Food Security

The UK has demonstrated a resilient food supply during some of the most challenging events in recent times, in particular the covid-19 pandemic, the continuing Russia- Ukraine war and the UK’s departure from the EU. The role of the Government and the food supply chain in achieving this resilience should be applauded. However, food security also needs to consider the Government’s role in ensuring household level access to healthy and affordable food.

The UK Food Security Report (UKFSR) is a vital document to provide transparency about whether the UK will achieve each of the five elements of food security the Government is required to report on, and the associated risks to them. The analysis within the UKFSR should be central to steering Defra and wider Government strategy and policy-making on food security, and therefore should be as up-to-date as possible. Under the provisions of the Agriculture Act 2020, the next edition need not be published until December 2024, but we believe the current edition published in December 2021 is already out-of-date. We are therefore disappointed that the Secretary of State refused to consider publishing an annual UKFSR.

While we welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to chair an annual food security summit, we are disappointed that this evolved into May’s “Farm to Fork Summit” in which, although successful, food security was not the focus. This was a missed opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its seriousness towards the issue of food security. The Prime Minister should chair a dedicated food security summit later this year and this should be an annual event, in line with the Prime Minister’s promise. Each annual food security summit should, as a minimum, cover the five statutory aspects of food security as set out in the Agriculture Act 2020, with a particular focus on those of most relevance at the time of the summit.

A fully updated edition of the UK Food Security Report should be published on an annual basis, and a month in advance of the annual food summit. This should be accompanied by an action plan for at least the next 12 months on the steps the Government will take to improve food security. A progress report of the actions taken since the previous year’s action plan should be included in the UK Food Security Report.

The final report of the National Food Strategy independent review (NFSIR) offered not only a detailed and considered analysis of the challenges facing our food system, including food security, but also put forward achievable actions. In contrast, the Government Food Strategy (GFS) has fallen short. It is not, as the Food Minister acknowledged, a direct response to the NFSIR as the Government originally proposed in 2019. It is perplexing that given the Government “broadly” accepted the NFSIR’s analysis, it did not accept more of its recommendations. The failure to publish a response to each recommendation—despite such an analysis existing within Whitehall—has hindered transparency.

The Government should publish the detailed response to each of the NFSIR’s recommendations that it has drawn up within Whitehall as part of its response to this Report.

There is an incoherent approach to food policy across Government. Defra is designated as the Government department responsible for food policy, but 15 other departments and agencies are involved in different elements of development and delivery. The successes of food policy coordination across Whitehall forged during the covid-19 pandemic have not been maintained, and we have concerns that a siloed approach to food policy could hinder the successful implementation of the Government Food Strategy. Given the importance of food security, and the need for policy coherence and for strong leadership on this issue, we recommend that the Cabinet Office should undertake a comprehensive review of departmental responsibilities and structures regarding food policy and its various facets, and to publish its findings within 12 months of the date of publication of this Report.

The Government Food Strategy (GFS) made only one commitment to food security: to maintain “broadly the same level in future” the UK’s current rate of self- sufficiency of 75% of commodities we can produce. Food security, though, is more than just self-sufficiency: the UK is reliant on food imports, mostly from the EU. The Government should, in conjunction with the food supply chain and others such as academics, develop a suite of food security indicators covering both inputs and outputs and set targets for them, which should in turn influence food security policy. The Government should outline its approach to this in its Response, and should launch the suite of indicators within 12 months of this Report’s publication.

We welcome the report of the Independent Review into Labour Shortages in the Food Supply Chain (the Shropshire Review), and support its recommendations regarding both skilled and seasonal migrant labour. Troublingly, the Shropshire Review has found evidence that the UK’s immigration policy is creating labour shortages that have “seriously impacted the food and farming industry” which it noted “may ultimately threaten food security”.251 As we foresaw in our earlier Report on labour, some production has now moved overseas as result of labour shortages, while other businesses are planning to. We also note that the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme does not affect net migration. It is imperative that the Government listens to the Review’s analysis and constructively considers its recommendations. In doing so, the Government must prioritise the country’s long-term food security ahead of other considerations to ensure the food supply chain has access to sufficient labour, including from overseas, to allow it to realise its growth potential. Failure to do so places at risk the achievement of the Government’s self-sufficiency target and broader food security. The Government must adhere to its stated six-month timeframe to respond to the Independent Review’s report.

