Share article

Print article

This year's drought has once again put farmers in the spotlight, with yields in some crops falling by as much as 50%. But behind the headlines of empty reservoirs and wilting fields lies a bigger problem: the way the UK's food system is organised, managed and governed.

For generations, UK food policy has prioritised stable, low prices above all else. This dates right back to Britain's repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the birth of free trade in grain. While the policy was meant to keep bread affordable, its influence has endured. The idea that food must remain cheap and price-stable, often at the expense of resilience in the face of climate shocks, is embedded.

These days, it means supermarket shelves stay full and prices rise more slowly than in many other European countries. But the model comes at a hidden cost: it strips resilience out of the supply chain. When extreme weather hits, the whole system wobbles - and consumers end up paying anyway.

The UK produces about 62% of the food it consumes, but only 53% of the fresh vegetables. The rest comes from imports - often from climate-vulnerable regions such as Spain, Italy and North Africa.

That dependence once diversified risk. Now, when multiple regions are hit by droughts or floods, there are far fewer alternatives.

In the UK, supermarkets run "just-in-time" logistics systems meaning produce is delivered to distribution centres and stores exactly when it is needed, with little or no stock held in reserve.

This model is designed to cut costs and reduce waste, and for highly perishable items like fresh fruit and vegetables it can seem essential. But it also makes the system brittle - when harvests fail or imports are delayed, shelves empty quickly.

Strategic storage - whether in the form of grain reserves, frozen produce or regional "cold-chain" hubs - could provide resilience without undermining freshness for short-life products.

At the moment though, farmers deliver crops straight from the field to distribution centres, leaving no buffer in case of a bad harvest. And contracts are often one-sided. If a crop doesn't meet strict cosmetic standards, or if a retailer changes its order, farmers carry the loss.

All of this means that as soon as weather reduces supply, shortages ripple through the chain and the consumer sees higher prices. In June 2025, food inflation climbed to 4.5% year-on-year - the fastest rise since early 2024.

But the UK still throws away 9.5 million tonnes of food every year, worth around Pound 19 billion. About 60% of that is wasted by households, but supermarkets are far from blameless.

Retailers discard more than 200,000 tonnes of fresh produce annually, often because it doesn't meet strict appearance standards. Farmers report ploughing perfectly edible crops back into the soil when contracts are cancelled due to faulty demand forecasts.

This isn't just bad for the environment, it undermines food security. In a year when farmers are struggling to produce crops, the idea that a third of food is lost or wasted worldwide highlights how poorly managed the system really is.

The uncomfortable truth is that resilience may mean less predictability. The current model shields consumers from seasonal variations by spreading risk along the chain - usually on to farmers or overseas producers. But this comes at the expense of long-term stability.

If instead consumers accepted that prices might fluctuate more in the short term - reflecting the true cost of climate shocks - supply chains could be redesigned for resilience. Farmers could be paid fairly to invest in adaptation, and retailers could prioritise secure contracts over the cheapest imports.

In the long run, that would protect households from the more damaging spikes caused when the system fails. But lower-income households already spend a far greater share of their income on food, so short-term price increases must be accompanied by targeted government support to tackle food insecurity.

So, what would a more secure food system look like? Based on my research, three changes stand out.

1. Stronger local networks: Investing in regional hubs for processing and storage would mean that food from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England could be better connected and there would be less reliance on imports. Government should fund infrastructure and planning support, retailers should commit to long-term contracts that make local hubs viable and producers can collaborate to share facilities.

2. Fairer contracts: There's a need for greater risk-sharing between farmers, processors and supermarkets so that a bad harvest doesn't bankrupt producers. At present, retailers hold most of the power, often setting strict standards and cancelling orders at short notice. But if farmers keep shouldering all the risk, many could exit the sector - leaving retailers with less choice and more volatility.

3. Policy that values resilience: The government should support producers to adapt for the long term with things like drought-resistant crops and water stewardship. This is a better strategy than one-off subsidies after each crisis - as happens at the moment.

Food security is national security. Yet in the UK, it is still treated as a matter of weekly prices. Every drought, flood or heatwave exposes the same fragility - a system designed to deliver cheap food today, but incapable of absorbing tomorrow's shocks.

If consumers want affordable food in the long run, it's time to stop asking how to keep prices low and start asking how to keep food supplies secure. That means fairer treatment of farmers, smarter use of resources and consumers willing to accept some short-term price volatility. Otherwise, the next bad year will not be the exception, it will be the rule.