Tackling obesity requires efficient Government policies. Isra-
el Journal of Health Policy Research, 1(1). Available at: https://www.
59
World Health Organization. (2021). Prevalence of obesity among ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424968/; Decline in smoking:
adults, BMI >= 30 (age-standardized estimate) (%). WHO. Available Cancer Research UK. (2015). Tobacco statistics. Available at: https://
at: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/ www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/
GHO/prevalence-of-obesity-among-adults-bmi-=-30-(age-standard- risk/tobacco#heading-Three
ized-estimate)-(-); Kim, S. et al. (2016). Korean diet: Characteristics
and historical background. Journal of Ethnic Foods, Volume 3, Issue 1.
Pages 26–31, ISSN 2352-6181. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jef.2016.03.002; Tsugane, S. (2021). Why has Japan become the
world’s most long-lived country: insights from a food and nutrition

perspective. Eur J Clin Nutr 75, 921–928. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41430-020-0677-5
60
Walton, S. and Hawkes, C. (2020). What We Can Learn: A Review of
Food Policy Innovations in Six Countries. Available at: https://www.
nationalfoodstrategy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/What-we-
can-learn.pdf
61
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2015). Global
Nutrition Report 2015: Actions and accountability to advance nutri-
tion and sustainable development. IFPRI. Available at: https://www.
ifpri.org/publication/global-nutrition-report-2015; Kagawa, Y. (1978).
Impact of westernization on the nutrition of Japanese: Changes in
physique, cancer, longevity and centenarians. Preventive Medicine,
7(2), pp.205–217. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci-
ence/article/abs/pii/0091743578902463; NHS. (2020). Part 3: Adult
overweight and obesity. NHS Digital. Available at: https://digital.nhs.
uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-obe-
sity-physical-activity-and-diet/england-2020/part-3-adult-obesity-
copy
174
5. Inequality
Chapter references
1
Scheidel, W. (2018). The Great Leveler. Princeton, USA: Princeton cents from 1985 to 2019 in 200 countries and territories: a pooled
University Press. analysis of 2181 population-based studies with 65 million partic-
ipants. The Lancet. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-
2
National Food Strategy analysis of NDNS: Public Health England & 6736(20)31859-6;
Food Standards Agency. (2020). National Diet and Nutrition Survey:
Rolling programme Years 9 to 11 (2016/2017 to 2018/2019). HMG. Public
Health England. (2020.) Height by deprivation decile in children
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/ aged 10 to 11. (2020.) HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943114/NDNS_UK_ Government/publications/height-by-deprivation-decile-in-children-
Y9-11_report.pdf aged-10-to-11
3
National Food Strategy Analysis of PHE Public Health Outcomes 14
UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research. (2014). Food, income
Framework: Public Health England. (2013). Public Health Outcomes and education: who eats more of what? CEDAR. Available at: www.
Framework. HMG. Available at: Public Health Outcomes Framework – cedar.iph.cam.ac.uk/resources/evidence/food-income-educa-
GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) tion-graphic/
4
Public Health England. (2020). Disparities in the risk and outcomes 15
Department for Work and Pensions. (2021). Family Resources
of COVID-19. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service. Survey: financial year 2019 to 2020. HMG. Available at: https://
gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/family-resources-sur-
file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_Au- vey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-finan-
gust_2020_update.pdf cial-year-2019-to-2020#household-food-security-1
5
Marmot, M. et al. (2020). Health equity in England: the Marmot 16
Department for Work and Pensions. (2021.) Family resources
review 10 years on. Institute of Health Equity. Available at: https:// survey: financial year 2019 to 2020. HMG. Available at: https://
www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10- www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/family-resources-sur-
years-on vey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-finan-
cial-year-2019-to-2020#household-food-security-1
6
Marmot, M. et al. (2020). Health equity in England: the Marmot
review 10 years on. Institute of Health Equity. Available at: https:// 17
Food Foundation. (2021). A crisis within a crisis: the impact of
www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10- COVID-19 on household food security. Food Foundation. Available at:
years-on https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FF_Im-
pact-of-Covid_FINAL.pdf
7
NFS Analysis of PHE Public Health Outcomes Framework: Public
Health England. (2013). Public Health Outcomes Framework. HMG. 18
Time spent cooking: Adams, J. and White, M. (2015.) Prevalence and
Available at: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/public-health-out- socio-demographic correlates of time spent cooking by adults in the
comes-framework 2005 UK Time Use Survey. Cross-sectional analysis. Appetite. Avail-
able at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.022; Cooking skills:
8
NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). (2020). Height and Adams, J. et al. (2015). Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates
body-mass index trajectories of school-aged children and adoles- of cooking skills in UK adults: cross-sectional analysis of data from
cents from 1985 to 2019 in 200 countries and territories: a pooled the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
analysis of 2181 population-based studies with 65 million partic- 12, 99. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0261-x
ipants. The Lancet. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(20)31859-6 19
Turn2Us. (2020). Living Without: The scale and impact of appliance
poverty. Turn2Us. Available at: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/T2UWeb-
9
NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). (2020). Height and site/media/Documents/Communications%20documents/Living-With-
body-mass index trajectories of school-aged children and adoles- out-Report-Final-Web.pdf
cents from 1985 to 2019 in 200 countries and territories: a pooled
analysis of 2181 population-based studies with 65 million partic- 20
Laraia, B. M. et al. (2017). Biobehavioral Factors That Shape
ipants. The Lancet. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- Nutrition in Low-Income Populations: A Narrative Review. American
6736(20)31859-6 Journal of Preventive Medicine. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amepre.2016.08.003
10
NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). (2020). Height and
body-mass index trajectories of school-aged children and adoles- 21
Mani, A. et al. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science.
cents from 1985 to 2019 in 200 countries and territories: a pooled Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976;
analysis of 2181 population-based studies with 65 million partic- Bell R. (2017). Psychosocial pathways and health outcomes: Informing
ipants. The Lancet. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- action on health inequalities. The Institute of Health Equity: Available
6736(20)31859-6 at: https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/
psychosocial-pathways-and-health-outcomes-informing-ac-
11
Office for National Statistics. (2021). Health state life expectancies tion-on-health-inequalities
by national deprivation deciles, England and Wales: 2015 to 2017.
ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationand- 22
Social Work Degree Center. (no date). How poverty burdens the
community/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/bulletins/health- brain. Social Work Degree Center. Available at: https://www.social-
statelifeexpectanciesbyindexofmultipledeprivationimd/latest workdegreecenter.com/poverty/; Laraia, B. M. et al. (2017). Biobe-
havioral Factors That Shape Nutrition in Low-Income Populations: A
12
Office for National Statistics. (2021). Health state life expectancies Narrative Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Available
by national deprivation deciles, England and Wales: 2017 to 2019. at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.003; Hemmingsson,
ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationand- E. (2014). A new model of the role of psychological and emotional
community/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/bulletins/health- distress in promoting obesity: conceptual review with implications for
statelifeexpectanciesbyindexofmultipledeprivationimd/latest treatment and prevention. Obesity Etiology. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1111/obr.12197
13 NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). (2020). Height and
13
body-mass index trajectories of school-aged children and adoles-

175
23
Mani, A. et al. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science.
Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976;
Bell, R. (2017). Psychosocial pathways and health outcomes: Informing
action on health inequalities. The Institute of Health Equity. Available
at: https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/
psychosocial-pathways-and-health-outcomes-informing-ac-
tion-on-health-inequalities; Benzeval, M. et al. (2014). How does
money influence health? Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/how-does-money-influence-health
24
Laraia, B. A. et al. (2017). Biobehavioral Factors That Shape
Nutrition in Low-Income Populations: A Narrative Review. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amepre.2016.08.003
25
Public Health England. (2018). Obesity and the Environment – Den-
sity of fast food outlets at 31/12/2017. HMG. Available at: https://
www.gov.uk/Government/publications/fast-food-outlets-densi-
ty-by-local-authority-in-england
26
Lucas, K. et al. (2019). Inequalities in Mobility and Access in the
UK Transport System. Government Office for Science. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/sys-
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/784685/future_of_mobility_ac-
cess.pdf
27
Data from PHE. Public Health Profiles 2020; Presented in: Marmot,
M. et al. (2020). Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years
on. Institute of Health Equity. Available at: https://www.health.org.
uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10-years-on
176
6. Exposing the invisibility of nature
Chapter references
1
In an address to the UN: United Nations. (2020). Building Back Bet-
ter: Natural Capital Accounting for a Green Recovery. United Nations.
Available at: https://seea.un.org/events/building-back-better-natu-
ral-capital-accounting-green-recovery; Quote available here: Bennett
Institute for Public Policy. (2020). Green recovery must end the reign
of GDP, argue Cambridge and UN economists. Bennett Institute for
Public Policy. Available at: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/
news/green-recovery-must-end-reign-gdp-argue-cambridge-/
2
For full details of the claims underlying this statement, see NFS Ev-
idence Pack – in particular pages 6-29. Available from: https://www.
nationalfoodstrategy.org
3
HM Treasury. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta
Review – Reactions. HM Treasury. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
Government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversi-
ty-the-dasgupta-review/the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgup-
ta-review-reactions
4
Scown, M. et al. (2020). Billions in Misspent EU Agricultural Subsi-
dies Could Support the Sustainable Development Goals. One Earth.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.011
5
Comptroller and Auditor General. (2020). Achieving Government’s
long‑term environmental goals. National Audit Office. Available at:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Achiev-
ing-Governments-long%E2%80%91term-environmental-goals.pdf
6
Natural Capital Committee. (2020). Natural Capital Committee’s
seventh annual report. Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/
natural-capital-committees-seventh-annual-report
7
Citation for £2.4bn: Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs. (2020). The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural
Transition Plan 2021 to 2024. Defra. Available at: https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/at-
tachment_data/file/954283/agricultural-transition-plan.pdf
8
Pigou, A. C. (1921). The Economics of Welfare. London, UK: Macmil-
lan & Co.
9
Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. In: Gopal-
akrishnan C. (eds) Classic Papers in Natural Resource Econom-
ics. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.
org/10.1057/9780230523210_6
10
Sustainable Food Trust. (no date). The Global Farm Metric. Available
at: https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/key-issues/sustainability-met-
rics/the-global-farm-metric/
11
Monbiot, G. (2018). The UK Government wants to put a price on
nature – but that will destroy it. Guardian News. Available at: https://
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/15/price-natu-
ral-world-destruction-natural-capital
177
7. Food and climate
Chapter references
1
Air travel: Lee, D. and Forster, P. (2020). Guest post: Calculating Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
the true climate impact of aviation emissions. Carbon Brief. Available Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the InterGovernmental
at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-calculating-the-true- Panel on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/
climate-impact-of-aviation-emissions; Food system: Allen, M. (2015). assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
Short-Lived Promise? The Science and Policy of Cumulative and
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Oxford Martin Policy Paper. Available
12
Private correspondence with Nestlé UK.
at: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/briefings/Short_ 13
Validity of food miles: Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Lived_Promise.pdf
Affairs. (2005). The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustain-
2
UK emissions: Garnett, T. et al. (2016). Food systems and green- able Development. Report prepared by AEA Technology PLC. Avail-
house gas emissions. Food Climate Research Network. Available at: able at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130125041710/
https://www.tabledebates.org/chapter/food-systems-and-green- http:/www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/defra-stats-foodfarm-food-
house-gas-emissions; Imports: WWF. (2010). Emissions from UK Food transport-foodmiles-050715.pdf; Flying: Asparagus: Ritchie, H. (2020).
Industry far Higher than Believed. WWF. Available at: https://assets. Very little of global food is transported by air; this greatly reduces
wwf.org.uk/downloads/how_low_report_1.pdf the climate benefits of eating local. Our World in Data. Available at:
https://ourworldindata.org/food-transport-by-mode
3
Qin, Y. et al. (2021). Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds
that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11,
14
National Food Strategy analysis based on: Garnett, T. (2008).
442–448. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01026-5; Cooking up a storm. In: Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our
European Space Agency. (2021). Forest degradation primary driver of changing climate. Food Climate Research Network, Centre for
carbon loss in the Brazilian Amazon. European Space Agency. Avail- Environmental Strategy. Available at: http://www.unscn.org/layout/
able at: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/ modules/resources/files/Cooking_up_a_Storm.pdf; Department for
Space_for_our_climate/Forest_degradation_primary_driver_of_car- Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. (2019). Final UK greenhouse
bon_loss_in_the_Brazilian_Amazon gas emissions national statistics. Data Tables. Available at: https://
data.gov.uk/dataset/9568363e-57e5-4c33-9e00-31dc528fcc5a/
4
Whitehouse, N. and Smith, D. (2010). How fragmented was the final-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-national-statistics; WRAP. (2020).
British Holocene wildwood? Perspectives on the “Vera” grazing Courtauld Commitment 2025, 2020 Annual Report. Available at:
debate from the fossil beetle record. Quaternary Science Reviews, https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-01/The-Courtauld-Com-
Volume 29, Issues 3–4. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quasci- mitment-2025-Annual_Report-2020.pdf
rev.2009.10.010
15
World Meteorological Organization. (2019). Greenhouse gas
5
Forest Research. (2021). Provisional Woodland Statistics 2021 concentrations in atmosphere reach yet another high. Available at:
edition. Edinburgh: Forest Research. Available at: https://www.fore- https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-con-
stresearch.gov.uk/documents/8092/PWS_2021.pdf; Forest Research. centrations-atmosphere-reach-yet-another-high
(2021). Area of Woodland: Changes Over Time. Forest Research.
Available at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resourc-
16
GWP20 for methane is 84–87: IEA. (2020). Methane Tracker 2020.
es/statistics/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2018/wood- IEA. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020
land-areas-and-planting/woodland-area/area-of-woodland-changes- 17
There is some difference in assessments of methane’s GWP, with
over-time/
recent studies suggesting 84–96 for GWP20 and 28–34 for GWP100.
6
Anderson, R. (2020). Peatlands, forestry and climate change: What For a recent analysis see: M, Etminan. et al. (2016). Radiative forcing
role can forest-to-bog restoration play? Forest Research. Available at: of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision
https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/7912/20_0041_Leaf- of the methane radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters. Avail-
let_CC_factsheet_Peatlands_wip06_ACC.pdf able at: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071930
7
Bernal, B. et al. (2018). Global carbon dioxide removal rates from
18
Getabalew, M. et al. (2019). Methane Production in Ruminant Ani-
forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance Manage 13, mals: Implication for Their Impact on Climate Change. Con Dai & Vet
22. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8 Sci 2(4) 2019. Available at: https://lupinepublishers.com/dairy-veteri-
nary-science-journal/pdf/CDVS.MS.ID.000142.pdf
8
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. (no date). Peatlands factsheet.
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Available at: https://www.ceh.
19
Enteric fermentation and wastes and manure management account
ac.uk/sites/default/files/Peatland factsheet.pdf for 68.4% of UK agricultural emissions. Available at: Committee on
Climate Change. (2020). Sixth Carbon Budget – Dataset. Committee
9
Brown, P. et al. (2021). UK Greenhouse gas inventory, 1990 to on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publica-
2019: annual report for submissions under the framework convention/sixth-carbon-budget/
tion on climate change. Ricardo Energy & Environment. Annex 3.
Available at: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/
20
Reisinger, A. and Clark, H. (2017). How much do direct livestock
cat09/2106091119_ukghgi-90-19_Annex_Issue_2.pdf emissions actually contribute to global warming? Global Change
Biology. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13975
10
IUCN. (2018). UK Peatland Strategy. IUCN National Committee
United Kingdom. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
21
Bar-On, Y. et al. (2018). The Biomass Distribution on Earth. Pro-
library/files/documents/2018-015-En.pdf, page 30. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (25) 6506–6511.
Available at: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
11
Gilbert, P., and Thornley, P. (2010). Energy and carbon balance of
ammonia production from biomass gasification. In host publica-
22
McCarthy, N. (2019). How Many Animals Do We Eat Each Year?
tion. Available at: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/ Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/chart/16888/
files/33615474/FULL_TEXT.PDF; Synthetic ammonia use: Smith, P. et number-of-animals-slaughtered-for-meat-each-year/ (originally FAO
al. (2014). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate stats).
178
23
Methane’s importance in 1.5°C: Collins, W. et al. (2018). Increased
importance of methane reduction for a 1.5 degree target. Envi-
ron. Res. Lett. 13 0540. Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/
article/10.1088/1748-9326/aab89c; Rapid reduction potential:
United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air
Coalition. (2021). Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of
Mitigating Methane Emissions. Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Programme. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/han-
dle/20.500.11822/35917/GMA_ES.pdf
24
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD-
FAO Agricultural Outlook. Meats – 1992 – 2028. Available at: https://
stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=76854 accessed 2021.
25
Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Land Use: Policies for a Net
Zero UK. Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Land-use-Policies-for-
a-Net-Zero-UK.pdf, pages 41–46.
26
Buis, A. (2019). A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures
Matter. NASA Global Climate Change. Available at: https://climate.
nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-tempera-
tures-matter/
27
Private correspondence with Nestlé UK.
28
Allen, M. (2015). Short-Lived Promise? The Science and Policy of
Cumulative and Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. Oxford Martin Policy
Paper. Available at: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/
briefings/Short_Lived_Promise.pdf
179
8. The complexities of meat
Chapter references
1
Ritchie, H. (2020). Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable
meat, to reduce your carbon footprint. Our World in Data. Available
at: https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
2
Wilderness Society. (2019). Drivers of Deforestation and land clear-
ing in Queensland. Wilderness Society. Available at: https://www.
wilderness.org.au//images/resources/The_Drivers_of_Deforesta-
tion_Land-clearing_Qld_Report.pdf
3
6 of the 38 OECD countries have higher beef emissions than the
UK: Australia, Chile, Colombia, Ireland, Korea, and Mexico: Kim, B.
et al. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and
water crises. Global Environmental Change, Volume 62. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010
4
Hayek, M. and Garrett, R. (2018). Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef
requires larger cattle population. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 084005. Avail-
able at: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
5
Kim, B. et al. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate
climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change, Volume 62.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010
6
For the overall productivity of these systems, see: Pent, G. (2020).
Over-yielding in temperate silvopastures: a meta-analysis. Agroforest
Syst 94, 1741–1758. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-
00494-6; Biodiversity benefits are highly dependent on agroforestry
management techniques, see: Torralba, M. et al. (2016). Do European
agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services?
A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 230.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002; Mupepele,
A. et al. (2020). European agroforestry is no universal remedy for
biodiversity: a time-cumulative meta-analysis. bioRxiv. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.27.269589 (though note that the
latter analysis has not yet undergone peer review). Water and air
quality benefits are highly context dependent, though soil erosion
benefits are commonly seen, see Jordon, M. et al. (2020). Implications
of Temperate Agroforestry on Sheep and Cattle Productivity, Envi-
ronmental Impacts and Enterprise Economics. A Systematic Evidence
Map. Forests 2020, 11, 1321. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
f11121321
180
9. A nature-positive, carbon-negative food system
Chapter references
1
Gregg, R. et al. (2021). Carbon storage and sequestration by and consumers. Science 360:987–992. Available at: https://doi.
habitat: a review of the evidence (second edition). Natural England. org/10.1126/science.aaq0216; de Ruiter, H. et al. (2017). Total global
Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publica- agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011.
tion/5419124441481216 Global Environmental Change. 43. 72–81. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.007; ONS. (2019). UK natural capital:
2
See NFS Evidence Pack, page 26, available from: https://www. urban accounts. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/econ-
nationalfoodstrategy.org omy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/urbanac-
counts; WWF. (2020). Bending the Curve: The Restorative Power of
3
Poux, X. and Schiavo, M. (2021). Modelling an agroecological UK in
Planet-Based Diets. WWF. Available at: https://wwfint.awsassets.
2050. IDDRI for FFCC. Draft report available at: https://ffcc.co.uk/
panda.org/downloads/bending_the_curve__the_restorative_power_
assets/downloads/Modelling-An-Agroecological-UK-in-2050-Work-
of_planet_based_diets_full_report_final_pdf.pdf; Forestry Commission.
ing-Draft-V5_January-20.pdf; Calculations based in part on private
(2020). Forestry Statistics 2020: A compendium of statistics about
correspondence with the report authors and sponsors.
woodland, forestry and primary wood processing in the United King-
4
Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Sixth Carbon Budget – dom. National Statistics. Available at: https://www.forestresearch.
Dataset. Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www. gov.uk/documents/7806/CompleteFS2020.pdf; Centre For Ecology
theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/; Emissions are & Hydrology. (2000). LAND COVER MAP 2000. CEH. Available at:
net LULUCF emissions for the UK. We follow UNFCCC conventions https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LCM2000 Final Report.
on separating agricultural emissions from land use emissions – for pdf; European Environment Agency. (2016). Corine Land Cover 2012.
more information on the relationship between agriculture, LULUCF EEA. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/
and AFOLU: Iversen, P. et al. (2014). Understanding Land Use in the external/corine-land-cover-2012; BBC. (2017). Five mind-blowing facts
UNFCCC. Available at: https://ghginstitute.org/wp-content/up- about what the UK looks like. BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.
loads/2015/04/Understanding_Land_Use_in_the_UNFCCC.pdf co.uk/news/uk-41901297
5
Department of Business, Energy and International Strategy. (2021).
13
de Ruiter, H. et al. (2017). Total global agricultural land footprint
2019 UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures. HMG. Available associated with UK food supply 1986–2011. Global Environmental
at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/ Change. 43. 72–81. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenv-
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957887/2019_Final_green- cha.2017.01.007
house_gas_emissions_statistical_release.pdf 14
Monbiot, G. (2013). Meet the greatest threat to our countryside:
6
National Food Strategy analysis based on: Committee on Climate sheep. The Spectator. Available at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/
Change. (2020). The Sixth Carbon Budget – The UK’s path to Net article/meet-the-greatest-threat-to-our-countryside-sheep
Zero. Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www. 15
Searchinger, T. D. et al. (2018). Assessing the efficiency of changes
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-Bud-
in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564, 249–253.
get-The-UKs-path-to-Net-Zero.pdf; NFU. (2019). Achieving Net Zero,
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z
Farming’s 2040 goal. NFU. Available at: https://www.nfuonline.com/
nfu-online/business/regulation/achieving-net-zero-farmings-2040- 16
NFS analysis based on: Department for Environment, Food &
goal/; IDDRI. (2018). An agroecological Europe in 2050: multifunc- Rural Affairs. (2019). June Agricultural Survey Holding Data; USDA,
tional agriculture for healthy eating, Findings from the Ten Years For Economic Research Service. (2021). USDA ERS – Food Availability (Per
Agroecology (TYFA) modelling exercise. IDDRI. Available at: https:// Capita) Data System. USDA, Economic Research Service. Available at:
www.iddri.org/sites/default/files/PDF/Publications/Catalogue%20 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-cap-
Iddri/Etude/201809-ST0918EN-tyfa.pdf ita-data-system; Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
(2020). Agriculture in the United Kingdom data sets. HMG. Available
7
NFS analysis of: CCC 6th Carbon Budget dataset; Committee on
at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistical-data-sets/agricul-
Climate Change. (2020). Sixth Carbon Budget – Dataset. Commit-
ture-in-the-united-kingdom; Department for Environment, Food &
tee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/
Rural Affairs. (2021). Monthly statistics on the activity of UK hatcher-
publication/sixth-carbon-budget/; Includes data provided via private
ies and UK poultry slaughterhouses. HMG. Available at: https://www.
correspondence.
gov.uk/Government/statistics/poultry-and-poultry-meat-statistics.
8
NFU. (2019). Achieving Net Zero, Farming’s 2040 goal. NFU. Avail- (data for December 2019); Department for Environment, Food &
able at: https://www.nfuonline.com/nfu-online/business/regulation/ Rural Affairs. (2020). UK Slaughter Statistics, December 2019. HMG.
achieving-net-zero-farmings-2040-goal/; Plus private correspon- Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/
dence. uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/865357/slaugh-
ter-statsnotice-16jan20.pdf; Agriculture and Horticulture Devel-
9
Poux, X. and Schiavo, M. (2021). Modelling an agroecological UK in opment Board. (2021). UK milk yield. AHDB. Available at: https://
2050. IDDRI for FFCC. Draft report available at: https://ffcc.co.uk/ ahdb.org.uk/dairy/uk-milk-yield; FAO. (2021). Food Composition
assets/downloads/Modelling-An-Agroecological-UK-in-2050-Work- Tables. FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/X9892E/X9892e05.
ing-Draft-V5_January-20.pdf htm#P8217_125315 accessed December 2021; Meat Promotion Wales.
(2014). Feeding the ewe for lifetime production. Available at: https://
10
Thomas, C. D. et al. (2013). Reconciling biodiversity and carbon meatpromotion.wales/images/resources/Feeding_the_ewe_final.
conservation. Ecology Letters. 16 (s1), 39–47. Available at: https:// pdf; Hyde, R. M. et al. (2020). Quantitative analysis of calf mortality
www.academia.edu/3746511/Reconciling_Biodiversity_and_Car- in Great Britain. J Dairy Sci. 2020 Mar;103(3):2615–2623. Available at:
bon_Conservation https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17383; Department for Environment,
Food & Rural Affairs. (2020). Horticulture Statistics 2019. HMG.
11
Thomas, C. D. et al. (2013). Reconciling biodiversity and carbon Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/
conservation. Ecology Letters. 16 (s1), 39–47. Available at: https:// uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/901689/hort-report-
www.academia.edu/3746511/Reconciling_Biodiversity_and_Car- 17jul20.pdf
bon_Conservation
17
Rebanks, J. (2020). English Pastoral. London, UK: Penguin Books
12
National Food Strategy based on: Poore, J. and Nemecek, T.
(2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers
181
10. A Three Compartment Model
Chapter references
1
Innovative Farmers. (2019). Intercropping and Companion Cropping
in Arable Systems Field Lab 2018−19 report. Available at: https://
www.agricology.co.uk/sites/default/files/if-final-report-intercrop-
ping-2019.pdf
2
See, for example: Balmford, B. et al. (2018). How imperfect can land
sparing be before land sharing is more favourable for wild species?
Journal of Applied Ecology, 56 (1), pp. 73−84. Available at: https://
besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13282;
Feniuk, C. et al. (2019). Land sparing to make space for species de-
pendent on natural habitats and high nature value farmland. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 286(1909). Available
at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1483
3
Sausse, C. et al. (2015). Do the effects of crops on skylark (Alauda
arvensis) differ between the field and landscape scales? PeerJ, 3
(1097). Available at: https://peerj.com/articles/1097/
4
Lower yields: Smith, L. G. et al. (2019). The greenhouse gas impacts
of converting food production in England and Wales to organic meth-
ods. Nat Commun 10(4641). Available at: https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41467-019-12622-7
5
Finch, T. et al. (2019). Bird conservation and the land sharing-sparing
continuum in farmland-dominated landscapes of lowland England.
Conservation Biology, 33(5), pp. 1045–1055. Available at: https://
www.cb.iee.unibe.ch/e58878/e337393/e337410/e604441/e876095/
Finch_ConBio2019_eng.pdf
6
Finch, T. et al. (2019). Bird conservation and the land sharing-sparing
continuum in farmland-dominated landscapes of lowland England.
Conservation Biology, 33(5), pp. 1045–1055. Available at: https://
www.cb.iee.unibe.ch/e58878/e337393/e337410/e604441/e876095/
7
All statistics and graphics in this box other than those specifically
cited separately are derived from Department for Environment Food
& Rural Affairs. (2019). The Future Farming and Environment Evidence
Compendium, available from: https://assets.publishing.service.
file/834432/evidence-compendium-26sep19.pdf; Department for
Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2020). Agriculture in the UK Evi-
dence Pack, available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/955918/
AUK-2019-evidencepack-28jan21.pdf; Department for Environment
Food & Rural Affairs. (2020). Farm performance and productivity:
analysis of farm business survey, available from: https://assets.
attachment_data/file/955919/fbs-evidencepack-28jan21.pdf
8
Cogeca. (2014). Development of agricultural cooperatives in the EU.
Report PUB(14)9112:2. www.copa-cogeca.eu/cogeca.
9
Macmillan, T. and Cusworth, G. (2019). Farmer co-operation in the
UK. Opportunities for the industry. Co-operatives UK. Available at:
https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-11/farmer_co-opera-
tion_in_the_uk_report.pdf
182
11. Can we have it all?
Chapter references
1
22% of post-farm gate food is wasted: WRAP. (2021). Food surplus 13
Senapati, N. and Semenov, M.A. (2019). Assessing yield gap in high
and waste arisings in the UK. WRAP. Available at: https://wrap.org. productive countries by designing wheat ideotypes. Sci Rep 9, 5516.
uk/sites/default/files/2021-06/Food Surplus and Waste in the UK Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40981-0
Key Facts June 2021.pdf; Estimates of food grown but never har-
vested are more uncertain, but likely adds around 7% to this figure:
14
Committee on Climate Change. (2020). Sixth Carbon Budget.
Bajzelj, B. et al. (2019). Food waste in primary production in the UK. Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.
WRAP. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36134.14400 uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/
2
Edible but wasted post farm-gate food adds 17.5 MtCO2e (5%) to
15
NFS analysis based on Poore, J. and Nemecek, T. (2018) and de
UK emissions. Pre farm-gate waste is estimated to add between 3 Ruiter, H. et al. (2017). See National Food Strategy Evidence Pack,
MtCO2e (0.8%) and 7.7 MtCO2e (2.1%) to UK emissions. WRAP. (2019). pages 42 and 56, for details. Available from https://www.national-
Food surplus and waste in the UK: Key facts. Available from: http:// foodstrategy.org
www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food%20Surplus%20and%20 16
Waste%20in%20the%20UK%20Key%20Facts%20%2822%207%20
Ruiter, H. et al. (2017). See National Food Strategy Evidence Pack
19%29_0.pdf. For pre farm-gate GHGs, these are estimated based on
page 42 and 56 for details. Available from https://www.nationalfood-
the figures in Table 3 of WRAP. (2020). Food surplus and waste in the
strategy.org
UK – key facts. WRAP. Available at: https://archive.wrap.org.uk/sites/
files/wrap/Food-surplus-and-waste-in-the-UK-key-facts-Jan-2020. 17
NFS analysis based on NDNS data. See National Food Strategy
pdf, multiplied by average kgCO2e/kg analysis from Poore, J. and Evidence Pack, pages 122 and 123, for details. Available from https://
Nemecek, T. (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
producers and consumers. Science 360, 6392. Available from: https://
science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987/tab-figures-data 18
Across all 2050 net zero scenarios, as outlined in: Committee on
Climate Change. (2020). Sixth Carbon Budget. Committee on Climate
3
WRAP. (2020). Food surplus and waste in the UK – key facts. WRAP. Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/
Available at: https://archive.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food-sur- sixth-carbon-budget/
plus-and-waste-in-the-UK-key-facts-Jan-2020.pdf
19
NFS analysis based on Defra Family Food Survey data. See National
4
Dray, S. (2021). Food waste in the UK. Parliament. Available at: Food Strategy Evidence Pack, page 61, for details. Available from
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/food-waste-in-the-uk/ https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
5
WRAP. (2020). Food surplus and waste in the UK – key facts. WRAP. 20
Available at: https://archive.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food-sur- Ruiter, H. et al. (2017). See National Food Strategy Evidence Pack,
plus-and-waste-in-the-UK-key-facts-Jan-2020.pdf pages 42 and 56, for details. Available from https://www.national-
foodstrategy.org; Scenario assumes land released is split equally
6
Carmichael, R. (2019). Behaviour change, public engagement and
across the overseas and domestic land footprint of UK diets.
Net Zero. Imperial College London. Available at: https://www.chap-
terzero.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Behaviour-change-pub-
lic-engagement-and-Net-Zero-Imperial-College-London.pdf
7
Forbes, H. et al. (2021). Food waste index report 2021. United Na-
tions Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.unep.org/
resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021
8
Forbes, H. et al. (2021). Food waste index report 2021. United Na-
tions Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.unep.org/
resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021
9
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2020). Farming
Statistics – provisional arable crop areas, yields and livestock
populations at 1 June 2020 United Kingdom. HMG. https://assets.

publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/at-
tachment_data/file/931104/structure-jun2020prov-UK-08oct20i.pdf
10
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs et al. (2020.) Ag-
riculture in the UK 2019. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.
service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/950618/AUK-2019-07jan21.pdf
11
Crop Science Bayer. (2018.) How do you grow a record-breaking
wheat crop? We spoke to the current and former record-holders to
find out. Crop Science Bayer. Available at: https://cropscience.bayer.
co.uk/blog/articles/2018/03/record-wheat-yield/
12
Schils, R. et al. (2018). Cereal yield gaps across Europe. Europe-
an Journal of Agronomy. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eja.2018.09.003
183
12. At what price?
Chapter references
1
Johnstone, S. and Mazo, J. (2011). Global Warming and the Arab Oxford, UK: Earthwatch Europe. Available at: https://earthwatch.org.
Spring. Survival, 53:2, 11–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/003 uk/images/SustAgriculture/Soil_Report.pdf; Soil Health Partnership:
96338.2011.571006 Soil Health Partnership, Environmental Defense Fund, K·Coe Isom.
(2021). Conservation’s Impact on the Farm Bottom Line. Soil Health
2
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). Partnership. Available at: https://www.soilhealthpartnership.org/
Global food prices rise at rapid pace in May. FAO. Available at: http:// wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Conservation-Impact-On-Farm-Bot-
www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1403339/icode/ tom-Line-2021.pdf
3
Roser, M. and Ritchie, H. (2013). Food Prices. Our World in Data. 18
SYSTEMIQ analysis commissioned for the National Food Strategy,
Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/food-prices#wheat-prices- based on Tesco.com and Sainsburys.com, accessed 23 March. Avail-
since-the-13th-century able at https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
4
ONS. (2021). RPI: Ave price – Chicken: roasting, ovn ready, frsh/
chilld, Kg. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/infla-
tionandpriceindices/timeseries/czom
5
Cribb, J. et al. (2012). Jubilees compared: incomes, spending and
work in the late 1970s and early 2010s. Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Available at: https://ifs.org.uk/bns/bn128.pdf
6
Avison, A. (2020). Why UK consumers spend 8% of their money on
food. AHDB. Available at: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/consumer-in-
sight-why-uk-consumers-spend-8-of-their-money-on-food
7
Since per capita food consumption (in calories) is similar in all three
countries, and in 2018 all three countries were subject to the same
trade and agricultural subsidy regimes, differences in consumer
preferences are the most plausible explanation for the significant di-
vergence in food spending (amounting to an extra thousand pounds
or so per year).
8
Our World in Data. (2017). Share of consumer expenditure on food
(USDA (2017)). Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworld-
indata.org/grapher/share-of-consumer-expenditure-spent-on-
food?tab=table
9
Pigou, A. (2013). The Economics of Welfare. London, UK: Palgrave
Classics in Economics.
10
SYSTEMIQ analysis for the National Food Strategy, based on FOLU
(2019), Sustainable Food (2017), Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019),
WBCSD (2021). Available at https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
11
Coase, R. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. In: Gopalakrishnan
C. (eds) Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics. London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
12
Service, R. (2019). Solar plus batteries is now cheaper than fossil
power. Science. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/con-
tent/365/6449/108/
UCL. (2020). Impact of Carbon Price Support on British energy bills.

13
UCL. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sustainable/sites/

bartlett/files/annex_-_cps_-_final_-_20102019.pdf
14
SYSTEMIQ analysis commissioned for the National Food Strategy,
based on Tesco.com and Sainsburys.com, accessed 23 March. Avail-
able from https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
15
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2020). Family
Food 2018/19. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/
statistics/family-food-201819/family-food-201819
16
SYSTEMIQ and Soil Capital. (2019). Regenerating Europe’s Soils.
SYSTEMIQ and Soil Capital. Available at: https://www.systemiq.
earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/RegeneratingEuropessoils-
FINAL.pdf
17
See, for example, Earthwatch Europe: Head. J. (2019). Soil Health,
Biodiversity and the Business Case for Sustainable Agriculture.
184
13. The protein transition
Chapter references
1
SYSTEMIQ analysis for NFS, to be published on www.nationalfood- Tso, R. et al. 2021. A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Supporting
18
strategy.org Consumer Motivations for Alternative Proteins. Foods. 10(24). https://

www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/1/24
2
NFS Commissioned polling – Fleetwood. (2021). National Food
Strategy polling. Fleetwood. 19
UNFCCC. (no date). Impossible Foods: Creating Plant-Based
Alternatives to Meat | Singapore, Hong Kong, USA, Macau. Available
3
López-Paredes, J. et al. (2020). Mitigation of greenhouse gases in at: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/plane-
dairy cattle via genetic selection: 2. Incorporating methane emissions tary-health/impossible-foods
into the breeding goal. Journal of Dairy Science. 103(8). pp.7210–
7221. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 20
Head Topics. (2020). Can lab-grown food save the planet? | Let-
pii/S0022030220303994?casa_token=mFbenf4pgYEAAAAA:px- ters. Available at: https://headtopics.com/uk/can-lab-grown-food-
Z3oLqaLKqJqhR26HpVKtKDEZGhBA6qV6AEWKWOWKlgF2tmFiMSa- save-the-planet-letters-10607553
jL14B66PYRztBhXWyWLqwfm-Q
21
ING Research. (2020). Growth of meat and dairy alternatives is
4
Roque, B. et al. (2021). Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) stirring up the European food industry. Available at: https://think.ing.
supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in com/uploads/reports/ING_report_-_Growth_of_meat_and_dairy_al-
beef steers. PLOS ONE 16(3). Available at: https://journals.plos.org/ ternatives_is_stirring_up_the_European_food_industry.pdf
plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247820
22
NFS analysis based on feed conversion ratios in: Good Food Insti-
5
Nestle. (2021). Nestlé’s Net Zero Roadmap. Available at: https:// tute. (2021). Anticipatory life cycle assessment and techno-economic
www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2020-12/nestle-net-zero-road- assessment of commercial cultivated meat production. Available at:
map-en.pdf https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cultured-meat-LCA-
TEA-technical.pdf; tonnes per hectare of input in: Department for En-
6
Abbot, D. W. et al. (2020). Seaweed and Seaweed Bioactives vironment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). Farming Statistics Final crop
for Mitigation of Enteric Methane: Challenges and Opportunities. areas, yields, livestock populations and agricultural workforce at June
Animals. 10(2432). Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076- 2019 – United Kingdom. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.
2615/10/12/2432 service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/865769/structure-jun2019final-uk-22jan20-rev_v2.pdf; and
7
NFS analysis. See NFS evidence pack, pages 77–78.
agricultural workers per hectare in: Nation Master. (no date). Agricul-
8
FAOSTAT. (2021). Meat food supply quantity. Available at: http:// tural workers per hectare. Available at: https://www.nationmaster.
www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS See also page 145 of the com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Workers-per-hectare
evidence pack. 23
National Food Strategy analysis based on: Department for
9
FAOSTAT. (2021). Meat food supply quantity. Available at: http:// Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2020). Family Food 2018/19.
www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS See also page 145 of the HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/fam-
evidence pack. ily-food-201819
BBC News. (2020). Singapore approves lab-grown ‘chicken’ meat.

