> But such things tend to be very economically inefficient, so the government would be wise to discourage such production.
Absurd comment. Governments should subsidise local food production to whatever extent necessary, especially when it's economically inefficient, because stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.
> And you can still have efficient food production in the UK, it's just that small artisanal "under 100 food-miles" farming is inefficient.
Economically inefficient, but diversity of local supply in a key factor in food security, and as a hopeless food insecure country, the UK should be diversifying as much as possible, especially to crops that will thrive in the coming climate.
Have you been paying attention to the farming sector in the last 5yr?
There's plenty of problems reminiscent of the 30s after the whole chain has been kicked around due to labour from Brexit, supply due to Brexit, access to markets from Brexit and then the joy of dealing with the cv19 lockdowns.
The sector is still facing real financial problems and none of the last few governments have seen farmers as anything other than land owning cash cows.
No they should really really be discussing things like this.
This is like trying to claim bioethanol is somehow carbon negative.
It's broken from a farming standpoint (and we're a nation starting to face issues with production. Notice how I say starting not we're starving there's several world's of different yet)
It's broken from an economic standpoint because you're going to try and take on the whole of Asia who could crush you in a single shipment.
It's broken from a mindset perspective. British wine may be one that grabs interest over here like British vodka. But people will not pay 10x or more for British rice. It will be seen as a stupid concept or idea.
It's broken because again... Who in Britain is clamouring for more rice options? This is a product type which is already over saturated at the normal supermarket, let alone the choices when you're willing to shop online.
If there's no discouragement to projects like this idiots will run the land into ruin, lose a lot of money. Drive away needed capital from farms looking to turn around their fortunes and damage the sector.
I'm not saying British farms are about to collapse and we're all about to starve here, but the sector is struggling.
> But people will not pay 10x or more for British rice.
Unless and until it's the only carbohydrate source available due to some global war or disaster. All countries should be aiming for domestic food security and diversity.
The UK Energy Security Plan does at least try to cover essential energy needs (food production, hospitals, defence, civil powers and authorities, etc) indefinitely from domestic supply.
The Defence Industrial Strategy does the same for essential manufacturing capabilities.
Raw material supply security is the purview of many government bodies, including MOD, BGS, and more.
> But at which point this becomes ridiculous?
Securing the food supply to your population, the absolute most basic of human needs along with the water and shelter, is the furthest thing from ridiculous.
I am a former knowledgeable CBRN person and sat on advisory panels for my own countries energy, food, and medical security policies, so while certainly not a food security expert, I probably have more exposure than most to the food security challenges of island nations in the East Atlantic.
Great Britain, which excludes NI, has a roughly 60% calorie self-sufficiency ratio and quite literally cannot feed itself without imports.
Ireland and Northern Ireland can many times over, in principle even if spare parts and fuel were blockaded, although it would be an uninspiring diet.
I am certainly open to further education as this area interests me and my country is woefully unprepared for any interruption to global supply chains, especially in relation to fuel and medical supplies, so I continue to make policy submissions in this area.
That's comparing production means today with an inflated population due to uncontrolled migration.
(Main confronting factor to pop growth in last few years so can't be avoided as topic).
Comparing blockade numbers to peace time production is a false equivalency.
Am I saying there won't be unrest no, but you just started a scenario by blockading Britain. If you think we don't produce enough food, it's about the only thing we actual do produce here other than empty city promises and patents.
The country would eat itself before the means of food production hits the top 5 of our problems if honestly bet.
The country has capacity to engage in intensive farming of several means which we currently do not because of animal rights concerns, lack of manpower etc.
In a blockade scenario animal rights go out the window to a starving populace. Food waste is addressed in several means and we start engaging in battery farming and crop yields yes move to calorific content vs serving the Ritz their flav d'jour.
And let's not pretend NI is included under any sensible scenario other than the British military blockading and subsuming control of RoI. There's no scenario where a blockade of Britain as an island would leave us "struggling to feed NI with RoI being supported by the European block" as another absolutist.
> The country has capacity to engage in intensive farming of several means which we currently do not because of animal rights concerns, lack of manpower etc. In a blockade scenario animal rights go out the window to a starving populace. Food waste is addressed in several means and we start engaging in battery farming and crop yields yes move to calorific content vs serving the Ritz their flav d'jour.
Not to be rude, but your Government, MOD, and think-tanks disagree with you. The latent capacity of UK agriculture is estimated to be able to feed approximately 80-90% of the population, which for context is similar to the amount of food available (including external aid) in South Sudan now.
> And let's not pretend NI is included under any sensible scenario other than the British military blockading and subsuming control of RoI. There's no scenario where a blockade of Britain as an island would leave us "struggling to feed NI with RoI being supported by the European block" as another absolutist.
