Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Brexit and the impact on our Food - Prices and Food security

48 replies

Showmethewaytogohome · 04/07/2016 16:58

Just listened to a fascinating The Food Programme on Radio 4 which confirmed my concerns around the impact Brexit has on our Food supply chain.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07hwv25

It ain't looking rosy people. Ignoring the devalued pound leading to increased food and grain imports, knocking onto increased food prices, WTO tarrifs putting us at a disadvantage and 25% of the farm workforce coming from Europe. We don't have the infrastructure in place to plug these gaps within the timescale or the people who could do the negotiations. Brexiters answers on a postcard please

We have not had highly expensive food or food shortages in my lifetime....yet.... If we do shall we 'let them eat cake'?

OP posts:
Showmethewaytogohome · 04/07/2016 18:53

baby so the knock on is environmental as well - I didn't even think of that

OP posts:
Grumpyoldblonde · 04/07/2016 19:16

If the link works it maybe interesting

www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/UK-vote-to-leave-EU-would-not-hit-food-prices

LumpySpacedPrincess · 04/07/2016 19:17

I listened to this with my mouth open, talk about reality check. Farage's script writer was a right twonk but everyone else really knew their onions, literally.

Showmethewaytogohome · 04/07/2016 19:29

Grumpy

That article doesn't make me feel any better.....EU is a bigger trading partner than we are to it......EU tarrif increases 'probably' being offset by decrease in tarrifs from elsewhere is a bit of a long shot especially as we have no plan. Also doesn't take into account EU workers and the fact we have no one to negotiate Sad

I don't think anyone will think about 'playing the long game' when the cost of the food in their baskets has gone up in the short to medium

OP posts:
babybythesea · 04/07/2016 19:47

Yes. I voted remain largely because of the environment. Our governments don't have a good track record, and with the four year term, the incentive to make decisions that clash with business interests in favour of the environment is not good.
Our two major pieces of environmental legislation come from the EU. The Birds Directive and The Habitats Directive.
Lots doesn't, like SSSI status, but we've shown ourselves happy to downgrade a site if its status becomes an obstacle to doing what we like. I've got kids in the bath so I can't go off to look stuff up, and my good data is all on paper, but farmland birds experienced a decline of 54% overall between 1974 and 2014. As in, we lost more than half the birds that breed on our farmland. Some of that is due to pressure elsewhere (hunting in Malta and Cypress which targets migrant birds, for example, but we are better placed to bring pressure to bear on this from within the EU). But a lot is due to changes in the way we manage the land. We now don't have fields available for skylarks to nest in, for example, as we've largely moved to autumn sowing of crops - skylarks have declined by 46%. Nearly half the birds that breed in the UK and are of conservation concern (on the Red List) come from farmland.
The EU had a role to play in buffering the impact of governments aiming to please farmers. I am really scared for our wildlife now this is gone. And if wildlife goes, it takes with it pollinators, flood defences, water management and cleaning etc etc - all provided for free for us, all essential, but all reliant on a healthy ecosystem.

Showmethewaytogohome · 04/07/2016 19:50

baby I am remainer anyway but I didn't hear this message at all - I know environmentally we are buggered generally but I didn't know how much the EU did to help us - fuck!

OP posts:
babybythesea · 04/07/2016 19:56

No. I found it so frustrating. The first time I really heard anything about it was Boris Johnson's Dad speaking on R4 after the vote. He said he disagreed with Boris because of the environmental impact.
The major environmental charities were against Brexit, but I know the RSPB did say something and promptly had loads of people withdrawing legacies, and memberships etc.
It will also have an impact on British zoos, as currently we move animals around easily without major quarantine issues. The moving is essential to ensure viable captive populations, which are genetically diverse. From a conservation perspective, this is vital and saves the zoos thousands in quarantine fees, facilities etc. That's now all set to change. Not high on most people's radars but I believe absolutely in the value of zoos to conservation and this is going to make it a lot harder and a lot more expensive.

Showmethewaytogohome · 04/07/2016 20:11

I have to ask why the Greens didn't spread this message - shocking. So some charities where too scared to say anything? I am sighing deeply

OP posts:
babybythesea · 04/07/2016 20:55

Possibly because the environment is marginal in any debate. Let's face it, The Green Party started with it in mind and have been derided for being a one-interest, marginal party. People just don't see it, in general, as something that matters. I've worked in conservation for nearly 20 years and I know from experience that outside my friends gained through this work, most people are not that bothered. You get indulged, or patronised, and lots of people are vaguely interested, but as an over-riding concern when making decisions, I am often seen as naive for putting the environment above economics. Tis the state of the world.

InShockReally · 04/07/2016 21:10

I would hazard some guesses...

  1. People didn't/don't understand the positive impact of the EU.

  2. If they do appreciate some aspect of EU law - whether that's human rights, worker rights, or environmental issues or something - then they assume that we would have just magically adopted that stuff too anyway, that we won't lose it going forward, and that we will keep up. Hah.

  3. Alternatively they just don't give a shit because they're too desperate and bored and fucked off with their own lives, and blame the EU instead of austerity Britain.

So ... Ignorance and naivety for the most part; and perhaps some desperation too.

Figmentofmyimagination · 04/07/2016 23:23

Actually the Greens did try - people weren't listening.

UterusUterusGhali · 04/07/2016 23:46

The Green Party did try...