10
24
Government of Canada. (2021). Canada’s Protein Industries
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55155741 Supercluster. Available at: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/093.nsf/
eng/00012.html
11
Susewi. (2021). Algae Based Products. Available at: https://www.
susewi.life/our-process/
25
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). A
plan for public procurement: food and catering. HMG. Available at:
12
Based on data from Carrols Restaurant Group, the largest Burger https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/a-plan-for-public-pro-
King franchisor in the US, in 2019; Seeking Alpha. (2020). Impossible curement-food-and-catering-the-balanced-scorecard
Whopper momentum slows down. Available at: https://seekingalpha.
com/news/3531766-impossible-whopper-momentum-slows-down
26
Culliford, A. and Bradbury, J. (2020). A cross-sectional survey of the
readiness of consumers to adopt an environmentally sustainable diet.
Nutrition Journal. 19(138). Available at: https://nutritionj.biomedcen-
13
NPD Group. (2019). Checkout Data for year Ending May ‘19.
tral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12937-020-00644-7.pdf
14
Food Navigator. (2021). Israeli start-up Imagindairy eyes lab-made
milk launch after precision fermentation breakthrough. Available at: 27
NFS analysis. See NFS Evidence pack, pages 43, 47, 77–78.
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/06/10/Israeli-start-up-
Imagindairy-eyes-lab-made-milk-launch-after-precision-fermentation-
breakthrough
15
Daxue Consulting. (2020). The dairy market in China will be the
world’s largest by 2022. Available at: https://daxueconsulting.com/
china-dairy-market/
16
The Royal Society. (2019). Future food: health and sustainability
(Conference Report). The Royal Society. Available at: https://royalso-
ciety.org/-/media/events/2019/12/tof-future-foods/Future-of-Food-
ToF-conference-report.pdf?la=en-GB&hash=23A54C1F233745C70A-
FA42545A883422
17
RethinkX. (2021). Food and Agriculture. Available at: https://www.
rethinkx.com/food-and-agriculture
185
14. Food security
Chapter references
1
Gibson M. (2012). Food Security-A Commentary: What Is It and 11
Timmer, J. (2020). Modeling what would happen to the UK if the
Why Is It So Complicated? Foods 1(1), 18–27. Available at: https://doi. Gulf Stream shuts down. Ars Technica. Available at: https://arstechni-
org/10.3390/foods1010018 ca.com/science/2020/01/modeling-what-would-happen-to-the-uk-if-
the-gulf-stream-shuts-down/
2
Lang, T. (2020). Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix
Them. London, UK: Penguin Books. 12
Based on data provided by Wageningen Economic Research. (2018).
Climate Change and Global Market Integration: Implications for glob-
3
Food Chain Analysis Group, Department for Environment Food & al economic activities, agricultural commodities and food security.
Rural Affairs. (2006). Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and SOCO 2018 Background Paper, Rome, Italy: FAO.
Analysis Paper. National Archives. Available at: https://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130404001020/http://archive.defra.gov. 13
Tzachor, A. (2019). Down the Hunger Spiral: Pathways to the
uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/foodsecurity. Disintegration of the Global Food System. Centre for the Study of
pdf; Barnett, M. (1985). British Food Policy During the First World Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
War. Australia: Allen & Unwin; Department for Environment, Food www.cser.ac.uk/news/down-hunger-spiral-pathways-disintegra-
& Rural Affairs. (2013). Agriculture in the United Kingdom. HMG. tion-global-/
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/agricul-
ture-in-the-united-kingdom
14
University of Toronto. (2019). A very small number of crops are
dominating globally: That’s bad news for sustainable agriculture.
4
Food Chain Analysis Group, Department for Environment Food & ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 11 2021. Available at: https://www.
Rural Affairs. (2006). Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190206161446.htm
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130404001020/http://archive.defra.gov.
15
uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/foodsecurity. Disintegration of the Global Food System. Centre for the Study of
pdf; Barnett, M. (1985). British Food Policy During the First World Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
War. Australia: Allen & Unwin; Department for Environment, Food www.cser.ac.uk/news/down-hunger-spiral-pathways-disintegra-
& Rural Affairs. (2013). Agriculture in the United Kingdom. HMG. tion-global-/
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/agricul- 16
Disintegration of the Global Food System. Centre for the Study of
5
Food Chain Analysis Group, Department for Environment Food & Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
Rural Affairs. (2006). Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and www.cser.ac.uk/news/down-hunger-spiral-pathways-disintegra-
Analysis Paper. National Archives. Available at: https://webarchive. tion-global-/
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130404001020/http://archive.defra.gov. 17
uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/foodsecurity.
pdf; Barnett, M. (1985). British Food Policy During the First World
Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
War. Australia: Allen & Unwin; Department for Environment, Food
www.cser.ac.uk/news/down-hunger-spiral-pathways-disintegra-
& Rural Affairs. (2013). Agriculture in the United Kingdom. HMG.
tion-global-/
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/agricul-
ture-in-the-united-kingdom 18
6
Food Chain Analysis Group, Department for Environment Food &
Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
Rural Affairs. (2006). Food Security and the UK: An Evidence and
www.cser.ac.uk/news/down-hunger-spiral-pathways-disintegra-
tion-global-/
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130404001020/http://archive.defra.gov.
uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/foodsecurity. 19
pdf; Barnett, M. (1985). British Food Policy During the First World Disintegration of the Global Food System. Centre for the Study of
War. Australia: Allen & Unwin; Department for Environment, Food Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
& Rural Affairs. (2013). Agriculture in the United Kingdom. HMG. www.cser.ac.uk/news/down-hunger-spiral-pathways-disintegra-
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/agricul- tion-global-/

7
politics.co.uk. (2020). Common agricultural policy. politics.co.uk.
Available at: https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/common-agricul-
tural-policy, accessed 4 March 2020.
8
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs., et al. (2019).
Agriculture in the UK. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.
data/file/950618/AUK-2019-07jan21.pdf
9
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. (1975). Food From Our
Own resources. London, UK: HMG.
10
Department for Environment, Food an&d Rural Affairs. (2009). UK
Food Security Assessment: Detailed Analysis. HMG. Available at:
https://www.groupedebruges.eu/sites/default/files/publications/
downloads/defra_foodsecurityassessment_2.pdf, p. 82.
186
15. Trade
Chapter references
1
Kim, B. et al. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate 16
legislation.gov.uk. (2007). Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (En-
climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change, Volume 62. gland) Regulations 2007. The Stationery Office. Available at: https://
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2007/9780110757797
2
Kim, B. et al. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate 17
American Industry Sheep Association. (2005). Sheep Care Guide.
climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change, Volume 62. Available at: http://d1cqrq366w3ike.cloudfront.net/http/DOCU-
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010 MENT/SheepUSA/Sheep_Care_Guide_2006.pdf
3
Pendrill, F. et al. (2019). Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk 18
Animal Health Australia. (2016). Australian Animal Welfare Stan-
commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. dards and Guidelines for Sheep. Available at: http://www.animalwel-
Environ. Res. Lett. 14(5). Available at: https://iopscience.iop.org/ farestandards.net.au/files/2011/01/Sheep-Standards-and-Guidelines-
article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0d41 for-Endorsed-Jan-2016-061017.pdf
4
Which?. (2020). Trade deals and our future. Available at: https:// 19
de Freitas, A. et al. (2017). Bem-estar de ovinos: Revisão [Sheep
campaigns.which.co.uk/trade-deals/ welfare: review]. Pubvet: Publicações em Medicina Veterinária e
Zootecnia, 11(1), pp. 18–29. Available at: https://www.pubvet.com.br/
5
Windsor, P. and Lomax, S,. (2013). Addressing welfare concerns uploads/7a5c41f5a1b85cb7e375fef1fa935c26.pdf
in control of ovine cutaneous myiosis in sheep in Australia. Small
Ruminant Research 110 (2–3) pp.165–169. Available at: https://www. 20
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Australia). (2016).
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448812004877 National Standard for Organic and Bio-Dynamic Produce. Available at:
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondoc-
6
SCARM. (2002). Primary Industries Standing Committee Model uments/aqis/exporting/food/organic/national-standard-edition-3-7.
Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals Domestic Poultry 4th Edi- pdf
tion. Australia: CSIRO Publishing. Available at: https://www.publish.
csiro.au/ebook/download/pdf/3451 21
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. (2017). Normative
Instruction No. 46 of October 6, 2011 (Plant and animal production)
7
Oliveira da Silva, I.J., 2019. Sistemas de produção de galinhas poe- – Regulated by IN 17-2014). Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and
deiras no Brasil [Laying hen production systems in Brazil]. Diálogos Supply. Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/
União europeia–Brasil. Available at: http://www.sectordialogues.org/ sustentabilidade/organicos/legislacao/portugues/instrucao-nor-
documentos/proyectos/adjuntos/b26c49_X-GUIA-GALINHAS-2019. mativa-no-46-de-06-de-outubro-de-2011-producao-vegetal-e-ani-
pdf mal-regulada-pela-in-17-2014.pdf/view
8
SCARM. (2002). Primary Industries Standing Committee Model 22
Australian Pork. (no date). Pigs. Available at: https://aussiepigfarm-
Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals Domestic Poultry 4th Edi- ers.com.au/pigs/our-housing/sow-stalls/
tion. Australia: CSIRO Publishing. Available at: https://www.publish.
csiro.au/ebook/download/pdf/3451 23
legislation.gov.au. (2017). Australia New Zealand Food Standards
Code, Schedule 20, Maximum Residue Limits. Available at: https://
9
World Animal Protection. (2020). Animal Protection Index (API) www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00105
2020. Available at: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/
brazil 24
World Animal Protection. (2020). Animal Protection Index (API)
2020. Available at: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/country/
10
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. (2011). Hormonal growth brazil
promotants in beef. Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/
consumer/generalissues/hormonalgrowth/Pages/default.aspx 25
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation. (2017). Deposição
de resíduos de ractopamina em tecidos de suínos alimentados com
11
Ministry of Agriculture. (2011). NORMATIVE INSTRUCTION No. 55, farinha de carne e ossos contendo este aditivo. Available at: https://
DE. Government of Brazil. Available at: https://www.gov.br/agricul- www.embrapa.br/busca-de-projetos/-/projeto/209276/deposi-
tura/pt-br/assuntos/insumos-agropecuarios/insumos-pecuarios/ cao-de-residuos-de-ractopamina-em-tecidos-de-suinos-alimenta-
alimentacao-animal/arquivos-alimentacao-animal/legislacao/instru- dos-com-farinha-de-carne-e-ossos-contendo-este-aditivo
cao-normativa-no-55-de-1o-de-dezembro-de-2011.pdf/view
26
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Australia).
12
Dairy Australia. (2021). Is there an official upper limit for somatic (2012). Australian animal welfare standards and guidelines: Land
cells in cow’s milk production in Australia? Available at: https://www. transport of livestock. Available at: http://www.animalwelfare-
dairy.com.au/dairy-matters/you-ask-we-answer/is-there-an-official- standards.net.au/files/2021/06/Land-transport-of-livestock-Stan-
upper-limit-for-somatic-cells-in-cows-milk-in-australia dards-and-Guidelines-Version-1.-1-21-September-2012.pdf
13
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. (2018). Compendium of 27
Ministry of Cities/NATIONAL TRAFFIC COUNCIL. (2017). OFFICIAL
Microbiological Criteria for Food. Available at: https://www.foodstan- GAZETTE OF THE UNION. Government of Brazil. Available at:
dards.gov.au/publications/Documents/Compedium%20of%20Micro- https://www.in.gov.br/materia/-/asset_publisher/Kujrw0TZC2Mb/
biological%20Criteria/Compendium_revised-Sep%202018.pdf content/id/19137370/do1-2017-06-26-resolucao-n-675-de-21-de-jun-
ho-de-2017-19137266
14
Rodrigues, L. et al. (2017). A time series analysis of bulk tank
somatic cell counts of dairy herds located in Brazil and the United 28
Langham, F. and Cheng, A. C. (2019). Antibiotic use in animals and
States. Cienc Rural 47. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103- humans in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 211(4). pp.159–160.
8478cr20160618 Available at: https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/211_04/
mja250258.pdf#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20a%20large%20vol-
15
Rodrigues, C. O. et al. (2005). Milk quality and new regulations in
ume%20of%20antibiotics%20is,be%20addressed%20in%20both%20
Brazil. Journal of Dairy Science 88:272.
hospital%20and%20community%20settings
187
29
Australian Government. (no date). AMR and animal health in Aus-
tralia. Available at: https://www.amr.gov.au/about-amr/amr-australia/
amr-and-animal-health-australia
30
Prescott, J. (2019). Veterinary Antimicrobial Stewardship in Aus-
tralia. Canadian veterinary journal. 60(3). pp. 246–248. Available at:
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30872846
31
Bokma-Bakker, M. H. et al. (2014). Antibiotic use in Brazilian broiler
and pig production: An indication and forecast of trends. Wagen-
ingen UR Livestock Research. Available at: https://edepot.wur.
nl/297414
32
Kim, B. et al. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate
climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change, Volume 62.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010
33
Global Forest Watch. Available at: https://www.globalforestwatch.
org/
188
16. The Plan
Chapter references
1
Global health data exchange. (2020). Global Burden of Disease, 9
Global Burden of Disease, 2019 data. Accessed July 2021. Available
2019 data. Available at: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2019 at: http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool
2
National Food Strategy analysis using data from: : NHS Digital. 10
Cobiac, L. et al. (2021). Impact of the Soft Drink Industry Levy on
(2020). Health Survey for England 2019: Adult’s health. Available at: health and health inequalities of children and adolescents in England.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/ [Pre Publication]
health-survey-for-england/2019; NHS Digital. (2018). Health Survey
for England 2017: Cardiovascular diseases. Available at: https://
11
Sugar reduction: Pell, D. et al. (2021). Changes in soft drinks
digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health- purchased by British households associated with the UK soft drinks
survey-for-england/2017; NHS Digital. (2020). Healthy Survey for En- industry levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis. British
gland 2019: overweight and obesity in adults and children. Available Medical Journal, 372. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/con-
at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statis- tent/372/bmj.n254. Overconsumption: Buttriss, J. (2015). Why 5%?
tical/health-survey-for-england/2019/health-survey-for-england- Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
2019-data-tables. Population data from: Office for National Statistics. gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
(2020). Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland file/769482/Why_5__-_The_Science_Behind_SACN.pdf
and Northern Ireland: mid-2019. ONS. Available at:https://www.ons. 12
Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in
gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/
England: framework document. DFE. Available at: https://assets.pub-
populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/
lishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attach-
mid2019estimates. Overlap between diabetes and obesity, diabetes
ment_data/file/381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf
and cardiovascular disease and obesity and cardiovascular disease
from Health Survey for England. Assumptions: Very high waist 13
Data provided by School Teachers Centre.
circumference (>102cm for men, >88cm for women) assumed to be
obese for purposes of cardiovascular disease and obese overlap. 14
Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food Plan. Evidence
Overlaps assumed to be the same across all age groups. Not includ- pack. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/wp-con-
ing diet-related cancers as overlap data not available. tent/uploads/2013/10/School-Food-Plan-Evidence-Pack-July-2013-
Final.pdf
3
Tigbe, W. W. et al. (2013). A patient-centred approach to estimate
total annual healthcare cost by body mass index in the UK Counter- 15
Office for National Statistics. (2019). Health state life expectancies
weight programme. Int Journal of Obesity 37 (8), 135–139. Available by national deprivation deciles, England and Wales: 2015 to 2017.
at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23164699/ ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/healthstatelife-
expectanciesuk2015to2017
4
Obesity increases and peaks by the mid-2030s, based on an as-
sumption that tobacco-control like policies (high taxes, regulation of 16
NHS Digital. (2020). National child measurement programme,
marketing, food environments, and advertising, and significant public England 2019/20 school year. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/
health spending) are introduced for unhealthy foods. Janssen, F. et data-and-information/publications/statistical/national-child-mea-
al. (2020). Obesity Prevalence in the Long-Term Future in 18 European surement-programme/2019-20-school-year/deprivation
Countries and in the USA. Obesity Facts, 13(5), 514–527. Available at:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/511023 17
NHS Digital. (2020). Health survey for England. Available at: https://
digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/health-
5
Hex, N. et al. (2012). Estimating the current and future costs of survey-for-england/2019/health-survey-for-england-2019-data-ta-
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs bles
and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabetic Medicine,
29(7), pp.855–862. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. 18
Department for Work and Pensions. (2021). Family Resources
gov/22537247/; Hofmarcher, T. et al. (2020). The cost of cancer in Survey 2019–20. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/
Europe 2018. European Journal of Cancer, 129, pp.41–49. Available at: statistics/family-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/fami-
https://ihe.se/publicering/the-cost-of-cancer-in-europe-2018/ ly-resources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020#household-food-se-
curity-1
6
The Health Foundation. (2020). Public perceptions of health and
social care in light of COVID-19 (May 2020). Ipsos MORI. Available at: 19
Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food Plan. HMG.
https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/public-perceptions- Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/wp-content/up-
of-health-and-social-care-in-light-of-covid-19-may-2020 loads/2013/10/School-Food-Plan-Evidence-Pack-July-2013-Final.pdf
7
We considered a tax on saturated fat, which also contributes to 20
Food insecurity measurement has been standardised international-
poor diets and diet-related diseases. However, saturated fat is not ly and DWP uses this internationally standardised approach. The FRS
an added ingredient in the same way that salt and sugar are. It is asks a series of questions to the person in charge of food purchasing
part of lots of different foods, some of which we eat too much of and preparation about their experiences in the previous 30 days.
e.g. processed meat, and others which we need to eat more of, e.g. Questions include whether they have always had enough money to
nuts. You therefore end up in a quagmire of which products you buy food before it runs out, whether they have been able to afford
want to tax and which you do not. Furthermore, it would target balanced meals and whether they have had to change eating habits
meat consumption and this, as we have established, is not politically because of a lack of money. A ten-point household score is generat-
feasible. The complexity of implementation coupled with the difficult ed and households are classified as either having high, marginal, low
political nature means that we do not believe a tax on saturated fat or very low food security based on their score. Low food security
is feasible. (score 3 to 5) indicates the household reduced the quality, variety
and desirability of their diets but the quantity or normal eating
8
Department of Health and Social Care. (2011). Statement of the patterns were not substantially disrupted. Very low food security
Calorie Reduction Expert Group. HMG. Available at: https://www. (score 6 to 10) indicates the household experienced disrupted eating
gov.uk/Government/publications/statement-of-the-calorie-reduc- patterns or reduced their food consumption due to a lack of money
tion-expert-group or resources.
189
21
Lasko-Skinner, R. and Sweetland, J. (2021). Food in a Pandem- 35
NFS analysis based on feed conversion ratios in Good Food Insti-
ic. Demos. Available at: https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/up- tute (2021). Anticipatory life cycle assessment and techno-economic
loads/2021/03/Food-in-a-Pandemic.pdf assessment of commercial cultivated meat production. Available at:
https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cultured-meat-LCA-
22
The Trussell Trust. (2018). Families, hunger, and the holidays. TEA-technical.pdf; Type of product: https://www.meatless.nl/
Available at: https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/
sites/2/2018/08/Families-hunger-and-the-holidays-policy-brief.pdf 36
Labiotech. (2021). Global funding for meat alternative companies
tripled in 2020. Available at: https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/
23
Crawley, H. and Dodds, R. (2018). The UK Healthy Start scheme. solar-foods-meat-alternatives/
What happened? What next? First Steps Nutrition, p56. Available at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59f75004f09ca48694070f- 37
Live Kindly. (2020). How the Netherlands is leading the vegan food
3b/t/5b8e2d0e575d1f6f1e5d2dcd/1536044307456/Healthy_Start_ industry. Available at: https://www.livekindly.co/netherlands-lead-
Report_for_web.pdf ing-vegan-food-industry/
24
Office for National Statistics. (2020). Healthcare expenditure, UK 38
Israel: Good Food Institute. (2021). Israel state of alternative pro-
health accounts: 2018. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/people- tein innovation report 2021. Available at: https://gfi.org.il/resources/
populationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/ israel-state-of-alternative-protein-innovation-report-2021/?_
bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2018 ga=2.142138290.1497374895.1622640835-1621113986.1612276626;
Singapore: Singapore Food Agency. (no date). Safety of alternative
25
Faculty of Public Health. (2019). What the NHS thinks about pre- protein. Available at: https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-information/risk-
vention: results of opinion polling of 310 NHS leaders. FPH. Available at-a-glance/safety-of-alternative-protein
at: https://www.fph.org.uk/media/2515/fph-what-the-nhs-thinks-
about-prevention-final.pdf 39
tute. (2021). Anticipatory life cycle assessment and techno-economic
26
NHS. (2019). NHS Long term plan. NHS. Available at: https://www. assessment of commercial cultivated meat production. Available at:
longtermplan.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/nhs-long-term- https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cultured-meat-LCA-
plan-version-1.2.pdf TEA-technical.pdf; Tonnes per hectare of input in: Department for
Environment Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). Farming Statistics Final crop
27
Expression of interest process: National Health Service. (2021).
areas, yields, livestock populations and agricultural workforce At June
Green social prescribing. NHS. Available at: https://www.england.
2019 – United Kingdom. Available at: https://assets.publishing.ser-
nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/green-social-prescribing/
vice.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
28
Slagel, N. et al. (2018). The Effects of a Fruit and Vegetable file/865769/structure-jun2019final-uk-22jan20-rev_v2.pdf; Agricul-
Prescription Program (FVRx)® for Low-Income Individuals on Fruit tural workers per hectare in: NationMaster. Agricultural workers per
and Vegetable Intake and Food Purchasing Practices. Journal of hectare. Available at: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/
Nutrition Education and Behavior 50 (7). Available at: https://www. stats/Agriculture/Workers-per-hectare
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404618303373; Huang, 40
National Data Strategy: Department for Digital, Culture, Media &
J. et al. (2019). Impact of Fruits and Vegetables Prescription Program
Sport. (2020). National Data Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.
in Wellness Group Visits. Pediatrics 144 (706). Available at: https://
uk/Government/publications/uk-national-data-strategy/national-da-
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/144/2_MeetingAbstract/706;
ta-strategy; Council for Science and Technology: Vallance, P. (2020).
DC Greens. (2021). Produce Prescription Program (Produce Rx). DC
Achieving net zero through a whole systems approach: Council for
Greens. Available at: https://www.dcgreens.org/produce-rx
Science and Technology letter. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
29
Finch T. et al. (2019). Bird conservation and the land sharing-sparing Government/publications/achieving-net-zero-carbon-emissions-
continuum in farmland-dominated landscapes of lowland England. through-a-whole-systems-approach
Conservation Biology. 33(5). 1045–1055. Available at: https://www. 41
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). A plan for
cb.iee.unibe.ch/e58878/e337393/e337410/e604441/e876095/
public procurement: food and catering. Defra. Available at: https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/up-
30
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2019). Farm loads/attachment_data/file/332756/food-plan-july-2014.pdf
evidence compendium. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/ 42
£2.4bn, 5.5% – estimate based on 2014 data: Department for Envi-
Government/publications/the-future-farming-and-environment-evi-
ronment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). A plan for public procurement:
dence-compendium-latest-edition
food and catering. Defra. Available at: https://assets.publishing.ser-
31
Conservative and Unionist Party. (2019). The Conservative vice.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
and Unionist Manifesto 2019. Available at: https://assets-global. file/332756/food-plan-july-2014.pdf
website-files.com/5da42e2cae7ebd3f8bde353c/5dda924905da-
587992a064ba_Conservative%202019%20Manifesto.pdf
32
Trade and Agriculture Commission. (2021). Final report. TAC. Avail-
able at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/up-
loads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969045/Trade-and-Ag-
riculture-Commission-final-report.pdf
33
Maintain our standards: Which? (2020). Ensuring trade deals work
for consumers. Available at: https://campaigns.which.co.uk/trade-
deals/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2020/01/5e2f163d92b97-Trade-
deals-v4-2.pdf; Concern over livestock: Unison. (2020). Public fears a
lowering of meat standards in future US trade deals, says UNISON.
Available at: https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2020/02/
public-fears-lowering-meat-standards-future-us-trade-deals-says-
unison/
34
Annan, K. (2018). Data can help to end malnutrition across
Africa. Nature 555 (7). Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/32094884/
190
43
13.3m people eat in public sector settings each year, which is 24%
of the population. NFS Analysis. Sources – NHS: NHS Digital. (2021).
Estates Returns Information Collection Summary page and dataset
for ERIC 2018/19. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-infor-
mation/publications/statistical/estates-returns-information-collec-
tion/england-2018-19; Schools: Office for National Statistics. (2021).
Chapter references
Schools, pupils and their characteristics, Academic year 2021/21.

Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/
find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics; Higher educa-
tion: Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2021). Table 1 – HE student
enrolments by HE provider 2014/15 to 2019/20. HESA. Available at:
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/table-1; Prison-
ers: Ministry of Justice. (2020). Prison population figures: 2020. HMG
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/prison-pop-
ulation-figures-2020; Care homes: ONS. (2020). Care home and non-
care home populations used in the Deaths involving COVID-19 in the
care sector article, England and Wales. ONS. Available at: https://
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsand-
marriages/deaths/adhocs/12215carehomeandnoncarehomepopu-
lationsusedinthedeathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorarticleen-
glandandwales; Ministry of Defence: Ministry of Defence. (2020).
Quarterly Service Personnel Statistics 1 July 2020. HMG. Available
at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920074/1_July_2020_SPS.pdf.
Analysis does not include NHS staff and visitors to hospitals as data
not available so is likely to be an under estimation.
44
Breakfast, lunch and snacks at school = 2/3 of weekday food,
therefore 0.47 over 7 days; Royston, S., Rodrigues, L. and Hounsell,
D. (2012). Fair and Square: A Policy Report on the Future of Free
School Meals. The Children’s Society, p12. Available at: https://
d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ecf1e68cdc/content/pages/docu-
ments/1429471607.pdf
45
The latest available data tells us that in 2013 the top four contract
caterers (Compass Group, Sodexo, Westbury Street Holding and
Elior) had 61% of the contract catering market share. Source: UK
Parliament. (2021). Written evidence submitted by Dynamic Food
Procurement National Advisory Board. UK Parliament. Available
at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9762/pdf/;
European Commission. (2015). Task 2: Market Analysis (draft) Working
Document. European Commission. Available at: https://susproc.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/product-bureau/sites/default/files/contentype/prod-
uct_group_documents/1581683081/Task%202%20Food%20and%20
catering_JRC151015%20clean%20(ammended).docx.pdf
46
Information and data provided directly to NFS by Bath and North
East Somerset Council
47
King, S. (2017). Making the case for a place based systems
approach: public health professionals’ assessment of Sustainable
Food Cities. University of West England. Available at: https://www.
sustainablefoodplaces.org/Portals/4/Documents/Making%20the%20
case%20for%20a%20place%20based%20systems%20approach-pp.
pdf; Hills, S. and Jones, M. (2019). Sustainable Food Cities: phase
2 evaluation final report. University of West England. Available at:
https://www.sustainablefoodplaces.org/resources/files/documents/
Hills_and_Jones_2019_SFC_Final_Report.pdf
191
Appendices
192
Appendices
Recommendation 1. Introduce a sugar and salt
reformulation tax. Use some of the revenue to
help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low income
Recommendation 1
families.
Appendix 1
What is it? suggests that, even under normal circumstances, most

food products are reformulated or reviewed by their
The Government should introduce a £3/kg tax manufacturers over that time frame.2
on sugar and a £6/kg tax on salt sold for use in
processed foods or in restaurants and catering
businesses. Rationale
This would encourage manufacturers to reformulate People in the UK eat too much sugar and salt. Adults
their products to use less sugar and salt, in order to should consume no more than 30g of sugar a day, but
keep costs down. In some cases – where products on average we each eat 50g per day. Children eat
cannot be reformulated, and therefore remain even more, with teenagers aged 11–18yrs eating an
extremely high in sugar and salt – the increased cost average of 55g per day.3 This means that, on average,
might be passed on to the consumer. This would make sugar provides over 12% of children and teenagers’
such products less appealing. total calorie consumption4 – over twice as much as the
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)
The tax would apply to all sugar and other ingredients
recommends.5 Similarly, UK adults on average eat 8.4g
used for sweetening (such as syrups and fruit
of salt a day, 40% more than the recommended 6g a
extracts, but not raw fruit) at a rate of £3/kg. This
day.6
is approximately the same rate as the current Soft
Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), which the sugar tax would This contributes to poor health and costs us millions
replace.1 It would apply at a rate of £6/kg to all salt of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year.7
sold for use in food manufacturing. As salt is used in Sugar consumption is one of the main contributing
much smaller quantities than sugar, the rate needs to factors in people becoming overweight or obese,
be higher in order to achieve an impact. which is estimated to account for over 1.4 million
DALYs annually.8 It can lead to conditions including
Neither tax would apply to ingredients used in home
diabetes, heart disease and stroke – not to mention
cooking. This exemption could be managed either
tooth decay, which is the leading cause of hospital
by taxing sales to manufacturers and food service
admissions in children aged 6–10yrs.9
businesses, or by taxing all sales of sugar and salt
when they leave the factory gate and then allowing Eating too much salt is strongly linked to high blood
supermarkets to claim a rebate for sales to consumers. pressure, which can cause strokes and cardiovascular
Although small businesses could theoretically abuse disease. A meta-analysis found that a high intake of
this exemption, the quantities of sugar and salt larger salt was associated with a 23% increase in the risk of
businesses require are so great that serious evasion stroke and a 14% increase in the risk of cardiovascular
is unlikely in practice. If it did become a problem, disease.10 Conversely, falls in salt consumption have
retailers could be encouraged to restrict the amount been associated with substantial improvements in
of sugar or salt sold in a single purchase. people’s health: when salt consumption in northern
Japan went down by 4g a day, stroke deaths fell by
In order to stop food manufacturers relocating
80% in spite of the fact that the population’s weight,
overseas to avoid these taxes, imports of processed
fat intake, alcohol consumption and tobacco use all
food should also be taxed according to sugar and salt
went up.11
content when they enter the UK. Importers should be
required to register for the tax, report the amount of People on low incomes and some ethnic minorities
added sugar or salt contained in their product, and are the hardest hit by these harms.12 The poorest
pay the tax on that sugar or salt at the same rate as fifth of the population get 12% of their energy from
charged domestically. sugar, while the richest get 10%.13 While this sounds
small, over time it can make a significant difference to
The taxes should be introduced through primary
people’s weight and their wider health. Deprivation is
legislation in the 2024 Finance Bill. There should be a
strongly linked with weight and diet-related ill health.
three year period before implementation to facilitate
For example, year six children living in deprived areas
adaptation. Research by the Food Standards Agency
are almost twice as likely to be classed as obese or
overweight.14
193
As well as the harm it does to individuals, eating too that follow from them. Adults currently consume 20g
much sugar and salt is bad for the nation’s finances. too much sugar per day, and even if free sugars were
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and totally eliminated from soft drinks, they would still
Development (OECD) estimates that obesity already be consuming around 15g too much sugar every day,
accounts for 8% of annual health expenditure in the and teenagers around 16g a day.27 In reality, the SDIL
UK. That amounts to approximately £18bn, or as has only cut average sugar consumption by 1.8g per
much as we spend on the police and fire services person, per day.28
combined.15 Type 2 diabetes (the type linked to
poor diet) cost the NHS £8.8bn in 2011/12.16 And The evidence suggests, therefore, that we need a
these costs will rise, given that obesity is expected measure that places the onus on businesses and not
to continue increasing until it peaks at 37% of the on individuals; that is mandatory and not voluntary;
population in the mid-2030s.17 One study estimated and that covers a wide range of products. This led us
that every unit of body mass index put on by every to a tax similar to the SDIL, but covering a wider range
individual raises the UK’s annual healthcare costs by of products.
£16.18 By 2035/36, Type 2 diabetes could cost the NHS Our proposed tax is mandatory for all companies, and
£15.1bn a year, or one and a half times as much as places fewer demands on consumers than previous
cancer does today.19 policies. It targets a wide range of processed and
It therefore seems clear that we should try to prepared foods, which are the principal source of
reduce individuals’ sugar and salt consumption. We sugar and salt in British people’s diets:29 85% of
considered a range of mechanisms for doing so. Past the sugar sold in the UK is for use in manufacturing
policies focused strongly on voluntary measures and 75% of the salt we eat comes from processed
and individual behaviour change – for example, foods.30 A tax on the amount of sugar and salt used
handing out leaflets or running marketing campaigns in these foods will create a significant incentive for
to promote healthier diets. Of the 689 diet-related companies to reformulate their products so as to avoid
Government policies launched between 1992 and having to put the price up, which would be damaging
2020, just under half (43%) put the onus on individuals to their business in the UK’s highly competitive
to change their behaviour, and 37% were policies that and price-sensitive food market.31 We know that
supported healthier eating but still required individuals industry responds to taxes on unhealthy foods by
to make better choices (e.g. providing healthy options reformulating. As discussed above, the SDIL produced
in canteens).20 These programmes, especially the ones a reduction in the sugar content of soft drinks of
which required individuals to change their behaviour, 29%, while the Public Health Product Tax in Hungary
have not worked well because they assume that encouraged 40% of manufacturers of unhealthy foods
people take balanced, rational decisions about what to reformulate their products.32
they eat, and have the motivation, means and ability Similar measures have been shown to be effective
to act.21 In many cases – and especially when people around the world. Sugary drink taxes in Mexico,
are short of money, time and kitchen skills – this is Barbados, South Africa and the UK have led to
wishful thinking. reformulation and reduced sales of drinks high
Those policies which placed fewer demands on in sugar.33 In Mexico, an 8% tax on non-essential
individuals, and more on manufacturers or other food food items with a high calorie content relative to
businesses, were usually voluntary.22 This reduced their weight led to a 6% decrease in purchases.34
their effectiveness. While the voluntary salt reduction In Hungary, a tax on unhealthy foods produced a
programme was successful in its early phase, with sustained fall in consumption of those foods by most
salt intakes reducing from an average of 9.5g/day in consumers.35
2000 to 8.1g/day in 2011, progress has since stalled.23 In addition, the evidence suggests that food taxes
Only half of the targets for 2017 were met, in part do not lead to economic damage or job losses. The
because reporting requirements were weakened and SDIL had no lasting negative impacts on the UK soft
enforcement was minimal.24 A similar voluntary sugar drinks industry: firms’ turnover remained constant and
reduction programme challenged food manufacturers share prices continued to grow.36 A recent study of
to cut sugar in their products by 20% before 2020, but the food and soft drink tax in Mexico found that it had
only achieved a reduction of 3%.25 no impact on employment either in the manufacturing
Mandatory interventions have been more successful. industry or in retail.37
Following the introduction of the Soft Drinks Industry There is strong public support for cutting the amount
Levy (SDIL), the average sugar content of soft drinks of sugar we eat through taxes on unhealthy food.
fell by 29%. Preliminary results from a study looking at 70% of respondents in a 2017 survey supported the
the health impacts of the SDIL estimates it will result existing SDIL, and this level of support remained
in 6,200 fewer decayed and missing teeth and 36,000 constant after the tax had been in place for almost
fewer cases of obesity in children and teenagers two years.38 Half of respondents to a 2018 survey by
in England.26 But because of the narrow range of the Food Standards Agency said they were concerned
products it covers, it is still not enough to really about the amount of sugar in food.39 Roughly the
change people’s diets and the health consequences same numbers supported taxes on unhealthy food in
194
surveys by Demos and YouGov.40 Recent polling by the of potassium chloride – which is less harmful to health
Health Foundation found that 63% of people would than conventional salt.43
support an extension of the SDIL to other sugary
foods such as sweets and biscuits, while a survey by Where businesses do not reformulate, consumers will
the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found face price rises. This was seen with the SDIL: where
majority support for taxes on foods high in fat, salt drinks were not reformulated, businesses passed on an
Recommendation 1
and sugar.41 average of 105–108% of the tax to the consumer (that

is, the price went up by slightly more than the tax).44
Usually, price increases make products less appealing
Appendix 1
Costs and benefits to the consumer – which is, in the case of unhealthy
foods, a good thing. If consumers do not change the
This tax would have two main effects: incentivising foods they purchase, the Sugar and Salt Reformulation
businesses to reformulate their products and Tax could produce average price increases of around
driving up the cost of those products which are not 16p–20p per adult per day.45 These price rises would
reformulated. Costs would therefore be incurred by be driven mostly by the tax on sugar, which would
two main groups: businesses and consumers. lead to price increases of 15–25% in desserts, biscuits,
confectionery and juice. Products with little or no
Businesses would incur costs in administering the added sugar, such as vegetables, fruit, grains, dairy
tax and reformulating their products. Given the and meat, would not become more expensive. Some
scope of the taxes, however, calculating an average examples of price rises are set out in Table 1 below,
cost of reformulation is next to impossible. Some while full details of our analysis of price rises are set
larger manufacturers may achieve economies of out in the accompanying economic analysis.46
scale. Some products are easier to reformulate than
others. Sugar reduction is easier in liquid and semi- Since part of the purpose of the taxes is to change
liquid products such as yoghurt than in biscuits or the way people shop, however, the actual price rise
confectionery, while salt reduction is likely to be more experienced by people would be smaller. Consumer
challenging in products such as cured meats and responses to price increases differ depending on
cheeses, where it is used as a preservative as well as several factors, including the strength of individual
for flavour.42 Nonetheless, there is considerable room tastes and how easy it is to substitute one product for
for improvement in this area. The tax will incentivise a cheaper alternative.47 More details on our methods
further innovation and reformulation, such as the use of assessing price increases can be found in our
economic analysis.48
Table 1
Examples of predicted price rises for non-reformulated, reformulated and other
products
Price Price Cost of Price
Sugar Salt Current Current
rise from rise from a pack per 100g %
Product content per content cost of price per
sugar (per salt (per after after increase
pack per pack a pack 100g
pack) pack) tax tax
Cadbury
25g 0.11g 7.5p £0 £0.60 £0.68 £1.34 £1.51 13%
Dairy Milk 49
Cadbury
Dairy Milk
13g 0.06g 4p £0 £0.60 £0.64 £1.72 £1.83 6%
30% less
sugar 35g50
Salt and
Vinegar £0 (not free
3.6g 4.6g 3p £2.50 £2.53 £1.25 £1.26 1%
Pringles sugars)
200g51
Tesco Salt
and Vinegar £0 (not free
0.2g 0.4g 1p £0.77 £0.78 £0.51 £0.52 2%
Crisps sugars)
(6x25g)52
Apples (min. £0 (not free
78.5g 0g 0 £1.60 £1.60 £0.27 £0.27 0%
5 pack)53 sugars)54
195
Since people on lower incomes are likely to have or salt are not affected by the taxes. This is similar to
diets higher in sugar than richer people, the tax could the Soft Drinks Industry Levy, which only applies to
be seen as regressive: it could have a larger impact manufacturers which produce over 1 million litres of
on the poor than on the rich. However, the health soft drinks per year.57 We have not estimated these
benefits it could deliver would be progressive, since costs in our modelling.
poorer people are more likely to be overweight and
suffer from diet-related diseases. Precisely because Further monitoring of the impact of the tax will be
people with lower incomes are more sensitive to price required, but these mechanisms largely exist and
changes, they are likely to make bigger changes to we do not expect significant increases in costs from
their diets to avoid the taxes. Such an effect has been these elements. For example, biannual sodium surveys,
seen in evaluations of the Mexican tax, which has National Diet and Nutrition Surveys (NDNS) and
delivered greater health benefits to people with lower ongoing analysis of Kantar data will all be required
incomes.55 to make sure the taxes are achieving their intended
effect. These are already carried out by Public Health
However, we are concerned about one possible England.
unintended consequence. If hard-pressed families
find the cost of their food shop going up, they may It is likely that the benefits of the tax will arise from
actually cut back on healthy food – which, as we have a combination of the reformulation of products and
seen, is more expensive per calorie than unhealthy from changes in people’s buying habits in response
food (especially when you factor in the opportunity to price increase. We estimate that, combined, these
cost and difficulty of cooking from scratch). could lead to a reduction in sugar consumption of n
4–10g per person per day and in salt consumption
We have therefore put in place a series of measures of 0.2–0.6g per person per day. Given we are not
to ensure that low-income households get financial quite certain how much reformulation or change in
support, prioritising healthier foods. The details of consumer behaviour there will be, or how these two
these measures are set out under Objective 2. They factors might interact, we have estimated the impacts
include expanding free school meals and making the as ranges. These span scenarios where customers and
Holiday Activities and Food programme permanent businesses are relatively unresponsive to the taxes,
(to support children during term time and during the to those where they are very responsive. Full details
holidays); an expansion of the Healthy Start scheme of these estimates can be found in our economic
(to support diets at home); and trialling a “Community analysis.58
Eatwell” programme that enables GPs to prescribe
fruit and vegetables to less affluent families suffering, The estimated reduction in sugar consumption would
or at risk of suffering, from diet-related illness. We bring us between 16% and 83% closer to the target
estimate the total annual cost of these to be £1.1bn, level of 30g per person per day, and amount to a
which would be paid for by the tax. cut of between 1kg and 3.6kg of sugar annually.59 It
would reduce the average calories eaten per person
The main financial impact on the Government will per day by 15-38kcal.60 According to the UK’s expert
be positive. Excluding the enormous long-term gains group on calorie reduction, this could completely halt
from improving public health, we estimate the tax weight gain at a population level (which would require
could generate between £2.9bn–£3.4bn per year an average reduction of 24kcal per person per day).61
for the Treasury. This includes £2.3bn–£2.8bn from Modelling by the Department of Health and Social
the sugar tax and £570m–£630m from the salt Care (DHSC) suggests that this calorie reduction
tax.56 There could be significant administrative costs could save 400,000–1,030,000 quality-adjusted life
to the Government in implementing and collecting years (QALYs) over 25 years. Additional modelling
the tax, especially if the exemption of retail sales for the National Food Strategy by the London
is implemented through the provision of rebates to School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)
retailers. (This could require additional resourcing from estimates that the number of QALYs saved over 25
HMRC due to the number of retailers selling sugar years could be even greater, at 900,000–2,300,000
and salt in the UK, and also impose administrative (worth approximately £1.5bn–3.7bn).62 Based on the
requirements on these businesses.) There would DHSC modelling, the UK’s economic output could be
be further monitoring costs from ensuring imports between £2.2bn and £5.7bn greater, thanks to a larger
of products containing added sugar and salt were and healthier workforce. The NHS could save £1.6bn–
subject to the tax too. To ease these costs, the £4.1bn and the social care system £1.9bn–£4.8bn.
Government may want to consider a “de minimis” Combining all of these benefits, the total gain to the
threshold, meaning that businesses which use small UK could be as much as £63bn over 25 years.63
amounts of sugar, ingredients used for sweetening
196
Similarly, the reduction in salt consumption would
bring us between 8% and 25% closer to the target
level (6g per person per day). According to modelling
by LSHTM for the National Food Strategy, this could
save 537,000–1,400,000 QALYs over 25 years and
Recommendation 1
increase the UK’s average life expectancy by 0.6–1.8

months per person. The economic value of this could
be £22.7bn–£59.3bn across the UK.
Appendix 1
The above modelling indicates that of the estimated