Nitrogen fertiliser plays a critical role in UK food security, and the production of ammonia used in it creates large amounts of carbon dioxide gas as a by-product which is vital for the food supply chain. There is only one plant remaining in the UK, which is currently using imported ammonia. This reliance on a single nitrogen fertiliser plant increases the risks to the UK’s food security. The lack of CO2 by- product has caused UK prices to increase markedly at a time when there are already considerable price pressures on the sector. While we welcome the establishment of the Fertiliser Industry Taskforce, the Government has not set out the steps it will take to protect domestic production of nitrogen fertiliser and ammonia used in it. Given the importance of nitrogen fertiliser to UK food production and food security, the Government should set out how it will ensure its continued production in the UK, including the resumption of ammonia production to help support CO2 supplies. Looking ahead, the Government should take steps to support the increased production of nitrogen fertiliser in the UK, and in so doing examine the incentives offered by our competitors. The Government should produce an action plan addressing these points within 6 months of the publication of this Report.

We look forward to the publication of the Government’s Land Use Framework (LUF) for England, and welcome the report of the House of Lords’ Land Use Committee. The LUF should not be overly prescriptive, but it should make clear what the Government’s priorities are and how it will help the private sector to achieve them. In particular, the LUF should address the current balance of land use between that used for pastoral and animal-feed on the one hand, and horticulture.

The Food Minister said that household affordability of, and access to, food does not constitute food security. We disagree. The high and sustained rate of food price inflation means many households are having to take measures to save money like skipping meals. This is happening across all across all socio-economic groups, but is most pronounced in lower socio-economic households. A lack of household food security can lead to physical and mental health consequences for those affected.252 It is concerning that the Food Minister is not taking households’ ability to access food into account when considering whether this is food security and we recommend that the Government should change its position. If it is unwilling to do, it should lay out its reasons for taking that position in its response to this report.

We applaud the work being done by charities in Liverpool and around the country to support those in need of food aid. In particular, the pantry model of food aid provided a sense of dignity to users, as well as choice, and is something we would encourage other food aid organisations to consider where possible.

Higher food inflation and the rise in the cost of living more generally is meaning that food banks are experiencing record levels of demand this year. Earned income, not food banks, are ultimately the solution for household food insecurity. We welcome the substantial support packages, including the index-linked rise in welfare benefits and pensions, that the Government have provided to households which help them to meet their increased bills and therefore have more money to spend on food than 252 Food Standards Agency (FSA) (FS0082) 48 Food Security otherwise. The Government should examine whether the totality of support to lower- income households, including from central and local Government and charities, is sufficient to ensure household food security without the need to regularly use food aid organisations and publish its findings within six months of the publication of this Report.

We welcome steps by the Government to expand free school meal (FSM) eligibility. More children are receiving FSM than ever before in England, including all infant school children. However, there is evidence that extending FSM eligibility further could reap substantial benefits that outweigh the costs. The Government should, as a minimum, undertake a detailed study of the existing literature on the costs and benefits of extending FSM, which should as a minimum include extending FSM (a) for those children living in a Universal Credit claiming household, the impact of (i) raising the means-test to £20,000 post-tax income but before claiming benefits and (ii) removing the means-test and (b) universal provision. The Government should report its findings to the Committee within six months of the date of this report. In the meantime, the Government should urgently undertake a review with a view to increasing the household income threshold criteria for FSM from the current level of £7,400 (after tax and excluding benefits) so that more children living in poverty become eligible. To reduce the costs of extending FSM eligibility, the Government should consider the link between the FSM and the Pupil Premium for those children living in households above a certain income threshold.

