3. 16-22 JANUARY 2015 | NEW STATESMAN | 3
COMMENTARY
The coalition parties have refined their food production policies
in government, but less is known about Labour’s intentions
By Becky Slack
What’s on the
menu from Labour?
I
n May 1997, as Tony Blair was giving
his first speech to reporters outside 10
Downing Street, the media elsewhere
were reporting on a potential health haz-
ard emerging around the country, linked
to the recent BSE crisis. Despite an in-
sistence that all cattle carcasses be burnt,
roughly 6,000 had been buried, because
too few incinerators were available. There
were now fears that bovine spongiform
encephalopathy could get into our water
supply or food chain.
Throughout the 1990s, BSE and the
subsequent ban on the export of Brit-
ish beef had been disastrous for farmers.
Many felt that the blame for this should
lie at the door of the Conservative gov-
ernment, which, too wrapped up in bick-
ering over EU membership, had not han-
dled the situation effectively – something
that did not reflect well on the party’s
1997 election results.
Consequently, the farming sector Blair
inherited was one in difficulty. The BSE
scandal had resulted in the collapse of
many farms and related businesses, not
to mention a public crisis of confidence.
Then in 2001 came the foot-and-mouth
outbreak. It began to be felt, and not just
by Labour but more broadly, that farm-
ing presented a risk. Increased focus was
placed on the role of farmers in protect-
ing the environment and less on their role
as food producers, with the rationale that
Britain could import food instead.
It wasn’t until 2008, after world food-
price spikes had given ministers the jit-
ters, that food security came back on to
the agenda. However, it took a further
two years for Labour to publish its Food
2030 report, which explicitly recognised
the need for increased production. The
policy was widely welcomed, but did not
quite achieve all it had promised.
“Food 2030 was an attempt to address
food security, but it wasn’t very success-
ful because they tried to get consensus
across too many stakeholders who had
fundamentaldifferencesinopinion,”says
Martin Haworth, deputy director general
of the National Farmers’ Union.
How does today’s government com-
pare? It has fared somewhat better; posi-
tive statements about the need for sus-
tainable production and modern farming
methodshavebeenmade.Afterthelaunch
of the 2013 agri-tech strategy, £160m was
invested in areas such as research, tech-
nology and skills. However, many feel
that funding has been short-term and
there has been more talk than action.
The past five years have afforded both
coalition parties the time to set out their
stall with regard to food production. But
what of Labour’s policies? So far little is
known, and what has been said has re-
ceived a mixed reception.
For example, Barry Gardiner MP wrote
to the then secretary of state Owen Pater-
son in July 2014 to state that Labour “fully
supports the European-wide ban [on ne-
onics] as a proportionate response to the
scientific evidence of the serious risk that
neonicotinoids pose to pollinators, and
to bees in particular”.
This despite Sir Mark Walport, the
government’s chief scientific adviser, de-
scribing the ban to the Financial Times
just a month earlier as potentially “harm-
ful to the [European] continent’s crop
production, farming communities and
consumers”, and “based on a misreading
of the currently available evidence”.
Equally, there has been little mention
of agriculture in the last two conference
speeches by the shadow Defra team, the
shadow secretaries instead choosing to
focus on food poverty, food banks and
environmental issues – leading to suspi-
cion that the challenge from the Greens
is resulting in a more environmentalist
approach from Labour.
Thatsaid,therehavebeensomepositive
noises.AsreportedbytheNewStatesman
(see our Feeding the World special sup-
plement of 14-20 November 2014), the
shadow farming minister Huw Irranca-
Davies has called for more public money
to promote innovation and to “reward
the advances that have been made in our
names to get good food on the table”.
Is this going to be enough to win the
support of the farming and agri-tech in-
dustries before May 2015? Probably not.
According to the United Nations, food
production must increase by 70 per cent
if it is to keep up with demand. The UK’s
role in meeting these requirements will
be severely hampered if plateauing crop
yields and the £20bn deficit in the UK
food and drink trade are not addressed.
More conversation is required about
the role of science and technology in en-
suring a plentiful supply of safe and affor-
dable food. This supplement aims to con-
tribute to that discussion. l
Many feel that
there has been more
talk than action
03 CPA Leader_Jan15V2.indd 3 12/01/2015 14:05:02
4. 4 | NEW STATESMAN | 16-22 JANUARY 2015
THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
The farmer’s view
“Investment in capital infrastructure
is needed to modernise farm buildings
and reduce energy usage”
Farming has come out of the shadows
in the last decade. As concern about food
security grows, UK farmers have been
able to offer solutions. In the five years
to 2013 our gross output increased by 31
per cent to £25.7bn. Our businesses now
employ 464,000 people across the UK,
and we supply 60 per cent of the nation’s
food. Farming is the bedrock of the food
industry, the UK’s largest manufacturing
sector, and is central to the rural economy
and environment.