1.5 million years of healthy life which are lost to
diet-related illness, disease and premature death the
Sugar and Salt Tax could save 37,000-97,000 of those
years.64
These are all conservative estimates: more detail on

why this is the case can be found in our economic
analysis.65 By way of example, we have not assessed
the positive impact of reductions in portion sizes.
Since the UK groceries market is competitive
and price-sensitive, manufacturers sometimes
choose to shrink the size of portions when the
cost of ingredients goes up.66 If they chose to do
so in response to the taxes, it could lead to lower
consumption, because consumers are not generally
attentive to changes in the size of portions.67 One
estimate has suggested that eliminating larger
portions from the diet could reduce the calories
consumed by the average British adult by 12–16%.68
The extent to which this happens will be determined
by a range of factors – for example, how producers of
similar products respond. But it seems likely that the
beneficial impacts of the tax could be even greater
than our conservative estimates.
197
Endnotes
1
The current upper SDIL rates is 24p per litre if the drink has over 8g Stroke: Antillon, D. and Towfighi, A. (2011). No time to “weight”: the
of sugar per 100ml. This is around 0.3p per g of sugar. link between obesity and stroke in women. Women’s Health 7(4),
453–463. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21790338/;
2
Food Standards Agency. (2009). Impact assessment of the revised
salt reduction targets. HMG. Available at: https://www.legislation. Tooth decay: Tedstone, A. et al. (2015). Sugar reduction: the evidence
gov.uk/ukia/2009/86/pdfs/ukia_20090086_en.pdf for action. Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.
3
Public Health England. (2020). NDNS: results from years 9 to 11 attachment_data/file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_ac-
(2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019). HMG. Available at: https://www. tion.pdf;
gov.uk/Government/statistics/ndns-results-from-years-9-to-11-2016-
to-2017-and-2018-to-2019 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. (2006). Tooth
decay: Overview. InformedHealth.org. Available at: https://www.ncbi.
4
Public Health England. (2020). NDNS: results from years 9 to 11 nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279514/;
(2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
Government/statistics/ndns-results-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to- Hospital admissions in 6–10 year olds: Public Health England.
2017-and-2018-to-2019 (2019). Child oral health: applying All Our Health. Public Health
England. Available at: https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/
5
Tedstone, A. et al. (2015) Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. full/10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.19782
Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ 10
Strazzullo, P. et al. (2009). Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular
file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf disease: meta-analysis of prospective studies. British Medical Journal
339. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4567
6
Average consumption: Niblett, P. et al. (2020) Salt targets 2017:
second progress report. Public Health England. Available at: https:// 11
Hyseni, L. et al. (2017). Systematic review of dietary salt reduction
www.gov.uk/Government/publications/salt-targets-2017-second- policies: Evidence for an effectiveness hierarchy? PLOS ONE 12(5).
progress-report; Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0177535
Recommended: Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2003).
Salt and health. The Stationery Office. Available at: https://assets. 12
Sport England. (2020). Overweight adults. HMG. Available at:
publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/at- https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/di-
tachment_data/file/338782/SACN_Salt_and_Health_report.pdf et-and-exercise/overweight-adults/latest;
7
DALYs measure the total years lost to early death, ill-health and dis- Leung, G. and Stanner, S. (2011). Diets of minority ethnic groups in the
ability, thus combining mortality and morbidity. Calculation of DALYs: UK: influence on chronic disease risk and implications for prevention.
Tedstone, A. et al. (2015) Sugar reduction: the evidence for action. Nutrition Bulletin 36(2), 161–198. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.
Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service. wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2011.01889.x
file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf;
13
NFS Analysis of Public Health England. (2020). NDNS years 7-8.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/collections/nation-
Poor health: Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. (2019). al-diet-and-nutrition-survey
Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. GBD Compare Available at:
https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/;
14
NFS Analysis of PHE Public Health Outcomes Framework: Public
Health England. (2013). Public Health Outcomes Framework. HMG.
Salt and disease: Strazzullo, P. et al. (2009). Salt intake, stroke, and Available at: https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/public-health-out-
cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of prospective studies. British comes-framework
Medical Journal, 339. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/con-
tent/339/bmj.b4567
15
The heavy burden of obesity: The economics of prevention. OECD
8
DALYs from being overweight or obese: Global Burden of Disease Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/health/the-heavy-
Collaborative Network. (2019). Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. burden-of-obesity-67450d67-en.htm
GBD Compare Available at: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-com-
pare/
16
Department of Health and Social Care. (2015). 2010 to 2015 Gov-
ernment policy: cancer research and treatment. HMG. Available at:
9
Health issues: Changulani, M. et al. (2008). The relationship https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/2010-to-2015-Gov-
between obesity and the age at which hip and knee replacement ernment-policy-cancer-research-and-treatment
is undertaken. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 90-B(3),
360–363. Available at: https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/
17
Janssen, F. et al. (2020). Obesity prevalence in the long-term future
full/10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.19782; in 18 European countries and in the USA. Obesity Facts 13(5), 514–
527. Available at: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/511023
Whitty, C. (2021) Obesity. Gresham College lecture. Available at:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/content.gresham.ac.uk/data/
18
Tigbe, W. W. et al. (2013). A patient-centred approach to estimate
binary/3513/2021-03-24-1800_WHITTY_Obesity-P.pdf; total annual healthcare cost by body mass index in the UK Counter-
weight programme. International Journal of Obesity 37(8), 135–139.
Cardiovascular disease: Carbone, S. et al. (2019). Obesity paradox in Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23164699/
cardiovascular disease: where do we stand? Vascular Health and Risk
Management 15, 89–100. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
19
Hex, N. et al. (2012). Estimating the current and future costs of
gov/31118651/; Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs
and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabetes Medicine 29(7),
855-862. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22537247/;
Hofmarcher, T. et al. (2020). The cost of cancer in Europe 2018. Euro-
pean Journal of Cancer 129, 41-49. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/32120274/
198
20
Theis, D. R. Z. and White, M. (2021). Is obesity policy in England Need for sugar reduction. Tedstone, A. et al. (2017). Sugar Reduction:
fit for purpose? Analysis of Government strategies and policies, Achieving the 20%. Public Health England. Available at: https://
1992–2020. The Milbank Quarterly 99, 126–170. Available at: https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.12498 uploads/attachment_data/file/604336/Sugar_reduction_achiev-
ing_the_20_.pdf
21
Adams, J. et al. (2016). Why are some population interventions for
diet and obesity more equitable and effective than others? The role 30
Sugar: AB Sugar. (2021). The UK sugar sector. AB Sugar. Available
Recommendation 1
of individual agency. PLOS Medicine 13(4). Available at: https://jour- at: https://www.absugar.com/sugar-markets/uk-sugar-sector;
nals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001990
Salt: Murray, C. et al. (2002). Cardiovascular death and Disability can
Appendix 1
22
Theis, D. R. Z. and White, M. (2021). Is obesity policy in England be reduced by more than 50 percent. World Health Organization.
fit for purpose? Analysis of Government strategies and policies, Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/17-10-2002-cardiovas-
1992–2020. The Milbank Quarterly 99, 126–170. Available at: https:// cular-death-and-disability-can-be-reduced-more-than-50-percent
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0009.12498
31
D’Angelo, C. et al. (2000). Food consumption in the UK: Trends,
23
He, F. J. (2013). Salt reduction in the United Kingdom: a successful attitudes and drivers. RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.
experiment in public health. Journal of Human Hypertension 28(6), rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4379.html
345–352. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24172290/
32
Hungary: World Health Organization. (2015). Good Practice Brief
24
Half targets met in 2017: Tedstone, A. et al. (2018). Salt targets – Public Health Product Tax in Hungary. WHO. Available at: http://
2017: Progress report. Public Health England. Available at: https:// www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/287095/Good-prac-
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/up- tice-brief-public-health-product-tax-in-hungary.pdf
loads/attachment_data/file/765571/Salt_targets_2017_progress_re-
port.pdf;
33
Mexico: Colchero, M. A. et al. (2016) Beverage purchases from
stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened bever-
No further intervention: Laverty, A. A. et al. (2019). Quantifying ages: observational study. British Medical Journal 352. Available at:
the impact of the Public Health Responsibility Deal on salt intake, https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.h6704;
cardiovascular disease and gastric cancer burdens: interrupted
time series and microsimulation study. Journal of Epidemiology and Barbados: Alvarado, M. et al. (2019). Assessing the impact of the
Community Health 73(9), 881–887. Available at: https://jech.bmj. Barbados sugar-sweetened beverage tax on beverage sales: an
com/content/73/9/881 observational study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity 16(1). Available at: https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.
25
Coyle, N. et al. (2020) Sugar reduction: progress report, 2015 com/articles/10.1186/s12966-019-0776-7;
to 2019. Public Health England. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
Government/publications/sugar-reduction-report-on-progress-be- South Africa: Stacey, N. et al. (2021). Changes in beverage purchases
tween-2015-and-2019 following the announcement and implementation of South Africa’s
Health Promotion Levy: an observational study. The Lancet Planetary
26
Impact of SDIL: Scarborough, P. et al. (2020). Impact of the Health 5(4), 200–208. Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/
announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30304-1/fulltext;
Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available
soft drinks in the UK, 2015–19: A controlled interrupted time series UK: Coyle, N. et al. (2020) Sugar reduction report on progress
analysis. PLOS Medicine 17(2). Available at: https://journals.plos.org/ 2015–2019. Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.
plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025; publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/925027/SugarReportY3.pdf
Impact on children and adolescents: Cobiac, L. et al. (upcoming). Im-
pact of the Soft Drink Industry Levy on health and health inequalities
34
Taillie, L. S. et al. (2017). Do high vs. low purchasers respond differ-
of children and adolescents in England. ently to a nonessential energy-dense food tax? Two-year evaluation
of Mexico’s 8% nonessential food tax. Preventive medicine 105S, S37–
27
Sugar reduction: Pell, D. et al. (2021). Changes in soft drinks S42. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28729195
purchased by British households associated with the UK Soft Drinks
Industry Levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis. British
35
Martos, E. et al. (2015). Assessment of a public health product tax
Medical Journal 372. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/con- final report. World Health Organisation. Available at: https://www.
tent/372/bmj.n254; euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/332882/assessment-im-
pact-PH-tax-report.pdf?ua=1
Overconsumption: Public Health England. (2020). NDNS: results from
years 9 to 11 (2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019). HMG. Available at:

36
Share prices and turnover: Law, C. (2020). An analysis of the stock
https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/ndns-results-from-years- market reaction to the announcements of the UK Soft Drinks Industry
9-to-11-2016-to-2017-and-2018-to-2019 Levy. Economics & Human Biology 38, 100834. Available at: https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X19302096;
28
Pell, D. et al. (2021). Changes in soft drinks purchased by British
households associated with the UK soft drinks industry levy: con- Sales volume: Pell, D. et al. (2021). Changes in soft drinks purchased
trolled interrupted time series analysis. British Medical Journal 372. by British households associated with the UK soft drinks industry
Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n254 levy: controlled interrupted time series analysis. British Medical Jour-
nal 372. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n254
29
Salt in processed foods: Ni Mhurchu, C. et al. (2010). Sodium con-
tent of processed foods in the United Kingdom: analysis of 44,000
37
Guerrero-López, C. M. et al. (2017). Employment changes associat-
foods purchased by 21,000 households. American Journal of Clinical ed with the introduction of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and
Nutrition 93(3), 594–600. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. nonessential energy-dense food in Mexico. Preventive Medicine 105,
gov/21191142/; S43–S49. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28890354/
Need for salt reduction: Nicholas, J. et al. (2020). Salt reduction tar-
38
Initial support: Pell, D. et al. (2019). Support for, and perceived
gets for 2024. Public Health England. Available at: https://www.gov. effectiveness of, the UK soft drinks industry levy among UK adults:
uk/Government/publications/salt-reduction-targets-for-2024; cross-sectional analysis of the International Food Policy Study. British
Medical Journal 9(3). Available at: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/
bmjopen/9/3/e026698.full.pdf;
199
Support after 2 years: Adams, J. et al. (upcoming). Change in public Nicholas, J. et al. (2020). Salt reduction targets for 2024. Public
acceptability of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy in UK adults from Health England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
before to after implementation: repeat cross-sectional analysis of the gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
international food policy study (2017–2019). file/915406/2024_salt_reduction_targets_070920-FINAL-1.pdf
39
Prior, G. et al. (2011). Exploring food attitudes and behaviours in the 46
Griffith, R. et al. (upcoming). The impact of a tax on added sugar
UK: Findings from the Food and You Survey 2010. HMG. Available at: and salt. Institute of Fiscal Studies and University of Manchester.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/food-
and-you-2010-main-report.pdf
47
Dubois, P. (2020). How well targeted are soda taxes? American
Economic Review 110(11), 3661–3704. Available at: https://www.
40
Demos: Demos. (2020). Major food reformulation should be at the aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20171898
centre of Boris Johnson’s obesity strategy, says new report from
Demos. Demos. Available at: https://demos.co.uk/press-release/
48
major-food-reformulation-should-be-at-the-centre-of-boris-johnsons- and salt. Institute of Fiscal Studies and University of Manchester.
obesity-strategy-says-new-report-from-demos/;
Tesco. (2021). Cadbury Dairy Milk 45G. Tesco. Available at: https://
49
YouGov: YouGov. (2019). Generally speaking, do you approve or dis- www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/275565630

approve of Government putting higher taxes on food and drinks that 50
Tesco. (2021). Cadbury Dairy Milk 30% Less Sugar Chocolate Bar
are high in fat, sugar and salt, as a way of combatting obesity and
35G. Tesco. Available at: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/
health problems? YouGov. Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/
products/302301194
health/survey-results/daily/2019/07/03/2cbe9/1
51
Tesco. (2021). Pringles Salt and Vinegar 200G. Tesco. Available at:
41
Health Foundation. (2020). Public perceptions of health and social
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/296734905
care in light of COVID-19. Ipsos Mori. Available at: https://www.
health.org.uk/publications/reports/public-perceptions-of-health-and- 52
Tesco. (2021). Tesco Salt & Vinegar Crisps 6x25g. Tesco. Available
social-care-in-light-of-covid-19-may-2020; at: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/254926691
Food Farming and Countryside Commission. (upcoming). Shifting the 53
Tesco. (2021). Tesco Braeburn Apple Minimum 5 Pack. Tesco.
food system: Frames to speed policy change. FFCC. Available at: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/prod-
ucts/284475671
42
Reformulation: Buttriss, J. (2013). Food reformulation: The challeng-
es to the food industry. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72(1), 54
Swan, G.E. et al. (2018). A definition of free sugars for the UK. Pub-
61–69. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23228239/; lic Health Nutrition 21(9), 1636–1638. Available at: https://www.cam-
bridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/definition-of-
Sugar: van der Sman, R.G. M. and Renzetti, S. (2019). Understanding
free-sugars-for-the-uk/2A2B3A70999052A15FD157C105B3D745
functionality of sucrose in biscuits for reformulation purposes. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 59(14), 2225–2239. Available 55
Batis, C. et al. (2016). First-year evaluation of Mexico’s tax on non-
at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1442315; essential energy-dense foods: an observational study. PLOS Medicine
13(7). Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27379797/
Salt: Taormina, P. J. (2010). Implications of salt and sodium reduction
on microbial food safety. Critical Reviews in Food Science and 56
NFS Analysis. Based on population of England in: Office for Nation-
Nutrition 50(3), 209–227. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. al Statistics. (2020) Population estimates for the UK, England and
gov/20301012/ Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2019. Available at: https://
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmi-
43
Tedstone, A. et al. (2015) Sugar reduction: the evidence for action.
gration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationesti-
mates/mid2019estimates;
file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf; Kilocalorie requirements, and estimated reduction in sugar consump-
tion following tax based on: Griffith, R. et al. (upcoming). The impact
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, and the Committee on
of a tax on added sugar and salt. Institute of Fiscal Studies and
Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environ-
University of Manchester.
ment. (2017). SACN-COT statement on potassium-based sodium
replacers: assessment of the health benefits and risks of using po- 57
HM Revenue & Customs. (2020). Register for Soft Drinks Industry
tassium-based sodium replacers in foods in the UK. HMG. Available Levy. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/register-for-
at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/ the-soft-drinks-industry-levy
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/660526/SACN_COT_-_Potas-
sium-based_sodium_replacers.pdf; 58
and salt. Institute of Fiscal Studies and University of Manchester.
Nicholas, J. et al. (2020). Salt reduction targets for 2024. Public
Health England. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/publi- 59
The wide range is because free sugar consumption differs accord-
cations/salt-reduction-targets-for-2024 ing to gender and age. For example, adults aged 19–64yrs consume
an average of 50g/day; teenagers aged 11–18yrs an average of 55g/
O’Connell, M. and Smith, K. (2020) Corrective tax design and
44
day and adults aged 65+yrs 42g/day. Public Health England. (2020).
market power. CEPR. Available at: https://martinoconnell85.github.io/ NDNS: results from years 9 to 11 (2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019).
Mywebsite/CorrectiveTaxDesignandMarketPower.pdf HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/ndns-
results-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to-2017-and-2018-to-2019
45
Calculated based on the average household being 2.4 people:
Office for National Statistics. (2021). Families and households in the 60
Calories calculated by multiplying the sugar reduction by 3.75.
UK: 2020. HMG. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopu- This is on the basis that there are 3.75 calories in 1 gram of sugar.
lationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/ Source: Public Health England. (2021). McCance and Widdowson’s
familiesandhouseholds/2020; The Composition of Food Integrated Dataset 2021. HMG. Available
Tedstone, A. et al. (2017). Sugar Reduction: Achieving the 20%.
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971021/McCance_and_Wid-
dowsons_Composition_of_Foods_integrated_dataset_2021.pdf
file/604336/Sugar_reduction_achieving_the_20_.pdf;
200
61
Department of Health and Social Care. (2011). Statement of the
Calorie Reduction Expert Group. HMG. Available at: https://www.
gov.uk/Government/publications/statement-of-the-calorie-reduc-
tion-expert-group
62
The difference between the estimates are mainly because DHSC
use a smaller population than the LSHTM model and the LSHTM
Recommendation 1
model considers the impact of sugars through putting on weight,

but also through other mechanisms, e.g. sugar reducing the level of
High Density Lipoprotein “good” cholesterol which increases the risk
Appendix 1
of heart attack. The DHSC model only looks at the impact of sugar
through reduction in BMI.
63
This model carries significant uncertainty and does not include all
obesity-related conditions, e.g. stroke, so benefits are anticipated to
be an underestimate. Full model details: Department of Health and
Social Care. (2018). Technical consultation document: Department
of Health and Social Care (DHSC) calorie model. HMG. Available at:
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/736417/dhsc-calorie-model-tech-
nical-document.pdf
64
Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. (2019). Global
Burden of Disease Study 2019. GHDx. Available at: http://ghdx.
healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool
65
and salt. Institute of Fiscal Studies and University of Manchester.
66
Chocolate bars: Office for National Statistics. (2017). Shrinkflation
and the price of chocolate. HMG. Available at: https://www.ons.
gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/articles/shrinkflation-
andthechangingcostofchocolate/2017-07-24;
SDIL: Wood, Z. (2018). Coca-cola to sell smaller bottles at higher

prices in response to sugar tax. The Guardian. Available at: https://
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/05/coca-cola-to-sell-small-
er-bottles-at-higher-prices-in-response-to-sugar-tax;
Size of soft drinks: Scarborough, P. et al. (2020). Impact of the

announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry
Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available
soft drinks in the UK, 2015–19: A controlled interrupted time series
analysis. PLOS Medicine 17(2). Available at: https://journals.plos.org/
plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003025
67
Portion size: Rolls, B. J. (2002). Portion size of food affects energy
intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76(6), 1207–1213. Available at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12450884/;
Price changes rather than quality: Gourville, J. T. and Koehler, J. J.

(2004). Downsizing price increases: a greater sensitivity to price than
quantity in consumer markets. SSRN. Available at: https://papers.
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=559482
68
Marteau, T. M. et al. (2015). Downsizing: policy options to reduce
portion sizes to help tackle obesity. British Medical Journal 351. Avail-
able at: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/351/bmj.h5863.full.pdf
201
Recommendation 2. Introduce mandatory reporting
for large food companies.
Recommendation 2
Appendix 2
What is it? data would form part of the FSA’s annual report
All food businesses with over 250 employees should to Parliament on the state of the food system (see
have a legal duty to publish annual data on their sales Recommendation 14).
of various product types as well as food waste. In making this recommendation, we are keen to avoid
This duty would extend to retailers, restaurants and a proliferation in the metrics on which businesses
fast food outlets, contract caterers, wholesalers, are already required to report. Therefore, the FSA
manufacturers and online ordering platforms.1 Food should maximise opportunities for harmonisation with
businesses with a franchising model would be treated other data reporting initiatives, such as the World
as the sum of their franchisees operating under the Benchmarking Alliance.
same brand.
The report should include figures (both value in Rationale
sterling and volume in tonnes) for: Substantial shifts in the nation’s diet are required if we
are to reduce the environmental and health impacts of
• Sales of food and drink high in fat, sugar or salt our consumption, while supporting the high standards
(HFSS) excluding alcohol. of food, farming and animal welfare that the public
• Sales of protein by type (of meat, dairy, fish, plant, expects.
or alternative protein) and origin.2
Disclosure of data – and the public scrutiny that
• Sales of vegetables. comes with it – encourages businesses to take action
to improve their practices. For example, the Carbon
• Sales of fruit. Disclosure Project (which runs a global disclosure
• Sales of major nutrients: fibre, saturated fat, sugar system to help companies manage their environmental
and salt. impact) has found that when companies disclose data
on their carbon emissions for the first time, just 38%
• Food waste. of them have an emission reduction target in place. By
the third year they disclose, however, this increases to
• Total food and drink sales.
69%.3 Transparency by itself incentivises companies to
The metrics should be reviewed every five years. The improve.4
legislative basis for mandatory reporting should be
a Good Food Bill, which we recommend should be Reporting data makes it easier for investors to know
introduced in the fourth session of this Parliament what is going on in the companies they own, and to
(2023/2024) (see Recommendation 14). pressure management for change. The ShareAction
Workforce Disclosure Initiative led to 140 of the

The metrics should be captured as a percentage of world’s largest companies agreeing to publish data
the volume of all of food and soft drink sales, to allow on their workforces.5 This enabled 70 investors in
like-for-like comparison, year on year. This will also Amazon to make their views known in relation to an
allow for shifts in market share over time, so that any attempt to form a trade union in Alabama.6
company which grows significantly over the reporting
period is not punished for its success. Experience shows that reporting has more of an
impact when Governments make it a legal requirement
The data should be reported through an online with precise specifications. For example, the
portal and made publicly available at the company introduction of mandatory reporting on the gender
level, rather than at an aggregate sector level. The pay gap, and a standard method to assess it, has
Food Standards Agency (FSA) should develop the helped to narrow that gap.7 But the scheme needs to
portal and provide guidance required by companies be well designed: even where reporting is mandatory,
to standardise reporting, so there is a common as in the case of modern slavery, it can have a limited
set of definitions and data standards in place. The impact if enforcement is weak and there is a lack of
202
transparency and accountability.8 The design of this goes up, as shown by the vegetable advertising
recommendation is based on lessons learned from campaign “Eat Them to Defeat Them”.13 If
previous similar efforts, including these two examples. businesses have stronger incentives to increase
consumption of healthy products, they are likely
The ultimate aim of the proposal is to change sales to spend more on promoting them.
and consumption patterns for the foods for which
reporting is required. This is important because We have not assessed the cost to businesses for
these foods account for the main discrepancies this recommendation. We do not expect significant
between what the Government recommends people costs, as most businesses already track their sales
eat and what they actually do. Two-thirds of the and report Electronic Point of Sales (EPOS) data to the
population eat less than the minimum recommended Office for National Statistics.14
level of fruit and vegetables and a third eat more
than the maximum recommended level of red and
processed meat. Across the population, we would
need to increase our fibre intake by 50% and cut
our consumption of sugar, salt and saturated fat by
12–40% to meet the recommended levels.9 These
discrepancies have a number of serious consequences
for our health and the environment, which are outlined
under other recommendations.
We recommend exempting smaller food businesses

(those with fewer than 250 staff) for three reasons:
larger businesses make up the vast majority of the
overall sector, the administrative burden for smaller
businesses would be too onerous, and enforcement
would be too difficult.
Costs and benefits

Reporting requirements will make it possible to
identify where businesses are making progress in
helping their customers to shift to healthier and more
sustainable diets, and where they are not. It will
encourage action by businesses to improve the figures
they report. This action is likely to take three forms:
1. Increasing the availability of healthier products,
which are currently lacking across a number of
product categories. For example, only 0–9% of
pasta, ready meals and sandwiches on sale are
high in fibre.10 Businesses wanting to improve
their figures may invest in new products that are
healthier and more sustainable.
2. Reformulating existing products, to reduce
sales of less healthy foods and drive up sales of
healthier ones. Some retailers are already taking
steps in this direction: for example, Tesco’s Beef
Mince With Vegetables contains around a third
less beef than normal mince and more fibre and
vegetables.11 Reporting requirements will create
incentives for further such progress.
3. Improving the marketing of healthy products.
Currently less than 2% of food and drink
advertising spend goes on vegetables.12 We know
that when they are advertised, consumption
203
Endnotes
1
“‘Food business’ means any undertaking, whether for profit or not
Recommendation 2
and whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities relat-
ed to any stage of production, processing and distribution of food”
– see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2002/178/article/3
Appendix 2
2
For all protein this should include country of origin. For pork,
poultry, dairy, eggs and fish, it should additionally include welfare or
method of production accreditations (e.g. Red Tractor, Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Freedom Food, organic, pas-
ture-fed, Better Chicken Commitment, Marine Stewardship Council).
3
Gleed, J. (2018). COP24: Time to ramp up the Paris Agreement. CPD.
Available at: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/Governments/cop24-
time-to-ramp-up-the-paris-agreement
4
Food Foundation. (2020). Plating up progress 2020. Food Foun-
dation. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/Plating-up-Progress-2020.pdf
5
Share Action. (2020). Workforce disclosure initiative. Share Action.
Available at: https://shareaction.org/workforce-disclosure-initiative/
why-disclose-to-the-wdi/workforce-disclosure-initiative-2020-find-
ings/
6
Canales, K. (2021). Amazon’s own investors are reportedly telling
the company to stop pressuring warehouse workers who have begun
to vote on forming the firm’s first union. Insider. Available at: https://
www.businessinsider.com/amazon-investors-tell-company-stop-in-
terfere-union-vote-2021-2?r=US&IR=T
7
Blundell, J. (2021). Wage responses to gender pay gap reporting
requirements. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Papers
1750. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Econom-
ics. Available at: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1750.pdf
8
Field, F. et al. (2019). Independent review of the Modern Slavery
Act 2015: Final Report. Home Office. Available at: https://assets.
attachment_data/file/803554/Independent_review_of_the_Mod-
ern_Slavery_Act_-_final_report__print_.pdf
9
Failing to meet dietary recommendations, NFS analysis of: Public
Health England. (2020). NDNS: results from years 9 to 11 (2016 to
2017). HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statis-
tics/ndns-results-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to-2017-and-2018-to-2019
10
Data kindly provided by FoodDB. FoodDB is a University of Oxford
research project funded by the NIHR Biomedical Centre in Oxford.
11
Tesco. (2021). Tesco 5% beef mince with vegetables, 750g. Tesco.
Available at: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/prod-
ucts/303174883
12
Food Foundation. (2016). Veg facts: a briefing by the Food Founda-
tion. Food Foundation. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FF-Veg-Doc-V5.pdf
13
Veg Power and ITV. (2021). “Eat them to defeat them” campaign
evaluation. Veg Power. Available at: https://www.gsttcharity.
org.uk/what-we-do/our-projects/%E2%80%98eat-them-defeat-
them%E2%80%99-campaign-evaluation
14
Office for National Statistics. (2017). Consumer price indices, a brief
guide: 2017. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/
inflationandpriceindices/articles/consumerpriceindicesabrief-
guide/2017
204
Recommendation 3. Launch a new “Eat and Learn”
initiative for schools.
Recommendation 3
Appendix 3
What is it? c. Review other qualifications: the DfE should

conduct a qualification review to ensure that
The Department for Education (DfE) should launch existing and new qualifications such as T Levels
a new “Eat and Learn” initiative for all children 3–18 in Science and Catering provide an adequate
yrs, in partnership with the new Office of Health focus on food and nutrition, and a progression
Promotion. This would make learning to eat well part route for students after GCSEs. This is particularly
of every child’s school experience. It would involve the important in light of the post EU Exit skills
following elements: shortage in hospitality.
1. Curriculum changes Accreditation
2. Accreditation Schools should be encouraged to adopt a “whole-
3. Inspection school approach” to food. This means integrating food
into the life of the school: the dining hall should be
4. Funding treated as the hub of the school, where children and
teachers eat together; lunch treated as part of the
5. Recruitment and training school day; the cooks as important staff members;
and food as part of a rounded education.2 The
Curriculum changes Government should require all schools to work with
accreditation schemes - such as Food for Life - to
Although schools have had a legal obligation to teach improve school food and education using this whole
since 2014, food education remains a second-class school approach.
subject. To ensure that food is taken seriously there
These accreditation bodies would provide training
needs to be change at all levels of the education
and support for leaders and staff. There are various
system, from teaching staff to Government.
organisations that provide, or are in the process of
a. Sensory education for early years: the DfE developing, suitable online training. For example,
should update the Early Years Foundation Stage schools could use the online professional standards
framework (the curriculum standards that apply and training that the Local Authority Caterers’
to children in nursery and reception classes) to Association have developed.
include sensory food education. This teaching
As an absolute minimum, to achieve bronze
method – in which children are introduced to
certification, schools should be required to: account
new foods and encouraged to explore them with
for how school food funds had been adequately spent;
all five senses – has been shown to increase
fully comply with the School Food Standards (for

children’s willingness to try fruit and vegetables.1
nutrition) and Government Buying Standards for Food
b. Reinstate the food A-level: This would ensure that (for procurement); demonstrate that the food and
beyond 16 there is a proper qualification available nutrition curriculum was being met; and ensure their
for students wishing to continue studying food catering staff (whether employed directly or through
and nutrition after their GCSEs, whether that is contractors) are adequately trained to deliver quality
purely because of interest in the subject or in meals.
preparation for careers in hospitality and other
food related professions. The A-Level should Inspection
first undergo a substantial redesign, conducted Ofsted should assess the quality of food and nutrition
in consultation with food education experts lessons with the same rigour as they do English or
and specialists. The new A-level should include Maths lessons. When Ofsted inspects a school, it
learning about the food system and where our conducts deep dives of a sample of the subjects
food comes from, and how the food we eat taught. This involves meeting curriculum and subject
affects the environment and our health. leaders to understand the way that the curriculum
has been designed, its strengths and weaknesses,
205
and check how core topics are being covered. The recruit and attract more specialists to tackle the
only subject that is always inspected in this way is shortage, by improving the information available on
reading (in primary schools). Ofsted should ensure that how to become a food teacher and by reinstating the
inspectors conduct deep dives in food and nutrition food teacher training bursary.3
classes as often as they do for other subjects, to
ensure that all schools are taking the subject as Implementation
seriously as they should.
The implementation of all of these changes should be
Ofsted should also publish a regular food and placed under a dedicated Eat and Learn team in DfE.
nutrition “research review”. Starting in April 2021 The DfE should update the School Food Standards.
Ofsted uses research to establish an evidence-based These standards need to align with the Reference Diet
understanding of the quality of a school subject. when this becomes available (see Recommendation
These reviews are based on existing literature and 14), so that school menus are both healthy and
present research relevant to the specific curriculum. sustainable. In line with the Reference Diet, the
Reviewing food and nutrition will improve both the requirement to serve meat three times a week should
status and the quality of the subject. be removed from the School Food Standards. In
the meantime, the DfE should also ensure that the
Ofsted should ensure that mandatory certification
Standards reflect the most recent scientific advice
under the accreditation scheme has been successfully
from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition
executed, and should consider the certification award
(SACN) on sugar and fibre consumption in children.4
level in their overall school rating.
To support school leaders an interactive website
Funding for the initiative should be created by the DfE and
the Office for Health Promotion. It should signpost
We recommend that the Government should pay for
schools and early years providers to the best
the ingredients that children use in cooking lessons
materials available, and to expert organisations who
(as they do for schoolbooks), in early years settings as
can support the goals of the initiative. It should also
well as in schools. The current system leads to waste –
create a space for exchanging best practice between
it is hard for parents to buy ingredients in one-portion
schools. The initiative should be widely marketed
quantities – and to stigma for children whose parents
and create opportunities for engaging parents in its
struggle to afford them. Teachers must be given the
goals and securing endorsements and support from
time, equipment and support to be able to order,
celebrities and public figures.
prepare and store these ingredients, including funding
support staff where necessary.
We recommend that the Government doubles the Rationale

funding for the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme,
Children’s diets are not good enough. Childhood
from £40.4m to £80.8m. But it should give the money
obesity rates more than double during primary school.5
directly to schools rather than administering the
On average, children of primary and secondary school
scheme centrally.
age eat less than half of the recommended five
There should be an entitlement to at least one portion portions of fruit and vegetables a day, and no age
of local fruit or vegetables a day for every infant group or income quintile meets the recommendation.6
school pupil. Schools and their caterers should be The shortfall is worst in teenagers.7 This is not only
encouraged to use the dynamic procurement scheme a problem in childhood but also leads to long-term
(see Recommendation 13) to purchase fruit and issues: a childhood diet low in fruits and vegetables
vegetables from local suppliers once this system is is linked to increased cardiovascular risk in adults.8
rolled out nationally. The Government should provide Good nutrition and maintaining a healthy weight in
comprehensive guidance and training on how they can childhood help prevent obesity and diet-related ill
do so. health later in life.9
The school closures that have punctuated the

Recruitment and training
pandemic have worsened the situation. Evidence
Primary school teachers should be given the training suggests that children’s diets have deteriorated during
and guidance they need to be able to deliver the the pandemic: 35% of secondary school pupils report
curriculum. At secondary level, an essential step is consuming more cakes and biscuits, 41% more crisps
tackling the shortage of food teachers. The DfE should and 28% more sugary drinks.10 The effect is likely to
monitor the number of food teachers and actively be similar to that seen during summer holidays, with
206
children having more access to unhealthy foods and funding and the availability of good food teachers.19
behaviours (such as excessive screen time). Children
in food-insecure families may also have lost out on Without an A-level to go on to, the number of children
the hot, nutritious meal they would have expected at taking the food GCSE has also declined. This is
school. particularly concerning as recent statistics show that
a third of the UK food and drink industry workforce
Recommendation 3
Under normal circumstances, schools and early is due to retire by 2024, leaving the industry facing a
years settings offer a prime opportunity to improve shortage of about 140,000 recruits.20 These are not
Appendix 3
children’s diets. School-aged children eat a substantial jobs that can be filled by unskilled school leavers: one-
proportion of their meals in school during term time, third of jobs within the food industry require a degree
and for some a free school lunch is their main meal of or postgraduate degree/PhD.
the day.11 They also have to study food: the curriculum
states that schools should attempt to “instil a love As well as the quality of food education, we also need
of cooking in pupils”, and teach them the skills they to see further improvements in the quality of food
need “to feed themselves and others affordably and provision in schools. As we discuss in Recommendation
well, now and in later life”.12 By 14, all pupils should 13, this is vital in order to increase their uptake. Only
be able to “understand the source, seasonality and 39% of primary school children who do not receive
characteristics of a broad range of ingredients” and free school meals choose to eat them, often because
“cook a repertoire of predominantly savoury dishes”. they are unappealing.21 This is regrettable, because
school meals are almost always healthier and more
The Government has not been using this opportunity nutritious than the alternatives.22 And they can – if
as well as it might. It intervenes inconsistently to well-cooked and appetising – help to broaden palates
promote good nutrition. There is a particular lack of and develop good eating habits by introducing
focus on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption children to new tastes and healthier foods.
among very young children and also among
teenagers, when consumption is lowest.13 Sensory One reason why some school lunches aren’t as good
food education, which has been shown to increase as they should be is staffing. A skilled and well-trained
children’s willingness to try new fruit and vegetables, chef will make high-quality, healthy, sustainable food
is not yet widespread.14 that children will eat, and will know how to do this on
a budget. In practice, however, school catering staff
Food education more broadly is inadequate. With
are often undervalued and untrained, both within
the publication of the School Food Plan in 2014,
schools and in the catering profession.23 Formal
food education was incorporated into the school
training for school catering staff is not consistent and
curriculum.15 But its implementation has been weak.
there is an emphasis on food hygiene and safety, and
There is no national champion for food education, no
not on cooking skills.24 Investing more in training is
team responsible in DfE or Ofsted, no monitoring at
vital to improve the quality of meals.
a national level, and no subject reviews or research
as there are in other subjects. As a result, many Finally, expanding and improving the School Fruit and
schools are simply not meeting the requirements Vegetable Scheme (SFVS) will also play an important
of the curriculum. A 2018 survey of primary schools role in increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables
conducted by Ofsted found that while 89% had by children. The existing scheme has already shown
timetabled some curriculum time for lessons on food clear benefits. Government evaluations of the SFVS
and healthy eating, only 26% offered cooking activities, in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 concluded that the
21% grew food and 24% had whole-school assemblies SFVS increased consumption, encouraged children
about healthy living.16 Many secondary schools report to try new fruit and vegetables that they might not
that gaps in funding for materials, support staff and a have tried otherwise, and increased knowledge
lack of specialist teaching staff prevent them meeting about healthy eating, particularly among children
the requirements of the curriculum.17 from deprived areas.25 Giving schools the autonomy
This problem has been exacerbated by the withdrawal to choose local products and deliver the initiative in
of the food A-level. Food is currently the only national a way that is best suited to local requirements will
curriculum subject without an A Level. This means that improve the quality of delivery.
children with an interest in food cannot pursue it at
school beyond 16. Students who might have continued
into higher education and careers in the food sector
Costs and benefits
– including teaching food in schools – have lost a vital The annual cost to Government to deliver this
route to training.18 The absence of an A-level in the recommendation is £206m, of which £124m is for food
subject has inevitably led to a reduction in status, education ingredients. Over the next three years the
207
total is £411m, assuming implementation from autumn
2023.
The DfE and the OHP should bid to secure funding in

the next Spending Review.26
The initiative should be formally evaluated after

the first three years, with a view to continued
investment for at least ten more years. The £40.4m
per year funding for the existing DHSC school fruit
and vegetable scheme should be folded into this
initiative.27
This estimate includes the cost of:

• At least one portion of fruit or vegetables
per child each day (for 190 days) prioritising
local, seasonal produce where possible
(Recommendation 13).
• Food education support materials and
ingredients.
• Monitoring and evaluation of the initiative.
• The Eat and Learn website to support school and
early years providers
We estimate that mandatory training for catering staff

in child nutrition and school food standards will take
four hours, undertaken around usual duties or during
inset days.
We expect the initiative to yield the following benefits:

• Increased uptake rates of school and nursery
meals.
• A reduction in food waste.
• At least 90% of children leaving primary school
having been taught all elements of the Design
and Technology Curriculum on Cooking and
Nutrition.
• At least 90% of children leaving secondary
school able to prepare and cook at least five
healthy savoury dishes using a range of cooking
techniques.
• All staff working in school and nursery kitchens
having received training to deliver high-quality,
nutritious meals.
• More children leaving secondary school with
passes in food GCSE and A-levels.
• More teachers who are qualified to teach food
courses.
208
Endnotes
1
Nekitsing, C. et al. (2018). Developing healthy food preferences in 12
Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England:
Recommendation 3
preschool children through taste exposure, sensory learning, and framework document. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.
nutrition education. Current obesity reports 7, 60-67. Available at: service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13679-018-0297-8 data/file/381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf
Appendix 3
2
Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food Plan. Evidence 13
NFS analysis based on Public Health England (2018). National Diet
pack. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/wp-con- and Nutrition Survey: results from years 7 and 8 (combined). HMG.
tent/uploads/2013/10/School-Food-Plan-Evidence-Pack-July-2013- Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/
Final.pdf uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/699241/NDNS_re-
sults_years_7_and_8.pdf
3
Bursaries are available for subjects including Physics, Chemistry,
Computing, Mathematics, Biology, Classics and Languages: DfE. 14
Sapere Sensory food education. (2018). Sapere, A science based
(2021). Funding your training. DfE. Available at: https://getintoteach- method. Sapere Sensory food education. Available at: https://www.
ing.education.gov.uk/funding-your-training?gclid=CjwKCAjwuIWH- sapere-association.com/sensory-education/research;H oppu, U. et
BhBDEiwACXQYsckfALhWvhiN6TQi3ow7zqJaqWZScj7WDEYJ3EzE- al. (2015). Impact of sensory-based food education in kindergarten
8wOCqf4kNwERMhoCjPoQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds on willingness to eat vegetables and berries. Food and Nutrition Re-
search. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/
4
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. (2015). Carbohydrates fnr.v59.28795;
and Health: Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. TSO.
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/ Mustonen, S. and Tuorila, H. (2010). Sensory education decreases
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445503/SACN_Car- food neophobia score and encourages trying unfamiliar foods in
bohydrates_and_Health.pdf 8–12-year-old children. Food Quality and Preference 21(4), 353-360.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.09.001;
5
We have not included exact percentages for reasons explained in
the annex on child measurement: NHS Digital. (2020). National Child C, Reverdy. et al. (2010). Effect of sensory education on food
Measurement Programme, England 2019/20 School Year. NHS. Avail- preferences in children. Food Quality and Preference 21(7), 794-804.
able at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/sta- Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.008;
tistical/national-child-measurement-programme/2019-20-school-year
Nekitsing, C. et al. (2019). Taste exposure increases intake and nutri-
6
NFS analysis of NDNS Year 9/11, 2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019. tion education increases willingness to try an unfamiliar vegetable in
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/ndns-re- preschool children: a cluster randomized trial. Journal of the Acade-
sults-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to-2017-and-2018-to-2019 my of Nutrition and Dietetics. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jand.2019.05.012;
7
NFS analysis of NDNS Year 9/11, 2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/ndns-re- Coulthard, H. and Sealy, A. (2017). Play with your food! Sensory play
sults-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to-2017-and-2018-to-2019 is associated with tasting of fruits and vegetables in preschool chil-
dren. Appetite 113(1), 84-90. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
8
Craigie, A. M. et al. (2011). Tracking of obesity-related behaviours appet.2017.02.003;
from childhood to adulthood: A systematic review. Maturitas.
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ Mustonen, S. et al. (2009). Effect of sensory education on school chil-
S0378512211002969?via%3Dihub dren’s food perception: a 2-year follow-up study. Food Quality and
Preference 20(3), 230-240. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.
9
Chung, S. T. et al. (2018). Cardiometabolic risk in obese children. An- com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329308001353
nals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1411(1), 166–183. Available
at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931397/; 15
Department for Education. (2014). The national curriculum in
England: framework document. HMG. Available at: https://assets.
Reilly, J. J. and Kelly, J. (2011). Long-term impact of overweight and publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/
obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature attachment_data/file/381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_
mortality in adulthood: Systematic review. International Journal of Nov.pdf
Obesity 35(7), 891–898. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.

gov/20975725/; 16
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
(2018). Obesity, healthy eating and physical activity in primary
Umer, A. et al. (2017). Childhood obesity and adult cardiovascular schools: A thematic review into what actions schools are taking
disease risk factors: A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC to reduce childhood obesity. Ofsted. Available at: https://assets.
Public Health 17(1), 683. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/
gov/28851330/ attachment_data/file/726114/Obesity__healthy_eating_and_physi-
cal_activity_in_primary_schools_170718.pdf
10
British Nutrition Foundation (2020). Many children feel healthier
and are more active since the return to school, research finds. Avail- 17
Data provided by Food Teachers centre.
able at: https://www.nutrition.org.uk/press-office/pressreleases/
hew20.html 18
Davies, L. (n.d.). A Level Food: the gap that remains. A report on the
impact of removing post 16 A-level examinations for Home Economics
11
Estimated 17% of meals per year. Total meals is 3 x 365 = 1095. and Food Technology in schools in England in 2016. Under review by
Children eat 1 meal 190 days a year in school = 190. 190/1095 = the International Journal of D&T. Unpublished.
17.3%; Royston, S., et al. (2012). Fair and Square: a policy report on
the future of free school meals. The Children’s Society. Available at: 19
Ballam, R. and Davies, L. (2020) What’s happened in schools since
https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ecf1e68cdc/content/pag- the removal of ‘food’ A-level? British Nutrition Foundation. Available
es/documents/1429471607.pdf at: https://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/media/9430/a-level-survey-
2020-final-report.pdf;
209
Davies, L. (n.d.). A Level Food: the gap that remains. A report on the 27
The cost of the scheme in 2018/19 was £40,405,075 – figures
impact of removing post 16 A-level examinations for Home Economics provided by the Department of Health and Social Care.
and Food Technology in schools in England in 2016. Under review by
the International Journal of D&T. Unpublished.
20
Natwest. (2020). Food sector faces skills and labour shortage.
Natwest. Available at: https://natwestbusinesshub.com/articles/
food-and-drink-sector-faces-labour-shortage
21
39%: Dewberry Redpoint. (2019). School meal uptake research.
Dewberry Redpoint Ltd. Available at: https://laca.co.uk/sites/de-
fault/files/attachment/news/SMU%20Research%20Report%202019.
pdf;
Unappealing: Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food

Plan. Evidence pack. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.
com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/School-Food-Plan-Evidence-
Pack-July-2013-Final.pdf
22
School meals are healthier than packed lunches: Spence, S., et al.
(2013) The impact of food and nutrient-based standards on primary
school children’s lunch and total dietary intake: a natural experimen-
tal evaluation of Government policy in England. PLoS One. Available
at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.
pone.0078298;
Kitchen, S., et al. (2013). Evaluation of the free school meals pilot.
Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.ser-
file/184047/DFE-RR227.pdf;
School meals help children maintain a healthy body weight: Holford,

