Henry Dimbleby told the Guardian that while asking the public to eat less meat – backed by a mix of incentives and sanctions – would be politically toxic, it was the only way to meet the country’s climate and biodiversity targets . “It’s an incredibly inefficient use of land to grow crops, feed them to a ruminant or pig or chicken that then, over the course of its life cycle, converts it into a very small amount of protein for us to eat,” he said. Currently, 85% of agricultural land in England is used for pasture to graze animals such as cows or to grow fodder which is then fed to the animals. Dimbleby, the co-founder of the Leon restaurant chain and a respected voice in Tory circles, believes a 30% meat reduction over 10 years is needed for sustainable land use in England. Others go much further: Greenpeace, for example, says we should cut our meat intake by 70%. “If we fail to do that,” Dimbleby said, “we will fail to meet our biodiversity or climate goals in this country. We also have a huge opportunity to show thought leadership around the world and show them that this can be done, that we can farm sustainably and feed people.” Dimbleby has produced two reports on the UK’s food system, but the subsequent white paper, published by Boris Johnson’s government in June, was widely criticized for watering down its key recommendations and containing few new measures to tackle it. rising food costs. child hunger, obesity or climate emergency. Public views of policy proposals to limit meat consumption – chart “I wasn’t surprised at all,” Dimbleby said when asked about the omission of meat reduction policies from the government’s White Paper. “It is such a politicized space that everyone worldwide avoids. You have huge lobbies campaigning for consumption and the public don’t like the idea of reducing meat and dairy.’ “If we fail to do that, we will fail to meet our biodiversity or climate goals in this country,” said Henry Dimbleby, pictured here in 2020. Photo: David Hartley/Rex/Shutterstock Dimbleby himself did not recommend a levy on animal products. “The government would go down within a fortnight if they implemented a tax on meat,” he said. “There is no point in proposing impossible things.” There is a huge cultural change needed for people in England to stop feeling they have to eat meat so regularly, Dimbleby said. “It goes right back to the Magna Carta, the idea of what I do on my land is my business. Although the government would not be implementing a sort of Stalinist five-year plan, there would still be a mix of incentives and regulation. “The French used to call us roast beef, you know, and in the 19th century there were people going to France and commenting on how sick they were, that the English were strong because they ate a lot of beef. This continues today… The public is now incredibly supportive of certain measures – salt and sugar [tax] was a popular measure. But whatever the government dealt with meat, it resisted.” The most important stories on the planet. Get all the week’s environmental news – the good, the bad and the must-haves Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Production after Brexit
The way we produce food and use land after Brexit is set to change, with a land use strategy due to be published by the government – but it remains in limbo in the Tory leadership race. Farmers have faced a rollercoaster of fortunes since the EU referendum. Red tape associated with shipping products to the EU has reduced exports and the government has struggled to implement new subsidy schemes that would pay farmers to protect the environment , to absorb the loss of EU payments. The Covid lockdowns further disrupted supply chains. UK land use – chart Rising fuel prices have resulted in fertilizer prices tripling, increasingly erratic weather due to the climate crisis has added further volatility and the impact is set to be felt by trade deals with countries such as Australia which experts say that they are likely to leave cheap but flood substandard food. The result is farmers clamoring for clearer direction while the government is in disarray. Vicki Hird, head of agriculture at Sustain, a coalition of food and farming organisations, said: “This political upheaval will be hard to watch for UK farmers who face so many uncertainties… what they really need is a stable policy and no shock news. they can plan for the future, knowing that an ambitious support system is on track, that regulations are clear and that they will not be exhausted under new trade deals. Our farmers need stability so they can have a sustainable business and plan their moves towards agriculture based on climate and nature.” Rural England has long been a Tory heartland, regularly returning ‘true blue’ MPs from the polls and in the 2019 election 46% of rural voters voted Conservative and only 29% Labour. But the poll taken before Johnson’s resignation by the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents nearly 30,000 landowners and farm businesses, found a significant swing of 7.5% from the Tories to Labour, putting the two main parties at the throat. rural areas. The Lib Dems present another threat to Tory dominance in the countryside. the rural seat of Tiveron and Honiton used to be a safe blue seat but turned yellow in the recent by-election. Minet Butters, president of the National Farmers Union, met Johnson in the days before his food strategy was published, warning him that he risked losing the farm vote. Batters said she told Johnson farmers they wanted to see a shift in focus from nature recovery back to food production. “It’s nice to deliver public goods, but first and foremost they have to support us to produce food. I have raised this with the Prime Minister,” he said, adding: “Farmers have a statutory basis for trees and nature – but we would like to see one for food production otherwise it will be left behind – . Butters recently said it was “criminal” to frame agriculture as meat versus trees and being vegan, adding that an “honest discussion” about grasslands and the carbon they store “hasn’t been allowed to happen”. But Dimbleby says there is limited truth to claims that pastures are good for the environment. He told the Guardian: “It may turn out that there is some new way of grazing that we can sequester carbon in the long term, but at the moment all forms of meat production are significantly carbon positive.” Some farmers argue that land used for grazing, particularly in the barren highlands, is useless for anything else because of the soil’s poor nutrient content. But this is the very land that Dimbleby believes should be taken out of food production and converted back. Removing just 5% of production and restoring the lost landscapes they once contained could be enough, he said. “One of the arguments people make about rangelands is that the land is not good for anything else,” he said. “But in reality, even more than the actual direct carbon emissions from ruminants, the opportunity cost of the land they occupy is huge. We destroyed most of our rainforests 1,000 years ago in this country, but most of this land has enormous carbon storage potential. Almost all the land you’ve taken out of food production should be extensive low-quality grassland.’