Like many farmers I am optimistic for
the future of our industry, but this op-
timism needs early government action.
I expect the next government to share
this optimism and work with the indus-
try to plan for sustained growth over the
course of the next parliament. At the very
least the government should aim to re-
verse declining UK self-sufficiency.
This is part of a longer-term vision.
The “perfect storm” of resource shortage,
rising population and climate change,
coupled with stagnant agricultural pro-
ductivity, is here and now. The UK’s
population will top 71 million by 2030, a
10 per cent increase on mid-2013 figures.
I want to see a government with policies
that enable UK farmers to feed this grow-
ing population. Encouragement is needed
for investment in capital infrastructure to
modernise farm buildings and reduce our
energy use. I want to see a government
that commits to targets for buying more
food locally from UK-assured farms. And
I want to see policies based on robust
scientific evidence, rather than driven by
populist campaigning – one of the reasons
behind our Healthy Harvest campaign.
For many livestock farmers it is the
short term that is most troubling. Bovine
tuberculosis is endemic across much of
western England and Wales. This is why
cattle movement controls have been
tightened as part of Defra’s 25-year TB
Eradication Strategy. The NFU strongly
supports this approach, but it involves
control of TB in wildlife, especially badg-
ers, too. That is why the NFU expects the
next government to roll out the next stage
of wildlife control in high-risk areas as
soon as is practical. l
Meurig Raymond is the president of the
National Farmers’ Union
The scientist’s view
“There is an economic case for the
long-term funding of sustainable
intensification in agriculture”
We, and the animals that many of us
eat, depend on plants for food. Achieving
sustainable production of crop plants
in an era of massive global population
growth and limited resources is essential
for securing sufficient and affordable food
while addressing concerns about the en-
vironmental impact of agriculture. These
are issues that a Labour manifesto must
address creatively.
The yield of the UK’s principal crop –
wheat – was static at two to three tonnes
per hectare during the first half of the
20th century. Largely as a result of genetic
improvements that included the develop-
ment of semi-dwarfing varieties, yields
rose to eight tonnes per hectare by the
end of the century.
By “genetic improvements” I am refer-
ring principally to non-GM approaches,
such as selective breeding. Genetics not
only underpins potential yield, but also
the ways in which plants resist disease
and the efficiency with which they use
nutrient resources. Genetic improve-
ments can reduce substantially the tonnes
of pesticides and fertiliser that are spread
across our fields each year and that enter
the environment.
In the past decade however, wheat
yields have plateaued, which corresponds
with a near-cessation of funding for re-
search into the genetics of crops in the
1990s and a complacent attitude that the
UK could import such food as needed.
New investment for the sustainable
intensification of agriculture in the UK
is desperately required. The coalition
government has done an outstanding job
in pioneering agri-tech as an area for eco-
nomic growth. But this investment was
a one-off, and needs to be sustained by a
commitment to the long term. A Labour
“What are the key policy commitments the farming and agri-tech industry would like
to see within the Labour Party’s 2015 election manifesto, with regard to productive
agriculture and support for domestic farming, which will provide enough food to meet
demand and ensure adequate protection of the environment?”
Policies to feed
the nation
The cutting-edge Fastrac JCB tractor
IMAGEBYJCB
04-07 CPA Voxpops_Jan15VFINAL.indd 4 12/01/2015 14:06:26
5. 16-22 JANUARY 2015 | NEW STATESMAN | 5
SHUTTERSTOCK
administration would need to recognise
that it generally takes at least 15 years to
move a genetic trait from laboratory to
field – whether this is for wheat or other
major crops such as oilseed rape or leg-
umes. Unfortunately, Defra funding for
agricultural research has been largely
transferred to Innovate UK, which focus-
es on short-term gains.
A long-term commitment and novel
funding mechanisms for the genetic im-
provement of our key crops need to be
achieved if we are to realise the goal of
sustainable agriculture. This funding
should not be at the expense of research
into fundamental plant biosciences: such
research provides the foundation on
which genetic improvements of crops are
based. The economic case for such an in-
vestment is secure: at my own institute,
for example, it is independently estimated
that we return £12 to the UK economy for
every £1 of public investment.