A. and Rabe, B. (2020). Impact of the universal infant free school meal
policy. Nuffield Foundation. Available at: https://www.nuffieldfoun-
dation.org/project/impact-of-the-universal-infant-free-school-meal-
policy
23
Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/plan/
24
Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/plan/
25
2004: Teeman, D. et al. (2005). Evaluation of the school fruit and
vegetable pilot scheme: final report. National Foundation for Educa-
tional Research. Available at: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/evaluation-of-
the-school-fruit-and-vegetable-pilot-scheme-final-report/;
2006: Ranslet, J. K. et al. (2007). Does the school fruit and vegetable
scheme improve children’s diet? A non-randomised controlled
trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61(8), 699
–703. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC2652997/;
2008 and 2010: Teeman, D. et al. (2010). The third evaluation of the
school fruit and vegetable scheme. National Foundation for Educa-
tional Research. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.
gov.uk/20130124054158/http:/www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/
groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/
dh_114345.pdf;
Were successful: Hughes, R. J. et al. (2012). Childhood consumption

of fruit and vegetables across England: a study of 2306 6–7-year-
olds in 2007. British Journal of Nutrition 108, 733742. Available
at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/74806CCE2954B1B08DB3DAF95393CAC8/
S0007114511005939a.pdf/div-class-title-childhood-consumption-of-
fruit-and-vegetables-across-england-a-study-of-2306-6-7-year-olds-
in-2007-div.pdf
26
This is a completely new scheme of substantial size. It will involve
lots of pre-work from the DfE to get it right therefore we have not
included a cost for the first year as implementation will not be until
autumn 2023. The cost for the accreditation scheme is included in
the procurement recommendation.
210
Recommendation 4. Extend eligibility for free school
meals.
Recommendation 4
Appendix 4
What is it? The harmful effects of hunger on children’s behaviour

and educational performance are well known from
The Government should: scientific research.5
• Raise the household earnings threshold for free Only 20% of children in the poorest socio-economic
school meals (FSMs) from £7,400 to £20,000. class who would have to pay for school meals do
so.6 The main reason for this is cost (although appeal
• Extend eligibility to children who are and sub-standard school food are also an important
undocumented or have No Recourse to Public factors – which we address in Recommendation 14).7
Funds (NPRF). Most children who do not eat school meals have a
• Enrol eligible children for free school meals packed lunch instead, but this is almost always less
automatically. healthy than even the most uninspiring school meal.
Only 1.6% of packed lunches meet the nutritional
This would increase the number of children benefiting standards required for a school meal.8
from free school meals by 1.1 million, at a cost of
£544 million per year. The Department for Education This contributes to the diets of poorer children being
(DfE) should bid for these funds in the upcoming less healthy than those of their richer schoolmates.
The National Dietary Nutrition Survey (NDNS) reveals
Spending Review.
that children from the least well-off families eat
substantially less fruit and vegetables, oily fish, fibre
Rationale and other healthy foods than children from the most
well-off families.9 Free school meals are the simplest,
The current income threshold for FSMs is too low. least intrusive way to ensure that all children have at
Children aged 7-18yrs only qualify if they belong to a least one well-balanced, healthy and nutritious meal
family with after-tax earnings of £7,400 or less and a day.
receive qualifying benefits.1 This threshold is so low
that it excludes many families that are food insecure. In Part One of this strategy, published last July, we
Nearly half of food insecure families with children do recommended that the Government should extend
not qualify for FSMs because of the earning threshold free school meals to everyone on universal credit, up
(see Figure 1). to the age of 16. We estimated this would cost £670
million. However, since the pandemic began, a further
In addition, children who have No Recourse to Public 230,000 households in the UK have registered for
Funds or are undocumented are ineligible for FSMs qualifying benefits: an increase of 7%.10 This means
however little their family earns (though exceptions that extending eligibility to everyone on Universal
have been made during the COVID-19 pandemic). Credit (including NRPF children and children aged
There are almost 400,000 such children in the UK.2 16–19yrs) would now cost £790 million, at a time
when the public finances are already under extreme
Finally, even eligible children are often missing out.
pressure.
Currently, FSMs are “opt-in”: parents have to know
about the scheme and apply for it. The effect of this is We have therefore tried to target those households
that, according to a 2013 estimate by the DfE, 11% of in most urgent need of free school meals. We found
children entitled to FSMs do not receive them.3 that increasing the income threshold to £20,000,
and making FSMs available to children who are
This has serious consequences for those children. In undocumented or have NRPF, would ensure that
the most extreme cases, they are going hungry. In 82% of households with “very low food security” and
one study by the Unity Project, over half of parents 70% of households with “low food security” would
of children with NRPF reported that on at least one be eligible for FSMs. In total, almost three-quarters
occasion they had been unable to give their child a of food-insecure families with school children would
hot meal all day because they could not afford it.4 receive FSMs.
211
£120,000
£100,000
£80,000
Net annual earnings
£60,000
£40,000
£20,000 £20,000 proposed threshold

£7,400 current threshold
£0
-£20,000
-£40,000
Very low food security Low food security Marginal food security High food security
Box plots show median (central line), quartile

ranges and full range (excludes outside values).
Figure 1
Food insecurity among families with an 8- to 19-year-old in England by annual earnings.16
We also recommend introducing automatic enrolment Costs and benefits

for FSMs. The Government has data on which families
receive benefits that qualify them for FSMs, but this Based on current household incomes, expanding
is not shared with schools. The Government has FSMs in the way we recommend would cost the
previously argued that this option is unviable for Government an average of £544 million per year for
reasons of data protection. We urge the DfE to find a three years.
viable mechanism for automatic enrolment: it cannot
Our recommendation would guarantee an additional
be right to let paperwork stand between a child and a
1.1 million children from low-income families a lunch
hot meal.
in school. In total, 2.8 million disadvantaged children
Free school meals are extremely popular with the (including those aged under 7 who are eligible for
public. In one recent poll 89% of the respondents means tested free meals) would benefit from a free
agreed that: “Every child has the right to have a school meal, covering 76% of families who are food
healthy meal at least once a day”.11 Three-quarters insecure. For a full explanation of the methods used
agree that: “Parents are responsible for feeding their for estimating these figures, see online supplementary
children, but Government must step in for children material.
whose parents are unable to do so”. Just over half
This would have benefits for those children’s health,
(51%) of respondents went even further, saying that
but also for their educational achievement. Following
“school meals should be free for all students so that
one pilot of universal free school meals in 2009–11,
poor students are not stigmatised”. Respondents to
primary school pupils made between four and eight
the National Food Strategy’s Call for Evidence put
weeks’ more progress than expected.14 Pupils from
forward similar recommendations.
poorer families and those who had previously done
Children in England are in danger of being less well at school showed the most improvement.
disadvantaged in this respect compared to those Jamie Oliver’s 2004 campaign to improve school food
elsewhere in the UK. In Northern Ireland, the eligibility benefited children’s achievement in English and maths,
threshold is already £14,000, almost double that in as well as reducing absences.15
England. Scotland currently has a similar threshold to
England, at £7,320 per year, but FSMs will start being In addition to the cost of free school meals
rolled out to all primary school children from August themselves, eligibility for free school meals is linked
2021.12 Wales has the same FSM threshold as England, to other funding streams. Schools are provided with
but the Welsh Government is planning to review the a Pupil Premium for each child in receipt of FSMs.
criteria and extend eligibility.13 The purpose of the Pupil Premium is to help close the
attainment gap of the most disadvantaged children.
If the Government deems the cost attached to the
larger number of Pupil Premiums once eligibility for
FSMs is widened to be too high, the following two
212
options would allow costs to be retained at current
levels:
• The first option is to cap the Pupil Premium
budget annually. The value of each Pupil Premium
payment would then be determined by dividing
Recommendation 4
the cap by the total number of eligible children.

Appendix 4
• Alternatively, the Government could freeze the

number of children eligible for Pupil Premium
in each school at 2021/22 levels until the 2024
review following the completion of the Universal
Credit transition. The review could address
whether Pupil Premiums should continue to be
linked to FSMs or if there is a better alternative
for allocating them.
213
Endnotes
1
Up to and including school year 2 (typically 6-7yrs), all children are Child and working tax credit statistics November/December 2020:
eligible for FSMs under the national universal infant free school meals Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. (2021). Child and working tax
scheme. credits statistics: Provisional awards geographical analyses Decem-
ber 2020. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
2
No Recourse to Public Funds: Fernández-Reino, M. (2020) Children Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/964651/
of migrants in the UK. Migration Observatory briefing, COMPAS, Uni- Child_and_Working_Tax_Credits_December_2020__Geographi-
versity of Oxford. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac. cal_Data_Tables_.ods
uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Briefing-Children-of-Migrants-in-
the-UK.pdf; 11
Lasko-Skinner, R. and Sweetland, J. (2021). Food in a Pandem-
ic. Demos. Available at: https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/up-
Undocumented: Institute for Community Research and Development loads/2021/03/Food-in-a-Pandemic.pdf
at the University of Wolverhampton. (2020). London’s children and
young people who are not British citizens: A Profile. Greater London Seith, E. (2021). Free school meals rollout in primary to start in
12
Authority. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ August. TES. Available at: https://www.tes.com/news/free-school-

files/final_summary_londons_children_and_young_people_who_are_ meals-rollout-primary-start-august
not_british_citizens.pdf
13
Betteley, C. (2021). Free school meals for all children in Wales call.
3
Lord, A. et al. (2013). Pupils not claiming free school meals – 2013. BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-pol-
Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.ser- itics-56580568
file/266339/DFE-RR319.pdf
14
Kitchen, S. et al. (2013). Evaluation of the free school meals pilot.
Department for Education. Available at: https://assets.publishing.ser-
4
Woolley, A. (2019). Access Denied: The cost of the “no recourse vice.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
to public funds” policy. The Unity Project. Available at: https:// file/184047/DFE-RR227.pdf
static1.squarespace.com/static/590060b0893fc01f949b-
1c8a/t/5d0bb6100099f70001faad9c/1561048725178/Access+De-
15
Belot, M. and James, J. (2009). Healthy school meals and ed-
nied+-+the+cost+of+the+No+Recourse+to+Public+Funds+poli- ucational outcomes. Institute for Social and Economic Research.
cy.+The+Unity+Project.+June+2019.pdf Available at: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/
working-papers/iser/2009-01.pdf
5
Listed at Appendix C to Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The
School Food Plan. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.
16
NFS analysis of Department for Work and Pensions. (2021). Family
com/plan/ Resources Survey: financial year 2019 to 2020. HMG. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/family-resources-survey-
6
Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food Plan. HMG. financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-financial-year-
Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/plan/ 2019-to-2020#household-food-security-1
7
Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School Food Plan. Evidence
Pack. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfoodplan.com/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2013/10/School-Food-Plan-Evidence-Pack-July-2013-
Final.pdf
8
Packed lunches are common: Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013).
The School Food Plan. Evidence Pack. HMG. Available at: http://
www.schoolfoodplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/School-
Food-Plan-Evidence-Pack-July-2013-Final.pdf;
Packed lunches do not meet nutritional standards for school meals:

Evans, C. et al. (2020). A repeated cross-sectional survey assessing
changes in diet and nutrient quality of English primary school chil-
dren’s packed lunches between 2006 and 2016. BMJ Open. Available
at: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e029688
9
Public Health England & Food Standards Agency. (2018). National
diet and nutrition survey rolling programme years 7 to 8 (2014/2015
to 2015/2016). HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
file/699241/NDNS_results_years_7_and_8.pdf
10
NFS analysis using Department for Work and Pensions. StatXplore.
HMG. Available at: https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/webapi/jsf/login.
xhtml;
Child and working Tax credit statistics November/December 2019:

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. (2020). Child and working tax
credits statistics: Provisional awards geographical analysis December
2019. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Gov-
ernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/862232/
Final_geo_tables.xlsx;
214
Recommendation 5. Fund the Holiday Activities
and Food programme for the next three years.
Recommendation 5
Appendix 5
What is it? income groups.4 Eighty per cent of parents on low

incomes report being unable to take their children out
The Government should extend Holiday Activities and for activities during school holidays.5 This makes them
Food programme for the next three years. feel isolated and harms their health: children from the
most deprived areas see their cardiovascular fitness
The Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme go down over the summer holidays by more than their
offers a free holiday club to children who normally peers.6
receive free school meals. This includes at least one
hot meal a day, prepared in line with the School Food HAF clubs also provide activities related to cooking
Standards. In most areas, children who do not receive and healthy eating. Children who are eligible for free
free school meals have also been able to take part school meals show more interest in these activities
in HAF programmes, for a small fee. In response to than children who are not eligible for free school
a recommendation in Part One of this strategy, the meals.7
Government rolled the programme out nationwide
for 2021. (It had previously been trialled in 17 local Evaluations of the pilot HAF programmes and similar
authorities.) There is, however, currently no funding for schemes elsewhere have shown their positive impact
the programme to continue beyond 2021. on disadvantaged children. A 2019 assessment of
HAF found that children’s socialisation and wellbeing
The Government should commit to funding HAF improved as a result of participating in the scheme.8
programmes for the next three years. It should also Where local programmes have been evaluated in
evaluate the scheme to make sure that the current the UK, they have shown children have better diets
level of provision – four days a week for four weeks in and activity levels on the days they attend the
the summer and a week at Christmas and Easter – is programme.9 Parents’ wellbeing is also improved when
enough to make sure vulnerable children are not going children attend holiday clubs, and families say that
hungry. they are better able to feed themselves healthily.10 In
the USA, summer food programmes for children have
been running for more than 50 years. The programmes
Rationale are associated with significantly lower rates of food
insecurity and have benefits both for the diets and the
Holidays are a particularly hard time for families
academic performance of children from low-income
experiencing food insecurity. Three million children
and food-insecure families.11
are estimated to be at risk of hunger during the
school holidays every year, and data from food banks There is a broad public consensus that the
shows a surge in demand for emergency supplies over Government should provide children with healthy
the summer.1 During the pandemic, the percentage meals if their parents cannot afford to do so. In a
of households experiencing food insecurity – as nationally representative poll run in November 2020
defined by the Government – increased from 7.6% 89% of the respondents thought that “Every child
to 9%.2 Between April 2020 and March 2021, 17% of has the right to have a healthy meal at least once a
respondents to a nationally representative survey day” and 75% agreed that “Parents are responsible
reported skipping meals or cutting down on portions for feeding their children, but Government must step
because they could not afford enough food.3 in for children whose parents are unable to do so”.12
Households with at least one child were significantly Respondents to the National Food Strategy’s Call
more likely than the general population to have had to for Evidence proposed that disadvantaged children,
get help from a food bank or food charity. including those from low-income households or with
no recourse to public funds, should be provided with
As well as a cooked lunch every day, HAF programmes
free, healthy and nutritious meals over school holidays
provide fun activities, exercise and social interaction.
as well as during term time.
Even before the pandemic, children from poorer
households were less likely to participate regularly in
extra-curricular activities than children from higher
215
Costs and benefits
If this proposal is combined with our recommendation
to raise the income cap above which children become
ineligible for free school meals, we estimate that an
additional 1.375 million children of all ages will be
eligible for HAF and that 985,000 children will take up
the scheme in total.13
The average annual cost over three years to deliver

this recommendation is £449m. This figure takes
account of the uplift in the number of children
that would be eligible for HAF to align with our
recommendation on FSM eligibility. 14 The Department
for Education should bid for these funds in the
upcoming Spending Review.
216
Endnotes
1
Three million children: Forsey, A. (2020). Hungry holidays: a report on Lasko-Skinner, R. and Sweetland, J. (2021). Food in a Pandemic.
12
Recommendation 5
hunger amongst children during school holidays. Available at: https:// Demos. Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/
feedingbritain.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/hungry-holidays.pdf. media/document/fsa-food-in-a-pandemic-march-2021.pdf
Appendix 5
Food bank usage increases during holidays: The Trussell Trust (2018). 13
These numbers assume the uptake remains the same as the current
Families, Hunger and the Holidays. Available at: https://www. scheme at 35%, and include existing and newly eligible children.
trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/08/Families-hun-
ger-and-the-holidays-policy-brief.pdf. The reduction in cost post-2024 assumes unemployment falls and
14
household incomes rise after the pandemic.

2
Food Foundation. (2021). The impact of Covid-19 on household food
security. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2021/03/FF_Impact-of-Covid_FINAL.pdf
3
Food Standards Agency (2021). Covid-19 consumer tracker survey.
Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/doc-
ument/covid-19-consumer-tracker-report-waves-9.-10-11-12.pdf
4
The Sutton Trust. (2014). Extra-curricular Inequality Research Brief.
Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/30273/;
Cullinane, C. and Montacute, R. (2017). Life Lessons: Improving

essential life skills for young people. The Sutton Trust. Available
at: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
Life-Lessons-Report_FINAL.pdf
5
Kellogg’s Foundation. (2015). Isolation and Hunger: the reality of the
school holidays for struggling families. Kellogg’s. Available at: https://
www.kelloggs.co.uk/content/dam/europe/kelloggs_gb/pdf/HOLI-
DAY+HUNGER+REPORT.pdf
6
Mann, S. et al. (2019). One-year surveillance of body mass index
and cardiorespiratory fitness in UK primary school children in North
West England and the impact of school deprivation level. Archives of
Disease in Childhood 105. Available at: https://adc.bmj.com/content/
early/2019/01/31/archdischild-2018-315567
7
Lindley, L. et al. (2019). Omnibus survey of pupils and their parents
or carers: Wave 5. Department for Education. Available at: https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/up-
loads/attachment_data/file/786040/survey_of_pupils_and_their_par-
ents_or_carers-wave_5.pdf
8
Campbell-Jack, D. et al. (2020). Evaluation of the 2019 holiday ac-
tivities and food programme. Department for Education. Available at:
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/945255/Evaluation_of_the_2019_
holiday_activities_and_food_programme_-_December_2020.pdf
9
McConnon, L. et al. (2017). Food and fun school holiday enrichment
programme 2016. Welsh Local Government Association. Available at:

https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/97619/
10
Parental wellbeing: Long, M. A. et al. (2021). Examining the rela-
tionship between child holiday club attendance and parental mental
wellbeing. Public health in practice 2. Available at: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535221000471;
Improved ability to feed family: O’Connor, J. et al. (2015). An evalu-

ation of Holiday Kitchen 2014: Learning, food and play for families
who need it most in the West Midlands. Accord Group. Available
at: https://www.family-action.org.uk/content/uploads/2015/01/
hk_bcu_report.pdf
11
Ralston, K. et al. (2017). Children’s food security and USDA child nu-
trition programs. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic
Information Bulletin 174. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/pub-details/?pubid=84002
217
Recommendation 6. Expand the Healthy Start
scheme.
Recommendation 6
Appendix 6
What is it? and mothers are likely to be.
The Government should expand the Healthy Start • Encouraging local authorities, Clinical
voucher scheme to all households earning under Commissioning Groups and hospital trusts
£20,000 with pregnant women or children under five. to support people who work with pregnant
It should take steps to increase uptake among people women and young families (e.g. welfare
who are eligible. rights workers, people working in food banks
and community volunteers) to help them
Healthy Start is a scheme which provides coupons for access the scheme.
vitamins as well as vouchers that can be used to buy
£4.25 worth of fruit, vegetables and milk per week.1 • Continuing with plans to digitise the scheme
The scheme is open to all pregnant women under (while ensuring alternative options are still
18yrs. It is also available to other pregnant women and available for those without digital devices).
families with children aged 3yrs or under, provided that • Considering how the scheme could be developed
they receive one of a number of qualifying benefits to allow purchases to be tracked, so as to allow
and have a low income.2 more thorough evaluation of the scheme.
We recommend that all households with earnings
under £20,000 should be made eligible. In addition,
the age limit should be raised to include children aged
Rationale
under five. This would be accompanied by regular Children do not eat enough fruit and vegetables.
evaluations of the scheme, to understand its impact Children under five from families with low incomes
on fruit and vegetable consumption and to review the eat on average only three portions of fruit and
value of the voucher. vegetables a day, instead of the five they need.3 This
can affect their health as adults. Eating too little
At the same time as expanding the scheme, the
fruit and vegetables as a child is linked to increased
Government should attempt to increase uptake among
cardiovascular risk in adulthood.4 Good nutrition
eligible people by:
and maintaining a healthy weight in childhood helps
• Running a £5m communications campaign to prevent obesity and diet-related ill health later in life.5
publicise the expansion of the scheme.
One of the main reasons for this is the affordability
• Making sure public information on the scheme of fresh produce.6 We set out the evidence for this
(such as the website and leaflets) is up to date. in Recommendation 7. People consume more fruit
and vegetables when they are cheaper or free.7 A
• Making the application process simpler.
systematic review of 20 field studies found that

• Making sure GPs, health visitors, midwives, social discounts and vouchers for healthy foods increased
workers and early years workers are aware of the purchases and consumption of them.8 Another review
scheme and can help eligible families to apply. of 14 studies concluded that food subsidy programs
This could involve: increase people’s intake of targeted foods or nutrients
by 10–20%.9
• Updating the IT system GPs use so they are
informed about Healthy Start. The current Healthy Start voucher scheme has been
shown to increase spending on fruit and vegetables
• Making it standard practice to give application by 15%. This amounts to an additional 1.8kg of fruit
forms to parents when they first record a and vegetables per month, or 22 portions.10 Women
pregnancy or when their children are born. receiving Healthy Start vouchers ate more fruit and
vegetables and were more likely to get enough
• Making sure application forms are readily
iron, folate, calcium and vitamin C than women who
available in GP surgeries, children’s centres
received vouchers for an earlier scheme that just
and other settings where pregnant women
provided milk.11 Studies on the effects of Healthy Start
218
have shown that it plays an important role in helping has risen by ten percentage points.23 We would
pregnant women and their children access healthier expect to see a further rise in uptake in response to
foods. It has increased the quantity and range of fruit the taskforce refreshing its communications campaign
and vegetables consumed, as well as establishing in April 2021 and the Government increasing the value
good habits.12 of the voucher.
Healthy Start has also been shown to have an impact
beyond financial support.13 Women registered for the Costs and benefits
scheme report that Healthy Start made them think
more about their health and diet, and this led to Under this recommendation, an additional 612,000
better dietary choices.14 people would benefit from the scheme, taking
the total number of beneficiaries to just under
However, the current scheme is too narrowly targeted. 1.15 million.24 It is hard to estimate the benefits of
Just 530,000 pregnant women and children are increasing fruit and vegetable intake on very young
eligible for it.15 Over 250,000 children under five living children, since the impacts of poor diets often take
in food insecurity cannot benefit from it.16 Expanding years to materialise. However, introducing fruit and
the eligibility to any family earning less than £20,000 vegetables at an early age can help set habits which
would reach 73% of food insecure families.17 Extending stay into adulthood. We anticipate that many of
the age eligibility to children under five would fill an the benefits of the current Healthy Start scheme,
existing nutritional gap where poorer children have including increasing the healthiness of household
stopped benefiting from Healthy Start but are not yet shopping baskets, would also apply to newly eligible
in school and receiving free school meals. households.25
Furthermore, low uptake means that many eligible The expansion of eligibility would cost an additional
families are missing out. Current uptake is only around £82m–132m a year, depending on take up.26 We also
50–60%.18 This is thought to be due to a series of recommend a one-off £5m communications campaign.
barriers which make it difficult for eligible people This would bring the total cost of the scheme to
to find out about the scheme and to then apply £165m-£285m per year, depending on uptake. Over
successfully.19 The application form is only available three years the total additional cost is £245m – £395
in English, can appear complicated, and there is little m. The Department for Health and Social Care should
support for applicants to help them complete the bid for these funds in the upcoming Spending Review.
form. The result is that almost a third of applications
are rejected because the form is incorrectly filled in.20 There would be additional costs to implementing and
monitoring the scheme, but given the scheme already
Uptake has actually worsened during the pandemic, exists, we do not anticipate these to be significantly
just when many families need this scheme most. At more than they are now.
the start of the pandemic, the Government removed
the requirement for the Healthy Start application form To put this in context, it is estimated the sugar and
to be signed by a healthcare worker. The unintended salt tax (see Recommendation 1) could raise between
consequence was that healthcare workers stopped £2.9bn–£3.4bn a year. The additional costs of
alerting families to the scheme, leading to a drop in expanding Healthy Start coverage would be more than
uptake.21 covered by the revenues of the levy.
Other issues also contribute to low uptake. The

scheme still relies on paper vouchers, which can be
lost and damaged, although the switch to a digital
card is underway. Only registered retailers accept the
vouchers and there is currently a shortage of them
in rural areas and in shops serving minority ethnic
communities.22 Some retailers are helping out by
providing extra discounts and promotions for people
using their vouchers, but they say that the scheme is
currently too small to warrant significant investment.
A strong communication campaign can make a
difference to uptake in just a short time. Since the End
Child Food Poverty taskforce began its communication
campaign in September 2020 Healthy Start uptake
219
Endnotes
1
The Government increased the value of the voucher in response to cle/pii/S0899900714005486?via%3Dihub
Recommendation 6
a recommendation in Part 1 of the National Food Strategy. The sum

chosen (£4.25) was estimated to cover the cost of providing one
8
An, R. (2014). Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food
child with five portions of fruit and vegetables and half a pint of milk purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments. Public
Appendix 6
each day for a week, as assessed in: Scottish Government. (2018). Health Nutrition 16(7), 1215–1228. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.
Welfare Foods – a consultation on meeting the needs of children and nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898771/
families in Scotland. Scottish Government, p6. Available at: https:// 9
Black, A. P. et al. (2012). Food subsidy programs and the health and
consult.gov.scot/health-protection/welfare-foods/user_uploads/
nutritional status of disadvantaged families in high income countries:
sct0218087754-1_welfarefoods_p4.pdf
a systematic review. BMC Public Health 12. Available at: https://bmc-
2
The exact income threshold varies depending on which qualifying publichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1099
benefit the family receives. For example, families on Universal Credit 10
Griffith, R. et al. (2018). Getting a healthy start: The effectiveness
can earn no more than £408 per week from employment.
of targeted benefits for improving dietary choices. Journal of Health
3
One adult portion is 80g based on the recommended 400g a day Economics 58, 176–187. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
of fruit and veg. For our calculations, we have used a portion size of science/article/pii/S0167629616302533
50g for children under 5. This is the midpoint value of the 40–60g 11
Ford, F. et al. (2009). Effect of the introduction of “Healthy Start” on
recommended in the School Food Plan. NFS analysis of NDNS Year
dietary behaviour during and after pregnancy: early results from the
9/11, 2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019. Available at: https://www.gov.
“before and after” Sheffield study. British Journal of Nutrition 101(12),
uk/Government/statistics/ndns-results-from-years-9-to-11-2016-to-
1828–1836. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19017424/
2017-and-2018-to-2019
12
McFadden, A. et al. (2014). Can food vouchers improve nutrition
4
Craigie, A. M. et al. (2011). Tracking of obesity-related behaviours
and reduce health inequalities in low-income mothers and young chil-
from childhood to adulthood: A systematic review. Maturitas.
dren: a multi-method evaluation of the experiences of beneficiaries
Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England. BMC
S0378512211002969?via%3Dihub
Public Health 14. Available at: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcen-
5
Chung, S. T. et al. (2018). Cardiometabolic risk in obese children. An- tral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-148
nals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1411(1), 166–183. Available 13
at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931397/;
Reilly, J. J. and Kelly, J. (2011). Long-term impact of overweight and Economics 58, 176–187. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
obesity in childhood and adolescence on morbidity and premature science/article/pii/S0167629616302533
mortality in adulthood: Systematic review. International Journal of
Crawley, H. and Dodds, R. (2018). The UK Healthy Start scheme.
14
Obesity 35(7), 891–898. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
What happened? What next?. First Steps Nutrition Trust, p56.
gov/20975725/;
Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59f75004f-
Umer, A. et al. (2017). Childhood obesity and adult cardiovascular 09ca48694070f3b/t/5b8e2d0e575d1f6f1e5d2dcd/1536044307456/
disease risk factors: A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Healthy_Start_Report_for_web.pdf
Public Health 17(1), 683. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. 15
National Health Service. (2021). Healthy start uptake data: England
gov/28851330/
uptake data. HMG. Available at: https://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/
6
Public Health England. (2015). Sugar Reduction: The evidence for healthcare-professionals/
action. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ 16
NFS analysis based on: National Health Service. (2021). Healthy
Start uptake data. NHS. Available at: https://www.healthystart.nhs.
Annexe_4._Analysis_of_price_promotions.pdf;
uk/healthcare-professionals/;
Scott, C. et al. (2018). Affordability of the UK’s Eatwell Guide. The
Department for Work and Pensions. (2021). Family resources
Food Foundation. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/
survey: financial year 2019 to 2020. HMG. Available at: https://

wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Affordability-of-the-Eatwell-Guide_Fi-
www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/family-resources-sur-
nal_Web-Version.pdf
vey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-survey-finan-
7
An, R. (2014). Effectiveness of subsidies in promoting healthy food cial-year-2019-to-2020
purchases and consumption: a review of field experiments. Public 17
NFS analysis based on: Department for Work and Pensions. (2021).
Health Nutrition 16(7), 1215–1228. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.
Households below average income, 1994/95–2019/20. HMG. Avail-
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3898771/;
able at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/households-be-
Afshin, A. et al. (2017). The prospective impact of food pricing on im- low-average-income-199495-to-201819
proving dietary consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 18
PLoS One. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28249003/;
Thow, A. M. et al. (2014). A systematic review of the effectiveness of healthcare-professionals/
food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: Understanding the recent 19
evidence. Nutrition Reviews 72(9), 551–565. Available at: https://aca-
demic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/72/9/551/1859025;
Niebylski, M. L. et al. (2015). Healthy food subsidies and unhealthy and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England. BMC
food taxation: a systematic review of the evidence. Nutrition 31(6), Public Health 14. Available at: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcen-
787–795. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti- tral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-148
220
20
Crawley, H. and Dodds, R. (2018). The UK Healthy Start scheme.
What happened? What next?. First Steps Nutrition Trust, p56.
Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59f75004f-
09ca48694070f3b/t/5b8e2d0e575d1f6f1e5d2dcd/1536044307456/
Healthy_Start_Report_for_web.pdf
21
healthcare-professionals/
22
and practitioners of the Healthy Start programme in England. BMC
Public Health 14. Available at: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcen-
tral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-148
23
End Child Food Poverty campaign: https://endchildfoodpoverty.
org/;
Healthy start uptake has risen: NFS Analysis based on: National
Health Service. (2021). Healthy start uptake data: England uptake
data. HMG. Available at: https://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/health-
care-professionals/
24
NFS Analysis, based on population of 0–4 year olds on universal
credit or equivalent 2019/20: Department for Work and Pensions.
(2021). Family resources survey: financial year 2019 to 2020. HMG.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/family-re-
sources-survey-financial-year-2019-to-2020/family-resources-sur-
vey-financial-year-2019-to-2020
25
Economics 58, 176–187. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0167629616302533
26
Estimated uptake of 60–90% based on current take up rates of
58% and assumption that Government promotion can drive further
uptake: National Health Service. (2021). Healthy start uptake data:
England uptake data. HMG. Available at: https://www.healthystart.
nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/
221
Recommendation 7. Trial a “Community Eatwell”
programme, supporting those on low incomes to
improve their diets.
Recommendation 7
Appendix 7
What is it? seven PCNs around England.4 This is intended to

improve patients’ mental and physical health before
The Government should trial a “Community Eatwell” they become acutely unwell. It enables GPs to
programme to provide targeted healthy eating support prescribe therapeutic activities such as walking clubs,
for people on low incomes. If the pilot is a success, the community gardening and food-growing projects.
programme should be rolled out across England.
The CEP would complement these existing services
Pilot projects should identify patients who need by giving practical support to patients to change
dietary support and refer them to a Link Worker – a their dietary behaviour. Exercise alone is not sufficient
non-clinical staff member with specialised training for people to lose weight. The CEP would help
to support healthy eating – who would design a break down the barriers of knowledge, confidence,
programme to suit their needs and help them engage accessibility and cost that can stop people improving
with local services. Patients would receive an Eatwell their diets.
Prescription for free fruit and vegetables, perhaps
alongside access to local programmes that encourage Low consumption of fruit and vegetables is linked to
healthy eating (e.g. cooking classes in community cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer.5 In 2019,
kitchens). They would also get advice and support diets low in fruit accounted for 10,066 premature
from their Link Worker to motivate them to engage in deaths and approximately 210,000 disability-adjusted
their personal programme. life years (DALYs) in the UK.6 Diets low in vegetables
accounted for 5,935 premature deaths and just
Up to seven Primary Care Networks (PCNs) should under 98,000 DALYs. While almost everyone in the
be invited to bid for the chance to set up their own UK eats too little fruit and vegetables, the problem
pilot programmes, to run over three years.1 These is particularly acute among the most disadvantaged.
programmes would use social prescribing and The poorest 10% of British people eat on average 42%
other interventions to support healthy changes in less fruit and vegetables than recommended, while
behaviour, in particular increasing fruit and vegetable the richest eat 13% less.7 The bottom 20% of the
consumption. population by income eat a full portion of fruit and
vegetables less a day than the top 20%.
The exact makeup of the programmes should be
designed locally, to take advantage of existing A major reason for this is affordability. Healthier food
facilities and initiatives, and make sure the tends to be more expensive per calorie than less
programmes respond to local needs. healthy food.8 The healthiest products in the Nutrient
Profile Model scoring system (such as potatoes or

Following the three-year pilot, a detailed evaluation
broccoli) cost over six times more per calorie than
should be conducted to help decide if and how the
the least healthy products (such as chocolate bars
programme should be rolled out across England.
or pepperoni).9 The poorest 10% of people in Britain
would have to spend almost three-quarters of their
Rationale disposable income on food in order to eat in line with
the Government’s recommended Eatwell Guide.10 But
We know that preventing disease is much more convenience and knowledge also play a role. People
cost-effective than treating it. One study found that on low incomes are less likely to have access to a car
the average return on investment for public health and therefore less able to travel out of their area or
interventions is 14, meaning every pound spent transport food in bulk.11 They may not have a fridge or
delivers fourteen pounds of benefits.2 Yet in 2018, freezer.12 Finally, they may lack knowledge about the
the NHS spent only 5% of its budget on preventing benefits of fruit and vegetables in preventing disease,
disease.3 The Government is currently attempting or how to cook with them.13
to address this issue through a new “Green Social
Prescribing” programme, which is being trialled in For this reason, initiatives aiming to increase fruit and
222
vegetable intake have been shown to be effective in
improving people’s health. They can reduce the body
mass index (BMI) of patients suffering from obesity,
hypertension and diabetes, as well as of overweight
and obese children.14 Increasing fruit and vegetable
consumption has been shown to be more effective at
improving health than reducing consumption of foods
high in fat and sugar.15
An effective way to increase consumption is to provide
people with free fruit and vegetables, including
through prescription programmes.16 In Washington
DC, for example, the Produce Prescription Programme
allows doctors to prescribe vouchers for fresh
fruit and vegetables and receive cooking lessons,
nutritional education and guided tours of shops and
supermarkets to help them shop well. Of 120 patients
who received produce prescriptions between 2012
and 2017, half lost weight while on the prescription.17
Such programmes can be highly cost-effective. The
NHS spent over half a billion pounds on anti-diabetes
medication in 2018/19, at an average cost of more
than £300 per patient.18 By contrast, in one US study,
a fruit and vegetable prescription programme cut
diabetic patients’ blood sugar levels by an average of
7.5% in 13 weeks, at a cost of $40 per patient.19
We recommend that the Government should trial such
a programme in the UK. This should be led locally by
PCNs, working with community organisations: such
local, community-based approaches have been shown
to be effective at changing people’s eating habits.20
Costs and benefits

The pilot programme would cost £2m per year, or £6m
over the three-year trial.21 The Department of Health
and Social Care should secure funding for this through
a bid in the next Spending Review. If the programme is
rolled out across the country, the cost would increase.
The programme should increase consumption of
fruit and vegetables in the communities where it is
piloted. These communities should be among the
most deprived according to the Index of Multiple
Deprivation.22 Patients should be monitored to see
whether they experience direct health benefits,
including weight loss and reductions in blood sugar,
and whether this eases pressure on local NHS services
– in particular GP appointments and the cost of
medication.
223
Endnotes
1
NHS England defines PCNs as follows: “GP practices working poverty. Turn2us. Available at: https://www.turn2us.org.uk/T2UWeb-
Recommendation 7
together with community, mental health, social care, pharmacy, site/media/Documents/Communications documents/Living-With-
hospital and voluntary services in their local areas in groups of out-Report-Final-Web.pdf
practices known as primary care networks (PCNs). PCNs build
Appendix 7
on existing primary care services and enable greater provision of

13
Caldwell, E. et al. (2009). Perceived access to fruits and veg-
proactive, personalised, coordinated and more integrated health and etables associated with increased consumption. Public Health
social care for people close to home.” NHS England. Primary Care Nutrition 12 (10), 1743–1750. Available at: https://www.cambridge.
Networks. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/primary-care/ org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/perceived-ac-
primary-care-networks/ cess-to-fruits-and-vegetables-associated-with-increased-consump-
tion/26832E21FAAE8C75C4BCDECFBD0DB613;
2
Masters, R. et al. (2017). Return on investment of public health
interventions: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Smith, A. (2018). Food poverty in Camden and Islington, January 2018.
Community Health 71, 827–834. Available at: https://jech.bmj.com/ Camden and Islington Public Health. Available at: https://opendata.
content/jech/71/8/827.full.pdf camden.gov.uk/widgets/a6rj-bnun;
3
Office for National Statistics (2020). Healthcare expenditure, UK House of Lords. (2020). Hungry for change: fixing the failures in food.
health accounts. HMG. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/people- Authority of the House of Lords. Available at: https://committees.
populationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/ parliament.uk/publications/1762/documents/17092/default/;
bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2018
Haynes-Maslow, L. et al. (2016). Low-income individuals’ perceptions
4
Expression of interest process: National Health Service. (2021). Green about fruit and vegetable access programs: A qualitative study. Jour-
social prescribing. NHS. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/ nal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour 47(4), 317–324. Available at:
personalisedcare/social-prescribing/green-social-prescribing/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4500669/
5
Aune, D. et al. (2017). Fruit and vegetable intake and the
14
Hypertension and diabetes: Cavanagh, M. et al. (2017). Veggie Rx:
risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause an outcome evaluation of a healthy food incentive programme. Public
mortality—a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of Health Nutrition 20 (14), 2636–2641. Available at: https://www.ncbi.
prospective studies. International Journal of Epidemiology nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5743436/;
46 (3), 1029–1056. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ije/
Overweight and obese children: Huang, J. et al. (2019). Impact of
article/46/3/1029/3039477
fruits and vegetables prescription program in wellness group visits.
6
Diets low in fruit means diets with less than 200–300g of fruit per Pediatrics 144(706). Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.
day. Diets low in vegetables means diets with less than 290–430g of org/content/144/2_MeetingAbstract/706;
vegetables per day. Global Burden of Disease 2017 Diet Collaborators
Overweight and obese children: Jones, L. J. et al. (2020). Impact of
(2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a
a fruit and vegetable prescription program on health outcomes and
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The
behaviors in young Navajo children. Current Developments in Nutri-
Lancet 393, 1958–1972. Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/
tion 4(8). Available at: https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/4/8/
article/S0140-6736(19)30041-8/fulltext;
nzaa109/5874246
Global Health Data Exchange. (2021). GBD Results Tool. Institute 15
Epstein, L. H. et al. (2001). Increasing fruit and vegetable intake and
for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Accessed July 2021 Available at:
decreasing fat and sugar intake in families at risk for childhood obe-
http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool
sity. Obesity Research 9(3), 171–178. Available at: https://europepmc.
7
Public Health England & Food Standards Agency. (2018). National org/article/med/11323442
Diet and Nutrition Survey Rolling Programme Years 7 to 8 (2014/2015 16
Free fruit and vegetables: Olsho, L. E. W. et al. (2016). Financial
to 2015/2016). HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
incentives increase fruit and vegetable intake among Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program participants: a randomized controlled
file/699241/NDNS_results_years_7_and_8.pdf
trial of the USDA Healthy Incentives Pilot. The American Journal of
8
Public Health England. (2015). Sugar Reduction: The evidence for Clinical Nutrition 104(2), 423–435. Available at: https://academic.
action. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ oup.com/ajcn/article/104/2/423/4668540;
Free fruit and vegetables: Fitzgerald, K. (2015). Food Insecurity Nutri-
Annexe_4._Analysis_of_price_promotions.pdf
tion Incentive Grant Program (FINI). Fair Food Network. Available at:
9
Analysis for NFS of data from Kantar Worldpanel. See NFS Evidence https://fairfoodnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Consoli-
Pack. dated-2015-Report_finaldigital-.pdf;
10
Scott, C. et al. (2018). Affordability of the UK’s Eatwell Guide. The Free fruit and vegetables: Olsho, L. E. W. et al. (2015). Impacts
Food Foundation. Available at: https://foodfoundation.org.uk/wp- of a farmers’ market incentive programme on fruit and vegetable
content/uploads/2018/10/Affordability-of-the-Eatwell-Guide_Final_ access, purchase and consumption. Public Health Nutrition 18 (15),
Web-Version.pdf 2712–2721. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/
public-health-nutrition/article/impacts-of-a-farmers-market-incen-
11
Caraher, M. et al. (1998). Access to healthy foods: part I. tive-programme-on-fruit-and-vegetable-access-purchase-and-con-
Barriers to accessing healthy foods: differentials by gender, social sumption/542F29A9EA3B515286E4A801909B3513;
class, income and mode of transport. Health Education Journal
57(3), 191–201. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/ Free fruit and vegetables: Lindsay, S. et al. (2013) Monetary matched
doi/10.1177/001789699805700302 incentives to encourage the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables
at farmers markets in underserved communities. Preventing Chronic
12
Turn2us. (2019). Living without: The scale and impact of appliance Diseases 10, E188. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
224
articles/PMC3830923/;
Free fruit and vegetables: Young, C. R. et al. (2013). Improving fruit

and vegetable consumption among low-income customers at farmers
markets: Philly Food Bucks, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2011. Prevent-
ing Chronic Diseases 10, E166. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/24135390/;
Free fruit and vegetables: Freedman, D. A. et al. (2013). A farm-

ers’ market at a federally qualified health center improves fruit
and vegetable intake among low-income diabetics. Preventative
Medicine 56(5), 288–292. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/23384473/;
Prescriptions: Trapl, E. S. et al. (2018). Dietary impact of produce pre-

scriptions for patients with hypertension. Preventing chronic diseases
15(15). Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30447106/;
Overweight and obese children from low income households: Rid-

berg, R. A. et al. (2019). Effect of a fruit and vegetable prescription
program on children’s fruit and vegetable consumption. Preventing
Chronic Disease 16. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/is-
sues/2019/18_0555.htm;
Prescriptions: Jones, L. J. et al. (2020). Impact of a fruit and vegeta-

