Getting the food system right: from policy to production to processing 

The day began with the view of Alex Stevens (NFU), who gave an overview of the system in the UK.  With the demise of the Basic Payments System, farming needs to be able to be economically self-sustaining, but this is a big challenge.  Agricultural improvement requires investment and investment requires confidence.  Confidence for the future profitability is low, and this may lead to problems delivering on targets for higher productivity.  Louise Manning (University of Lincoln) presented some economic data on farm profitability.  Historically, the prices received by the farmer have not covered the costs of production and the BPS was the way to fill the gap.  We need to understand the full real costs of farming to be able to devise new methods that can deliver meaningful returns.

Some of the trade-offs were explored by Martin Collison (Collison Associates), who pointed out that policy drivers have tended to be skewed to reducing prices in the supermarket.  Our farming systems will need to deliver on multiple factors, keeping food prices low, maintaining good farmer income and real environmental improvement.  Our accounting systems need to compare the outcomes per unit of food produced, and not per unit of land.

This was explored further by Iain Gould (University of Lincoln) who gave a case study on improving the carbon cost of potato production.  Reduced soil disturbance is one way to raise soil carbon, but potato harvesting inevitably leads to disturbance.  If certain preparatory tillage operations are not performed, there can be carbon savings at the start of the season, but (depending on the soil type) there may be quality, energy and yield consequences at harvest.

Some methods to reduce carbon emissions on-farm were outlined by Paul Burgess (Cranfield University).  The first line of methods are the management actions of running the farm, such as precision fertiliser, reduced waste, reduced tillage and choice of livestock feed.  Beyond that, the planting of trees becomes increasingly important.  As a 40-year average, trees can absorb (as CO₂ equivalent) 12 t/ha/annum, which can transform the carbon budget of a farm.  However, carbon is not the only priority.  There are many moving targets and plant breeding can contribute to meeting them, said Phil Howell (NIAB).  The prospects and scope of breeding programmes, genetic modification and gene editing are vast and there continue to be many demonstrable successes.  However, as we are breeding for resilience to stress (drought, heat, disease etc.) we need more diversity than found in high-yielding varieties.  To re-introduce old resilient genes, we need to go back to wild, low-yielding varieties and then select for appropriate traits.

Not all our stressors are due to global phenomena.  It is possible that obsolete pesticides can cause local serious damage if they enter the environment in an uncontrolled way.  Hans Dobson (University of Greenwich) presented data from Europe that showed that an organised system to collect and dispose of such products can be very effective.  Such a scheme has been rolled out in many African countries, leading to 20 tonnes of obsolete pesticides being collected over a period of around 20 years, dramatically reducing the risks for future years.

The final session started with a call from Carol Wagstaff (University of Reading) to think in a joined-up way, using effective policy leadership from the top down.  We have challenges of biodiversity loss, imbalanced diets, crises and disasters and global climatic change.  On the farm, we need to build resilience.  At the other end of the supply chain, we need to make healthy food accessible.  In the area of food aid (such as foodbanks), we need to avoid the situation of gluts of carrots after Christmas, and other anomalies.  We should explore all options to encourage greater consumption of fruit and vegetables within disadvantaged communities, including direct voucher payments to consumers.

The role of big business is a key driver for resilience and sustainability.  Matthew Ryan (Nestlé) pointed to the stretching targets to which Nestlé and other large corporations have committed, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Their approach is to let the farmers lead with innovative ideas and these can be implemented with the support of the corporations, for example using Landscape Enterprise Networks.  The final speaker, Gavin Milligan (Green Knight Consulting) reminded us to keep a healthy scepticism about claims that may be made, as the full truth may be different.  Everyone wants action, but everyone (regulators, NGO’s, business people, investors) has different priorities.  He suggested that the future is in good regulation because without it, there is no incentive for companies to change.

The world that I normally inhabit concerns pesticides and their regulation.  It is sobering to remember that this part of the story, important though it is, is only part of the story.  There are other parts concerning soil carbon, greenhouse gas emissions, food processing, nutrient dynamics, consumer behaviour and government incentive schemes and many others.  The system as a whole is what will deliver good quality food to consumers in appropriate quantities, while ensuring farm business remain viable and the environment is protected.  We all need to perform our roles to the best of our ability, and never forget that we are a detail in a much bigger picture.  We are working towards a world where we have resilience to shocks, intense farming where we can (sparing other land for environmental benefits), equity for producers and consumers.  We do not want a system where we push production elsewhere, with the outcome that the global environment is impacted more severely than if we grew the food right where we are.