The societal, environmental, economic
and resilience cases for enhanced and
committed public investment in UK crop
research are powerful. l
Professor Dale Sanders is the director
of the John Innes Centre
The engineer’s view
“We want regulation which balances
the environment with both the market
and the need for food security”
The agricultural engineering industry
leads in innovation and invention and
is master of some of the world’s techno-
logical advancements. The same applica-
tion drivers for the technologies found
in aerospace and in Formula 1 are also
dominant in our sector, including mobile
diagnostics, remote sensing, big data, ro-
botics, autonomous systems and preci-
sion applications.
The global population is set to increase
to ten billion by the year 2050, but the
area of viable productive farmland is de-
creasing at a rapid rate. How can we feed
the world with fewer inputs? Facing this
challenge, equipment designers and sup-
pliers are now working under new pa-
rameters and frameworks – ones where
the need for optimum yield is balanced
with a sustainable environment, energy
efficiency, and health and safety as pre-
mier considerations.
How can a future government support
our land-based engineering industry and
enable it to reach the full expectations
of the UK and global context? There are
a number of areas in which the AEA be-
lieves progress can be made. For instance,
a recognition of the industry as an “ad-
vanced engineering” sector, integral to a
national agri-tech strategy as a driver and
platform for growth, will help give our
sector the recognition it deserves. Mean-
while, the continued development and
application of technology that provides
an appropriate platform for research and
innovation will enable progress in the ar-
eas of hybrid machines, robotics and pre-
cision farming.
Incentives for capital investment need
to be maintained, in particular the avoid-
ance of any dramatic reduction from the
current level of annual investment allow-
ance. We also require clear and appropri-
ate regulation that balances environmen-
tal objectives with the market for goods
and the need for food security – particu-
larly allowing retention of essential plant
protection products.
As with many other sectors, agricul-
tural engineering is experiencing a skills
gap. We would like to see careers in this
field and the qualifications they require
being promoted throughout the educa-
tion hierarchy, providing a professional
pathway for the UK’s young people
through university programmes to grad-
uate engineers and through Trailblazer
apprenticeships to Landbased Technician
Accreditation (LTA) technicians.
The promotion of “best practice” in
farming with commitments from the Red
Tractor and Farm Assured schemes to
seek only LTA- or Parlour Safe-accredited
farms is also desirable.
Finally, we are looking for a govern-
ment that fights for British farmers in the
application of existing Common Agricul-
tural Policy (CAP) regulations and backs
their interests in forthcoming reviews
of the CAP. l
Ruth Bailey is the director general of the
Agricultural Engineers Association
The academic’s view
“We need reform of the CAP so that
it provides greater returns to society”
What does society expect from its
farmed environment? First, sustainably
produced food for home consumption
and to contribute to global food security.
Second, economically and socially flour-
ishing rural communities; and third, the
production of a suite of other outputs,
including flood protection, carbon stor-
age, habitats for wildlife and biodiversity,
as well as cherished landscapes and areas
for recreation. The farmed environment
is thus a multifunctional landscape pro-
viding local livelihoods as well as public
goods that benefit everyone.
Food prices have increased and become
considerably more volatile since 2008,
t
The BSE epidemic in the 1990s was disastrous for some British cattle farmers
04-07 CPA Voxpops_Jan15VFINAL.indd 5 12/01/2015 14:06:28
6. THE INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
and most (though not all) commenta-
tors believe this trend will continue, driv-
en by higher global demand. Higher pric-
es have sparked civil unrest in a number
of countries, and were one of the causes
of the Arab spring.
Higher prices are both an opportunity
and a challenge for the UK food system,
and there are two potential market fail-
ures that I hope will be addressed in
party manifestos. The first is an economi-
cally inefficient response to price signals
caused by deficits in technology and hu-
man capital. Food prices have been so
low for so long that we have allowed our
agricultural research capacity to be run
down, especially in areas that are not
easily commercialised, and this needs to
be reversed. The UK has some of the most
sophisticated farmers on earth, but not
all are in this bracket, and issues with the
ageing of the farmer workforce and the
need for “up-skilling” certainly need to
be addressed.
The second market failure is an envi-
ronmentally unsustainable response to
price signals, leading to pollution and a
reduction in all the other public benefits
provided by the farmed environment.