The UK does not have the ability to militarily conquer Ireland, let alone survive the consequences, so this is, well, delusional.
I honestly do not think you are well informed enough to form a valid opinion on this topic, which explains your reactive and emotion-driven comments
80%+ at peace time. I.e. not with mandated farming practices and not with a national focus as part of priority to fix this.
Unlike the Sudan we don't produce the remaining 15%+/-5 because we're a wealthy nation and can engage and have become semi-reliant a little on trade. And our tastes have changed as a result of the availability of luxury goods.
This is wildly different to not having capacity or infrastructure which can be tweaked. (I'm not saying magically tonnes of milk and honey appear from nowhere) And this is ignoring the scary word of rationing.
Sudan either can't, won't or is constrained from producing the missing part of the food required to feed their people. But that's more linked to US foreign policy than this hypothetical discussion otherwise.
Edit in not even touching RoI vs UK army. I'm not pretending any show down would be bloodless, but the UK has a few plain numerical overwhelming superiorities. Again stating simple facts.
No, in any time, as is the definition of latent capacity.
> Edit in not even touching RoI vs UK army. I'm not pretending any show down would be bloodless, but the UK has a few plain numerical overwhelming superiorities. Again stating simple facts.
The Cold War British Armed Forces were unable to hold the farmland of Northern Ireland against 3,000 members of PIRA, let alone the current forces against the island now. Those are the facts in the history books.
You are delusional, living in a worldview that never matched reality and diverges more each day.
It's wild that you got downvoted for this reasonable take.
Right next door, Ireland had a little problem with potatoes and a massive famine resulted from it. Had the island had a more diverse mix of crops, things probably would've been a little less severe.
There are currently pests and infections spreading around the world and destroying crops. Bananas are undergoing a repeat of their last global crop failure and isolated pockets of uninfected bananas are becoming more valuable. Natural rubber had a disease that wiped out most rubber trees. It's not impossible for wheat in Europe to be hit with a plague in the near future and absolutely wipe out crops and food sources for hundreds of millions. There's war in Eastern Europe that risks spreading, and if it does, embargoes are possible. Investing now in alternative local food sources is simply smart.
Profit now isn't everything. The problem that's gutting the west now is how countries shipped off every industry to other cheaper countries because it was "more profitable and nothing bad will happen." Now the youth are left with less than their parents had.
Plus the article addresses this being done as a climate change-proofing measure. With the UK getting hotter, rice grows better and better. Other crops may not.
> Right next door, Ireland had a little problem with potatoes
Common misconception: Ireland actually had a little problem with the British. Even during the most intense parts of the famine Ireland was still exporting food. The British absentee landowners simply did not care that their peasants were starving. The ruling party wanted to let the "free market" solve it, with some politicians considering it "divine providence" or a "lack of moral character". This was made even worse by refusing aid to small landowners, which killed sustenance farming.
People often forget that it was a European famine, rather than an Irish one. The Irish potato yield was reduced by 30%, while the potato yield in Denmark was reduced by 50%, The Netherlands by 71%, and Belgium by 87%! Tens of thousands died in those countries, but it is only Ireland where the population was reduced from 8 million to 4 million.
Monoculture (as decided upon by the absentee British landlords) was indeed the direct cause, but it only got as bad as it did because the British elite chose to let them die. Had they imported alternative crops to feed their peasants, or even just stopped potato export, it would've been far less severe.
Yes, the fact Britain was brutal to the Irish is no secret.
But had Ireland not had a monoculture that all rotted away, things would've been less severe. And what you've said only further proves the point I was making: you should grow other crops so that you're not dependent on imports. Britain wouldn't let the Irish import food. It's not impossible for a situation to arise where a country doesn't let Britain import food. Growing alternative grains is the British looking at their own brutal history and learning from it.
> But had Ireland not had a monoculture that all rotted away, things would've been less severe.
Ireland didn't have a monoculture. It exported other crops and meat throughout the famine and required calories never exceeded food production on the island.
The only monoculture was on tenant farmer's personal gardens, which were monocultures by necessity.
What are you talking about? The Singapore Food Agency was created primarily to increase domestic food production even though it is extremely economically inefficient singularly to try to improve food security, which is completely dependent on imports and the precarious freedom of navigation in the straits.
Sure, they might want to increase it a bit, but I don't think anyone sane is going for autarky in Singapore, ie 'stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.' Not even the Singapore Food Agency.
I think you made a flippant comment not realising how seriously a threat that food insecurity poses to Singaporean independence and now feel you can't back down, but you're just wrong on this one.
30X30 aims to supply 30% of nutritional needs by 2030 using only 1% of the land precisely to make progress towards 100% calorie self-sufficiency.
Absurd comment. Governments should subsidise local food production to whatever extent necessary, especially when it's economically inefficient, because stable staple food supplies should not be external dependencies.