ble prescription program on health outcomes and behaviors in young
Navajo children. Current Developments in Nutrition 4(8). Available at:
https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/4/8/nzaa109/5874246
17
DC Greens. (2021) Produce prescription program (Produce Rx). DC
Greens. Available at: https://www.dcgreens.org/produce-rx
18
NHS Digital. (2019). Prescribing for Diabetes in England 2008/09
- 2018/19. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/
publications/statistical/prescribing-for-diabetes/2008-09---2018-19
19
Bryce, R. et al. (2017). Participation in a farmers’ market fruit and
vegetable prescription program at a federally qualified health center
improves hemoglobin A1C in low income uncontrolled diabetics.
Preventive Medicine Reports 7, 176–179. Available at: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335517301079
20
Atkins, L. and Michie, S. (2015). Designing interventions to
change eating behaviours. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
74(2). Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/
proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/designing-interven-
tions-to-change-eating-behaviours/0FB561F47C354DBAA80B-
01F5ADDA6546
21
This is an estimate informed by a comparable scheme: NHS
England. (2021) Green Social Prescribing. Available at: https://www.
england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/green-so-
cial-prescribing/
22
Index of multiple deprivation: Ministry of Housing, Communities
and Local Government. (2019). The English Indices of Deprivation
2019. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf
225
Recommendation 8. Guarantee the budget for
agricultural payments until at least 2029 to help
farmers transition to more sustainable land use.
Recommendation 8
Appendix 8
What is it? The initial payment rate would be 100% of costs, with
an additional per hectare uplift to make sure farmers
Defra should guarantee the budget for agricultural receive a fair return on land brought out of production.
funding until 2029, maintaining it at its current
level of £2.4bn (in real terms). It should ring-fence Defra should ensure that it is easy for tenant farmers
£500m–£700m of this money for natural carbon to enter the schemes, as well as farmers who own
removal and restoring semi-natural habitats. their land. Each scheme should be carefully proofed to
ensure it does not inadvertently disadvantage tenants
The Government made a manifesto commitment or commoners. The schemes should be designed with
to maintain funding for agriculture at an average of sufficient flexibility to allow innovative approaches to
£2.4bn per year until the end of this parliamentary achieving their goals.
term (2024). This budget was based on 2019 rates
of subsidy payment for farmers, rather than on
a calculation of the cost of delivering specified Rationale
environmental outcomes. It should maintain at
In the UK, agriculture is responsible for about 10% of
least this overall spending commitment through
total greenhouse gas emissions, and 83% of ammonia
the remainder of this decade, progressively shifting
emissions, mostly from livestock farming and fertiliser
around £2.2bn of agriculture spending from Direct
use.4 This has barely changed over the past ten years.
Payments (the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies
Morever, intensive agriculture has had a devastating
we have inherited from the EU) to Environmental Land
effect on biodiversity. Since 1970, 41% of UK wildlife
Management schemes (ELMs). This leaves around
species have decreased, and in the last ten years we
£200m for improving farm productivity and innovation,
have failed to meet 14 of our 20 biodiversity targets.5
in line with Defra’s proposals.
Farms must be supported and incentivised to reduce
The Government should ring-fence £500m–700m for
their total environmental impact, in order to help meet
schemes to encourage natural carbon removal and
a range of national targets, the most notable of which
habitat restoration. These schemes would incentivise
are the “30x30” commitment to protect 30% of land
farmers to convert their less productive land into
in England for nature by 2030, the 25 year plan for
nature-rich, carbon-sequestering landscapes. Some
nature, and the net zero target and carbon budgets.
of these landscapes would still produce food, albeit
with lower yields. Some priority habitats, such as Some progress can be made through improvements
heath and species-rich grassland, are best managed in practice (such as lowering pesticide and fertiliser
with conservation grazing. Very extensive grazing is use or managing animal waste better). But changing
compatible with creating new woodlands. Livestock the way agricultural land is used will be central to
farmers seeking to diversify into woodland entirely restoring nature and achieving our net zero goals. We
could retain roughly 10% of a typical commercial estimate, in line with the Climate Change Committee’s
flock or herd.1 Other areas of land (notably peatlands, (CCC) 6th carbon budget report, that roughly one
which can only recover under extremely low grazing tenth of agricultural land in England will need to
pressure) would not produce food at all.2 transition to woodland, restored peat, other semi-
natural habitats and energy crops by 2035, as part of
Farmers would receive payments on the basis of
the broader UK road to net zero.6
carbon sequestered and nature restored – both of
which can be monitored using techniques developed This is why the Government is reforming the
by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.3 agricultural support system in England. By 2027, the
Schemes for land use change should be designed in previous land area-based Basic Payment Scheme (BPS)
ways that are simple and easy for farmers to enter: will be fully phased out and replaced by payments
it should be no more difficult than the Sustainable for public goods. ELMs will pay for farmers and land
Farming Incentive (SFI) that is already being rolled out. managers to do things such as maintaining hedgerows,
226
low-till farming and maintaining new woodlands. much of the difference lies in the land itself. But the
challenge of farming unproductive land can now be
We think that Defra is, broadly speaking, taking the turned into an advantage, for both the farmer and
right approach. They will use 30% of the ELMs budget the common good. Some of this unproductive land is
for the Sustainable Farming Incentive and will ensure exceptionally well suited to creating environmentally
that all payments are for changes that go beyond the friendly landscapes, ranging from species-rich wood
regulatory baseline.7 Farmers have received subsidies pasture grazed by rare breed cows, all the way to
based primarily on the amount of land they farm, or new biodiverse forests and rewetted peat bogs. They
the quantities of food they produce, for over seventy are overwhelmingly upland farmers, though lowland
years. They need time – and money – to adjust their grazing farms appear in this group too. The nation
business models. needs the carbon storage and natural habitats that
Nearly 40% of farms currently depend on Basic their land – around 20% of English farmland – is
Payments to make a profit. Cutting these subsidies exceptionally suited to provide.
before they have had time to adjust could be Reducing food production on some of this land poses
disastrous for their bottom line. Livestock farms are very little risk to our food security. Losing the least
more likely to be affected by these changes than productive 20% of farmland would reduce the calories
other farms, and in the longer term, their prospects we produce by only 3%.13
could get even worse:8 new trade deals are likely
to make the market for meat more competitive, We commissioned Forest Creation Partners (FCP) to
while reductions in meat eating and increases in assess the suitability of agricultural land in England
the consumption of alternative proteins will make it for the planting of both broadleaf and commercial
smaller.9 coniferous forest, based on a suitability assessment
incorporating physical, regulatory, and economic
Of course, the whole point of ELMs is to incentivise constrains (see online supplementary material). Using
sustainable farming practices over unsustainable a search area of the least productive land in England,
ones. But for farmers to adapt and plan for the future which produces less than 3% of our calories, their
they need clarity. Many farmers have voiced concerns analysis suggests around 420,000 hectares are likely
about the lack of clarity over what ELMs will mean in to be suitable for forestry creation.14 This is enough
practice, particularly for small farms;10 and about the land to meet the Climate Change Committee’s tree
industry becoming increasingly unappealing to the planting recommendation for England by 2030 and
younger generation because of the low profit margins 2050.
and the uncertain future. This response to our call for
evidence captures the bind that some farmers find This is, however, unlikely to happen without
themselves in: Government support. Mixed broadleaf forest is not
a commercial enterprise, due to a lack of private
“I write this with a real dilemma on my hands that I markets for carbon credits and eco-system services.
imagine must be typical of many farmers. We have a Coniferous forest can be profitable without public
small upland farm with permanent grassland & don’t support, beyond an initial establishment grant, but
use artificial fertilisers. We produce ruminants (deer) it is less good for biodiversity than mixed broadleaf
which make this small farm viable. Should we continue forest.15 Peatland can never be profitable in the
as we are, or should we plant trees and thereby have absence of markets for carbon sequestration or
no income and no value to our land? Economically natural capital restoration. Even extremely extensive
it’s a no-brainer. But ecologically?” – National Food grazing to maintain certain priority habitats is
Strategy Call for Evidence. uneconomic without payments for nature. Over time,
as markets for these goods are developed, farmers
Land use change for natural carbon removal should be able to contract with private entities to
and semi-natural habitats supply them.
Simply removing Basic Payments by 2027 would see In the meantime we, the public, should provide a
nearly 40% of farmers go bust, even if they retain fair return for nature and carbon removal, just as we
existing payments for nature.11 At the other end of the should pay a fair price for the food that farmers grow.
spectrum, removing Basic Payments would still leave We calculate that £500m–£700m per year –around
the top quintile of farms making profits of £30 to £50 a third of the ELMs budget – would enable the
for every £100 of input.12 Government to give farmers a fair return for managing
roughly 400,000 hectares of species-rich broadleaf
These differences in profit are not just the result forests, 325,000 hectares of restored upland peat and
of farmers’ effort or skill. Every farmer knows that around 200,000 hectares of farmland land dedicated
227
mainly to nature. This would start the land use change the negative impact of current support schemes
necessary to meet the country’s nature and net zero and farming methods on the health and wellbeing
goals. of farmers. (Roughly one in eight farmers never take
holidays, despite the average working week exceeding
Any scheme to support land use change needs to be 65 hours.22) It will also bolster rural incomes,
designed in a way that is simple and easy to access.
Recommendation 8
supporting the economic viability of increasingly

Previous woodland creation schemes have had limited diversified rural economies.
participation due to the complexity of Countryside
Appendix 8
Stewardship prescriptions, along with delays in

payments and lack of clarity over funding.16 It also Total funding for agriculture
needs to be easy for tenant farmers to participate. At
To ensure that ELMs are successful in achieving their
present almost half of agricultural land is tenanted.17
targets for the environment, Government will need to
Many recent tenancy agreements are shorter than
show the schemes are adequately funded, accessible,
five years and do not permit tenants to plant trees.18
and guaranteed for the long term. Otherwise many
Potential solutions include extending tenants’
farmers may seek to make up for lost income by
rights to object to landlords prohibiting reasonable
increasing intensification. This would make it even
environmental changes being made on their land,
harder to achieve our environmental goals.23
and discourage short-term tenancies by restricting
inheritance tax relief to tenancy agreements of ten We have worked with the Wildlife and Countryside
years or more. Link to estimate the costs of ELMs, working from
models originally put together by the Royal Society
A scheme to enable land use change needs to be
for the Protection of Birds, The Wildlife Trusts and
scaled up rapidly, so it is available to farmers seeking
National Trust.24 While far from complete, these
to respond to the following policy deadlines:
calculations suggest that a budget of around
• The halving of BPS by 2024 and its removal by £2.2bn per year is approximately what is needed
2027. to support the farming sector to contribute to
• The 2030 “30x30” nature commitment. environmental targets over the next ten years (Table
• The 2032 end of the 5th carbon budget, in line 1). If we include Defra’s 9–10% budget for measures
with the UK’s 2050 net zero law. improving farm productivity, this would suggest a
• The 2042 end date for the 25-year plan for total budget of £2.4bn–£2.5bn will continue to be
nature. needed for agriculture.25 This would not, however,
include provision to improve people’s enjoyment of
Without rapid introduction of Defra’s other planned the natural environment, which is a target in the 25
environmental schemes, marginal farms are likely to year environment plan and a focus of public goods
see the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) as the only payments under the Agriculture Act 2020. So the total
viable source of support. Indeed, farmers and land budget required is likely to be substantially greater.
managers have already made requests for eligibility for As an absolute minimum, therefore, the Government
SFI to be as broad as possible.19 Without a ring-fenced should commit to at least maintaining current
budget for land use change, and a clear route through agriculture spending until 2029.
the agricultural transition period, marginal farmers
have limited options. They can either: lobby to expand
the SFI into a scheme that could end up paying all
farmers without providing environmental goods;

attempt to intensify production in ways that cause
both environmental damage and lost opportunity for
carbon capture;20 or else go out of business and sell
their land, causing a structural shift in land ownership
away from traditional, small-scale ownership.
The public values farmers, and wants to see them
fairly paid for the work that they do.21 Land use
change through ELMS should pay farmers a fair
wage for the nationally important carbon and nature
restoration work they will do. Our economic analysis
shows that ELMS should expect to pay farmers around
£775 per hectare for the multiple environmental
benefits of broadleaf forest. Doing so will address
228
Table 1 In addition, much of the land that is already protected
Annual cost to deliver Environmental Land is in a poor ecological state: 75% of Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in English National Parks are
Management outcomes over the next ten in an “unfavourable condition”, meaning they are not
years (NFS updated RSPB model) being protected sufficiently.27 Alongside improvements
to farmed land, ELMs could reverse the decline in
Cost (£m English nature and help fulfil the 30x30 pledge.
Land management practice per year in
England) Our calculations of the cost of land use change –
Priority habitats £760
which led to the recommendation of ringfencing
£500m–700m – are based on forestry cost analysis
Boundary features £333 from Forest Creation Partners (online supplementary
Historic environment £56 material available on the National Food Strategy
Arable land £523 website), alongside analysis of the cost of restoring
and maintaining peatland and other priority habitats.
Grassland £342
Based on these, we have calculated the annual costs
Organic £17 required to support the creation and maintenance of
Total land management £2,031 these habitats. We made two assumptions that are
relevant to the cost of this approach:
Additional elements
Environmental land management advice £42 • Restoring forest, peat, or priority habitat must
not be loss-making for the farmer. For forestry
Securing vulnerable high nature value farming £120
specifically, we adapted the FCP model, so that
Business advice to vulnerable HNV farms £3 broadleaf woodland, which is loss-making without
Securing long term changes in land use £10 payments, would break even with a 0% rate of
return over 40 years.
Sub-total: Additional cost elements £175
Total £2,206 • The land manager must receive a fair and reliable
income – the FCP’s model assumes annual
earnings of £28,000 for a 50-hectare plot.
Costs and benefits We have included similar labour costs in our
assessments of peat and other priority habitats.
The benefits of the land use change component of
ELMs should be consistent with the policy targets Assuming both of these requirements, and without
outlined above, and should include (by 2035 at the carbon credits, total payments of £775 per hectare
latest): per year would be needed to support broadleaf
woodland over a 40-year period. At a carbon price of
• The creation of at least 410,000 hectares of
£69/tCO2e – below HMT’s expected carbon price for
additional woodland in England, equivalent to
2030 – with carbon credits paid from year 15 of forest
3% of the land area of England – bringing English
establishment, payments could drop to £250 per
woodland cover up to 13%.26
hectare per year.28
• The restoration of an additional 325,000 hectares
Currently, the least profitable 25% of upland farms
(100%) of upland peat.
receive ~£260/ha in annual subsidies, most of which
• An additional 200,000 hectares of agricultural are in BPS payments.29 Despite this subsidy, the
land to be managed for nature that is not suited average upland farm relies on ~£28,000 in unpaid
to living on a farm. This will involve allowing large labour undertaken by farmers and their families.30
areas to restore natural processes and rebuild
Without a carbon price, our broadleaf scenario is
ecosystems. Restorations may include lowland
more expensive. This is because our forestry scenarios
heath, large water bodies and marsh, reed
assume an annual salary, rather than expecting unpaid
beds, wet grassland habitats, and species-rich
labour. If we assumed the same willingness to carry
grassland. Specific actions will need to be tailored
out unpaid labour for woodland management, the cost
to local conditions.
of broadleaf woodland, without income from carbon
Overall, this would enable an extra 7% of land in credits, would drop to £257/ha – demonstrating
England to be protected for nature by 2035. This will the comparative cost effectiveness of paying for
contribute to the Government’s “30x30” pledge, which woodland compared to our existing system.
requires 30% of the total land area of England to be
In broad terms, peat restoration and maintenance
protected for nature by 2030. Presently, 26% of land in
of priority semi-natural habitat cost between £240–
England has some form of protection, meaning that at
£600/ha before any carbon credits.
least 4% more land will be needed to meet the target.
229
Each pound invested benefits the public several times
over. Achieving net zero in the UK by 2050 would
cost landowners a total of £1.6bn per year, and return
£0.9bn per year in private revenues. It would return
public benefits of £4bn per year, however, so public
investment would provide value for money.31 Nature
Recommendation 8
restoration is estimated to yield benefits ranging from

2:1 (e.g. saltmarsh restoration) to 9:1 (inland wetlands
Appendix 8
restoration).32
230
Endnotes
1
Chapman, P. (2017). Conservation grazing for semi-natural habitats. 10
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2021) Envi-
Scotland’s Rural College. Available at: https://www.fas.scot/down- ronmental Land Management: policy discussion document. HMG.
loads/tn686-conservation-grazing-semi-natural-habitats/ Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/959727/elm-poli-
2
Lindsay, R. et al. (2014). IUCN UK Committee peatland programme cy-discussion-document-analysis-responses.pdf
briefing note no. 7. University of East London. Available at: https://
www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/7 11
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2019). The fu-
Grazing and trampling final - 5th November 2014.pdf ture farming and environment evidence compendium. HMG. Available
at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/the-future-farm-
3
Joint Natural Capital Committee. Private correspondence. ing-and-environment-evidence-compendium-latest-edition
4
Greenhouse gas emissions: 55MtCO2e/year in Climate Change 12
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2019) The fu-
Committee (2020). Sixth carbon budget. Available at: https://www. ture farming and environment evidence compendium. HMG. Available
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Carbon-Bud- at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/
get-The-UKs-path-to-Net-Zero.pdf; system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834432/evidence-compendi-
um-26sep19.pdf
Ammonia: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(2019) The future farming and environment evidence compendium. 13
3% of food production: NFS Analysis, based on data from Defra
HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Gov- June Survey, see: Department for Environment, Food and Rural
ernment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834432/ Affairs. (2021). June survey of agriculture and horticulture. HMG.
evidence-compendium-26sep19.pdf Available at: https://www.gov.uk/agricultural-survey
5
Emissions have barely changed: National Atmospheric Emissions 14
The suitability assessment accounted for regulatory restrictions,
Inventory (2021). Greenhouse gas inventories for England, Scotland, land quality and access, among other factors – see online supple-
Wales & Northern Ireland: 1990–2019. Available at: https://naei.beis. mentary material for detailed case study.
gov.uk/reports/reports?report_id=1019;
15
Net Present Value and Rate of Return were estimated with and
Species decline: National Biodiversity Network. (2019). State of without land acquisition costs, and a range of 4.5–7% annual sale
nature 2019 report. Available at: https://nbn.org.uk/wp-content/up- price growth of timber was assumed, based on Compound Annual
loads/2019/09/State-of-Nature-2019-UK-summary.pdf; Growth Rate in nominal timber price between 2000 and 2019 – see
online supplementary material for detailed case study. Less biodiver-
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2019). Sixth national report to
sity from coniferous forest: Burton, V. et al. (2021). Reviewing the ev-
the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at:
idence based for the effects of woodland expansion on biodiversity
https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/527ff89f-5f6b-4e06-bde6-b823e0d-
and ecosystem services in the United Kingdom. Forest Ecology and
dcb9a/UK-CBD-6NR-v2-web.pdf
Management 430, 366–379. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.
6
Around 19% of agricultural land in England: Climate Change Com- com/science/article/pii/S0378112718306662
mittee. (2020) Sixth Carbon Budget. Climate Change Committee. 16
Short, C. et al. (2018) Initial evaluation of the implementation of
Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-car-
Countryside Stewardship in England in 2015/16. Fera Consortium.
bon-budget/
Countryside and Community Research Institute: Gloucester. Available
7
Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (2021). at: http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&
Agricultural Transition Plan: June 2021 progress update. Available Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19803
at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/agricultur- 17
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2019) The future
al-transition-plan-june-2021-progress-update/agricultural-transi-
farming and environment evidence compendium. HMG. Available
tion-plan-june-2021-progress-update
8
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2019). The fu- system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834432/evidence-compendi-
ture farming and environment evidence compendium. HMG. Available um-26sep19.pdf
at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/the-future-farm- 18
Tenant Farmers Association. Private correspondence.
ing-and-environment-evidence-compendium-latest-edition
19
Blue Marble Research. (2021). Environmental Land Management
9
Increase in alternative proteins: Mintel. (2020). Plant-based push:
Policy discussion document. HMG. Available at: https://assets.
UK sales of meat-free foods shoot up 40% between 2014–19. Mintel.
Available at: https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/
attachment_data/file/959727/elm-policy-discussion-document-anal-
plant-based-push-uk-sales-of-meat-free-foods-shoot-up-40-
ysis-responses.pdf
between-2014-19;
20
Clark, C. and Scanlon, B. (2019). Less is more: Improving profitabil-
International competition, e.g., cost of production (lamb) in Wales
ity and the natural environment in hill and other marginal farming
compared with New Zealand: Meat Promotion Wales. (2018). Lamb
systems. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Wildlife Trusts
production costs 2017/18. Meat Promotion Wales. Available at:
and National Trust. Available at: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/
https://meatpromotion.wales/images/resources/HCC_Lamb_produc-
default/files/2019-11/Hill farm profitability report - FINAL agreed 15
tion_costs_2017-18_-_ENG.pdf;
Nov 19.pdf
Meat & Livestock Australia. (2018). Market supplier snapshot sheep- 21
Food Standards Agency. (2018). Food and You Survey. FSA. Avail-
meat, New Zealand. Meat & Livestock Australia. Available at: https://
able at: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/food-and-you
www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/prices--markets/
documents/os-markets/red-meat-market-snapshots/mla-ms-nz-snap- 22
University of Lincoln. (2019). Health and wellbeing research report.
shot-2018.pdf The Worshipful Company of Farmers. Available at: http://eprints.lin-
231
coln.ac.uk/id/eprint/41180/1/WCF-Health-and-Wellbeing-Research-
Report-FINAL-April.pdf
23
Clark, C. and Scanlon, B. (2019). Less is more: Improving profitabil-
ity and the natural environment in hill and other marginal farming
systems. Available at: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/
files/2019-11/Hill farm profitability report - FINAL agreed 15 Nov
Recommendation 8
19.pdf
24
Rayment, M. (2019). Paying for public goods from land manage-
Appendix 8
ment: How much will it cost and how might we pay? A report for the
RSPB, the National Trust and The Wildlife Trusts. Rayment Consulting
Services Ltd. Available at: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/de-
fault/files/2019-09/Paying for public goods final report.pdf
25
10% for farm prosperity: Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs. (2021). A path to sustainable farming: An agricultural
transition plan 2021 to 2024. HMG Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
Government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024
26
This is consistent with England’s share of the Climate Change
Committee’s balanced pathway recommendation that requires at
least 17% of all UK land to be forested by 2050. Climate Change
Committee. (2020). Sixth carbon budget. CCC. Available at: https://
www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Sixth-Car-
bon-Budget-The-UKs-path-to-Net-Zero.pdf
27
Campaign for National Parks. (2018). Raising the bar: improving
nature in National Parks. Campaign for National Parks. Available at:
https://www.cnp.org.uk/news/raising-the-bar
28
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. (2019).
Updated short-term traded carbon values. HMG. Available at:
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/794186/2018-short-term-traded-
carbon-values-for-appraisal-purposes.pdf;
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. (2019).

Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal.
HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Gov-
valuation-of-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-apprais-
al-2018.pdf
29
Least profitable 25% of Less Favoured Area grazing farms: Depart-
ment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2021). Farm accounts
in England results from the Farm Business Survey 2019/20. HMG.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/farm-ac-
counts-in-england
30
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2021). Farm
accounts in England results from the Farm Business Survey 2019/20.
HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Gov-
fbs_farmaccountsengland_18feb21.pdf
31
Vivid Economics. (2020). Economic iImpacts of net zero land use
scenarios. CCC. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2020/01/Economic-impacts-of-Net-Zero-land-use-sce-
narios-Vivid-Economics.pdf
32
Greenpeace (2019). Government investment for a greener and
fairer economy. Greenpeace. Available at: https://www.green-
peace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Government-Invest-
ment-for-a-greener-and-fairer-economy-FINAL-30.08.19.pdf
232
Recommendation 9. Create a Rural Land Use
Framework based on the Three Compartment Model.
Recommendation 9
Appendix 9
What is it? use– from the England Trees Action Plan to the ELMS
– controlling funds ranging from £10m to £2.4bn
Defra should devise a Rural Land Use Framework, to per year. The Framework would help join these up.
be in place by 2022. It would also be used to shape regulatory priorities
(for example, to improve land management in Areas
First, Defra should work with the Local Nature
of National Beauty and National Parks), and to help
Recovery Networks to prepare a National Rural Land
planning officers take decisions on applications.
Map (as described in Recommendation 12). It should
include: The data assembled for both the map and the
framework should be shared across Government,
• Data on the productivity of agricultural land
coordinated by the Geospatial Commission. In
derived from the June Farm Survey and the
particular, Defra should work closely with the Ministry
Agricultural Land Classification.1
of Housing, Communities and Local Government in
• Priority areas for the environment (using, for support of its housebuilding agenda and reforms
example, existing data on Peaty Soils Location to the planning system. The additional land needed
and Living England maps).2 for new housing is relatively small (approximately
2.2% of total UK land by 2060): sharing data across
• Areas where there are significant levels of Government can help make sure that the most
pollution (with data from, for example, the UK appropriate land is used.
Emissions map and the Together for Rivers map).3
• The England Tree Strategy, England peat action
plan and Local Nature Recovery Strategies.4
Rationale
Land is a scarce resource in England. In the past,
Defra should then put together the Rural Land Use
we have used it for three main purposes: housing,
Framework and publish this as a report. This should
recreation and food production. (This latter currently
provide detailed assessments of the best way to use
takes up 70% of English land.) We now need to do
any given area of land, and inform the many existing
more with our land, using it for nature restoration as
incentive schemes and land-based strategies in
well as carbon reduction and sequestration.
Defra. The framework should set out the best way
to achieve a “three compartment model” for the The Climate Change Committee has estimated that
country, including which land is most appropriate approximately 21% of agricultural land in England will
for semi-natural land, low-yield farmland and high- need to change function – to forestry, energy crops,
yield farmland, as well as land that is appropriate for peatland or agroforestry – in order to meet our net
economic development and housing. It should be clear
zero commitments.5 This does not necessarily mean

how the model can help meet the Government’s legal taking the land out of agricultural use entirely. Indeed,
commitments to reach net zero by 2050, and protect without using land for combined nature and carbon
30% of land for nature by 2030 (the “30x30” target). removals, or combined nature and food production, it
The report would be updated annually. may not be possible to meet all our targets. (At least,
not without offshoring much of our environmental
Land changes cannot be imposed by central
footprint and food production.)
Government. Defra should make its National Rural
Land Map freely available for land managers, to help Every piece of land is different. The kind of land that
them make decisions about the use of their land. The could deliver the greatest environmental benefits is
framework should also be used by central and local often not very agriculturally productive. The most
Government in decision making – for example, to productive 33% of English land produces around 60%
guide funding from Environmental Land Management of the total output of the land, while the bottom
schemes (ELMs) for Local Nature Recovery and 33% only produces 15%.6 Similarly, making farming
Landscape recovery. There are currently at least more environmentally sensitive in specific parts of
eight different schemes that could influence land the country could deliver disproportionate gains:
233
reducing runoff just from the 5% of agricultural land
that produces the most water pollution could reduce
phosphorus and sediment in our rivers by 25%, and
their nitrogen load by 13%. Indeed, the only major area
in England where our food, environmental and carbon
reduction goals clash is the Fens. This is exceptionally
good agricultural land, in large part because of its
peaty soil, which would otherwise be a major carbon
sink.7
This is why we need better data on how the land
should be used. Unless we have a clear idea of
which land should ideally be used for what, we
could compromise our food security or make our
environment even worse. Collating and publishing
this information will help farmers and landowners to
work together to improve conditions in local areas.
It will also make the new ELMs much more likely to
succeed. This was recognised by many stakeholders
in the Government’s consultation on the ELM policy
discussion document. They repeatedly highlighted
the need for improved use of data and evidence to
determine local priorities, including the use of land
mapping data.8
In drawing together the recommendations in this
report, we undertook an analysis which makes a
start at doing just this. We identified land that is
best used to protect both nature and carbon at the
same time; showed that much of this land could be
mainly used for nature and carbon at low risk to our
food self-sufficiency; and analysed where within this
low productivity land peat and woodland could be
restored. Our results are summarised on four maps
below (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). This underpins our
recommendations for ELMs (Recommendation 8) and
this land use framework.
Costs and benefits

A Rural Land Use Framework will outline the most
effective means of achieving net zero by 2050 and
30% of land managed for nature by 2030. By using
better data, we will be able to achieve these targets
while reducing land used for farming by less than 1% of
agricultural land per year up to 2050, maintaining food
security, increasing forest coverage by 4% by 2050
and improving and increasing other land managed for
nature.
234
Carbon nature food maps9
Recommendation 9
Appendix 9
Figure 1
Priority regions for both High

carbon and biodiversity
It is possible to devise a combined carbon and

biodiversity strategy by finding those areas that are Low
high in both carbon and nature value and deprioritising
areas that are high in carbon but very low in nature
value.
Across Great Britain 90% of our highest priority
carbon storage and 91% of our highest priority nature
areas can be found in the same locations.
There doesn’t need to be a conflict between
protecting nature and reducing carbon.
Red: Figure 2
Areas of land most
suited to carbon Much of the agricultural
sequestration and land that produces the least
biodiversity restoration
calories is high priority land
Green:
Our least productive
for carbon and nature
farmland
The area in blue and green grows 75% of the total
calories produced in England. The areas not covered
in these two colours could – in theory – not be

farmed at all if we reduced waste in the system.
They contain many of the highest priority areas for
nature and carbon protection - the Fens being the
major exception.
Within this clear area, giving 10% of the least
productive farmland to nature would mean producing
1% fewer calories. Doubling this to 20% would mean
producing 3% fewer calories.
235
Figure 3
We can grow enough forest on

our least productive agricultural
land to reach our net zero goals
This map shows the share of the least productive 14%

More
of farmland (across 2.4m hectares) that is suitable for
forest creation. The underlying analysis takes place at
farm scale.
The assessment excludes a large range of land due Less
to physical suitability, planning constraints (all peat,
protected habitats, and areas unlikely to receive
planning permission are excluded), and future climate
suitability.
Darker greens indicate a greater proportion of land
is suitable.
In total, 424,456 ha (17%) within this area are plantable
with the majority being suited to broadleaf woods.
This is around the area which would need to become
woodland to hit our net zero goals.A
Figure 4
Priority land for nature and

carbon, land suitable for forestry,
More and land that produces most of
our food
Less
Combining all these maps together shows, at a high
level, areas in England where the land is most well
suited to new woodland, restored peat, and other
natural habitats (blank or green squares); those areas
well suited to lower intensity farming (light blue), and
higher intensity farming (dark blue).
A national map can only tell part of the story: farm
productivity, habitat quality, and people’s priorities
vary at a local level, and this is ultimately where
decisions on land use will be made.
Note: Calorie production and forest analysis conducted for England only.
236
Endnotes
1 June Survey: Department for Food and Rural Affairs. (2021). June
Recommendation 9
survey of agriculture and horticulture. HMG. Available at: https://

www.gov.uk/agricultural-survey;
Appendix 9
Agricultural Land Classification: MAGIC. (2019). Agricultural Land

Classification – Provisional (England). HMG. Available at: https://
magic.defra.gov.uk/StaticMaps/Agricultural Land Classification -
Provisional (England).pdf
2 Peaty Soils Location: Natural England. (2013). Peaty Soils Location.

Natural England. Available at: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/c9eb1cd9-
c254-4128-a18d-d368fbe6acf0/peaty-soils-location;
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2019). Habitat Extent. Joint

Nature Conservation Committee. Available at: https://jncc.gov.uk/
our-work/habitat-extent/
3 Emissions: National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. UK Emissions

Interactive Map. Available at: https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/;
Pollution: The Rivers Trust. Together for rivers map. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a6d-
d42e3bc264fc28134c64c00db4a5b&extent=-401307.0872%2C6628
364.5565%2C-130261.3849%2C6788576.5678%2C102100
4 Peat action plan: Department for Food and Rural Affairs. (2021).
England peat action plan. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/
Government/publications/england-peat-action-plan;
Trees action plan: Department for Food and Rural Affairs. (2021). En-
gland trees action plan. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.
data/file/987432/england-trees-action-plan.pdf;
Nature recovery network: Department for Food and Rural Affairs.

(2020). The Nature Recovery Network. HMG. Available at: https://
www.gov.uk/Government/publications/nature-recovery-network/
nature-recovery-network
5 Climate Change Committee. (2020). Sixth carbon budget. CCC.

Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-car-
bon-budget/
6 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2019). The fu-
ture farming and environment evidence compendium. HMG. Available
system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834432/evidence-compendi-
um-26sep19.pdf
7 Evans, C. et al. (2017). Final report on project SP1210: Lowland

peatland systems in England and Wales – evaluating greenhouse
gas fluxes and carbon balances. Centre For Ecology and Hydrology,
Rothamsted Research. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/50635/
8 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2021). Environ-

mental Land Management policy discussion document – analysis
of responses. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
file/959727/elm-policy-discussion-document-analysis-responses.pdf
9
See NFS Evidence Pack, pages 41, 45, and 48, available from:
https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org
237
Recommendation 10. Define minimum standards for
trade, and a mechanism for protecting them.
Recommendation 10
Appendix 10
What is it? likely to cause our imports of food to rise. Many of

the countries with which the Government is seeking
The Government should draw up a list of core to make free trade agreements can produce food at
minimum standards which it will defend in any future a lower cost than the UK. For example, the cost of
trade deals. These should cover animal welfare, producing beef in the UK is 2–4 times higher than
environment and health protection, carbon emissions, in Australia (UK: ~ $480-780 per kg sold, Australia:
antimicrobial resistance, and zoonotic disease risk. The $180-310 per kg sold).2 Much of this difference is
Government must then set out which mechanisms it due to differences in landscape, weather conditions,
intends to use to protect these standards. scale of operations and other factors which have no
connection with standards. Many Australian farm
The UK has high standards of animal welfare and
products would still be highly competitive on the
environmental protection. While many of these are
UK market even if they complied fully with UK core
important to our trading relationships, there are
standards.3 There is even evidence to suggest that
standards that are less relevant to international
some overseas farmers can produce food at rather
partners (for example, the way that we manage our
lower environmental cost than UK farmers can (for
grouse moors). There are also some standards that
example, New Zealand lamb).4
do not apply in the UK but are necessary to reduce
serious harms overseas (for example, rules against But some countries do produce cheaper food through
deforestation of rainforests). The Government should environmentally costly practices – such as ongoing
set out a list of minimum standards which it expects deforestation for grazing land. Some have very low
imported food to meet in support of the objective of a standards of animal welfare. If cheap food from these
healthy and sustainable food system. countries was allowed to flood the market, UK farmers
would not be able to compete on price. Although
The Government should also set out a mechanism
UK consumers like the idea of locally produced food
which it proposes to use to defend these standards
that is kind to animals and the planet, we are hugely
in trade deals. This means making sure trade deals
influenced by price.5 Cheap, low-standard food would
do not force the UK to weaken its own standards, or
quickly capture a greater proportion of the market
open the UK market to imports that do not comply
than locally produced foods. This is particularly the
with those standards and thereby undermine them.
case for ready meals, catering and processed foods,
One way to do this without breaking the WTO’s anti-
where provenance is less clear and which represent a
protectionism rules would be to make tariff reductions
large and growing fraction of our consumption.6
within free trade agreements (FTAs) contingent
on products complying with UK core standards. This risks seriously increasing our global impact on
Noncompliant products would incur the UK’s full most- nature and the environment. The UK market for meat
favoured-nation tariff, which is high enough to keep and dairy already takes up more land abroad than at
imports of such products at low levels. This is the home, and food that is imported has a total impact
mechanism we proposed in Part One of this strategy, on species loss ten times greater than the food
and which was also suggested by the Trade and we produce domestically.7 As the problems of the
Agriculture Commission.1 Whether the Government environment and nature are global ones it would be
chooses this approach or another, it must have both pointless – and hypocritical – to reduce the harms
the mechanism and the standards in place before created by our own farming system while simply
taking any further steps towards trade agreements transferring those harms overseas.
with countries such as the United States and Brazil.
Beyond carbon and the environment, there is the issue
of animal welfare. The UK has some of the highest
Rationale standards of animal health and welfare in the world.8
For example, as part of the EU we banned growth
Signing free trade agreements with countries such hormones for cattle in 1981, while these are still in
as Australia, Brazil or the United States, who are use in countries including Australia, Canada and the
able to produce food at a lower cost to the UK, is
238
US.9 There are also examples where we have higher than those of other countries, such as Brazil, and the
standards than the EU. The maximum stocking density volume of imports from Australia may not be large
for chickens is 39kg/m2 in the UK, compared to 42kg/ enough to seriously compromise the UK’s attempts to
m2 in the EU.10 Access to the lucrative UK food market protect the environment and animal welfare. But this
is a prized commodity: if we strike careful trade deals, deal sets a dangerous precedent.
which allow privileged access to our market only to
producers with standards that match our own, we If future trade agreements are made in the same
can incentivise positive change across the global way – with no core standards in place, and no way
food system. Conversely, if we accept goods with of enforcing them – it will make it much harder to
lower standards, we undermine our own values while carry through the recommendations in this strategy.
disincentivising progress abroad. Reducing the carbon footprint of meat consumption
in the UK will be challenging enough as it is. But if
The UK public feels strongly about maintaining our we sign Australian-style deals with countries such as
food standards as we enter trade deals. Numerous Brazil, it would mean allowing cheap beef with a much
opinion polls have shown this to be the case, e.g. 82% higher carbon footprint to undercut our own produce.
would prefer to retain current standards;11 93% think Our true carbon footprint – including that from
food standards should be maintained after EU Exit;12 imports – would be worse than ever, and we would
81% of respondents would be concerned if the UK bankrupt our own farmers in the process. This would
Government relaxed laws on meat standards to secure be both ethically and commercially absurd. That is why
trade deals with the USA and the rest of the world.13 the Government must move quickly to implement its
Red Wall swing voters have also said that they would manifesto pledge.
not want our food standards to be undermined.14
This is why the Conservatives, in their 2019 manifesto, Costs and benefits
pledged that “in all of our trade negotiations, we
will not compromise on our high environmental We have not assessed the potential benefits of this
protection, animal welfare and food standards”. In recommendation. This is because it is intended to
Part One of this strategy, we proposed a way to avoid worsening our position rather than to improve it.
honour this pledge. We suggested that the Trade
and Agriculture Commission should draw up a list of
core standards, covering food safety, animal welfare,
responsible antibiotic use and the prevention of severe
environmental impacts (for example, the clearing of
rainforest for beef grazing). In striking trade deals,
it should offer to lower tariff barriers only on those
products that comply with these standards. Our
partner countries would be asked to set up verification
systems, so that exporters wanting to benefit from
reduced tariffs could prove that they were compliant
with UK standards. These would be similar to
those currently operated by the US Department of
Agriculture, which verifies American beef producers
wanting to export certified hormone-free beef to
the UK and EU. A similar recommendation was made
by the Trade and Agriculture Commission when it
reported earlier this year.15
Despite these recommendations from two
independent reports (both commissioned by the
Government), the Government has still not said what
standards it proposes to protect, or what mechanism
it will use to defend them in trade negotiations. It has
now agreed in principle a trade deal with Australia
which contains no such mechanism. As things stand,
this will eventually allow Australia to export unlimited
quantities of meat to the UK, regardless of how it was
produced. Australian standards are closer to the UK’s
239
Endnotes
Trade and Agriculture Commission. (2021). Final report. TAC. Availa checked UK. Available at: http://redwall.unchecked.uk/wp-content/
Recommendation 10
ble at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/ uploads/sites/2/2020/12/A-view-from-the-Red-Wall.pdf

system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969045/Trade-and-Agricul-
15
Trade and Agriculture Commission. (2021). Final report. TAC. Avail-
Appendix 10
ture-Commission-final-report.pdf
able at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/up-
2
Behrendt, K. and Weeks, P. (2017). How are global and Australian loads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969045/Trade-and-Ag-
beef producers performing? Meat & Livestock Australia. Available at: riculture-Commission-final-report.pdf
https://www.mla.com.au/globalassets/mla-corporate/prices--mar-
kets/documents/trends--analysis/agri-benchmark/revised_mla_
agribenchmark-beef-results-report_jan-2017.pdf
3
Menghi, A. et al. (2014). Assessing farmers’ costs of compliance with
EU legislation in the fields of environment, animal welfare and food
safety. Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali for the European Com-
mission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development.
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farm-
ing-fisheries/key_policies/documents/ext-study-farmer-costs-full-
text_2014_en.pdf
4
Williams, A. G. et al. (2008) Comparative life cycle assessment of
food commodities procured for UK consumption through a diversity of
supply chains. Final report for Defra Project FO0103. HMG. Available
at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Module=More&Loca-
tion=None&ProjectID=15001
5
D’Angelo, C. et al. (2000). Food consumption in the UK: Trends,
attitudes and drivers. RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.
rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4379.html
6
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2020). Family
food datasets. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/
statistical-data-sets/family-food-datasets
7
NFS analysis based on Poore, J. and Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing
food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Sci-
ence 360(6392), 987–992. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.
org/content/360/6392/987
8
World Animal Protection. (2020). Animal protection index. Available
at: https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/
9
European Commission. (2021). Hormones in meat. European Commis-
sion. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemical-safety/
hormones-meat_en
10
UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2019).
Broiler (meat) chickens: welfare recommendations. HMG. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/poultry-on-farm-wel-
fare/broiler-meat-chickens-welfare-recommendations;
EU: European Commission. (2007). Animal welfare – protection of

chickens kept for meat production. Available at: https://eur-lex.euro-
pa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Af82002
11
The Progressive Policy Think Tank. (2018). Public willing to sacrifice
US trade deal to protect food safety. The Progressive Policy Think
Tank. Available at: https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-re-
leases/public-willing-to-sacrifice-us-trade-deal-to-protect-food-safety
Which?. (2020). Ensuring trade deals work for consumers. Which?.

