The future of farming in post-Brexit Britain

Nothing like an interview on Radio 4’s Today programme to jolt you awake from your post-holiday slumbers…

This morning, it was the turn of Owen Paterson, MP for Shropshire, formerly environment secretary and ardent Brexiteer, to spoil my morning. The topic was the future of British farming. Paterson’s position seems to be that, in a post-Brexit UK, Britain’s farmers would be free from the constraints of EU farming policy - free, that is, to make full use of a de-regulated agrochemical sector, which would be able to turn its attention unfettered by constraints on the free market, to produce new hi-tech interventions. These hi-tech interventions turn out to be more GM, chemical pesticides and herbicides, which, he says, firms are no longer investing in, because the EU prefers to support ‘witchcraft and superstition’.  

I suppose I ought to feel a sense of relief that Paterson is no longer environment secretary; but then I wonder what his credentials are to speak (or, “shout over”, in the traditional Privileged White Male Radio 4 Today style-y) on farming policy these days… 

Anyway, let’s address Paterson’s points, and start by bursting the bubble of my personal favourite. 

1. There is no free market in agriculture. Agribusiness is one of the most subsidised there is. Agrichemical businesses are subsidised every time we absorb the costs of their activities elsewhere in the system. The costs of widespread antibiotic use are absorbed in the health system; the cost of pesticide use is absorbed in the impact on the environment. The TRUE cost of these interventions are not borne by these businesses, they are subsidised by the rest of us, so that they can make a (huge) profit. 

2. Big agribiz uses eye-watering sums of money in marketing and PR to influence our politicians to protect and promote their own interests. Paterson himself talked about his visit to BSF and demonstrated in his comments how he was very effectively lobbied to represent their interests on national radio. Paterson, you’re more than welcome to pop round to my farm for a cuppa, to talk about how my farming interests are affected by BSF - but I suspect my offer will be a bit less attractive. Which leads to me to

3. Dispersed small family farms and rural ‘eco-systems’ cannot advocate in the same way the agribusiness lobby does. Our interests are more diverse, more complex, more rooted in the different needs of our communities and local contexts. When politicians allow themselves to be lobbied uncritically by one powerful interest group, whilst ignoring the multiple interests of their constituents, our political system has become corrupted.  That said, 

4. The organics sector and other alternative food and farming bodies (such as The Soil Association and Oxford Real Farming Conference) aim to represent these voices and perspectives. Paterson labels this as ‘witchcraft and superstition’. How revealing to hear the rigorous, long-term, ‘whole systems’ science that underpins agro-ecology rubbished in this way. No pretence of balance; no pretence at real scientific rigour (in contrast to the Agri-Biz funded and subsidised ‘science’ that passes for ‘evidence-based research’). Yet again, programmes (like Today) act as channels for loud-mouthed contrarians instead of researching and representing balanced arguments.

To be clear, independent global research demonstrates that the claims made by Agribiz for a) improved productivity, b) safe and scalable systems and c) cheaper food, are unsupported by the evidence. Rather, it shows that they wreak environmental and social devastation. Where the market has been ‘unfettered’ - look to the US for evidence - you will find barren monoculture dust bowls; industrialised livestock production; unsustainable land and water use; super-weeds unaffected by herbicides; carcinogenic chemicals in dangerous quantities in our food systems; antibiotic-resistant bacteria proliferating; and no demonstrable increase in productivity through the use of GM. Moreover, it is the farmers who trust these companies and invest in such systems who are often the ones left devastated and bankrupt when these new practices fail.  Cheap food is only ‘cheap’ when we choose to ignore all the costs of its production and all of its effects on the health and wellbeing of consumers.  

Just like the banks (which only want to operate in a free-market system when they make a profit, and expect - and get - colossal public subsidy when they fail) big agribusinesses expect a free run to pursue their route to profits; and for society to pick up the effects and the costs of this elsewhere. When our politicians are helping them to do this, we really are in trouble...  If we are to recover anything from the pigs breakfast that is Brexit, we need a much better 'whole systems' perspective on UK's food and farming, to come to truly sustainable, resilient and regenerative possibilities.