I would like to see new ideas to incentiv-
ise and penalise respectively the produc-
tion of these public “goods and bads”. In
a high-wage economy we inevitably sub-
sidise our farming communities through
the CAP. Is it possible to use a much high-
er proportion of CAP spending to reward
farmer innovation in enhancing the pub-
lic benefits produced by their land? Simi-
larly, can we pay more to farmers who
provide services such as the storage of
water that would otherwise flood towns?
I think we need leadership on reforming
the CAP to get far greater societal returns
for our justifiable investment of public
money in the farming sector. l
Professor Charles Godfray is the director
of the Oxford Martin Programme on the
Future of Food at University of Oxford
The environmentalist’s view
“We need to help farming become
more resilient to our volatile weather”
As Heraclitus once said: “Big results re-
quire big ambitions.” To really make an
impact on the global, European, national
and local challenges we face over the next
five years we are going to need a govern-
ment with strong leadership, together
with bold and ambitious plans to drive
and deliver change. These changes are
necessary at so many levels to build eco-
nomic viability, social empowerment and
environmental health.
For many industries in the UK, the
paths for delivering more sustainable
business models are relatively straight-
forward. However, for the food and farm-
ing sector it is made all the more complex
beyond the usual variances of global
volatility and legislation. For instance,
extreme weather and its impact on grow-
ing conditions create challenges, as does
our increasingly urban society, which not
only encourages richer diets but is also
more removed from the countryside.
As such, there is less knowledge, under-
standing and appreciation of nature, sea-
sons and the environment, all of which
make farming unique.
Over recent years we have seen some
bold statements and new funding around
the importance of science and technology
for the food and farming sector, the UK’s
largest industry. However, this needs to
be stronger as there is a distinct lack of
understandingandappreciationofscience
at a practical level within food and farm-
ing businesses.
t
Following the next election we will
be in the first year of a revised CAP, the
next set of global sustainable develop-
ment goals will be drawn up and govern-
ments will be reviewing greenhouse-gas
emission targets and world health issues,
such as the growing impact of obesity and
other non-communicable diseases.
Bold and ambitious targets that are
fully integrated across government
departments are going to be crucial.
So many of the solutions for future chal-
lenges lie with the food and farming sec-
tor, and smart and inspiring leadership
is required to bring together resolutions
for improved health, more resilient farm-
ing businesses and a thriving environ-
ment, together with a more engaged
society. Joint policies are going to be
needed, bringing together Defra with the
Departments of Health, Education and
Business, Innovation and Skills.
This has the opportunity to start some
very strong and novel approaches to
ensuring we are growing the food we
need, and to supporting seasonal national
consumption alongside a thriving export
market. At LEAF (Linking Environment
and Farming), we are promoting more
6 | NEW STATESMAN | 16-22 JANUARY 2015
The path to May 2015: would a new Labour government give agri-tech the boost that it needs?
04-07 CPA Voxpops_Jan15VFINAL.indd 6 12/01/2015 14:06:29
7. For innovation to flourish
there needs to be an
enabling environment
sustainable farming through the adop-
tion of integrated farm management
(IFM), the development of the environ-
mental farm assurance scheme LEAF
Marque, and the significant success of
Open Farm Sunday – the industry’s big-
gest open event. To address the challeng-
es of the future we need farming systems
that are flexible and site-specific – IFM de-
livers just that, bringing together the best
of modern and traditional methods. We
need more enabling legislation to support
business to be more resilient in the face of
weather and market volatility, as well as
less of the restrictive regulations that curb
the innovation and technology so clearly
required of the industry.
The future is challenging and there will
be trade-offs, but what we would like to
see in the Labour Party’s 2015 election
manifesto is bold and ambitious leader-
ship to help build more sustainable farm-
ing through IFM and public engagement
with food, farming and nature. l
Caroline Drummond is the chief
executive of Linking Environment
and Farming (LEAF)
The farming champion’s view
“An enabling environment is one that
focuses on rational, evidence-based
decision-making”
There is a clearly identified need for global
agricultural production to grow to meet
the needs of an expanding population and
dietary changes within it. The challenge
is to achieve this with the minimum use
of finite resources and least impact on the
environment – all while still delivering
affordable food to shoppers. The situa-
tion in the UK is no different, no matter
what the colour of the party in charge.
The agricultural industry needs to be
able to invest to develop and deliver fu-
ture productivity growth. A key driver
in this area is the development of science
and technology that can overcome the
pest and disease constraints currently
acting on the industry, so as to support an
economically and environmentally viable
industry that can provide safe and nutri-
tious food for the UK population.