12
Available at: https://campaigns.which.co.uk/trade-deals/wp-content/

uploads/sites/31/2020/01/5e2f163d92b97-Trade-deals-v4-2.pdf
13
UNISON. (2020). Public fears a lowering of meat standards in future
US trade deals, says UNISON. UNISON. Available at: https://www.
unison.org.uk/news/article/2020/02/public-fears-lowering-meat-
standards-future-us-trade-deals-says-unison/
14
Cracknell, J. and Rose, E. (2021). A view from the “Red Wall”. Un-
240
Recommendation 11. Invest £1 billion in innovation
to create a better food system.
Recommendation 11
Appendix 11
What is it? it should also be used to help develop new ways of

growing food, such as vertical farming and precision
Under its new Innovation Strategy, the Government fermentation. In particular, and in addition to capital
should invest in transforming the food system. This investment in the alternative protein cluster described
should include: below, the fund should allocate £75m to research on
• Establishing a £500m fund, managed by UK alternative proteins.
Research and Innovation (UKRI), to invest in The fund should be managed by UKRI and open
innovation for healthy and sustainable diets,
to applications from projects which are likely to
including £75m for alternative proteins.
have a practical impact. Projects of all sizes would
• Ensuring the £280m Defra has already earmarked be eligible for funding and could be commercial or
for innovation through the Agricultural Transition non-commercial in nature. To ensure that support
Plan supports a full spectrum of “farmer- reaches a wide variety of fields, UKRI should invite
led” approaches, with priorities including people from businesses, community enterprises and
agroecological farming, horticulture, and methods
Government, as well as academia, to govern the fund
for reducing methane emissions from cows and
sheep. and review project proposals. The funding should
include innovative mechanisms for leveraging private
• £50m to help build, fund and support an investment, building on the experience of initiatives
innovation cluster where scientists and such as the Transforming Food Production Series
entrepreneurs can develop, test and scale up new A Investor Partnership Programme.1 The challenge
alternative proteins.
fund would be managed in coordination with
• Setting up two What Works Centres, with a complementary innovation funds across Government.
combined endowment of £200m, to strengthen
the evidence for farming and food policies. Farmer-led innovation
The Government should make creating a better Defra has already ring-fenced £280m to support
food system one of the first “long-term missions” innovation in its seven-year Agricultural Transition
of its Innovation Strategy, due to be published very Plan. This funding focuses on “farmer-led” innovation,
soon. All the Government departments and agencies recognising that the driving force behind regenerative
with responsibilities for the food system should agriculture has usually been the people on the
explicitly commit to this mission, including Defra, ground, trying out new ideas. This approach is
the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), designed to ensure investment goes not only on
the Department for Education (DfE) and the Food developing new tools and techniques, but also on
Standards Agency (FSA), coordinated by UKRI. The making sure they are actually used in the field. It is
Government should pursue the mission through a crucial that Defra sees through this promise to take
package of innovation investment worth £1.03bn, of a farmer-led approach, and backs innovation across
which £280m is already committed. the full spectrum of regenerative farming: not just
high-tech new ideas (important though these are),
Challenge funding for healthy and sustainable but also the agroecological methods that have been
diets starved of investment up to now. It should draw on
the experience of successful independent initiatives
The mission should be backed by a new “challenge
such as Innovative Farmers, the Yield Enhancement
fund” of £500m, available over five years, targeted at
Network and Farmer Clusters.2
practical innovation that supports a nationwide shift
to sustainable and healthy eating. This fund should Fruit and vegetable production
focus on achieving the changes in diet that we set out
in Chapter 16. This might include accelerating work to One priority for Defra should be fruit and vegetable
reformulate processed foods, trying out new ways of growing, with its innovation funding becoming a key
helping customers change their habits, and boosting component of an ambitious growth strategy for fresh
locally-led initiatives to improve diet and health. But produce, developed with the industry. This should be
241
supported by a wider programme of investment to The second What Works Centre should focus
boost horticultural productivity sustainably, creating on improving policies and business practices to
a less bureaucratic, more inclusive and better funded encourage a large-scale shift towards sustainable
successor to the previous EU Fruit and Vegetable and healthy diets. It should take research already
Regime. conducted by scientific institutions and Governments
around the world and translate it so that it becomes
Methane suppressants accessible to policymakers inside Government
Defra’s £280m fund should also specifically include – for example through evidence briefings, data
investment to develop new technologies to suppress visualisations, summaries or guidance documents. It
methane emissions from cows and sheep, and to should also evaluate Government policies, conduct
encourage their take-up by farmers. Defra should large-scale experimental studies, and assess small-
create a small team to scan the horizon for new scale pilots and experiments, to determine which new
methane-reduction products, develop a targeted interventions are likely to be most effective. While the
research programme, and put together a timeline for centre should remain independent of Government, it
integrating new products onto farms. At least initially, should maintain close links with relevant departments
this is likely to require incentivising farmers to use to ensure effectiveness. This centre should be
the products or subsidising their cost, since the initial established with an endowment of £150m, jointly
costs are likely to be high. Well-targeted investment funded by Defra and DHSC, to guarantee funding over
could help bring new products to market and roll them 10 years. UKRI should work closely with the centre in
out speedily. developing priorities for the new challenge funding.
Alternative proteins cluster Rationale

Defra should put an additional £50m towards a Providing an abundance of healthy and sustainable
commercial innovation “cluster” to develop, test and food will require innovation. Many of the measures
scale up alternative proteins. This cluster should be in this strategy will contribute to such innovation by
based around an existing area of investment, such as helping businesses, Government and academia direct
the Centre for Process Innovation’s novel food unit, their own research and development. For example,
or one of the Agri-Tech Centres. The funding would the legislation we propose (Recommendation 14)
provide open-access facilities to allow emerging will set the direction for improving the health and
businesses to test and scale up new products. It sustainability of the food system, while the mandatory
would be complemented by commercial revenue. reporting (Recommendation 2) and the data
programme (Recommendation 12) will help innovators
What Works Centres and investors align with these goals. But direct
innovation funding is also required.
Finally, the Government should set up two What
Works Centres to strengthen the evidence for policies Such innovation would have economic benefits,
and practices to improve the health impact and boosting the UK’s involvement in emerging
sustainability of farming and diets. The first, focused technologies such as gene editing, synthetic food
on effective policy and practical interventions to production, nanotechnology, microalgae bioreactors,
improve farming, has already been piloted by the the internet of things (IoT), robotics and sensors, 3D
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board food printing, and artificial intelligence. But it is also
(AHDB), in the form of the Evidence for Farming important that it should be directed in the public
Initiative (EFI). This could be expanded and formalised interest, which is why Government investment is so
to play a pivotal part in improving the quality and important. The Government is expected to recognise
coherence of advice on the practical implications for this in its new Innovation Strategy, seeking to harness
agriculture of goals such as net zero. Defra should innovation to address social and environmental goals.
ensure it has a long-term future by co-funding EFI The public want innovation to be a force for social
through an endowment of £50m, alongside investment change as well as economic growth.4
by AHDB and industry. As other centres affiliated to
Government have already shown, an endowment fund Innovation funding
will give the centre financial flexibility, as well as the The UK already produces world-class food science and
ability to make longer-term plans and pursue a robust invests a lot in agricultural research. Only scientists in
scientific strategy.3 Defra should collaborate closely the USA, where the Government spends seven times
with EFI to inform future themes and priorities for its as much on agricultural research and development,
farmer-led innovation fund. are more frequently cited in research in agriculture
242
and the biological sciences.5 But the UK is less sharply, only partly explained by seasonality and
effective than comparable countries at innovation – the increased demand for a wider range of products
the successful application of ideas. This has been a that cannot be grown in the UK. There are clear
particular concern for businesses and policymakers opportunities for UK growers to secure a greater share
concerned with food and agriculture.6 A key innovation of the UK market.
Recommendation 11
metric is change in total factor productivity (TFP).7

From 2006 to 2016, TFP growth in the Netherlands Although the EU Fresh Fruit and Veg Regime has its
flaws, notably the level of bureaucracy associated with
Appendix 11
was 2.6%, in Germany 1.8% and in Denmark 1.2%.

In the UK it was only 0.6%.8 The UK spends on the scheme, it has enabled the industry to co-invest
agricultural research and development around as much and improve productivity. Defra should adapt the best
as France and almost twice as much as New Zealand, elements of the EU scheme, to create a package of
but has seen slower productivity growth than either of investment that aligns more closely with Government,
those countries, relative to agricultural turnover.9 consumer and grower requirements.
There are a number of reasons for this.10 First, there Methane suppressants
has been an overall lack of funds for applied research: One area of innovation that urgently needs
Defra’s research budget has dropped dramatically Government support is reducing emissions of
over the past decade, from £225m in 2007 to £52m greenhouse gases from cattle and sheep. Farmed
in 2017; over the same period, the Food Standards ruminants (mainly cattle and sheep) emit methane
Agency’s research budget fell from £17m to £2m a equivalent to 22 MtCO2e/year, which is almost half of
year.11 Second, much of the public investment that has all UK agricultural emissions.15
been made in innovation has been heavily focused on
agriculture, particularly agricultural inputs, rather than Methane emissions can be reduced by:
the food system more generally. While the innovation
funding Defra will provide under its Agricultural • Rearing fewer ruminants, therefore eating less
Transition Plan is extremely welcome, and rebalances meat.
agricultural funding towards the practicalities of • Capturing the methane they emit, either by
farming, it will not correct the gap in public investment moving them inside or by attaching devices to
in food system innovation beyond the farm gate. them (both of which could harm their welfare).16
Third, the current infrastructure for research and
development is too centralised and does not offer • Reducing the amount of methane each animal
sufficient involvement to the people who will actually emits (methane inhibition).
have to apply new tools and technologies on the There are a number of technologies for methane
ground – farmers and agri-food businesses. Fourth, inhibition in development, but only one is so far
the Government’s previous mechanisms for supporting commercially available: a feed additive called 3NOP.
farming and food innovation through Innovate UK This has been found to have no impact on milk
have focused too narrowly on commercial innovation production or quality in dairy cattle, but its effects are
and have been inaccessible to non-commercial (e.g. short-lived so it needs to be given regularly in animal
policy or community) innovation projects, which are feed.17 This makes it less practical for use in the kind
important for wider diet change.12 of extensive grazing systems that are common in the
Fruit and vegetable production UK. Other additives are currently in development,
including a seaweed called Asparagopsis. Lab trials

Fresh produce is the sector of primary food in Australia have found that adding 2% Asparagopsis
production where growth most squarely aligns with cattle feed could reduce methane emissions by 99%.18
the national interest. The link between what we In the longer term, selective breeding and “methane
grow and eat in this country is of course indirect, vaccines” may also provide a solution, particularly
and the nation could eat 5-a-day without increasing for sheep which are fed almost entirely on grass.
production. Yet as Defra already promotes the case Investing in these technologies offers our best hope
for Government investment to improve productivity, of decarbonising livestock farming without massively
it makes sense to prioritise sectors where growth – reducing the number of farms in the sector and the
through efficiencies and in volume – could directly amount of meat we can eat.
benefit national health.13
Between 1985 and 2014 there was a 27% decline in
the areas planted to fruit and vegetables.14 Over the
same period, our reliance on imports has increased
243
Alternative proteins cluster Even without any further advances in alternative
proteins, 11% of global proteins could come from non-
Even if cows and sheep can be made to emit less animal sources by 2035. But innovation could double
methane, we would still be left with the high land-use that.24 If we achieved that doubling in the UK, direct
footprint of ruminant production and the health risks annual greenhouse gas emissions could fall by an
of red meat.19 We would still have to eat less meat additional 3MtCO2e / year, which is about 5% of total
than we do now. This is why an innovation cluster emissions from UK agriculture. Over 900,000 hectares
aimed at stimulating new alternative proteins would – 5% of all the land used for farming in the UK – could
be so valuable. be released for other uses, such as nature, carbon
capture and extensification.25
Along with the environmental and other benefits,
Alternative Proteins
growing the alternative protein sector will benefit
The umbrella term “alternative proteins” the UK economy. If the UK produces all of the new
refers to a range of products that can serve alternative protein it consumes, the industry could
as a substitute for conventional meats, create an additional 10,000 good manufacturing jobs.
from bean burgers to insect mince. These In addition, 6,500 jobs would be retained in farming
can broadly be separated into: to produce inputs for the industry.26 Without a strong
domestic alternative protein sector, these factory and
1. Plant-based proteins, which use existing farming jobs could be lost to other countries.
vegetables and pulses. Many products
of this kind are already available but The UK’s competitors know this, which is why
come at a price premium and with varied investment in the sector is growing globally. The US
flavour profiles and textures. leads the global market in production of alternative
proteins, with companies like Impossible Foods,
2. Insect-based proteins, which include Memphis Meats and Perfect Day last year raising
some products for human consumption $700m, $161m and $300m respectively in capital.27
but are being developed more widely as The Netherlands has developed one of the largest
animal feed. agribusiness regions in Europe – Food Valley – with
3. Precision fermentation derived proteins, universities, start-ups and multinationals working
which use microbes such as yeast, algae together to change the industry, by creating
or bacteria to replicate existing animal new vegan products and sustainable packaging
products (e.g. casein, egg proteins), alternatives.28 Singapore and Israel have both
create novel meat substitutes (e.g. proactively fostered alternative protein start-ups, and
Quorn), or create ingredients to flavour Singapore was the first country to give regulatory
and enhance other foods. approval to a cultured meat product.29 If we do not
take action to support this sector, it is likely that start-
4. Cell-cultured meat, which involves ups will be more attracted to these other countries.
growing animal tissue in vitro. This is
currently a very expensive process and The UK has some existing advantages: our universities
is unable to replicate the texture profile are leaders in alternative protein research, with an
of meats, but is chemically identical to established research centre at Bath University directly
meat from animals. linked to the production of alternative proteins, and
projects at the universities of Cambridge, Newcastle,
Manchester and Aston to improve production
methods.30 We also have nascent production centres
Plant-based proteins produce 70 times less for alternative proteins, for example at the Centre for
greenhouse gas emissions than an equivalent amount Process Innovation (part of a Catapult), with links to
of beef, and use 150 times less land.20 farming through our Agri-Tech Centres. Establishing
strong connections between academics, scientists,
Globally, per capita consumption of proteins has entrepreneurs and producers would give us a
been growing over the past 50 years.21 Coupled competitive advantage over other countries.
with population growth, this means our demand for
proteins may outstrip production in the future.22 While Some of the processes used to create alternative
this problem is not one of need, as average global proteins are essentially the same as those used in the
consumption of proteins currently far exceeds our pharmaceutical and petrochemical industries, so the
biological necessity, the current trends will require UK’s strengths in these sectors means that skills and
new sources of protein.23 experience could be easily repurposed. Moreover, we
244
have a large alternative protein market in which to focus on changing individual behaviour rather than
sell new products. The UK has the largest market for making systemic interventions (with the exception of
meat alternatives in Europe, having grown by 40% from the Soft Drinks Industry Levy). But the failure to learn
2014 to 2019 and being projected to rise above £1.1bn from previous mistakes is compounded by a lack of
by 2024.31 This has led Tesco to set a target of 300% monitoring or evaluation.37 We need more evidence
Recommendation 11
more alternative meat products by 2025 compared to and, in particular, more evidence which can be used to
2018.32 inform policy.38
Appendix 11
In sum, our existing advantages and the scale of our The WWC model has been tried and tested across a
domestic market could make England an attractive range of complex areas of policy and public services.
place for commercial investors in this new industry, The nine existing WWCs have been effective in
but this needs to be supported by Government improving the impact of policy and services, in
investment. This would enable the UK to shape this areas such as healthcare, education and policing.39
new market in line with our standards and values, as It is a model that supports a flexible and pragmatic
well as building a new export industry to respond to approach to evidence generation and policy design. 40
protein shortages globally. If we do not act soon, we This includes the need for more trial and error for low-
will end up as net importers of these products, losing risk interventions, testing, learning and adapting.41
out on new green jobs.33
What Works Centres Costs and benefits

Finally, the two What Works Centres are intended Establishing challenge funding for innovation to enable
to ensure that all this innovation actually gets the healthy and sustainable diets under its Innovation
right results. The evidence currently available to Strategy will cost the Government £500m over five
farmers and agricultural policy-makers is fragmented, years. This should be secured by Defra, DHSC and
incoherent and confusing. The EFI, initially proposed other Government departments, led by Defra, through
by the Food & Drink Sector Council’s Agricultural their next Spending Review bids.
Productivity Working Group, was conceived by the
farming industry to address this problem.34 It has That funding should leverage an estimated £160m
the potential to play a crucial part in translating the in private sector co-investment. This assumes 30%
farmer-led research and development that Defra leverage for £200m for pre-commercial collaborative
will be funding into quality-assured and widely R&D projects with industry, and 200% for £50m in
relevant guidance for policy makers, farmers and their investor partnerships. The remaining £250m out of the
professional advisors. This will help to make the whole total £500m funding is for non-commercial (e.g. public
“knowledge and innovation ecosystem” that supports health) innovation projects.
the transition in agriculture more effective. The initial This recommendation will deliver an estimated long-
evidence on net zero farming that EFI has collated term net economic benefit to the UK of £3.5bn.42
during its pilot phase is testimony to its value.
Focusing Defra’s existing innovation funding on
There is currently no equivalent of the EFI collating methane reduction in ruminants will not involve
evidence on how to change diets to increase the additional costs to Government. If it succeeds, it could
sustainability of our food system. The National lead to total greenhouse gas savings of 50MtCO2e by
Institute for Health Research, which gathers evidence 2050, or annual savings of approximately 7% of total
and evaluates policy for DHSC, focuses exclusively agricultural emissions.43
on health. Moreover, there has been little focus
to date on policies that can modify the economic Funding a new innovation cluster for alternative
and environmental factors that influence diet. The proteins will cost the Government £50m, which should
complexity and cost of testing and evaluating such all be delivered in year 1 (2022–23). Funding should be
approaches calls for dedicated resources.35 secured through a bid in the next Spending Review,
coordinated by Defra and working with BEIS and UKRI.
Experience suggests we need a new approach, as
attempts to improve the national diet have so far This recommendation will deliver a long-term net
had a very limited impact. Despite 14 Government economic benefit to the UK estimated to be £350m.44
strategies between 1992 and 2020 dedicated in whole Ensuring a long-term future for the Evidence for
or in part to reducing obesity in England, obesity Farming Initiative will cost £50m in year 1 (2022-
prevalence has gone from 13% to 28%, and morbid 23) in the form of an endowment, to complement
obesity prevalence increased from less than 1% to and underpin investment by AHDB. Funding for the
more than 3%.36 This is partly due to the tendency to endowment should be secured by Defra through a bid
245
in the next Spending Review.
Setting up a What Works Centre for healthy and
sustainable diets would cost the Government £150m
in year 1 (2022-23). DHSC and Defra should collaborate
to secure this funding in the next Spending Review.
246
Endnotes
1
Innovate UK (2020). Transforming food production: series A investor search Collaboration Policy Brief. Available at: https://foodresearch.
Recommendation 11
partnership programme. HMG. Available at: https://apply-for-innova- org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/03/horticulture-briefing-fi-

tion-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/706/overview nal-24-March.pdf
Appendix 11
2
Innovative Farmers: www.innovativefarmers.org. Yield Enhancement 15
Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock. (2020). Net zero
Network: www.yen.adas.co.uk. Farmer Clusters: www.farmerclusters. carbon & UK livestock. CIEL. Available at: https://www.cielivestock.
com co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CIEL-Net-Zero-Carbon-UK-Live-
stock-FINAL-interactive-low-res-APP-revised-reference-Oct-2020.pdf
3
Bazalgette, L. (2020). A practical guide for establishing an evidence
centre. Alliance for Useful Evidence. Available at: https://www. 16
James, A. (2020). Livestock wearables: cow mask to reduce meth-
alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/2020/06/Nesta-Evidence-Cen- ane emissions. Food and farming technology. Available at: https://
tre-FINAL-June2020-2.pdf. www.foodandfarmingtechnology.com/news/weather-climate/live-
stock-wearables-cow-mask-to-reduce-methane-emissions.html
4
Nesta. (2020). Is the UK getting innovation right? Nesta. Available
at: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Is_the_UK_Getting_Inno- 17
Innovation Toronto. (2020). 3-NOP is a methane-inhibiting addi-
vation_Right.pdf tive for cows if it can be made affordable and the public accepts
it. Innovation Toronto. Available at: https://innovationtoronto.
5
Scimago Country Rank for Agricultural & Biological Sciences, 2018. com/2020/07/3-nop-is-a-methane-inhibiting-additive-for-cows-if-it-
Scimago Institutions Rankings. (2021). Scimago Journal & Country can-be-made-affordable-and-the-public-accepts-it/
Rank. Scimago Institutions Rankings. Available at: https://www.
scimagojr.com/countryrank.php?area=1100&order=ci&ord=desc; 18
Abbot, D.W. et al. (2020). Seaweed and seaweed bioactives
for mitigation of enteric methane: challenges and opportunities.
Public agricultural R&D figures for 2013 (in 2011 US$): Heisey, P. and. Animals 10(12), 2432. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-
Fuglie, K. (2018). Agricultural research investment and policy reform 2615/10/12/2432
in high-income countries. United States Department of Agriculture.
Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/89114/ 19
Land use: Searchinger, T. D. et al. (2018). Assessing the efficiency
err-249.pdf?v=0. Table 3.1: USA = $4.30BN; UK = £0.59BN. of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564,
249-253. Available at : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-
6
Docherty, D. et al. (2015). Leading food 4.0: growing business-uni- 0757-z;
versity collaboration for the UK’s food economy. National Centre
for Universities and Business. Available at: https://www.ncub.co.uk/ Animal welfare: Rioja-Lang, F. C. et al. (2020). Prioritization of farm
index.php?option=com_docman&view=download&alias=214-lead- animal welfare issues using expert consensus. Frontiers in Veteri-
ing-food-4-0&category_slug=reports&Itemid=2728 nary Science 6, 495. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/arti-
cles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00495/full;
7
Heisey, P. and. Fuglie, K. (2018). Agricultural research investment and
policy reform in high-income countries. United States Department of Health: Wolk, A. (2016). Potential health hazards of eating red meat.
Agriculture. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publi- Journal of Internal Medicine 281(12). Available at: https://onlinelibrary.
cations/89114/err-249.pdf?v=0 wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/joim.12543.
8
USDA Economic Research Service. (2020). International agricultural 20
productivity. UDSA. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/da- tute. (2021). Anticipatory life cycle assessment and techno-economic
ta-products/international-agricultural-productivity/ assessment of commercial cultivated meat production. Available at:
https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cultured-meat-LCA-
9
Heisey, P. and. Fuglie, K. (2018). Agricultural research investment TEA-technical.pdf. Type of product: https://www.meatless.nl/
and policy reform in high-income countries. United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/web- 21
Henchion, M. et al. (2017). Future protein supply and demand:
docs/publications/89114/err-249.pdf?v=0 strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods
6(7). 53. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
10
Agricultural Productivity Working Group. (2020). Report to the PMC5532560/
Food and Drink Sector Council. FDSC. Available at: http://www.fdsc.

org.uk/fdsc/documents/APWG-report-feb20.pdf 22
Shortage: Ismail, B. P. et al. (2020). Protein demand: review of plant
and animal proteins used in alternative protein product development
11
Constant 2017 prices. Data from Office for National Statistics. and production. Animal Frontiers 10(4), 53-63. Available at: https://
(2021). Research and development expenditure by the UK Govern- academic.oup.com/af/article/10/4/53/5943509;
ment. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/Govern-
mentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/ Henchion, M. et al. (2017). Future protein supply and demand:
datasets/scienceengineeringandtechnologystatisticsreferencetables strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods
6(7), 53. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
12
UK Research and Innovation. (2021). Industrial Strategy Challenge PMC5532560/
Fund. UK Research and Innovation. Available at: https://www.ukri.
org/our-work/our-main-funds/industrial-strategy-challenge-fund/ 23
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017).
The future of food and agriculture. Trends and challenges. FAO,
13
Defra. (2020). The path to sustainable farming: an agricultural Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf
transition plan 2021 to 2024. Defra. Available at: https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/at- 24
Boston Consulting Group. (2021). Food for thought. the protein
tachment_data/file/954283/agricultural-transition-plan.pdf transformation. Available at: https://web-assets.bcg.com/a0/28/
4295860343c6a2a5b9f4e3436114/bcg-food-for-thought-the-protein-
14
Excluding potatoes. Schoenii, V. and Lang, T. (2016). Horticulture in transformation-mar-2021.pdf
the UK: potential for meeting dietary guideline demands. Food Re-
247
25
NFS analysis. Based on proportion of different meats that are data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-obesi-
processed (and could be replaced). Greenhouse gas emissions ty-physical-activity-and-diet/statistics-on-obesity-physical-activi-
and land use in: Poore, J. and Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s ty-and-diet-england-2013
environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science
360(6392), 987-992. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/
37
Theis, D.R.Z. and White, M. (2021). Is obesity policy in England
content/360/6392/987; fit for purpose? Analysis of Government strategies and policies,
1992–2020. The Millbank Quarterly. Available at: https://pubmed.
Life cycle analysis in: Delft, C.E. (2021). LCA of cultivated meat. Avail- ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33464689/
able at: https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/
CE_Delft_190107_LCA_of_cultivated_meat_Def.pdf
38
Head, B. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues
and challenges, Policy and Society 29(2), 77-94. Available at: https://
26
NFS analysis based on feed conversion ratios in: Good Food Insti- www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.001
tute (2021). Anticipatory life cycle assessment and techno-economic
assessment of commercial cultivated meat production. Available at:
39
Gold, J. et al. (2018). The What Works Network five years on. The
https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cultured-meat-LCA- What Works Network. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
TEA-technical.pdf; gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/677478/6.4154_What_works_report_Final.pdf
Tonnes per hectare of input in: Defra (2019). Farming statistics final
crop areas, yields, livestock populations and agricultural workforce at
40
Ogilvie, D. et al. (2020). Making sense of the evidence in population
June 2019 - United Kingdom. Available at: https://assets.publishing. health intervention research: building a dry stone wall. BMJ Global
service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ Health 5. Available at: https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/12/e004017
data/file/865769/structure-jun2019final-uk-22jan20-rev_v2.pdf; 41
Prabhu, J. (2021). How should a Government be? Bennett Institute
Agricultural workers per hectare in: NationMaster. Agricultural of Public Policy, University of Cambridge. Available at: https://www.
workers per hectare. Available at: https://www.nationmaster.com/ bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/how-should-Government-be/
country-info/stats/Agriculture/Workers-per-hectare 42
Based on evidence from UKRI that £1 public expenditure gives rise
27
Labiotech. (2021). Global funding for meat alternative companies to £7 net-economic benefit to the UK. UK Research and Innovation.
tripled in 2020. Available at: https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/ (2018). The UK’s research and innovation infrastructure: opportunities
solar-foods-meat-alternatives/ to grow our capability. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2020/10/UKRI-201020-UKinfrastructure-opportuni-
28
Live Kindly. (2020). How the Netherlands is leading the vegan food ties-to-grow-our-capacity-FINAL.pdf
industry. Available at: https://www.livekindly.co/netherlands-lead-
ing-vegan-food-industry/
43
NFS analysis. Methane reductions: Roque, B. M. et al. (2021). Red
seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric
29
Israel: Good Food Institute. (2021). Israel state of alternative pro- methane by over 80 percent in beef steers. PlOS One 16 (3). Avail-
tein innovation report 2021. Available at: https://gfi.org.il/resources/ able at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.
israel-state-of-alternative-protein-innovation-report-2021/?_ pone.0247820;
ga=2.142138290.1497374895.1622640835-1621113986.1612276626;
GHG emissions: Poore, J. and Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s
Singapore: Singapore Food Agency. Safety of alternative protein. environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science
Available at: https://www.sfa.gov.sg/food-information/risk-at-a- 360(6392), 987-992. Available at: https://science.sciencemag.org/
glance/safety-of-alternative-protein content/360/6392/987
30
Stephens, N. (2020). Cellular agriculture in the UK: a review. Well- 44
Based on evidence from UKRI that £1 public expenditure gives rise
come open research 5. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ to £7 net-economic benefit to the UK. UK Research and Innovation.
pmc/articles/PMC7014924/ (2018). The UK’s research and innovation infrastructure: opportunities
to grow our capability. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/wp-con-
31
ING Group. (2020). Growth of meat and dairy alternatives is stirring tent/uploads/2020/10/UKRI-201020-UKinfrastructure-opportuni-
up the European food industry. Available at: https://think.ing.com/ ties-to-grow-our-capacity-FINAL.pdf
uploads/reports/ING_report_-_Growth_of_meat_and_dairy_alterna-
tives_is_stirring_up_the_European_food_industry.pdf;
Mintel. (2020). Plant based push. UK sales of meat free foods shot up
by 40% between 2014-2019 Available at: https://www.mintel.com/
press-centre/food-and-drink/plant-based-push-uk-sales-of-meat-
free-foods-shoot-up-40-between-2014-19
32
Tesco. (2020). Tesco commits to 300% sales increase in meat
alternatives. Available at: https://www.tescoplc.com/news/2020/
tesco-commits-to-300-sales-increase-in-meat-alternatives/
33
FAO. (2020). Food outlook. Biannual report on global food markets.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca9509en/CA9509EN.pdf
34
Agricultural Productivity Working Group. (2020). Report to the
Food and Drink Sector Council. FDSC. Available at: http://www.fdsc.
org.uk/fdsc/documents/APWG-report-feb20.pdf
35
Ogilvie, D. et al. (2020). Using natural experimental studies to
guide public health action: turning the evidence-based medicine par-
adigm on its head. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
74, 203-208. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-213085
36
NHS. (2013). Statistics on obesity, physical activity and diet,
England, 2013. NHS Digital. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/
248
Recommendation 12. Create a National Food
System Data programme.
Recommendation 12
Appendix 12
What is it? or unions – to fill in these gaps without breaching

confidentiality.
The Government should create a National Food
System Data Programme to collect and share data, so The key data should be published using visualisation
that the businesses and other organisations involved dashboards that make it easier for users to compare
in the food system can track progress and plan ahead. information, model future scenarios and assess the
effectiveness of different policies or logistical models.
This programme should span and connect two These should include the National Rural Land Map
main areas of evidence. The first is data about the (See Recommendation 9).
land, to support the Rural Land Use Framework
(Recommendation 9). This includes (among other Some data will be commercially sensitive, and those
things) the agricultural productivity of any given area supplying the data might be willing to share it with the
of land, its potential for environmental restoration Government but not with industry competitors. There
and carbon sequestration, and local pollution levels in would therefore need to be a “layered” permissions
air and water. Defra already holds much of this data, model, to control access to different levels of
and is working with the Government’s Geospatial information. In some cases (such as electronic point
Commission to pilot high-resolution interactive maps, of sale data), the Office for National Statistics already
with as many layers as possible available to the public. collects the data but is not permitted to share it with
This will help the Government, landowners, developers other parts of Government and the wider food sector.
and conservation groups make better decisions about Legislation should be introduced if necessary to allow
how we use our land. data to be shared as far as commercial confidentiality
permits.
The second area of evidence comes from beyond the
farm gate: data on food production, distribution and Our initial recommendations for food system metrics
retail, and the environmental and health impacts of against which data should be collected are set out
that food. These include data provided by companies in Table 1 below, alongside bodies that currently hold
under the mandatory reporting requirements we have at least some of those data. In addition, the food
proposed in Recommendation 2. system is closely connected to many other systems,
both national and international. Over time, data on
These two areas of evidence should be connected transport, energy, environment, healthcare and so
through a single programme, to create a clear, forth should be added to the programme.
accessible and evolving picture of the impact our diet
has on nature, climate and public health, to help guide
decision making throughout the food system.
The Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government,

alongside the Chief Scientific Advisers at Defra,
the Department for Health and Social Care, the
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy and at the Food Standards Agency, should
work together to establish a specialist team of civil
servants – including IT experts and strategists – to
develop and manage the National Food System Data
Programme. Working with the Geospatial Commission
and the Office for National Statistics, this team should
start by identifying the main “customers” for the data
programme, and setting baseline data definitions,
standards and hierarchies. The team should then
identify gaps in the existing data, and broker
agreements with third parties – such as retailers
249
Table 1
Recommended food system performance metrics
Metric Source of data

Environmental outcomes
Agricultural land productivity (spatial) Defra
Priority areas for biodiversity (spatial) Defra
Priority areas for carbon recovery (spatial) Defra
Air quality (spatial) Defra
Water quality (spatial) Catchment Sensitive Farming, Environment Agency / Defra
Species abundancy and diversity England/UK Biodiversity Indicators, Joint Natural Capital Committee
Environmental footprint of food (domestic) HESTIA, University of Oxford
Environmental footprint of food (imported) HESTIA, University of Oxford
BEIS, Committee on Climate Change (CCC), Waste Resources Action
Total UK food system GHG emissions
Programme (WRAP)
Percentage of food sourced from areas with sustainable
WRAP, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), World Resources Institute
water management
Land used for agriculture Farming Statistics, Defra
Healthy soils 25-Year Environment Plan, Defra (under development)
Food waste Business reporting (Recommendation 2)
Health outcomes
National Child Measurement Programme, National Health Service (NHS)
Childhood obesity
Digital
Childhood obesity by deprivation National Child Measurement Programme, NHS Digital
Diet-related healthy life expectancy Metric to be developed based on Global Burden of Disease
Type 2 diabetes registrations National Diabetes Audit, NHS Digital
Social outcomes
Household food insecurity Family Resources Survey, Department of Work and Pensions (DWP)
Social impact of food Food & You Survey, FSA
Well-paid jobs Annual Survey of Households and Earnings, ONS
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and Soil
Animal welfare
Association
System resilience
Source of UK food Defra
Trustworthiness of food Food and You, Food Standards Agency (FSA)
Diet and food environment

HFSS consumption National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), Public Health England
Fibre consumption NDNS, Public Health England
Meat consumption NDNS, Public Health England
Fruit and vegetable consumption NDNS, Public Health England
Fruit and vegetable consumption by income quintile NDNS, Public Health England
Sales of HFSS food and drink Business reporting (Recommendation 2)
Sales of fruit and vegetables Business reporting (Recommendation 2)
Sales of protein by type and origin Business reporting (Recommendation 2)
Sales of major nutrients including fibre, saturated
Business reporting (Recommendation 2)
fat, sugar and salt
250
Metric Source of data
Total food and drink sales Business reporting (Recommendation 2)
Price and promotions by major food category (retail and
FoodDB, University of Oxford
out-of-home)
Proportion of food outlets which are fast food Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Recommendation 12
Exposure of children to junk food advertising Based on method developed by INFORMAS (www.informas.org)
Appendix 12
Rationale improve analytical capability and flow of information

across Government.7 It will support international
There is global recognition that investment in accurate, efforts to provide information on the food system,
up-to-date, geographically specific data is vital to such as the Food Systems Dashboard, developed by
solving many of our challenges.1 Having the right the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)
information makes it possible to set the right goals, and Johns Hopkins University.8 There is a public
track progress and adjust course where necessary.2 desire for a more unified approach to food system
governance, as we saw during the NFS Public
Good data, cleverly organised, can help companies
dialogues. Participants in the dialogues discussed
become cleaner and more efficient, and enable
the need to “include more formal arrangements
Governments to devise and monitor effective policies.3
for bringing Government departments together to
We know that data dashboards, of the type that
plan strategically for food issues on, for example
the National Food System Data Programme would
environment, health and social support measures”.
produce, work. They are increasingly used across UK
Government departments and agencies to monitor
performance and aid decision making, including Defra, Costs and benefits
FSA, BEIS, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Such platforms have been critical to the Government’s The annual cost to Government to deliver this
efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic, through recommendation is £3.5m. Over three years the total
the Joint Biosecurity Centre, and support the UK’s EU is £10.5m.
Exit strategy.4
Defra should bid to secure funding in the next
There are currently significant gaps in the data Spending Review.
available for the food system. Even where data
The improved data access it will provide will benefit
are made available by businesses, they are often
the public and the Government by making it easier to
difficult to understand and use because they are
set and track long-term health and sustainability goals
not presented consistently. For example, Sainsbury’s,
for the food sector. But it will also help businesses
Marks & Spencer and Tesco have all committed to
themselves. Large businesses, which already collect
reporting health-related data.5 But they publish
extensive data, will see increases in its range, quality

different types of data in different formats.
and reliability, while the benefit to the food sector’s
Standardising the collection and publication of data
many small enterprises lies in providing credible data
would make it vastly more usable. This is already
they can use for free.
recognised by the industry itself, which is asking for
an open data framework.6
The Government is best placed to resolve this issue.
It already collects much relevant data itself. It has
the convening power needed to bring companies
together and encourage them to share their data in a
consistent way. It can also impose legal obligations on
business to report consistently.
Improving data sharing in the food system
complements the National Data Strategy and calls
from the Council for Science and Technology to
251
Endnotes
1
Annan, K. (2018). Data can help to end malnutrition across Africa.
Nature 555(7). Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/
d41586-018-02386-3
2
Vallance, P. (2020). Achieving net zero through a whole systems
approach: Council for Science and Technology letter. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/achieving-net-zero-
carbon-emissions-through-a-whole-systems-approach
3
Lloyd, L. (2020). Policy making in a digital world: How data and new
technologies can help Government make better policy. Institute for
Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforGovernment.org.
uk/sites/default/files/publications/policy-making-digital-world.pdf
4
Lloyd, L. (2020). Policy making in a digital world: How data and new
technologies can help Government make better policy. Institute for
Government. Available at: https://www.instituteforGovernment.org.
uk/sites/default/files/publications/policy-making-digital-world.pdf;
Joint Biosecurity Centre: https://www.gov.uk/Government/groups/

joint-biosecurity-centre
5
Sainsbury’s. (2021). Healthy and sustainable diets. Sainsbury’s.
Available at: https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/sustainability/bet-
ter-for-you/healthy-diets;
Marks and Spencer. (2018). Transformation Underway: M&S Plan A

report 2018. Marks and Spencer. Available at: https://corporate.mark-
sandspencer.com/annual-report-2018/mands_plan_a_2018.pdf;
Tesco. (2021). Tesco makes ambitious new commitments to support

healthy, sustainable diets. Tesco. Available at: https://www.tescoplc.
com/news/2021/tesco-makes-ambitious-new-commitments-to-sup-
port-healthy-sustainable-diets/
6
O’Gorman, D. (2018). Transformative innovation across food supply
chains to improve decision-making. Global Food Security Programme.
Available at: https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/publications/trans-
formative-innovation-across-food-supply-chains-to-improve-deci-
sion-making.pdf;
Food Standards Agency Science Council Working Group. (2020).

