I Predict a Riot

Revelations from the Spectator Future of Food Event

Introduction

Yesterday, I attended the Spectator Future of Food event in London. The event included past and current Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs George Eustice and Therese Coffey. I was not going to write about it, but something happened in the event that compelled me to put finger to keyboard.

Making Better Choices

The first panel discussion was about “Making better choices for the planet,” sponsored by Oritain. Oritain is a specialist is tracing the provenance of food using isotope analysis. Much of the time was devoted to Freddie Duffield, their global head of corporate affairs, extolling the virtues of their technology. It is becoming increasingly important to consumers, retailers and producers to prove the provenance of our food, especially in the light of things like the recent horsemeat scandal.

Some interesting contributions were made by Rachael Madeley Davies who is head of sustainability and future policy at Hybu Cig Cymru. Rachael is also a farmer and she made a compelling case for the environmental and nutritional benefits of Welsh beef and lamb, pointing out that much of the land in Wales is only suitable for grazing ruminants.

George Eustice told us about how the Government is changing the agricultural subsidy scheme from one that merely provides rewards for owning land towards one that rewards better outcomes such as improved soil quality, integrated pest management and protecting hedgerows.

There was discussion about ESG, carbon footprints and what drives consumer food choices such as price, nutrition and convenience. There was also a discussion about the impact of inflation on food choices such as shoppers trading down from Waitrose to Aldi and the impact this might have on small organic farmers.

There did not seem to be much support for what is euphemistically called “cultivated meat” also known as meat grown in labs from stem cells. It was also noted that demand for meat substitutes like Beyond Meat burgers seems to have stalled after an initial flurry of interest, possibly because red meat produced using higher standards tastes better and is more nutritious. Mr Eustice was keen to encourage better farming practices perhaps accepting lower yields from dairy cows but using fewer artificial inputs. He also thought that claims about the impact on the environment from ruminant farming were exaggerated.

Hunger Games

The second panel discussion was entitled “Hunger Games: how what we eat turned political.” This featured author Louise Gray telling us all we need to eat less meat, but of a higher quality and waste less. Annabel Kalmar told us about her Tea Rebellion campaign to change how tea in produced, traded and consumed.

Matthew Lesh from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was very pro-consumer choice but was also very keen on “cultivated meat.” He acknowledged that lab-grown meat was currently very expensive compared to the natural alternative, but his overall message did seem at odds with the message from the earlier panel.

There was quite a discussion about the real environmental benefits of lab-grown meat, with one member of the audience citing a study that burgers from cattle were kinder to the environment than lab-grown meat. I guess it is another case of researchers being able to use statistics to support whichever organisation is paying for the research.

That all sounds quite innocuous I hear you say. Why have you entitled this article “I predict a riot?” Given this section was about how food has turned political I asked a question:

We have seen the social unrest in Holland as farmers have protested against their land being taken away, we have also seen farmers in Ireland protest as the Government contemplates sacrificing cows to appease the weather gods. In this country we have seen UK FIRES in their Absolute Zero report recommending that we ban beef and lamb and also all shipping and aviation which would mean much lower food imports. If we can no longer eat meat and cannot import food, how do we avoid social dislocation?

The answer from Louise Gray was along the lines of well, climate change will cause more disruption, there will be loads of climate migrants. In essence, a robot answer with no real content. Annabel Kalmar thought the problem could be solved by dialogue. Matthew Lesh acknowledged there was a risk of “populist revolt” but that could be headed off by increased consumer choice, which I guess is a veiled sideswipe at UK FIRES who seem to want to restrict choice.

Which brings me to the point. The policy wonks seem unable to join the dots between Net Zero policies and the harm that those policies are doing and will do. They seem unable to contemplate that their policy cures might actually be worse than the alleged carbon disease. They cannot see the complete disconnect between high-status opinions and the real world impact of the policies that follow from them. We are not far short of a modern day Marie Antionette line of “Let them eat gloop” (cultivated meat).

Personally, I can think of no greater threat to the country than being unable to feed half the population. This threat is at least as great as the threat of energy scarcity. Such matters of literal life and death cannot be solved by dialogue alone. Frankly, I would rather see a peaceful popular revolt than the consequences of the country going hungry. However, I fear the only way policymakers are going to take notice is if something far more sinister and violent happens. A couple of people congratulated me on my question afterwards. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee (fair trade and organic, naturally).

Footnote

I should note that at the end of the event Therese Coffey did make an interesting speech about putting “food on the plate” as the top priority. She was somewhat lukewarm about lab-grown meat, much to the chagrin of one of the questioners in the audience. So, maybe she has already got the message and is quietly getting on with things without overtly challenging the Net Zero agenda.

---