For innovation to flourish there needs
to be an enabling environment where
the risks and benefits of any technol-
ogy can be assessed and decisions made
that are based on science and social wel-
fare using rational decision-making. The
current movement in Europe towards a
hazard-based approach, with the inap-
propriate application of the precautionary
principle, will reduce the number of tools
available to protect or increase produc-
tion without necessarily leading to any
real benefits. This is highlighted in crop
protection, where pending EU legisla-
tion will have an enormous impact on the
availability of crop protection products.
If the EU applied the same hazard-based
approach to other areas of industry many
everyday products such as whisky and
kitchen cleaners would be affected.
This legislation may have unintended
effects as farmers switch to alternative
chemistry, which may have other im-
pacts than those legislated for, or it may
no longer be possible to apply pesticide
resistance strategies. The useful life of
products will be reduced, as will the ca-
pacity to integrate biological with chemi-
cal control, which will result in additional
pesticide use.
Producing food at acceptable price
points is vital. Maintaining and growing a
successful and socially relevant food pro-
duction industry requires a considered,
evidence-based approach to the issues
around existing and future agricultural
technologies, as well as a population edu-
cated on the issues surrounding food pro-
duction. We need a government to back
the development of such an industry. l
Sir Peter Kendall is the chair of
the Agriculture and Horticulture
Development Board
The plant science industry view
“We need a renewed commitment to
science-based decision-making”
It is crucial the next government, what-
ever its hue, demonstrates it understands
the complex and interrelated nature of
both environmental and agricultural
policy in their broadest senses. Too often
we see attempts to protect the environ-
ment coming at the expense of produc-
tion. Instead we need an approach that
seeks to balance both.
A commitment to protect and enhance
the natural environment must be accom-
panied by a commitment to back UK ag-
ricultural production. In Labour’s last
manifesto, for the 2010 general election,
the party said it wanted to see a profitable
and competitive UK farming sector, pro-
ducing “more food, nurturing our coun-
tryside and biodiversity”. In 2015, there
should be further mapping out of the
detail of that commitment. In particular,
there are three principles the next UK
government should adopt.
First, policymakers must ensure the
needs of domestic food production are
properly considered in the development
and implementation of all public policies
and programmes. To this end, the next
government should institute protocols,
similar to established practices such as ru-
ral proofing, to “food-proof” policymak-
ing and avoid unintended consequences
that can damage productivity.
Second, we need a renewed commit-
ment to science-based decision-making.
There is often a lot of lip-service paid
to the role of evidence in policy but it is
not always borne out by the actual poli-
cies espoused by our politicians. In the
crop protection sector, the recent debate
about the impact of certain insecticides
on bees provides a case in point, where
the lack of evidence linking declines in
bee populations with pesticides has not
stopped many politicians calling for a
permanent ban on these very important
and safe products.
And third, we need a commitment to
innovation through better regulation.
There is serious concern across many in-
dustry sectors, covering a range of tech-
nologies, about approaches to regulation
that rely on risk avoidance rather than
risk management. Innovation is by defi-
nition a risk-taking activity, but one that
stimulates economic growth, creates jobs
and provides solutions to the major chal-
lenges facing society. As far as food secu-
rity goes, it is innovation that will allow
us both to protect the environment and
to improve productivity over the coming
decades. The next UK government must
not only place innovation at the heart of
its food and wider industrial strategies,
but also lead the way in Europe, demon-
strating a progressive and enlightened
leadership among other member states in
taking a proportional approach to risk –
one that protects consumers and the en-
vironment and also fosters innovation. l
Nick von Westenholz is the chief executive
of the Crop Protection Association
16-22 JANUARY 2015 | NEW STATESMAN | 7
04-07 CPA Voxpops_Jan15VFINAL.indd 7 12/01/2015 14:06:29
8. increase in food
production required
by 2050
40% increase in UK food
prices without pesticides
30-40%of our food would be lost
to pest and diseases
without pesticides
200,000
more mouths to
feed every day
60-70%
50%
reduction in pesticide use
on UK farms between
1990 and 2010
more land would be
required to produce the
same amount of food
without pesticides
70%
2 Swan Court, Cygnet Park, Hampton, Peterborough PE7 8GX
info@cropprotection.org.uk
www.pesticidesinperspective.org.uk
T : 01733 355370
Follow us on Twitter @CropProtect
Pesticides in perspective
It’s time to put a fresh perspective on the essential role of
crop protection in safeguarding our food supply,
protecting the environment and improving our quality of life.
08 CPA backpage advert_Jan15.indd 8 12/01/2015 14:07:24