Science Council Working Group on data usage and digital technolo-
gy: final report to the Food Standards Agency. Available at: https://
science-council.food.gov.uk/WorkingGroup4
7
National Data Strategy: Department for Digital, Culture, Media &
Sport. (2020). National Data Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.
uk/Government/publications/uk-national-data-strategy/national-da-
ta-strategy;
Council for Science and Technology: Vallance, P. (2020). Achieving

net zero through a whole systems approach: Council for Science and
Technology letter. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/
publications/achieving-net-zero-carbon-emissions-through-a-whole-
systems-approach
8
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) and Johns Hopkins
University. (2020). The Food Systems Dashboard. Available at:
https://foodsystemsdashboard.org/;
Liebsch, T. (2019). Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) – a complete

overview. Ecochain. Available at: https://ecochain.com/knowledge/
product-environmental-footprint/
252
Recommendation 13. Strengthen Government
procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money
is spent on healthy and sustainable food.
Recommendation 13
Appendix 13
What is it? All public sector organisations should be required

to apply the redesigned GBSF when procuring food,
The Government should reform its Buying Standards including those which are currently exempt (such
for Food so that taxpayers’ money goes on healthy as schools and local authorities). The Government
and sustainable food. All public sector organisations should develop a monitoring and enforcement
should be required to apply these standards. The mechanism to make sure that the food served is
Government should aim to increase the role of small healthy and sustainable. This could be achieved by
and local suppliers in public food procurement, introducing reporting requirements for organisations
including through the rollout of a web platform procuring food or by expanding the Food Standards
currently being trialled in the South West. Agency’s remit (though this option would require the
recruitment of more Environmental Health Officers
The Government should also introduce a mandatory
and so would come at considerable cost).
accreditation scheme for caterers in schools, hospitals
and prisons, working with existing certification bodies The Government should also seek to increase the
such as Food for Life, to support caterers to reach participation of small and local businesses in food
baseline standards and encourage them to aim higher procurement. As a first step, it should provide
still. adequate funding for a pilot of a dynamic procurement
system that is scheduled to launch in the South West
The Government already has Buying Standards for
of England from June 2022. This scheme, based on a
Food (GBSF), but they do not guarantee that the
web platform run by Bath and North East Somerset
food is any good. Defra should redesign the GBSF to
Council, should allow SMEs and local businesses to
emphasise the importance of quality over cost. All
sell smaller quantities of fresh food and drink to public
tenders should be required to meet an achievable
bodies.1 If the pilot succeeds, the Government should
but high baseline standard for quality before cost is
roll out the system nationwide. The Government
considered at all. In particular, all food supplied should
should also encourage the use of SME and local
be required to have been produced in compliance
suppliers in the GBSF.
with UK standards. The current loophole allowing
substandard food to be supplied where it is necessary The Government should work with existing certifiers
to avoid a “significant increase in costs” should be – such as Food For Life – to introduce a mandatory
removed. At the next stage of assessment, at least accreditation scheme for the food served in schools,
60% of the marks available should be for quality hospitals and prisons.2 This would provide training
rather than cost. This should be broken down into a and support for leaders and staff. Institutions that
weighting of 30% for public priorities (such as health, complied fully with the obligations in the GBSF would
sustainability and social value) and 30% for customer be awarded a Bronze certificate. Taking further
service (such as menu variety, service style and steps towards a good food culture would entitle
customer satisfaction). an organisation to a Silver certificate, while a Gold
certificate would be awarded to organisations that
The redesigned GBSF should also meet the new
demonstrated a whole organisation approach to food.3
Reference Diet that we recommend the Food
Standards Agency develops with the Office of Health
Promotion, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Rationale
Nutrition, the Office of Environmental Protection and
the Climate Change Committee (Recommendation The public sector is a colossal buyer of food. We
14). This diet is likely to recommend serving less meat estimate that it serves 1.9 billion meals a year – over
and dairy and more wholegrains, fruit, vegetables and 5% of the total UK food service turnover – at a
pulses, to maximise the health and sustainability of cost of £2.4bn.4 This makes public procurement the
the food served. The GBSF should then be updated Government’s most direct tool to shape the food
every five years, like the Reference Diet. system.
253
This tool is not being used as effectively as it could compliant with the GBSF.13 The Government
be. Much of the food served by public bodies is bad. does not consistently monitor or enforce the
Only 39% of primary school children who have to pay Standards, so there is no way of knowing what
for school meals choose to eat them; while the main the compliance rates are in the wider public
barrier for this is cost, another factor is that food is sector.
unappealing.5 In hospitals, 42% of patients rated the
food as either satisfactory, poor or very poor; 39% • Second, even where they are applied, they do
of staff rated the food as poor.6 Over a third of the not guarantee quality food. Public bodies are
money hospitals spend on food goes on items that are allowed to prioritise price over quality in their
thrown away uneaten.7 Food served in prisons is rated procurement decisions. With the challenging
even worse: only 29% of inmates describe the food budgetary situation in recent years, many have
they receive as “good” or “very good”.8 Some might assigned 50–80% of the marks available to
say that criminals deserve what they get, but better price.14 In practice, this means that the cheapest
prison food has surprising benefits: there is evidence bid wins, leading to a race to the bottom among
that prisoners given higher-quality food are less likely suppliers.
to become violent and aggressive.9 • Third, they fail to take account of the wider
The food served in Government institutions is often impacts of food choices. The standards do not
not just unappetising but also unhealthy. In many require institutions to meet the Government’s
schools, breakfast consists of sugary cereals and own nutrition guidelines (the Eatwell Guide) and
white bread, as well as squash or milkshakes. In some do not consider the environmental impact of
cases, schools even serve chocolate-based cereals the food that is served. They do not reflect the
and croissants. Break time foods in secondary schools public’s clear preferences on issues such as animal
are dominated by unhealthy items, while at lunchtime welfare (for example, eggs from caged hens may
children are served too much fat, salt and sugar, and be used). They even permit suppliers to provide
too little fibre and vegetables.10 Yet, even these meals imported food that was produced in ways that
are more nutritious than most packed lunches, which would not be legal for UK producers if to do
is why it is not only crucial to improve the quality of otherwise would produce a “significant increase
school food but also to increase access to free school in costs”.
meals (Recommendation 4). • Fourth, they do not promote a positive food
In prisons, breakfast usually consists of breakfast culture in public institutions. There is often
packs, which contain cereal, milk, whitener, tea/coffee no clear vision, leadership or training around
sachets, and in some cases some preserves. Prisoners healthy and sustainable food, and very little
complain about there not being enough fruit and accountability for the quality of food or how
vegetables and too much fat, carbohydrate, salt and funding is spent. Food is simply not a primary
processed food.11 concern.15
These problems are in part due to a lack of • Finally, they are not applied in all public
competition among suppliers. The complexity of bodies. Only central Government, hospital food
tendering processes has made it difficult for smaller for patients, prisons and the armed forces are
businesses to compete. This has led to the market bound by them: local Governments, schools,
being dominated by a small number of suppliers: the visitor and staff food in hospitals and care homes,
top four contract caterers (Compass Group, Sodexo, for example, need not follow the standards.16 So,
Westbury Street Holding and Elior) have 61% of even if the standards were effective, they would
the contract catering market share.12 The result is only improve a fraction of the food that the public
that there is often little competition for contracts. sector serves.
This limits procuring bodies’ choice and their power Better Government procurement could have an
to demand high quality. It also fails to encourage enormous impact. In the first place, there would be
innovation. a direct benefit to the diets of the 13 million people
The current Government Buying Standards for Food who eat those meals every year, many of whom are
(GBSF) are clearly not working well, for a number of children, hospital patients, or otherwise vulnerable.17
reasons. In particular, schoolchildren are much more dependent
than adults on publicly procured food. Food eaten in
• First, the bodies that are required to apply schools could make up as much as half of a child’s diet
them sometimes do not. The NHS found in in term time, and for some children, a school lunch
2017 that only 52% of hospital caterers are fully is their only substantial meal of the day.18 The better
254
school food is, the more likely it is that children will exercise.28 While the latest figures from the NHS’s
eat it rather than bringing in packed lunches, which Patient Led Assessments of the Care Environment
are likely to be less healthy (see Recommendation (PLACE) indicated that 90% of hospitals were
4 on free school meals for more on this point). One compliant, the recent independent review of hospital
existing scheme aimed at improving the quality of food raised concerns that this number might not
Recommendation 13
school food, Food for Life, has been shown to increase be accurate.29 In contrast, in Scotland, the Scottish
consumption of fruit and vegetables by a third.19 This is Government and local authorities have told us that
Appendix 13
good for children’s health and for their education.20 inspection of schools has proved effective. Health
and Nutrition Inspectors inspect schools to check
But there would also be wider gains: Government they are complying with the School Food Standards.
leadership influences business behaviour and can The inspectors work in a collaborative way with
help nurture a better food culture, especially through local authorities and, if a school is noncompliant,
its influence on children eating school meals.21 It will the inspectors work with the school to remedy the
signal to businesses that it is possible to transform situation. This is a practical but relatively expensive
menus at scale, demonstrate the Government’s option for driving compliance with the standards.
commitment to transformation in the food system to
businesses, and incentivise innovation, investment and Beyond enforcing baseline standards, accreditation
private sector efforts to the same end. schemes are needed to raise the quality of food still
higher. This is demonstrated by the Food for Life
Such impacts have already been seen. When the Served Here scheme. This framework for caterers
GBSF were amended to require that all fish procured monitors how food is sourced, cooked and promoted,
by the Government should be sustainable, there was with criteria covering health, nature, animal welfare
change beyond the bodies that were directly bound and the climate. Institutions are rigorously inspected
by the standards.22 At least 850 million sustainable to make sure they deserve the Food for Life mark
seafood meals are now served every year across both of quality. Over 2 million meals are served each day
private and public sectors.23 Similarly, in Denmark, the to Food for Life standards, including in roughly 50%
introduction of a target that 60% of the food served of English primary schools, over 50 NHS hospitals
by public caterers should be organic helped the and over 50 universities.30 Some local authorities
Government achieve an increase of 57% in the share adopting this scheme are attracted by the incentives
of agricultural land used for organic farming.24 it creates for local sourcing: independent evaluation
The GBSF could make it more normal to serve and eat of the scheme has shown that for every £1 spent
meals that contain less meat. Redesigning the GBSF to on local seasonal produce, £3 is generated in social,
require more sustainable menus would lead to public economic and environmental value in the local
institutions serving less meat and more vegetables, community.31 Children in schools engaged with the
pulses and alternative proteins. This would have Food for Life School Award – which incorporates menu
significant environmental benefits. If all public caterers accreditation, alongside food education and practical
moved to having even one meat-free day a week, this food activities – are twice as likely to eat their
could reduce meat consumption by 9,000 tonnes a five-a-day and eat a third more fruit and vegetables
year, saving over 200,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas overall, compared to children in other schools.32 The
emissions.25 Even without eliminating meat completely, quality of service has been recognised by the Scottish
many of the dishes typically served in institutional Government who fund Food for Life to support local
settings lend themselves to partial substitution of authorities across Scotland. The majority of the 32
meat with vegetables – for example, including minced local authorities are working with Food for Life and to
mushrooms in beef burgers, or beans as well as beef date 17 are accredited to at least bronze level.
in a chilli.26 A similar approach at the University of Finally, increasing competition in the market through
Cambridge saw carbon emissions per kilogram of greater involvement of smaller, local businesses can
food fall by a third, with similar reductions in land also help drive up standards. Bath and North East
use per kilogram.27 This also made the catering more Somerset Council succeeded in doing this via a
profitable. dynamic purchasing system. They introduced a web
To make sure the benefits of higher standards platform that allowed 60 schools serving 30,000
are achieved in practice, proper monitoring and meals per week to buy from more than 20 local SME
enforcement mechanisms are essential. At present, food producers and suppliers. The council evaluation
this is almost entirely lacking outside the NHS. Even found that the carbon emissions of their supply chain
in the NHS, it is incomplete: not all food standards had been reduced and costs had fallen by 6%.33
are monitored, hospitals are not required to submit
evidence and the process has become a “tickbox”
255
Costs and benefits
Over the next three years, the new expenditure
required for the Government to deliver this
recommendation is approximately £3m. The annual
cost to the Government of delivering an accreditation
scheme for public sector food in schools, hospitals
and prisons would be approximately £750,000 with
an initial support and set up fee of approximately
£750,000. This is based on indicative costs given to
us by Food for Life. Defra should bid to secure funding
in the next Spending Review.
We are not able to determine the cost of ensuring all
organisations follow new, redesigned GBSF because
the Government does not know what it spends
currently on food (the latest available data is from
2014). However, we do know that many organisations
including Cambridge University, Chefs in Schools
supported organisations and Bath and North East
Somerset Council have managed to improve the health
and sustainability of their menus without increasing
costs by serving less meat and more vegetables,
legumes and pulses, and by buying locally and
seasonally.34
256
Endnotes
1 House of Commons Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee. School Food Plan. Evidence pack. HMG. Available at: http://www.
Recommendation 13
(2021). Public sector procurement of food: sixth report of session schoolfoodplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/School-Food-

2019–21. HC469. House of Commons. Available at: https://commit- Plan-Evidence-Pack-July-2013-Final.pdf
Appendix 13
tees.parliament.uk/publications/5509/documents/54917/default/
6 Patients: Care Quality Commission. (2020). NHS patient survey
2 Food for Life: https://www.foodforlife.org.uk/ programme. 2019 adult inpatient survey. Care Quality Commission.
Available at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20200702_
3 A whole organisation approach to food means integrating food into ip19_statisticalrelease.pdf;
the life of the organisation: treating the dining hall or restaurant as
the hub of the organisation, where everyone eats together; making Staff: National Health Service England (2019). 2018 National NHS Staff
food an integral part of the day; the cooks being as important other Survey in England. NHS. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/
staff members; in schools, ensuring that food is part of a rounded ed- statistics/2019/02/26/2018-national-nhs-staff-survey-in-england/
ucation and, in hospitals, that food is considered as part of a patient’s
care and treatment: Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The School 7 52 of 227 trusts included, for data see: National Health Service.
Food Plan. Evidence pack. HMG. Available at: http://www.schoolfood- (2021). Estates Returns Information Collection (ERIC). NHS. Available
plan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/School-Food-Plan-Evidence- at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/2019/02/26/2018-nation-
Pack-July-2013-Final.pdf; al-nhs-staff-survey-in-england/
Shelley, P. (2020). The Report of the Independent Review of NHS 8 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2016). Life in prison: Food. A findings
Hospital Food. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service. paper by HM Inspectorate of Prisons. HM Inspectorate of prisons.
gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmipris-
file/929234/independent-review-of-nhs-hospital-food-report.pdf ons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/Life-in-prison-Food-
Web-2016.pdf
4 1.9bn meals from NFS Analysis. Sources – Hospital patient meals:
NHS Digital. (2021). Estates Returns Information Collection Summary 9 Smoyer, A. B. and Minke, L. K. (2015). Food systems in correctional
page and dataset for ERIC 2018/19. Available at: https://digital.nhs. settings. A literature review and case study. WHO. Available at:
uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/estates-returns-in- https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/
formation-collection/england-2018-19; prisons-and-health/publications/2015/food-systems-in-correctional-
settings.-a-literature-review-and-case-study-2015
Schools: Office for National Statistics. (2021). Schools, pupils and
their characteristics, Academic year 2021/21. Available at: https:// 10 Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity. (2020). Serving up children’s health.
explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pu- Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity. GSTT Charity. Available at: https://www.
pils-and-their-characteristics; gsttcharity.org.uk/sites/default/files/30-GSTC- Schools-min.pdf;
Higher education: Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2021). Table Food for Life and Soil Association. (2019). State of the nation:
1 – HE student enrolments by HE provider 2014/15 to 2019/20. HESA. Children’s food in England, 2019. Food for Life. Available at: https://
Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/ www.soilassociation.org/media/17422/state-of-the-nation-soil-asso-
table-1; ciation-report.pdf
Prisoners: Ministry of Justice. (2020). Prison population figures: 2020. 11 HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2016). Life in prison: Food. A findings
HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/pris- paper by HM Inspectorate of Prisons. HM Inspectorate of prisons.
on-population-figures-2020; Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/
wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/Life-in-prison-Food-Web-2016.
Care homes: Office for National Statistics. (2020) Care home and pdf
non-care home populations used in the Deaths involving COVID-19
in the care sector article, England and Wales. ONS. Available at: 12 UK Parliament. (2021). Written evidence submitted by Dynamic
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/births- Food Procurement National Advisory Board. UK Parliament. Available
deathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/12215carehomeandnoncare- at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/9762/pdf/;
homepopulationsusedinthedeathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorar-
European Commission. (2015). Task 2: Market Analysis (draft) Working

ticleenglandandwales;
Document. European Commission. Available at: https://documents.
Ministry of Defence: Ministry of Defence. (2020). Quarterly Service pub/document/task-2-market-analysis-draft-working-2-food-service-
Personnel Statistics 1 July 2020. HMG. Available at: https://assets. activities-is-likely.html
13 Department of Health. (2017). Compliance with hospital food
attachment_data/file/920074/1_July_2020_SPS.pdf;
standards in the NHS. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.
Analysis does not include non-operational MOD staff nor NHS staff service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
as data not available so is likely to be an under estimation. data/file/586490/HFSP_Report.pdf
£2.4bn: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (2014). A 14 The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. (2021).
plan for public procurement: food and catering. Defra. Available at: Public sector procurement of food. House of Commons. Available
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/sys- at: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5509/docu-
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/332756/food-plan-july-2014.pdf ments/54917/default/;
5 Uptake: Dewberry Redpoint. (2019). School meal uptake research. UK Parliament. (2021). Written evidence submitted by The Soil Asso-
Dewberry Redpoint Ltd. Available at: https://laca.co.uk/sites/de- ciation. UK Parliament. Available at: https://committees.parliament.
fault/files/attachment/news/SMU Research Report 2019.pdf; uk/writtenevidence/9028/pdf/;
Cost and quality are an issue: Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The UK Parliament. (2021). Written evidence submitted by Pelican Pro-
257
curement Services. UK Parliament. Available at: https://committees. 19 Jones, M. et al. (2017). Association between Food for Life, a whole
parliament.uk/writtenevidence/10183/pdf/; setting healthy and sustainable food programme, and primary school
children’s consumption of fruit and vegetables: a cross-sectional
Marshall, R. et al. (2020). Procuring food for the future. Food study in England. International Journal of Environmental Research
Futures. Available at: https://foodfutures.org.uk/wp-content/up- and Public Health 14(639). Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-
loads/2020/11/FF-Procurement-Report-Final-November-2020.pdf 4601/14/6/639
15 Shelley, P. (2020). Report of the independent review of hospital 20 Belot, M. and James, J. (2009). Healthy school meals and educa-
food. Department of Health and Social Care. Available at: https:// tional outcomes. ISER working paper series. 2009–01. Available at:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/uploads/system/up- https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/
loads/attachment_data/file/929234/independent-review-of-nhs-hos- iser/2009-01.pdf
pital-food-report.pdf;
21 Bonsmann, S. S. G. et al. (2017). Public procurement: a policy tool to
Impact on Urban Health. (upcoming). School food mapping: policy promote healthier food environments and choices. WHO Europe. Avail-
and funding review. The case for the introduction of a School Food able at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325204/
Premium; php-3-4-649-654-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Impact on Urban Health; Dimbleby, H. and Vincent, J. (2013). The 22 Certified as sustainable by either the Marine Stewardship Council
School Food Plan. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.ser- or the Marine Conservation Society.
file/936238/The_School_Food_Plan.pdf; 23 Sustain. (2012). Sustainable Fish Cities. Sustain. Available at:
https://www.sustainweb.org/sustainablefishcity/
Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity. (2020). Serving up children’s health:
opportunities and barriers in the school food system to prioritise 24 Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark. (2015).
nutritious food for young people. GSTT Charity. Available at: https:// Denmark’s organic action plan. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and
www.gsttcharity.org.uk/sites/default/files/30-GSTC- Schools-min.pdf Fisheries of Denmark. Available at: https://www.agroecology-pool.
org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Denmark_final-1.pdf
16 Although there are mandatory school food standards they cover
nutrition only for all maintained schools and academies that were 25 Public Sector Catering. (2021). 20 Percent Less Meat. Public Sector
founded before 2010 and after June 2014. The Local Government Catering. Available at: https://20percentlessmeat.co.uk/
Association estimates that two thirds of academies that are not
required to follow them have taken up the standards voluntarily, see: 26 Friends of the Earth. (2020). Kale Yeah! Rebalanced menu guide
Eichler, W. (2016). Nearly 2,500 academies not signed up to healthy for caterers. Friends of the Earth. Available at: https://campaigning.
school meal standards. Local Gov. Available at: https://www.local- friendsoftheearth.uk/download/kale-yeah-rebalanced-menu-guide
gov.co.uk/Nearly-2500-academies-not-signed-up-to-healthy-school-
27 University of Cambridge. (2019). Removing beef and lamb from
meal-standards/40554
menu dramatically reduces food-related carbon emissions at Cam-
17 13m people from NFS analysis. Sources – Hospital patient meals: bridge University. University of Cambridge. Available at: https://
NHS Digital. (2021). Estates Returns Information Collection Summary www.cam.ac.uk/news/removing-beef-and-lamb-from-menu-dramati-
page and dataset for ERIC 2018/19. Available at: https://digital.nhs. cally-reduces-food-related-carbon-emissions-at-cambridge;
uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/estates-returns-in-
The Cambridge Green Challenge. (2019). Our sustainable food jour-
formation-collection/england-2018-19;
ney. University of Cambridge. Available at: https://www.environment.
Schools: Office for National Statistics. (2021). Schools, pupils and admin.cam.ac.uk/files/uoc_sustainable_food_journey_report.pdf
their characteristics, Academic year 2020/21. Available at: https://
28 Shelley, P. (2020). Report of the independent review of hospi-
explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pu-
tal food. DHSC. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.
pils-and-their-characteristics;
Higher education: Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2021). Table file/929234/independent-review-of-nhs-hospital-food-report.pdf
1 – HE student enrolments by HE provider 2014/15 to 2019/20. HESA.
29 PLACE: Hospital sites compliant with nutritional guidelines Data
Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/
from the 53 Hospital sites, PLACE 2018. Data presented in: Shelley,
table-1; Prisoners: Ministry of Justice. (2020). Prison population
P. (2020). Report of the independent review of hospital food. DHSC.
figures: 2020. HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/Government/
statistics/prison-population-figures-2020;
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/929234/indepen-
Care homes: ONS. (2020) Care home and non-care home populations dent-review-of-nhs-hospital-food-report.pdf;
used in the Deaths involving COVID-19 in the care sector article,
30 UK Parliament. (2021). Written evidence submitted by The Soil As-
England and Wales. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/
sociation. UK Parliament. Available at: https://committees.parliament.
peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/
uk/writtenevidence/9028/pdf/
adhocs/12215carehomeandnoncarehomepopulationsusedinthe-
deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorarticleenglandandwales; 31 Kersley, H. and Knuutila, K. (2011). The benefits of procuring school
meals through the food for life partnership. An economic analysis.
Ministry of Defence: Ministry of Defence. (2020). Quarterly Service
NEF. Available at: https://www.foodforlife.org.uk/~/media/files/evalu-
Personnel Statistics 1 July 2020. HMG. Available at: https://assets.
ation reports/fflp-nef----benefits-of-local-procurement.pdf
attachment_data/file/920074/1_July_2020_SPS.pdf; 32 The research design was a cross-sectional study in which schools
engaged with Food for Life were compared with schools not engaged
Analysis does not include NHS staff and visitors to hospitals as data
in the programme. Food for Life schools and Comparison schools were
not available, so is likely to be an underestimate.
matched in the same local authority area by free school meal eligibili-
18 Breakfast, lunch and snacks at school = 2/3 of weekday food, there- ty quintile and size: Jones, M. et al. (2017) Association between Food
fore 0.47 over 7 days; Royston, S. et al. (2012). Fair and square: a policy for Life, a whole setting healthy and sustainable food programme,
report on the future of free school meals. The Children’s Society, p12. and primary school children’s consumption of fruit and vegetables:
Available at: https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f3ecf1e68cdc/ a cross-sectional study in England. International Journal of Environ-
content/pages/documents/1429471607.pdf mental Research and Public Health 14(639). Available at: http://www.
258
mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/639
33 Data provided to NFS by Bath and North East Somerset Council.
34 Cambridge University: The University Catering Service. (2019).

Our Sustainable Food Journey. University of Cambridge. Available
at: https://www.environment.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/uoc_sustain-
Recommendation 13
able_food_journey_report.pdf;
Chefs In School: Improving the health of children through better

Appendix 13
school food & education. Chefs In School. Available at: https://www.

chefsinschools.org.uk/; Bath and North East Somerset Council: Data
provided directly to NFS by Bath and North East Somerset Council.
259
Recommendation 14. Set clear targets and bring in
legislation for long-term change.
Recommendation 14
Appendix 14
What is it? this expanded role effectively.
The Government should set a long-term statutory In addition, the Bill would put in place mechanisms to
target to improve diet-related health, and create a support a consistent approach to improving the health
new governance structure for food policy, through a and sustainability of the food system across the whole
Good Food Bill. public sector, and throughout the food industry in
England. It would:
The Good Food Bill’s diet-related health target would
complement the existing statutory target for carbon • Commit the Government to establish and
periodically update a healthy and sustainable
reduction, and proposed targets in the Environment
Reference Diet, to be used by all public bodies in
Bill. The Bill would also require the Government to food-related policy-making and procurement.
prepare regular (five-yearly) Action Plans to make
further progress beyond the initial steps we set out • Oblige all public sector organisations that spend
in this report. These Action Plans should set out public money on food to do so in line with specific
interim targets, and measures to meet them, that procurement standards, consistent with the
Reference Diet (supporting Recommendation 13).
are consistent with the food system’s contribution to
national health, nature and climate commitments. • Commit the FSA to developing a harmonised and
consistent food labelling system to describe the
In this, the Government would be assisted by the environmental impacts of food products, which
Food Standards Agency (FSA), whose remit would be we recommend it undertakes in collaboration with
formally extended. Its existing obligation to promote Defra and the Institute of Grocery Distribution.
the consumer interest would be redefined in law
• Require local authorities in England to develop
to include our collective interest in tackling climate
food strategies, developed with reference to
change, nature recovery and promoting health, in national targets and in partnership with the
the resilience of our food supply, and in meeting the communities they serve.
standards that the public expect.
• Facilitate the development of the National Food
The FSA would have powers and duties to advise System Data Programme by requiring large
the Government on the contents of its five-yearly businesses to publish data on the health and
Action Plans, and to provide an annual, independent environmental impact of their product portfolios
progress report to Parliament. This is distinct from (supporting Recommendations 2 and 12).
the food security reports that, under the Agriculture
Act, the Government is now required to make at least
every three years; the Government should produce
Rationale
these annually, with broad consultation, bringing in Targets

organisations responsible for nutrition, cybersecurity
(our food system is concentrated and vulnerable This strategy focuses on the three key issues affected
to attack), infrastructure, climate change and the by our food system: climate change, the environment
environment. and public health. We already have statutory targets
with a robust monitoring mechanism for climate
The FSA would have a statutory duty to consult with change: the Government is obliged by law to work
the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the towards achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050,
Climate Change Committee (CCC) and the Office with the Climate Change Committee monitoring
for Health Promotion (OHP) in drawing up its advice progress and providing advice.
and reports, also liaising with the Food and Drink
Sector Council.1 The Bill should specify corresponding The Environment Bill, which is currently proceeding
statutory functions for the OEP, CCC and OHP to through Parliament, will require the Government to
advise the FSA on emerging issues within the remit of define similar targets for protecting the environment
each body that are relevant to the scope of the FSA. and nature by the end of October 2022. It should be
The FSA would need sufficient resources to perform strengthened to include a legally binding target on the
260
face of the Bill to halt biodiversity loss in England by relatively shielded from changes in political leadership,
2030. and can hold successive Governments to account.
Its remit covers not just England but also Wales and
An equivalent mechanism is needed for diet-related Northern Ireland, and it has strong existing ties with
health, where there are currently no long-term binding Food Standards Scotland, which will enable a coherent
targets. The targets that do exist – a manifesto UK-wide approach.
commitment to extend healthy life expectancy
by five years by 2035, and references in policy to Reference Diet
“reducing the number of adults living with obesity,
halving childhood obesity by 2030 and reducing A Reference Diet is an effective tool to ensure a
inequalities” – should be built upon and made binding.2 consistent approach across Government policies. In
The Government should develop a target to increase the USA, the Federal Government applies the same
healthy life expectancy by reducing diet-related set of dietary guidelines to all state-funded schemes,
disease, comparable to the net zero target in the such as the National School Lunch Program and The
Climate Change Act. Healthy life expectancy should School Breakfast Program.
be defined and measured using available data on Dietary guidance in the UK is based on evidence of
health outcomes (deaths, diseases and dietary risk the health effects of individual nutrients and foods
factors). This is already feasible using data collected rather than overall diet, and the different elements
and models developed by the Global Burden of of this advice are not always consistent. Our current
Disease Study.3 Eatwell guide, the closest we have to a reference diet,
Governance does not take sustainability into account.
Maintaining the momentum and political focus In addition, the absence of mandatory dietary
necessary for large-scale change is hard. Previous guidance for public procurement has been widely
efforts to correct the problems in the food system, cited as a reason for the poor quality of food on offer
such as the cross-Whitehall Food Strategy Task Force, in public settings (Recommendation 13). Placing the
have not lasted.4 requirement to establish and periodically update a
healthy and sustainable Reference Diet within the
The CCC reports to Parliament each year on Good Food Bill ensures that it will stay current with
progress towards the net zero target. The long-term scientific consensus and cultural shifts. This work
environmental goals to be set under the Environment should be led by the FSA, working closely with the
Bill will also be underpinned by interim targets and OHP and Defra.
regular scrutiny by the OEP. A similar mechanism is
needed to make sustained progress towards the new Creating a legal obligation for food procured by the
health target set under the Good Food Bill, while public sector to comply with the Reference Diet will
ensuring this is consistent with the other demands on allow the Government to lead by example. It will also
the food system, including its major contributions to avoid inconsistencies undermining business and public
net zero and nature recovery. confidence in the Government’s food policy. The
Government must not be seen to serve food that falls
The Government should have a duty to prepare and below the standards it recommends to everyone else.
publish a Good Food Action Plan every five years,
including legislative and non-legislative measures. Environmental impact labelling
The Minister responsible for the Action Plan should There is currently no consistent in-store labelling to
be required to consult the FSA in the course of show the environmental impact of food. Evidence
preparing it. The FSA should have the authority and about the impact of environmental labelling on
resources to monitor progress towards the current consumer choices is mixed, but simple systems like
Action Plan and provide an independent report to traffic lights can help us to make informed choices
Parliament, incentivising the Government to meet its about what we buy.5 Creating a simple and consistent
commitments. method of labelling would ensure that all shops and
The FSA is ideally placed to support and scrutinise manufacturers give us the same kind of information
Government action on achieving the goals of the about our food. Having to record information about
Good Food Action Plans, because it is an organisation the environmental impact of food production could
with a clear and widely accepted statutory mandate also influence the way that manufacturers make their
to protect consumers’ health and interests in relation products.
to food, in preference to economic or political interest.
As a non-ministerial Government department, it is
261
Local strategies
National strategies only work when they can be
delivered on the ground, including locally. Local
initiatives – designed to suit the communities they
Recommendation 14
serve, and implemented with an understanding

of local conditions and challenges – are therefore
essential for the success of the National Food
Appendix 14
Strategy. Where local food strategies have already

been developed, these have benefited communities
and forged partnerships that increased their resilience
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.6 The evidence
from more than 50 cities, boroughs and counties
that now have a local food strategy or partnership
is that they can increase food security in the long
as well as short term, support improvements in
public health and wellbeing, and generate significant
investment and innovation.7 But whether you live
in such a place is a lottery, and only a handful have
the full backing of their local authority. Making this
approach an obligation for local Government provides
an opportunity for these benefits to spread across the
whole of England.
Costs and benefits

These measures will underpin the UK’s long-term
progress towards net zero, nature recovery and
better health. They will provide continuity of ambition,
enabling the Government – regardless of which party
is in power – to lead the country through the difficult
but necessary transition that is required in our food
system.
The FSA needs sufficient resources to perform this
additional role. We recommend it is allocated an
additional budget of £5m per year for this, similar to
the annual costs of the Climate Change Committee.8
Over three years the total is £15m.
We do not recommend making specific funds available
to local authorities to develop or implement their food
strategies. Rather, these costs should be met through

the funds Government is making available to support
levelling up. These include the UK Shared Prosperity
Fund, the Community Renewal Fund, the Community
Ownership Fund and the Levelling Up Fund.9
262
Endnotes
1
The OHP will take over the health promotion functions of Public
Health England.
2
Department of Health and Social Care. (2020). Tackling obesity:
empowering adults and children to live healthier lives. Policy Paper.
HMG. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/publications/
tackling-obesity-Government-strategy/tackling-obesity-empower-
ing-adults-and-children-to-live-healthier-lives
3
Available via Global Health Data Exchange at: http://ghdx.healthda-
ta.org/gbd-results-tool
4
The Strategy Unit. (2008). Food matters: towards a strategy for
the 21st century. Cabinet Office. Available at: https://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/
cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/food/food_matters1.pdf
5
Blythe, J. M. and Johnson, S. D. (2018). Rapid evidence assessment
on labelling schemes and implications for consumer IoT security. PE-
TRAS IoT Hub. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
Rapid_evidence_assessment_IoT_security_oct_2018_V2.pdf
6
Sustainable Food Places. (2021). Supporting local food systems
responses to Covid-19. Available at: https://www.sustainablefood-
places.org/coronavirus/
7
King, S. (2017). Making the case for a place based systems
approach: public health professionals’ assessment of Sustainable
Food Cities. University of West England. Available at: https://www.
sustainablefoodplaces.org/Portals/4/Documents/Making the case
for a place based systems approach-pp.pdf;
Hills, S. and Jones, M. (2019). Sustainable Food Cities: phase 2

evaluation final report. University of West England. Available at:
https://www.sustainablefoodplaces.org/resources/files/documents/
Hills_and_Jones_2019_SFC_Final_Report.pdf
8
Climate Change Committee. (2020). Annual report and accounts:
1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. House of Commons. Available at:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/annual-report-and-ac-
counts-2019-2020/
9
Her Majesty’s Treasury. (2021). Build Back Better: our plan for
growth. HMG. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
uk/Government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/968403/PfG_Final_Web_Accessible_Version.pdf
263
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
So many people have helped with the creating of this Elta Smith, Nils Indreiten, Shona Goudie, Victoria
Appendix 15
strategy that it is impossible to do justice to them all Jenneson, Jenny Sutherland and Brian Lainoff (Daisy’s
here. But there are a few people to whom I must pay husband) have helped us as external consultants, with
particular homage. Brian giving his time for free right up to the wire. My
assistant, Tracey Bade, has been (as always) calm,
First and foremost, two women who dedicated time capable and humorous in a crisis.
and energy far beyond what could be reasonably
expected. My wife, the journalist Jemima Lewis, edited Our Advisory Panel (see box) is made up of experts
this report. She put in hundreds of hours of unpaid from right across the food system. They have
work, challenging assumptions, clarifying arguments done everything we asked of them: offered advice
and flushing out jargon. The end result, I hope, is a and illumination, introduced us to others in their
report that can be read and understood by anyone field, reviewed our ongoing work, challenged and
with a stake in the food system – which is to say, encouraged us. They haven’t always agreed with
everyone. us – or with each other – but their input has been
invaluable.
Tamsin Cooper, leader of the National Food Strategy
civil service team, is about as far removed from the Two of my fellow non-executives at Defra, Elizabeth
obstructive Sir Humphrey of popular legend as it Buchanan and Ben Goldsmith, have done a huge
is possible to imagine. She has been astonishingly amount to help me understand, respectively, the
dedicated, driven and talented. For the past two concerns of farmers and those of environmentalists.
years, she has explored the food system with me both
literally and metaphorically: trudging around soilless Many other experts have been generous with their
vertical farms and peaty moorlands (always in the time and wisdom. They include: Dave Lewis, former
wrong shoes), interrogating, cajoling and enlisting Tesco CEO and now WWF Chair of Board of Trustees;
experts, pulling together evidence, soothing exhausted Professor Dame Rachel Griffith, Research Director,
team members, and – by the end – staying up long into Institute for Fiscal Studies and Professor of Economics,
the night double-checking every footnote. This report University of Manchester; Sir Ian Boyd, Professor
wouldn’t be half the thing it is without her. of Biology, University of St Andrews, former Chief
Scientific Adviser, Defra; Professor Martin White,
The civil service team Tamsin leads has done amazing Professor of Population Health Research, Centre for
work collating, analysing and testing the mountains Diet and Activity Research, MRC Epidemiology Unit,
of evidence that have gone into this report. I am so University of Cambridge; Dr Peter Scarborough,
grateful for the professionalism and good temper of Nuffield Department of Population Health, University
Joseph James, Jacques Launay, Eleanor Dowding, of Oxford; Dr Kevin Hall, Senior Investigator,
Jessica Heinemann, Simon Davies, Oliver Dye, Sarah Integrative Physiology Section, Laboratory of
Haley, Emma Quarterman, Grace Brocklehurst, Biological Modelling, Intramural Research Programme,
Joanna Nixon, Tamas Borbely and Isabella Watney. National Institutes of Health; Lazlo Barabási, Giulia
I would particularly like to thank Daisy Lainoff, Menichetti and Peter Ruppert, from the Barabási
whose commitment and energy has been something Lab; Dr Richie Harrington, senior researcher Big Data
extraordinary – almost supernatural – to behold. Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health,
University of Oxford; Professor Lord Krebs, Emeritus
I have leaned heavily on the expertise of several Professor of Zoology, University of Oxford; Sir Dieter
specialist advisors: Dustin Benton on climate and Helm, Professor of Economic Policy at the University of
the environment, Tom MacMillan on land and Oxford; Dr David Nabarro, Professor of global health at
farming, James Kane on trade, and Will Brett on Imperial College London, and curator of the UN’s Food
communications. Their wisdom and generosity are Systems Dialogues; Sir Charles Burrell, conservationist
hugely appreciated. My chief independent advisor, and founder of the Knepp Wildland; Stefano Agostini,
Anna Taylor, has been a rock throughout this two-year CEO of Nestle UK & Ireland; Michael Dixon, Co-Chair,
journey. As executive director of the Food Foundation, Social Prescribing Network; Sam Hall, Director of
Anna brings deep knowledge to everything she does – the Conservative Environment Network; Emily Miles,
as well as fantastic team spirit. Chief Executive, Food Standards Agency; Professor
264
Dame Ottoline Leyser, Regius Professor of Botany I am grateful to those people working in the Devolved
at the University of Cambridge and Chief Executive Authorities who gave us their thoughts. They include:
Officer of UK Research and Innovation; Professor Tim from Northern Ireland, Joy Alexander, Fiona Ferguson,
Spector – epidemiologist, King’s College London, and Louise Brady, and Colette McMaster; from Scotland,
science writer; Professor Tim Lang, Emeritus Professor George Burgess, David Gally, Ian McWatt, Gillian
of Food Policy at City University ; Professor Guy Provan, Garry Mournian, David Johnston; and from
Poppy, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Food Wales, David Lloyd-Thomas and Nicholas Shilton.
Standards Agency; Sue Pritchard, Chief Executive
of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission; Finally, there are things that Government is not
Professor Corinna Hawkes, Professor of Food Policy, allowed to pay for in an Independent Review and
City University of London; Richard Benwell, Chief we have been lucky for the support of a number
Executive of the Wildlife and Countryside Link; Mark of funders. Sustainable Healthy Food Systems
Bridgman, President, Country Landowners Association; consortium, funded by the Wellcome Trust, Esmée
Martin Lines, UK Chair, Nature Friendly Farming Fairbairn Foundation, and the Health Foundation
Network; Gavin Lane, Farmer; David Fursdon, Chair together funded our youth engagement programme.
of Beeswax Dyson Farming Ltd; Peter Brotherton, The Food People & Fix Our Food funded the Holiday
Director of Science, Natural England; Louise Davies, Activities and Food programme we made with Marcus
founder, Food Teachers Centre; Fiona Gatley, Royal Rashford.
Academy of Culinary Arts; Judith Batchelar, outgoing
Director of corporate responsibility and sustainability The Mark Leonard Trust, The Linbury Trust, The
at Sainsbury’s; Sarah Bradbury, Group Quality Director, Ashden Trust,the European Climate Foundation and
Tesco; Marie Polley, co-chair, Social Prescribing The Rothschild Foundation, all provided funding for
Network; James Rebanks, sheep farmer and author; communication.
Professor Herman Pontzer, Associate Professor in We drew heavily on the work of Hannah Ritchie and
Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University; Professor Max Rosser at Our World in Data. They provide an
Alan Dangour, Professor in Food and Nutrition, London extraordinary wealth of free and beautifully visualised
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Dr Rosemary data. Many people will have come across their work on
Green, Associate Professor in Sustainability, Nutrition COVID. Their work on the food system is just as rich
and Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical and compelling.
Medicine; Dr Pauline Scheelbeek, Assistant Professor
in Nutritional and Environmental Epidemiology, London Thanks to Naomi Duncan and Nicole Pisani, my
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Iain Porter, colleagues at Chefs in Schools, for doing the work that
Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Professor Jonathan really matters: educating the palates of the future.
Bradshaw, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy, York
University; Dr Ben Richardson, Reader in International
Political Economy, University of Warwick; and Dr
Fiona Smith, Professor of International Economic Law,
University of Leeds; Tamara Finkelstein, Permanent
Secretary, Defra; Andrew Jarvis, Vice President, Public
Policy Research and Evaluation, ICF; Professor Michael
Lee, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Harper Adams University;
Prof David Main, Professor of Production Animal Health
& Welfare, Royal Agricultural University; Patricia
Eustachio Colombo, Professor Michelle Morris, Leeds
Institute for Data Analytics & School of Medicine,
University of Leeds, Research Coordinator, Karolinska
Institutet.
The work has been supported by the analysis and
insight of Bain & Company, SystemIQ, Technopolis
Group, Energy Systems Catapult, Policy Lab and
Fleetwood Strategy. I thank you all.
This report and the Evidence Pack would not have
been possible without the design expertise of
all those at 10 Associates, particularly Michael
Freemantle and Alex Finney, and Katie White at
White Creative.
265
Advisory Panel
Agriculture
Minette Batters, President, NFU
Acknowledgements
Helen Browning, Chief Executive, Soil Association

Appendix 15
Craig Livingstone, Farmer of the Year, 2018

John Shropshire, CEO, G’s Group
Rebecca Laughton, Campaign Coordinator, Landworkers’ Alliance
Industry, Government and Non-Governmental Organisations

Denise Bentley, Co-Founder and CEO, First Love Association
Baroness Boycott, Member of the Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee, House of Lords,
former Chair of the London Food Board
Paul Clarke, Chief Technology Officer, Ocado
Tony Juniper, Chair, Natural England
Justin King, Former Chief Executive Sainsbury’s, Non-Executive Director Marks & Spencer
Sarah Mukherjee, Chief Executive, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, former Chief
Executive, Crop Protection Association
Sebastian Munden, Executive Vice President & General Manager, Unilever UK & Ireland
Andrew Selley, Chief Executive, Bidfood
Alastair Storey, Found and Chief Executive, Westbury Street Holdings (WSH)
Gerard van der Hut, Managing Director, Rijk Zwaan UK Ltd
Roger Whiteside, Chief Executive, Greggs
Academics and Experts

Dr Meredith Crowley, Reader in International Economics, University of Cambridge, specialising in international
trade
Dr David Halpern, Chief Executive, Behavioural Insights Team
Professor Susan Jebb, Professor of Diet and Population Health, University of Oxford
Dr Tim Leunig, Economic Adviser to the Chancellor, Associate Professor of Economic History, London School
of Economics
Professor Steve McCorriston, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Exeter
Professor Theresa Marteau, Director of Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge
Jeremy Oppenheim, Founder & Senior Partner, SYSTEMIQ
Professor Jonathan Valabhji, National Clinical Director for Diabetes and Obesity, NHS England
Daisy Stemple, our citizen member of the Advisory Panel, has advocated for those at the sharp end of the
food system, giving a voice to those who are too often voiceless.
266
Citizen Dialogue
We would like to thank Henrietta Hopkins, Director, Hopkins van Mil and her team who masterfully ran
our public dialogues process and the counsel of UKRI and Sciencewise. I would also like to thank all of
the citizens that generously gave their time over 18 months. Their voices, which fundamentally informed
my views, flow throughout this report. I am grateful for the advice of the members of the independent
oversight group who helped oversee these dialogues with citizens:
Peter Jackson, Professor of Geography and Co-Director of the University of Sheffield Institute for
Sustainable Food, University of Sheffield
Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy, Which? The Consumer Association
Matthew van Duyvenbode, Director of Strategy & Impact, the Trussell Trust
Ian Mace, Head of Public Affairs and Policy, Association of British Foods
Modi Mwatsama, Senior Science Lead (Food Systems, Nutrition and Health), Wellcome Trust
Toby Park, Principal Advisor, Energy, Environment & Sustainability, the Behavioural Insights Team
Paul Smith, Secretary General, Botanic Gardens Conservation International
Justin Varney, Director of Public Health, Birmingham City Council
Rachel Ward, Scientific Policy Director, Institute of Food Science & Technology
Laura Wellesley, Senior Research Fellow, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme at Chatham House
Ruth Edge, Chief Food Chain Adviser, National Farmers Union
Christine McDowell, Food Chain Adviser, National Farmers Union
Jack Watts, Agri-Food Policy Delivery Manager, National Farmers Union
267
Who we have met
Who we have met
Organisation Sector Organisation Sector

Appendix 16
Agri-EPI centre Academia / Research Reading University Academia / Research

Alan Turing Institute Academia / Research Royal Agricultural
Academia / Research
Barabasi Lab Academia / Research University
Blue Hat Man Academia / Research RUG Academia / Research
Bright Harbour Academia / Research The Fitzwilliam Museum Academia / Research
Brunel University Academia / Research The Institute for

Academia / Research
Agriculture & Horticulture
Centre for Innovation
Academia / Research Turing Institute Academia / Research
Excellence in Livestock
Dasgupta Review Academia / Research UCL Institute for
Academia / Research
Sustainable Resources
Demos Academia / Research
Universiity of
ECIU Academia / Research Academia / Research
Herfordshire
Education Policy Institute Academia / Research University College
Academia / Research
Food Climate Research London
Academia / Research
Network University of Bath Academia / Research
Glasgow University Academia / Research University of California
Academia / Research
Global Food Security Academia / Research Santa Barbara
Harper Adams University Academia / Research University of Cambridge Academia / Research
IDDRI Academia / Research University of Exeter Academia / Research
Indigo Agriculture Academia / Research University of Glasgow Academia / Research
Institute for Fiscal University of Leeds Academia / Research
Academia / Research
Studies University of Nottingham Academia / Research
Institute for Innovation University of Oxford Academia / Research
Academia / Research
and Public Purpose
University of St Andrews Academia / Research
Institute of Zoology, ZSL Academia / Research
UWTSD Academia / Research
IPPR Academia / Research
City, University of London Academia / Research

Meridian Institute Academia / Research
ICOSS, University of
National Physical Academia / Research
Academia / Research Sheffield
Laboratory
Government / Public
Newcastle University Academia / Research AHBD
sector
NIDDK Academia / Research APPG on a Fit and Government / Public
Nottingham University Academia / Research Healthy Childhood sector
Nuffield Department of Government / Public
Academia / Research APPG on Longevity
Primary Care sector
Oxford Risk Ltd Academia / Research Government / Public
Argyll and Bute Council
sector
QMUL Academia / Research
Government / Public
Queens University Belfast Academia / Research BBSRC
sector
268
Government / Public Government / Public
Birmingham City Council HM Treasury
sector sector
Cabinet Office Hospital Food Review
sector sector
Carmarthenshire County Government / Public Government / Public
House of Commons
Council sector sector
Centre for Digital Built Government / Public Government / Public
House of Lords
Britain sector sector
Climate Change Government / Public Government / Public
Institue for Fiscal Studies
Committee sector sector
Crown Commercial Government / Public Kingsmead Primary Government / Public
Service sector School sector
Department for Business, Government / Public
Government / Public Liverpool NHS Trust
Energy and Industrial sector
sector
Strategy Local Government Government / Public
Department for Digital, Government / Public Association sector
Culture, Media and Sport sector Government / Public
Ministry of Defence
Government / Public sector
Department for Education
sector Government / Public
Ministry of Justice
Department for sector
Government / Public
Environment, Food and Government / Public
sector Natural England
Rural Affairs sector
Department of Health Government / Public Government / Public
and Social Care sector NHS England
sector
Digital Catapault NHS Improvement
sector sector
Government / Public Office of National Government / Public
Education Scotland
sector Statistics sector
Environment Agency Public Health England
sector sector
Food Standards Agency Public Health Matters
sector sector
Foreign, Commonwealth Government / Public Government / Public
and Development Office sector Reach Academy
sector
Global Resource Initiative Scottish Government
sector sector
Greater Birmingham & The Prime Minister’s Government / Public
Government / Public
Solihull Local Enterprise Office sector
sector
Partnership
Trade and Agriculture Government / Public
Government / Public Commission sector
Hackney Council
sector
Government / Public
Health and Safety Government / Public UK COP presidency
sector
Executive sector
UK High Level Climate Government / Public
HM Prison and Probation Government / Public Champion sector
Service sector
269
Government / Public Capita Industry
UKRI
sector Catapult Energy Systems Industry
Government / Public Cellular Agriculture
UN COP26
Who we have met
sector Industry
Limited
Veterinary Medicines Government / Public
Appendix 16
Cignpost Diagnostics Industry