We support the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food’s request to undertake a Country Visit to the UK, and call for the Government to facilitate such a visit before the end of this year if Professor Fakhri is available or, if he is not, as soon as possible thereafter. As part of his Country Visit, we invite Professor Fakhri to assess whether a statutory right to food would be appropriate for England and, if so, what this might look like.

The UK is in the midst of an obesity crisis and is facing a situation of around 40% of the adult population being obese by 2035. Unchecked, this will have profound consequences for the NHS. Food that is high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) is often considerably cheaper per calorie than healthy food. This helps to explain the paradox that those on low-incomes are more likely to be obese. Indeed, the poorest 20% of households need to spend half their disposable income to eat the Government- recommended healthy diet. The National Food Strategy identified health and food as a vital issue and provided expert analysis, yet the Government Food Strategy did not cover the topic at all or set out any actions to break the junk food cycle. Instead, it passed the buck to the Department for Health and Social Care to include in a White Paper that was first delayed, and then cancelled in favour of the as yet unpublished Major Conditions Strategy. The Government should respond to the NFSIR’s analysis on health and food within six months.

The Government rejected the NFSIR’s proposals to break the junk food cycle, including the sugar and salt reformulation tax proposal. While such a tax may cause consumer prices to rise, it may lead consumers to substitute cheaper healthier Food Security 49 foods into their shopping basket. The Government should undertake and publish a full impact assessment of the introduction of a sugar and salt reformulation tax, providing analysis based on different, realistic values of the tax and submit this to the Committee within three months of the publication of this Report.

The Government has set out three actions that could help encourage healthier eating. On mandatory public reporting against a set of health metrics, this should become a requirement within the next six months. Further research on ultra-processed foods as a contributor to over consumption of higher calorie foods should commence at once and at pace, with the findings reported to the Committee within 12 months of the publication of this Report.

It is regrettable that the introduction of the ban on volume price promotions of food high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) has been further delayed to October 2025. The Government said that these delays were necessary to allow it to consider the impact on consumers and businesses in the light of the “unprecedented global economic situation”. No justification was provided as to why it will take over two years to make this assessment. The Government should set out a detailed timetable for its consideration of how the regulations restricting HFSS food volume price promotions will impact consumers and businesses.

We are not convinced that the delay to banning certain volume price promotions for HFSS food will save consumers money, given the Government’s own analysis on this matter. Of less doubt is that it will make the fight against unhealthy eating and obesity even harder. The Government Response should forecast rates of being overweight and being obese had the HFSS food volume price promotions been introduced in October 2022 compared to their planned introduction of October 2025. The regulations restricting discounts on HFSS food should be broadened to exclude all price promotions of HFSS food, to ban meal deals where any element of a meal deal has to be cooked prior to eating, and to extend the regulations’ coverage to all food shops.

We welcome the steps taken by Sainsbury’s and Tesco to voluntarily stop offering volume price promotions on HFSS food, and call on other supermarkets and smaller shops to swiftly follow their lead in the continue absence of legal restrictions to help tackle the widespread problem of unhealthy eating. We challenge all food shops to go further and to stop all promotions of HFSS food, including single purchase discounts offered to their loyalty scheme holders, and also cook-at-home meal deals such as for pizzas and convenience foods.

Better informing consumers about healthy, and unhealthy, food to help them to make the right choices is without doubt an important measure, and we welcome Government steps in this regard. Individuals should take responsibility for their food consumption and make healthier choices where this is possible. However, this alone is not sufficient to tackle the issue of unhealthy eating and obesity, as demonstrated by the fact that 14 previous Government health strategies in the past 30 years have emphasised self-responsibility yet rates of being overweight and obesity have continued to increase. The Government should set out details—including funding levels—for the next five years for a programme of informing and educating consumers about healthy choices and how these programmes will interact with other policies to tackle obesity and unhealthy eating.