Brexit and the impact on our Food  - Prices and Food security
Brexit and the impact on our Food  - Prices and Food security
ProfessorPreciseaBug · 05/07/2016 05:29

It is easy to talk up the environment as some sort of panacea and the answer to all things. It is also very easy to convince people that "protecting the environment" should be the objective for everyone. However, that is from the advantage of living in a home built to very high standards that is designed to protect the inhabitants from the environment and isolate them from all the adverse (to humans) impacts of the environment.

In reality, life is a lot different. It Is not without reason that pestilence and famine are two of the horsemen of the apolypse. Sadly we have allowed orginsations like the RSPB to develop an agenda that sees food production and security subverted to the notion that if a bird can wander about in some mud, we are all well fed. Indeed the RSPB has destroyed 10000 acres of the only grade one agrucultural land in Essex with support from the EU. That land could feed a lot of people. Look at any field and you will see huge margins of land not being used to grow food. All in favour of the environment.

annandale · 05/07/2016 05:55

Professor have you read the thread? I find I've learned quite a bit by doing so.

babybythesea · 05/07/2016 06:35

You are of course welcome to your opinion Professor. I will respectfully disagree.

A healthy environment provides what we call ecosystem services (pollination, water regulation/flood defence, disease regulation, water purification, regulation of atmospheric gases - including oxygen production etc etc). If you were to do all of these artificially the global cost has been worked out at $125 trillion. Which is more than global GDP. Which means, there is not enough money in the world to do the job that a healthy environment does for free.

Just look up the Catskill mountains outside New York for one example. It's an area that purifies all the water for everyone living in New York City, and having already been through the cycle of letting the habitat decade and then realising how much it was going to cost them to clean their water artificially, it's now heavily protected.

A healthy environment is the one thing we all absolutely depend on, unless you have no desire to drink clean water or breathe oxygen. Don't forget, we are not separate from the living environment. We evolved in it, and as much as we think we are better than it now, the things that are good for it are often good for us too.

I agree conservation is often a luxury. I've been to areas in the world where people are dirt poor, I've met people from even more countries where conservation is hard because people have nothing. Madagascar, for instance. But if the environment goes down the drain, so do they. You cannot farm poor quality soil. Soil quality is improved when you have the biodiversity in it (microbes etc) to recycle nutrients, and when local forest cover is protected to ensure flood defences and to prevent soil erosion. So in the end conservation becomes a necessity.

In this country, we have enough land devoted to arable. What we also have is a culture of surplus. Surplus on an individual level, throwing things away because we bought too much and didn't use it, and surplus on a national level when the supermarkets reject fields of a crop because they over-estimated how much they would need and don't want to sell it now, or because it's the wrong shape (and then we won't buy it, apparently).
And we haven't even started on the benefits that a healthy environment brings in terms of enjoyment to millions of people.

Feel free to dismiss the environment. But it is not a panacea. It underpins all living organisms, and until we have learnt to live without air, water and food, then it is kind of important.

babybythesea · 05/07/2016 06:39

And having just read your comment about how easy it is to convince people to protect the environment, do share. I've been working in the field of environmental and conservation education for 20 years and I find, in common with many of my colleagues, that it's bloody difficult. People are interested, on the whole, and nod and agree, but when it comes to doing anything, not much happens. And when it comes to the environment competing with other interests on a national scale, the environment is often the loser.

ProfessorPreciseaBug · 05/07/2016 07:58

Meanwhile, under EU regulations we are paying farmers to not produce food. We don't even just pay for the food they do produce. At the same time we are importing food. ... which is the subject of this discussion.

babybythesea · 05/07/2016 08:03

We pay them not to cultivate every inch of land because that helps to protect pollinators, which are critical if we want our crops pollinated. And if we don't do that, we will also end up importing food because those of our crops which need pollinators will fail.

babybythesea · 05/07/2016 08:06

I realise I went off topic. But it started because land lying not cultivated was mentioned and I explained there was a reason for doing this, it isn't done for fun (no-one is about to hand out money for doing nothing just because they feel like handing out money). You mentioned that the environment got too high a billing, and I was just giving reasons as to why I disagree.

AnnieKenney · 05/07/2016 08:17

So some charities where too scared to say anything?

Sorry for the slight derail but it isn't question of being scared - it's illegal for charities to do anything which can be interpreted as political campaigning. What this covers is getting more and more broadly interpreted with (I suspect) the goal of restricting charities into only being able to do 'good works' and prevented from saying anything about the issues which cause the 'good works' to be needed.

Showmethewaytogohome · 05/07/2016 08:21

baby your posts are brilliant and so informative - they raise issues that I think I have been putting my fingers in my ears about as they seem so complex but the way you have explained them has really opened my eyes - thank you

From what I understand we have a mixed farming model and we need the set aside land as part of our eco system. It is not possible to farm all land and be 'self sufficient' as it would destroy that eco system

Professor the issue is not that we import food - have you listened to the pod cast as it is really informative - that is part of our food model. The issue is that 1/3 of that imported food comes from the EU currently - we will not get the same deal with them as they are more valuable to us then we are to them. On top of which 25% of farm workers are from the EU. Add devaluation of the GBP and food price increases. There is no new model or plan that could plug these gaps and there is no way even if there was (there really isn't) that this could be done in 2 years. EU subsides are shoring up our farming model and environment - which are essential to our country's well being in so many ways

OP posts:
Showmethewaytogohome · 05/07/2016 08:23

Annie (great name btw) Ah I didn't know that - so they have their hands tied completely. And yet....and yet.... the politicians can lie through their teeth

OP posts:
Showmethewaytogohome · 05/07/2016 08:24

Sorry Professor - correction a 1/3 of our TOTAL food comes from the EU. 1/2 is farmed in UK the remainder is from the rest of the world

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page