Directorate sector
Classic Fresh Foods Industry
Government / Public
Welsh Government Coca Cola Industry
sector
Government / Public Compass Group UK Industry
AI Council
sector Competere Industry
Government / Public Co-Op Industry
Children’s Commissioner
sector
Covent Garden Market
Government / Public Industry
Climate Champions Authority
sector
Daily Mail Industry
Department for Government / Public
Dawn Meats Industry
International Trade sector
Daylesford Organic Industry
Department for Work and Government / Public
Pensions sector DPS Industry
4SD Industry EatDrinkSleep Industry
AB Foods Industry EFECA Industry
ABP Beef Industry Energy & Climate
Industry
Intelligence Unit
ADAS Industry
Equilibrium Markets Ltd
Agricultural Industries Industry
Industry (FreshRange)
Confederation
Erpingham House Industry
Agrimetrics Industry
FAIRR Industry
AIC Industry
Fidelity International Industry
Aldi Industry
Food and Drink
Aleph Foods Industry Industry
Federation
Alix & Partners Industry
Greencore Industry
Allora Industry
Greensphere capital Industry
Arla Industry
Greggs Industry
ASC Industry
G’s Fresh Industry
Asda Industry
Hall Farm Industry
Association of
Industry Hawksmoor Industry
Convenience Stores
HSBC Industry
Aviva Investors Industry
Iceland Industry
Barfoots Industry
ICF Industry
Bartle Bogle Hegarty Industry
IDH Trade Industry
Beeswax Dyson Industry
IGD Industry
Bidfood Industry
Impact Investing Institute Industry
Booths Industry
Impossible Burger Industry
British Retail Consortium Industry
270
Industry Nutrition Public Sector Catering
Industry Industry
Strategy Group Magazine
Institute of Environmental Rathbones Industry
Management & Industry Redefine Meat Industry
Assessment
Rijk Zwann Industry
International Meat Trade
Industry Riverford Industry
Association
ISS Industry Rubicon 3 Industry
Jamie Oliver Industry Sainsbury’s Industry
John Lewis / Waitrose Industry Sean Rickard Limited Industry
Kerry Foods Industry Severn Trent Water Industry
Knepp Estate Industry Sodexo Industry
LACA Industry Solar Foods Industry
Lazard Industry South West Water Industry
Legendairy Foods Industry Spar Industry
Leon Industry SW Food Hub Industry
Lidl Industry Synthesis Capital Industry
Limewood Group Industry SystemIQ Industry
Local TV Network Industry Tenant Farmers
Industry
Association
Lockerley Estate Industry
Tesco Industry
Lok’n’Store Industry
The Mail on Sunday Industry
Marks and Spencer Industry
The Rockefeller Institute Industry
McCain Industry
Thirty Percy Industry
McColls Industry
Triodos Industry
McDonald’s UK & Ireland Industry
TUCO Industry
McKinsey Industry
UK Flour Milling Industry Industry
Mondra Industry
Unilever Industry
Morrisons Industry
Volac Industry
Mosa Meat Industry
Wahaca Industry
Mott McDonald Industry
Waitrose Industry
Moy Park Industry
Wall Street Journal Industry
National Farmers’ Union Industry
Westbury Street Holdings Industry
Nestle Industry
Westminster Industry
Ocado Industry Industry
Group
Organic Research Centre Industry Yeo Valley Industry
Ottolenghi Industry Nature Friendly Farming
Industry
Pioneer Hospitality Industry Network
Prestige Purchasing Industry Institute for European
INGO
Prezzo Industry Environmental Policy
Protein Industries Canada Industry OECD INGO
271
World Health Voluntary and
INGO Country Trust
Organisation (WHO) charitable sector
Voluntary and Danish Wholegrain Voluntary and
A Greener World
Who we have met
charitable sector Partnership charitable sector

Voluntary and Dynamic Food
Appendix 16
Action on Salt and Sugar Voluntary and

charitable sector Procurement National
charitable sector
Voluntary and Advisory Board
AllFed Alliance
charitable sector Voluntary and
Eating Better Alliance
Voluntary and charitable sector
Behavioural Insights Team
Eden Project
Beyond GM
charitable sector Education Partnerships Voluntary and
Voluntary and Group charitable sector
Big Society
Energy Systems Catapult
BiteBack 2030
charitable sector Environmental Funders Voluntary and
Voluntary and Network charitable sector
Blue Marine Foundation
charitable sector Esmee Fairbairn Voluntary and
Voluntary and Foundation charitable sector
Bremner Consulting
FareShare
Broadway Initiative
Fig Holding
Cambridge Sustainable Voluntary and charitable sector
Food charitable sector Voluntary and
First Love Foundation
Canal & River Trust
Food Foundation
Changing Food, the charitable sector
Voluntary and
Copenhagen Food Voluntary and
charitable sector Food Frontier
System Centre charitable sector
Voluntary and Food, Farming & Voluntary and
Chatham House
charitable sector Countryside Commission charitable sector
Voluntary and Voluntary and
Chefs in Schools Foodome Project
charitable sector charitable sector
Children’s Investment Voluntary and Voluntary and

Forest Creation Partners
Fund Foundation charitable sector charitable sector
Citizen Forward Institute
Client Earth Freelance
Company Shop Future Advocacy
Conservative Environment Voluntary and Voluntary and
Giki
Network charitable sector charitable sector
Country Land and Voluntary and Voluntary and
Good Food Institute
Business Association charitable sector charitable sector
272
Green Alliance QC Foundation
Green Finance Institute RAND Europe
Greenpeace ResPublica
Guy’s & St Thomas’ Voluntary and Voluntary and
Rothschild Foundation
Hospital Charity charitable sector charitable sector
Humane Society Voluntary and Royal Academy of Voluntary and
International charitable sector Culinary Arts charitable sector
Institute for Government Royal Society of Arts
IUC Forest Programme RSPB
John Ellerman Foundation RSPCA
Voluntary and Sainsburys Family Voluntary and
Landworkers Alliance
charitable sector Charitable Trusts charitable sector
Leading Edge Forum Save British Farming
Local Food Hubs Save The Children
Longevity International School Food Matters
National Geographic Voluntary and School Food Teachers Voluntary and
Society charitable sector Centre charitable sector
National Trust Scotland Food for Life
Nesta Seafish UK
Nourish Scotland Soil Association
Nourish UK Square Food Foundation
Nutrition Society Street Games
Onward Sustain
Oxford Farming Voluntary and Voluntary and
Sustainable Food Trust
Conference charitable sector charitable sector
Plantlife TastEd
ProVeg The Food Foundation
273
Organisation Sector
Voluntary and
The Food People
charitable sector
Voluntary and
The Woodland Trust
Who we have met
charitable sector
Voluntary and
Appendix 16
Tony Blair Institute

charitable sector
Voluntary and
UK Onward
charitable sector
Voluntary and
Vegan Society
charitable sector
Voluntary and
Ways to Wellness
charitable sector
Voluntary and
Wellcome Trust
charitable sector
Voluntary and
Which?
charitable sector
Wildlife and Countryside Voluntary and
Link charitable sector
Voluntary and
Wildlife Trusts
charitable sector
World Wildlife Fund for Voluntary and
Nature (WWF) charitable sector
Worshipful Company of Voluntary and
Farmers charitable sector
Voluntary and
WRAP
charitable sector
274
Additional reading list
Additional reading list
The following is a list of key texts that we have drawn on in writing Parsons, K. et al. (2019). Rethinking food policy: A fresh approach
Appendix 17
this report but are not specifically mentioned elsewhere: to policy and practice. City University of London. Available at:
https://nutritionconnect.org/resource-center/rethinking-food-poli-
Adams, W.M. (2003). Future Nature: A Vision for Conservation. New cy-fresh-approach-policy-and-practice
York, USA: Routledge
Prabhu, J. (2021). How Should A Government Be? The New Levers of
Banerjee, A.V. & Duflo, E. (2019). Good Economics for Hard Times: State Power. London, UK: Profile Books
Better Answers to Our Biggest Problems. London, UK: Allen Lane
Rebanks, J. (2015). The Shepherd’s Life: A Tale of the Lake District.
Barabási, A-L. (2003). Linked: The New Science of Networks. New London, UK: Penguin Books.
York, USA: Perseus Books
Sandbu, M. (2020). The Economics of Belonging: A Radical Plan to
Barber, M. (2021). Accomplishment: How to Achieve Ambitious and Win Back the Left Behind and Achieve Prosperity for All. Princeton,
Challenging Things. London, UK: Allen Lane USA: Princeton University Press
Cocker, M. (2019). Our Place: Can We Save Britain’s Wildlife Before It Snowdon, C. (2017). Killjoys: A Critique of Paternalism. London, UK:
Is Too Late? London: Vintage Books Institute of Economic Affairs
Coghill, I. (2021). Moorland Matters: The Battle for the Uplands Spector, T. (2020). Spoon-Fed: Why almost everything we’ve been
against Authoritarian Conservation. Stroud, UK: Quiller Publishing Ltd told about food is wrong. London, UK: Jonathan Cape Books
Cottam, H. (2018). Radical Help: How we can remake the relationships Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Lon-
between us and revolutionise the welfare state. London, UK: Virago don, UK: Penguin Books
Crisp, N. (2020). Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs: Tree, I. (2018). Wilding: The return of nature to a British farm. London,
Building a healthy and health-creating society. SALUS Global knowl- UK: Picador
edge Exchange
Wallace, D.F. (2005). Consider the Lobster: And Other Essays. Bos-
Davis, A. et al. (2019). Understanding the Multi-functional Nature of ton, USA: Little, Brown & Company
the Countryside. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Available at:
https://blog.oup.com/2019/09/understanding-the-multi-function- Wilson, B. (2015). First Bite: How We Learn to Eat. London, UK: Fourth
al-nature-of-the-countryside/ Estate.
Deaton, A. (2015). The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins Wilson, E.O. (2016). Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. New York,
of Inequality. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press USA: Liveright Books
Finkelstein, L. & Carson, E.R. (1985). Mathematical Modelling of Dy- Wilson, E.O. (2001). The Diversity of Life. London, UK: Penguin Books
namic Biological Systems (2nd Edition). Totnes, UK: Research Studies
Press
Food and Land Use Coalition. (2019). Growing Better: Ten Critical
Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. Available at:
https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/global-report/
Kirkham, T.C. and Cooper, S.J. (eds). (2007). Appetite and Body
Weight. Integrative Systems and the Development of Anti-Obesity
Drugs. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd.
Lent, J. (2017). The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humani-

ty’s Search for Meaning. Buffalo, USA: Prometheus Books
Lobley, M. & Winter, M. (2009). What is Land For? The Food, Fuel and
Climate Change Debate. London, UK: Routledge
Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to

Changing Capitalism. London, UK: Allen Lane
Mazzucato, M. (2018). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs.

Private Sector Myths. London, UK: Penguin Books
Monbiot, G. (2014). Feral: Rewilding the Land, Sea and Human Life.
London, UK: Penguin Books
OECD. (2021). Making Better Policies for Food Systems. Available at:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/making-bet-
ter-policies-for-food-systems_ddfba4de-en
275
Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference
Purpose Children from the most deprived areas are three times
Appendix 18
as likely to be obese as those from the least deprived.

No part of our economy matters more than food.
Food is vital to life and, for one in seven of us, it is the Intensive farming, of the kind that has increased
source of our livelihood. And no decisions have such a production so much since the Second World War, also
direct impact on our lives and wellbeing as the choices generates environmental problems. The impact on soil
we make about what we eat. health, air quality, river freshness, biodiversity and
climate change has raised urgent questions about how
Food shapes our sense of ourselves, too. Cooking and we can make food production genuinely sustainable.
eating together is perhaps the defining communal act.
The character of the English landscape and the culture And we cannot afford to ignore new challenges to
of many rural communities are defined by the way food security. With the world’s population growing,
farmers use the land. And although the vast majority a mass migration to cities, resource competition
of us now live in cities, growing food, seeing how it is intensifying between nations, huge stress on water
grown, knowing that we can feed ourselves – these supplies, climate change altering what the land is
are all important to our sense of national belonging. capable of supplying, trade barriers re-emerging and
new public health dangers growing, from antimicrobial
The free market performs a million daily miracles resistance to viral mutations, it is critical to review how
to present us with an abundant choice of safe and we secure the food of the future.
reasonably-priced food, creating millions of jobs
and providing us with an ease of consumption To address these growing problems, to ensure the
unimaginable to our grandparents’ generation. security of our food supply and to maximise the
benefits of the coming revolution in agricultural
But the way we produce, distribute, market and technology, the Government proposes to develop a
consume food raises a series of difficult policy new integrated National Food Strategy.
questions which Government cannot shirk. The state
already regulates in minute detail how food is grown, The purpose of the National Food Strategy is to
and livestock reared, in order to safeguard both human build on the work underway in the Agriculture Bill,
health and our natural environment. We subsidise food the Environment Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Industrial
producers to an extent no other industry enjoys. We Strategy and the Childhood Obesity Plan to create
regulate the sale and marketing of food for health and an overarching strategy for Government, designed to
other reasons. From the national curriculum to hospital ensure our food system:
meals, the availability of migrant labour to the public
• Delivers safe, healthy, affordable food; regardless of
health impacts of obesity, Government is responsible
where they live or how much they earn.
for a myriad of actions which shape the nation’s
relationship with food. • Is robust in the face of future shocks.

And the need for Government to review and rethink • Restores and enhances the natural environment for
its influence and role is only increasing. It’s not just the the next generation in this country.
case that we need to reconsider how food and drink,
as our biggest manufacturing industry, fits into the • Is built upon a resilient, sustainable and humane
Government’s broader Industrial Strategy; there are agriculture sector.
other urgent and inescapable policy questions with
which Government must grapple. • Is a thriving contributor to our urban and rural
economies, delivering well paid jobs and supporting
Globally, we are the first generation more likely to die innovative producers and manufacturers across the
as a result of lifestyle choices than infectious disease. country.
Diabetes, cardiac disease and other obesity-related
conditions are costing the NHS billions and drastically • Does all of this in an efficient and cost-effective
harming the lives of millions. Obesity is a particular way.
issue for poorer communities and young people.
276
We have a moral, as well as practical, responsibility
to consider the role and impact of the food system.
The purpose of the National Food Strategy is to set
out a vision for the kind of food system we should be
building for the future, and a plan for how to achieve
that vision.
Scope
The scope will be England, but the strategy
will consider our relationship with the devolved
administrations, the European Union and our other
trading partners.
The strategy will cover the entire food chain, from field
to fork: the production, marketing, processing, sale
and purchase of food (for consumption in the home
and out of it), and the consumer practices, resources
and institutions involved in these processes.
The strategy will consider the role of the central

Government departments, arm’s-length bodies, local
councils and city authorities. In doing so it will also
consider the roles that individuals, the private sector,
and social enterprises should play.
Reporting, activities, and timing

The purpose of the review is to consider how the
UK’s food sector operates currently, and to set out
options (underpinned by detailed evidence, including
in respect of the associated pros, cons, and trade-
offs) for adjusting Government policies to better
achieve the objectives for the Strategy set out above.
Subsequently, the Government will develop a National
Food Strategy White Paper informed, among other
things, by this independent review. This is planned six
months after the publication of the review.
The review will be led by Henry Dimbleby, co-founder

of Leon restaurants, the lead non-executive director at
Defra and co-author of The School Food Plan.
Henry will be supported by Defra officials. Henry

will also consult stakeholders across the country
and from all relevant Government departments. An
advisory group selected from across the food system
will support him. The recently formed Food and Drink
Sector Council will also be a source of close advice
and counsel.
Henry will report to ministers on content which

concerns their departments, as the review progresses.
277
The problems of BMI measurement in children
The problems of BMI measurement in children
Eagle-eyed observers may notice that nowhere in this For children, things are more complex. Because of the
Appendix 19
report do we use one of the most commonly quoted way young bodies naturally change shape as they
statistics on obesity in the UK: “One in ten children is grow – from chubby babies to stringy pre-teens and
obese when they start primary school, and one in five muscular adolescents – the BMI thresholds for children
is obese by the time they leave, aged 11.” have to differ by age. To complicate things further,
they also differ between boys and girls. To determine
We have tried to be exacting in our use of data, whether a child is underweight, overweight or obese,
and we believe the way this statistic is measured is a doctor will consult one of two charts – one for each
problematic and probably worth rethinking. sex – that provide the BMI thresholds for every stage.
A five-year-old boy, for example, would be defined
The definition of obesity for adults is simple. If your
as obese if his BMI exceeded 19.3. By age 11, it would
body mass index (BMI) – your weight in kilograms
have to exceed 25.1, and by 18 it would have to match
divided by the square of your height in metres – is
the adult number of 30.††
over 25, the NHS defines you as overweight; over 30,
you are obese; and over 40, severely obese.†
This measure has its flaws even for adults – we all

know the stories of lean, fit rugby players who are
theoretically “obese” – but it is broadly fit for purpose
at a population level.
Figure 1
Obesity prevalence in England across all age ranges†††
50%
Drop due to change of obesity definition at 18
30%
0%
4
10
12
+
7
75
5–
–1
2–
–2
–3
–4
–5
–6
–7
–
8–
11
13
65
16
55
25
45
35
Age
†
NHS. (2019). Obesity. Available at: https: //www.nhs.uk /conditions /obesity/
††
For age 5 and 11 see: NHS Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. (no date). Your BMI. Available at: www.gosh.nhs.uk /
children /general-health-advice /eat-smart /obesity-lowdown /your-bmi; for adult see: NHS. (2019). What is the body mass
index (BMI)? Available at: https: //www.nhs.uk /common-health-questions / lifestyle /what-is-the-body-mass-index-bmi /
†††
NHS Digital. (2020.) Healthy Survey for England 2019: Adult and child overweight and obesity. Available at: http: //digital.
278 nhs.uk /pubs / hse2019
So far so good. But if we look at the overall statistics
on obesity in the population, provided by the Royal
College of Paediatrics and Child Health (Figure B1),
we see something very strange. Obesity seems to rise
steadily until the age of 15. Then, when we reach the
16-24 age category, obesity levels suddenly plummet
by just under half, before rising again in adulthood.
How are our 16-year-olds performing this miraculous

feat of weight loss? It doesn’t make sense, either
intuitively or scientifically: in a 2017 report, the same
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health told
us that “80% of overweight and obese children will
become overweight and obese adults”.†
The answer is, they don’t lose the weight. It’s just a
quirk of data definition.
The guidelines for measuring BMI in children are based

on 1990 measurements of the BMI of children of all
ages – known as the UK90. For reasons that are very
far from clear, it was decided that, from the ages of
0-15, the BMI threshold for obesity should be pegged
to the BMI of the heaviest 5% of each age group in the
UK90 data.††
Once children reach the age of 16, the way obesity is

measured abruptly changes – to the adult definition
of a BMI above 30. This is a much higher threshold:
only around 2% of 16-year-olds had a BMI above 30 in
the UK90 data. Overnight, therefore, a whole load of
children who qualified as obese the day before their
birthday become, statistically, merely overweight.
Because this abrupt change is built into the system for

monitoring the weight of our population, it continues
to distort the figures. Every year the chart appears to
show the same inexplicable dip in obesity numbers
at 16.
A threshold for measuring obesity is bound to be

somewhat arbitrary - in the US in 1998, the definition
of overweight changed from a BMI of 27 for women
and 28 for men to 25 for everyone - which reclassified
29 million people as overweight overnight.††† But
the data anomalies created by the childhood BMI
thresholds in the UK, are troublesome enough to
require rethinking.
†
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. (2017). State of Child Health Report 2017.
††
Public Health England. (2020). Official Statistics: NCMP and Child Obesity Profile: short statistical commentary March
2020. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/Government/statistics/child-obesity-and-excess-weight-small-area-level-data-
march-2020-update/ncmp-and-child-obesity-profile-short-statistical-commentary-march-2020
†††
Squires, S. (1998). Optimal weight threshold lowered. The Washington Post. 279
Call for Evidence
Call for Evidence
In August 2019, Defra - on behalf of the National as individuals made up by far the largest proportion
Appendix 20
Food Strategy - conducted a Call for Evidence which (see Figure 1). Five campaigns also organised a total
lasted for ten weeks. Anyone with an interest in food of 84 responses: these came from Animal Rebellion,
was invited to contribute their ideas, whether big or Four Paws, The Vegetarian Society, The Vegan Society
small, on how the food system should be transformed. and an unidentified campaign. These mostly focused
The opportunity to help shape the future of the food on the links between livestock production, meat
system in England was welcomed by many, with consumption and climate change.
nearly 2,000 respondents submitting a total of over
5,000 suggestions. All of these were analysed and A range of businesses with an interest in food
considered as part of this Independent Review. responded, including farms, food processors,
distributors, hospitality businesses, community
A detailed summary of the issues raised and the interest companies, and manufacturers of agricultural
solutions suggested is available on the gov.uk website. or food technology equipment.
Every single response has been read, catalogued and
considered carefully. Respondents from academia included learned
societies, think tanks, private-sector research firms
and researchers from over 40 universities across
Who responded? the UK.
Responses came from all corners of society: from A large number of public sector organisations also
businesses, non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) submitted suggestions to the Call for Evidence,
and academia. Members of the public who responded including local authorities, charities and trade bodies.
Figure 1
Number of respondents by sector
Responses
Campaign 84
Public Sector 21
Business Responses
NGO 156 Farming and

Other 35
Academia 44 aquaculture 65
Individual Hospitality 8
Business 143
1,176
Food and drink

manufacturing 16
280
What did respondents most care about? What should the Government
Each response was categorised into one of 40 topics
do to achieve these goals?
which were then grouped into three overarching We were also interested to find out what
themes. Together these represent the outcomes that role respondents saw for the Government in
respondents most wanted to see: transforming the food system.
• Food is produced and consumed in a responsible, Figure 3 below shows a summary of the level
environmentally sustainable way. of Government intervention that respondents
suggested. The ideas they proposed have been
• Food is healthy, safe and valued by producers
categorised according to an “intervention ladder”
as well as consumers and their communities.
that ranges from least (e.g. education, information
• The agri-food sector is robust, provides fair campaigns) to most (e.g. rules, bans) intrusive
remuneration to workers, and is run sustainably. measures. Across all groups of respondents the
most frequently suggested interventions were at
All sectors cared about all three outcomes, with either end of this ladder. Interventions such as
responses fairly evenly distributed across all outcomes. incentives and taxes were much less frequently
Businesses were mostly concerned with ensuring the proposed.
agri-food sector is robust, and they provided ideas
to achieve more sustainable business practices and
improved consumer confidence. The primary concerns
for individuals were animal welfare, climate change
and reducing diet-related ill health. The suggestions
submitted by public sector bodies were predominantly
aimed at healthy and safe food. The responses of
academics and NGOs were almost evenly split across
the three themes (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Government interventions sought, by respondent type

50
% ideas by respondent
25
0
s
s
es
s
r
O
al
es o
ic
di ect
G
du
m
es
N
e
vi
bo c s
in
ad
di
s
i
Ac
Bu
In
bl
Pu
Environmentally sustainable Healthy, safe and valued Robust and sustainable agri-food sector
Figure 3
Outcomes sought, by respondent type

45
% of ideas by respondent
25
0
ls
es
s
r
ic
es to
ua
O
ss
em
di ec
id
ne
N
v
ad
bo ic s
si
di
Ac
Bu
In
bl
Pu
1: Educate, communicate, inform 2: Provide, give fully fund 3: Incentivise (+ve), invest, co-fund 4: Tax, levy, incentivise (-ve) 5: Require, regulate, enforce 281
Glossary
Abiotic system industrial processes, before it enters the atmosphere,

and storing it, for example in underground geological
The set of non-living factors (such as sunlight, rain
Glossary
formations, instead of releasing it.

and temperature) affecting living things, i.e. plants and
animals. Carbon sequestration
Agricultural Transition Period The process of removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere and storing (“sequestering”) it. It happens
Between 2021 and 2027, the Government will through natural biological, chemical and physical
gradually phase out the current system of farm processes, but can also be the result of human
subsidies, moving from the Basic Payment Scheme to intervention, e.g. though carbon capture and storage
Environment Land Management, a new contract-based
approach to paying farmers for producing public Challenge fund
goods.
The Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund is a form of
Agroecology Government grant available for projects that address
the current, big societal challenges facing the UK, and
The application of principles from ecology (i.e. the address opportunities in areas such as clean growth
study of relationships between living organisms) in and artificial intelligence.
farming, with the goal of achieving balanced growth
and sustainable development. Climate Assembly UK
Antimicrobial resistance Climate Assembly UK was the first UK-wide citizens’
assembly, i.e. a body of randomly selected citizens to
Antimicrobial resistance arises when microbes (such as deliberate on an important issue. It was commissioned
bacteria and viruses) evolve and develop a resistance by six House of Commons Select Committees
to antimicrobials (such as antibiotics) that used to be and published its final report on climate change in
able to treat them. This is a natural phenomenon but September 2020.
can be accelerated by the misuse of medicines and
other human practices. Climate Change Committee
Biodiversity The Climate Change Committee (CCC) is an
independent, statutory body established under the
The variety of species and lifeforms in any ecosystem. Climate Change Act 2008. Its purpose is to advise the
It can refer to the whole world or to the life present in UK and devolved Governments on emissions targets
smaller areas. and to report to Parliament on progress made in
Body mass index reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for
and adapting to the impacts of climate change

Calculated as body mass (in kg) divided by the square
of body height (in metres), BMI is a rule of thumb used Common Agricultural Policy
to categorise a person as underweight (<18.5), normal The European Union’s flagship agricultural support
weight, overweight (>25) or obese (>30). programme. It is a complex set of income support,
Call for Evidence market regulation and rural development measures.
Following the UK’s Exit from the EU, farmers in
Defra issued a Call for Evidence in August 2019, where England will no longer be eligible for payments under
it asked organisations and members of the public to the CAP.
respond by submitting ideas and comments on their
priorities for the food system and how it could be Diet-related health conditions
improved. The effects of malnutrition and overnutrition include
Carbon capture and storage diseases associated with overeating, such as hight
blood pressure, heart conditions, type II diabetes and
The process of capturing carbon-dioxide emitted from certain types of cancers, as well as conditions caused
282
by insufficient nutrition, such as stunted development Food, Farming and Countryside Commission
in children, and shorter life expectancy
Set up in 2017 as an inquiry by the Royal Society of
Environmental Land Management schemes Arts, the FFCC became an independent charity in
2020. Its self-declared mission is to bring people
ELMs are schemes which will provide public money in together to find radical and practical ways to improve
exchange for public good. Following Brexit, the UK will our climate, nature, health and economy.
no longer participate in the EU’s Common Agricultural
Government Buying Standards for Food and
Policy (CAP). This will be replaced by ELMs, which will
Catering Services
see a different set of land management outcomes
newly incentivised by the Government The GBSF are defined by Defra, and constitute
the minimum requirements for all food procured
Eutrophication and distributed in the public sector. Its use is
mandatory for central Government and the NHS, and
The process of a body of water becoming enriched recommended for others.
with minerals and nutrients. Without human
interference, this is typically a very slow process, but Green Revolution
the use of fertilisers and emission of untreated sewage The advent of modern intensive farming, which
into natural waterways leads to an accumulation of became popular in the 1960s. The Green Revolution is
nitrogen and phosphorus which, in turn, stimulate the particularly characterised by the use of pesticides and
growth of algae and aquatic plants. fertilisers, advanced farm machinery, and selectively
bred crops.
Feedback mechanism
Greenhouse gases
When the outputs of a system also act as inputs into
it, a feedback “loop” is created. A positive feedback The three gases which account for the bulk of the
loop is self-amplifying, for example when a microphone warming associated with climate change: carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
picks up its own inputs from a loudspeaker, leading
to an ever-louder noise. A negative feedback loop is Holiday Activities and Food clubs
self-correcting, e.g. when high temperature leads to
perspiration which, in turns, cools the skin. A Government-funded programme that ensures
children from disadvantaged backgrounds have access
Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 to healthy food and enriching activities over the
school holidays. In 2021, the Government adopted the
This Act sets General Elections to take place every recommendation made in the National Food Strategy
five years in May, unless in exceptional circumstances. – Part One, to extend the programme to the whole of
England.
Food For Life
Holocene era
A lottery-funded programme run by the Soil
The Holocene is the name of the current geological
Association charity, which aims to transform food epoch. It has been ongoing for approximately 11,700
culture in England by giving schools and communities years, having begun with the end of the preceding ice
access to seasonal, local food, and the skills needed age.
to grow and cook fresh food themselves.
Independent Review of Hospital Food
Food security
A “root and branch” review of the food served and
Having reliable access to sufficient food, both at sold in hospitals, launched by former Secretary of
the level of a nation and for an individual (or family). State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, in
Despite advances in modern agriculture and global 2019 following seven deaths caused by contaminated
hospital food. Published in 2020, the Review made
trade, food insecurity is an immediate concern for
eight recommendations to improve quality, nutritional
many, including in developed nations such as the UK. value and food safety.
Food system Landscape Recovery payments
The totality of the infrastructure, processes and Landscape Recovery is one of the three constituent
people involved in the production, distribution and schemes of the ELMs, the other two being Sustainable
consumption of food as well as in the disposal of food Farming and Local Nature Recovery. Landscape
waste. Recovery payments will support land-use change
projects that deliver ecosystem recovery, such as
large-scale tree-planting and peatland restoration.
283
Loose products as natural processes and functions.
Food products such as pick-and-mix and many bakery Net Environmental Gain
or deli items where the food is packaged very shortly
before purchase or selected directly by the purchaser. An approach for improving the condition of, and
Food in this category has lower requirements for ecosystems that flow from, our natural assets in the
showing nutritional content. context of development. Understanding local context
and the relationship between communities and the
Low-intensity farming
natural environment in a given area is critical to an
Glossary
Farming practices that prioritise environmental effective approach.

sustainability over maximising yield. This typically
includes one or more of maintaining extensive Net zero
grasslands and using little organic manure and
manufactured fertiliser. “Net zero” means carbon neutrality, i.e. that an
organisation or nation reduces its greenhouse gas
Malthusian catastrophe emissions to zero or offsets any remaining emissions.
The concept, described by Thomas Malthus in the 18th The Climate Change Act of 2008 requires the
century, that when the population grows faster that Secretary of State to ensure that the UK has reached
agricultural production, the resulting scarcity of food at least Net zero emissions by 2050.
will lead to famine and/or war which, in turn, will cause
destitution and depopulation. Overweight and obesity
Manufactured food Excessive fat accumulation on a person that is
associated with a range of health risks. In adults to be
A loosely defined term for foodstuffs that are treated overweight is defined as having a BMI over 25, and for
in some way before consumption, rather than being obesity, as over 30.
eaten in the way they occur in nature. Depending on
the nature of processing (e.g. extrusion, milling) and Paradigm
the type of additives used (e.g. acidifiers, colourings),
they are categorised a processed, highly processed Paradigms are the intellectual frameworks consisting
and ultra-processed foods. It is often not easy for of interconnected theories, assumptions and
consumers to tell which category a particular product viewpoints that shape how a particular aspect of the
falls into. world is interpreted and discussed. By extension, false
paradigms are mental models of complex systems that
Mulesing are, in fact, inaccurate.
The controversial practice (common in some places, Pigouvian Tax
e.g. Australia) of removing skin from the buttocks of
sheep so as to prevent the accumulation of faeces A Pigouvian Tax is a tax on any market activity that
and urine in their wool, which would attract parasitic causes an indirect cost to the individual. The tax
infestation by fly maggots. is intended to correct an undesirable or inefficient
National Dietary Nutrition Survey (NDNS) market outcome.
The NDNS assesses on a rolling basis the diet, nutrient Reformulation

intake and nutritional status of the general population
Changing the composition of a manufactured food,
of the UK. It does so by looking at a representative

sample of individuals over 1.5 years old. typically to reduce its sugar, salt and calorie content.
This can be done voluntarily by food and drink
Natural capital manufacturers, or in response to a Government-
The sum of the world’s stock of natural resources, imposed levy on unhealthy products, such as the
including water, air, soil and living beings. It is essential Sugary Drinks Industry Levy.
for human life, both directly (e.g. clean water and air)
and indirectly (e.g. through pollination of plats by Regenerative farming
insects or water catchment to prevent floods).
An approach to agricultural production that is
Natural Capital Committee characterised by using agroecological principles to
promote conservation and rehabilitation, for example
The Natural Capital Committee (NCC) was an
through topsoil regeneration, increase biodiversity and
independent advisory committee which ran from
2012 to December 2020. It advised the Government support biosequestration.
on natural capital, including ecosystems, species,
freshwaters, soils, minerals, the air and oceans, as well
284
Rewilding System dynamics
A form of ecological restoration, where humans’ The area of study concerned with forms of
impact is deliberately reduced through efforts to interconnected movement, i.e. when one motion
return an area to its natural state, for example by re- triggers a response in another part of the system.
introducing native species to increase biodiversity and This relatively simple framework can help understand
create a self-sustaining ecosystem. a broad range of vastly different systems, and makes
it possible to understand how and where best to
Satiety signals intervene in a given system to achieve a different set
Signals originating from the digestive system during of results.
eating, and relayed to the brain, which give a Trade and Agriculture Commission
sensation of being full and suppress hunger. They are
important to prevent overeating through excessive The TAC was set up in 2020 to advise the Department
portion size or unhealthy snacking between meals. of International Trade on agricultural standards and to
make sure UK agriculture remains competitive in any
School Food Plan new free trade agreement signed after the country’s
departure from the UK. Initially devised as a temporary
The School Food Plan was published by the body, the Commission was placed on a statutory
Department for Education in 2013. It was written by footing in the Agriculture Act of 2020.
Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent and pertains to
Ultra-processed food
improving the diets of schoolchildren in England.
Although no standard definition exists, this category
Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition includes foods containing additives that are foreign
The SACN advises Public Health England (PHE) and to a domestic kitchen, such as artificial colours and
other UK Government organisations on nutrition and flavours or stabilisers, and substances extracted
related health matters. from foods, such as fats, starches, added sugars, and
hydrogenated fats. Typical examples include crisps,
Social prescribing sweetened breakfast cereals, and packaged soups.
Also known as “community referral”, social prescribing Zoonotic diseases
involves non-clinical staff, usually link workers, working
closely and holistically with individuals to support Diseases that are caused by germs that spread
and improve their wellbeing by providing devoted between animals and people. Examples of zoonotic
time, emotional support, and by helping them access diseases include anthrax (from sheep), rabies (from
services and entitlements. rodents and other mammals) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease (from cattle).
Soft Drinks Industry Levy
Also known as the “soft drinks tax”, the Soft Drinks
Industry Levy (SDIL) is sometimes referred to
colloquially as the “sugar tax”. It is a levy paid by
manufacturers of certain types of soft drink on the
basis of their sugar content. Since its introduction
in 2018, many soft drinks have been reformulated to
reduce their sugar content, including some which are
exempt from the levy, such as milk-based drinks.
Soilless farming
An umbrella term for techniques for cultivating
plants without soil, using water (hydroponics) or air
(aeroponics) as a growing medium, for example. The
main benefit of these techniques over traditional
technologies is that they require less land area and
water.
285
Acronyms
30x30 30% of land protected for nature by CPI Centre for Process Innovation
Acronyms
2030
CQC Care Quality Commission
3-NOP 3-Nitrooxypropanol
CSR Comprehensive Spending Review
AHDB Agriculture and Horticulture
CVD Cardiovascular Disease
Development Board
DAERA Department of Agriculture,
AI Artificial intelligence
Environment and Rural Affairs (in
APWG Agricultural Productivity Working Northern Ireland)
Group
DALYs Disability-adjusted life years
ARI Areas of Research Interest
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food
ASA Advertising Standards Agency and Rural Affairs
ATP Agricultural Transition Plan DfE Department for Education
BBB British Business Bank DHSC Department of Health and Social
Care
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
DPS Dynamic Procurement System
BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage DWP Department for Work and Pensions
BEIS Department for Business, Energy and EEF Education Endowment Foundation
Industrial Strategy
EFI Evidence for Farming Initiative
BMI Body mass index
EHO Environmental Health Officers
BOGOF Buy one get one free
BPS Basic Payment Scheme
Emerging Infectious Diseases
EID
BST Bovine somatotropin
ELMs Environmental Land Management
C4L Change4Life schemes
CAP Common Agricultural Policy EPOS Electronic Point of Sales data
European Union
CCC The Climate Change Committee
CCS Crown Commercial Service EU
CEPA Comprehensive Economic Partnership EYFS Early Years Foundation Stages

Agreement
F&V Fruit and vegetables
CH4 Methane
FAIR Findable, assessable, interoperable
CHAP Crop health and protection and reusable
CIEL Centre for Innovation and Excellence FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
in Livestock
FCP Forest Creation Partners
CMO Chief Medical Officer
FFCC Food, Farming and Countryside
CO2 Carbon dioxide Commission
COP26 Conference of the Parties (26th FRS Family Resources Survey
Conference)
FSA Food Standards Agency
COPD Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
disease FSM Free School Meals
286
FTA Free Trade Agreement NCDs Non-Communicable Diseases
GAIN Global Alliance for Improved NDNS National Diet and Nutrition Survey
Nutrition
NFU National Farmers Union
GBSF Government Buying Standards for
Food and Catering NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
GCSE General Certificate of Secondary NHS National Health Service

Education NHSx National Health Service Joint
GDP Gross Domestic Product Organisation for Digital, Data and
Technology
GERD Gastroesophageal reflux disease
NICE The National Institute for Health and
GFMC Global Farm Metric coalition Care Excellence
GHG Greenhouse gases NIHR National Institute for Health
Research
Gross Domestic Product NOVA A classification in 4 groups to

GDP highlight the degree of processing
GWP Global warming potential of foods
HAF Holiday Activities and Food NRPF No Recourse to Public Funds
programme
NSBP National School Breakfast
HbA1c Haemoglobin A1c Programme
HFSS High fat, sugar and/or salt NUPENS Centre for Epidemiological Research
on Nutrition and Health (University
HMG Her Majesty’s Government
of Sao Paulo)
HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
OBR Office for Budget Responsibility
HMT Her Majesty’s Treasury
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-
HPO High potential opportunity operation and Development
IFS Institute for Fiscal Studies OEP Office for Environmental Protection
IGD Institute of Grocery Distribution OH Hydroxyl radicals
IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation OHP Office for Health Promotion
IMF International Monetary Fund ONS Office for National Statistics
IoT Internet of Things OOH Out of Home
JFC The Junk Food Cycle PCN Primary Care Network
LACA Local Authority Caterers Association PHE Public Health England
LDL Low-Density Lipoprotein PLACE Patient Led Assessments of the Care
Environment
LFA Less Favoured Area
PO Producer organisation
LSHTM London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine
MHCLG Ministry for Housing, Communities QALYs Quality-adjusted life years
and Local Government
R&D Research and Development
MPA Marine Protected Areas
R&I Research and Innovation
MtCO2e Megatonnes (i.e. million tonnes) of
RD Responsibility Deal
carbon dioxide equivalent
RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of
N2O Nitrous oxide
Birds
NCC Natural Capital Committee
287
SACN Scientific Advisory Committee of
Nutrition
SCC Somatic cell count
SDIL Sugary Drinks Industry Levy
SFI Sustainable Farming Incentive
SFVS School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme
Acronyms
SLCP Short-lived climate pollutants

SME Small and Medium sized Enterprises
SSSIs Sites of Special Scientific Interest
TAC Trade and Agriculture Commission
TFP Total Factor Productivity
TRL Technology Readiness Levels
UKRI UK Research and Innovation
UN United Nations
USDA US Department of Agriculture
VAT Value Added Tax
WHO World Health Organization
WRAP Waste Resources Action Programme
WTO World Trade Organisation
WWC What Works Centre
WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
288
Designed by 10 Associates – Big Ideas Beautifully Executed
With sustainability in mind, the printed version of this report

will use Carbon Balanced Paper.
The Carbon Balancing programme, delivered by the World
Land Trust, offsets emissions through the purchase and
preservation of high conservation value forest.
nationalfoodstrategy.org

The National Food Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Food Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Food Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main issues addressed in the document?

What are the main issues addressed in the document?

What recommendations does the document propose?

What recommendations does the document propose?

Independent Review

3. How did we get here? 37

4. Escaping the Junk Food Cycle 43

6. Exposing the invisibility of nature 64

7. Food and climate 71

8. The complexities of meat 79

9. A nature-positive, carbon-negative food system 85

10. A Three Compartment Model 95

11. Can we have it all? 105

12. At what price? 111

13. The protein transition 119

14. Food security 128

15. Trade 135

16. The Plan 140

Chapter references 165

Appendix 1 – Recommendation 1 193

In writing this strategy, I have been able to call

bottom trawling. Since the 1890s, when fossil-

The UK is already proposing to establish Marine

harms caused just by these destructive feedback

We have deliberately narrowed our focus onto the Allergens

Logically, in fact, the quickest way for this country

The danger of outsourcing environmental damage

Conferences and roundtables

Farm or food chain visit

Public dialogues and youth workshops

Food banks and social enterprises

Schools and hospitals

modern intensive agriculture produces

were hard to come by. We are predisposed to pounce

3. Make the best use of

4. Create a long-term shift

Some of our recommendations will be met with

This is an interventionist strategy. Even without the

However, state intervention is rarely, if ever, sufficient

food that has ever been set before a hungry person

Some of our recommendations are designed to

Worried about biodiversity loss? Focus on food.

Richard Waite, World Resources Institute, April 20211

12,000 years ago humans were a tiny proportion

Note: for this visualisation “animals”

More than 77% of the world’s farmland, crops to feed to animals6

Earth’s 29% Land

surface 149 million km2

Land 71% Habitable land 10% 19% Barren

Globally, 35% of stocks are being fished at unsustainable levels10

Maximally sustainably fished

Biologically sustainable Biologically unsustainable Underfished stocks

Another utilitarian argument for genetic diversity

Beyond the utilitarian arguments, there is the intrinsic

The UK is relatively water secure, but not in every region14

0–0.2 0.2–0.5 0.5–1.0

The UK has some of the most polluted waters in Europe15

Canary Islands (ES)

Azores Islands (PT)

Madeira Islands (PT)

3. Make the best use of

4. Create a long-term shift