Food prices have become one of the biggest pressures on family budgets in Britain. Yet behind the rising cost of the weekly shop lies a deeper problem: a food system that is failing households, farmers and the economy alike.
In the past decade, we have experienced the highest food price inflation in 40 years. UK production of some of our most nourishing foods, such as beans, fruit and vegetables, is stalling as they no longer offer a viable livelihood for farmers. Domestic fruit and vegetable production has dropped by 16% since 2015, and we see the largest trade deficits for fruit and veg – relying on imports for 83% of our fruit supply and 45% of our vegetables. New evidence from a cross-party Parliamentary report shows that, without urgent reform, this could exacerbate across the board, with domestic food production potentially falling by up to a third by 2050.
This increasing dependence on food imports at a time of heightening geopolitical instability and climate disruption has made us more exposed to these shocks than ever before. The outbreak of war in Iran reveals how successive government policy has left the UK’s food supply chain exposed to global factors.
The solution is clear: Britain needs a Good Food Bill. By setting long term targets for food security, production and affordability, legislation could give farmers the certainty to invest while protecting families from future price shocks. Supporting farmers to produce more fruit and vegetables is essential to our food security, while also helping to manage food price volatility in the long term. Too many families are struggling with the cost of the weekly shop as they are subject to volatile prices, making the job of feeding children that much harder for struggling parents. While short-term inflation may fluctuate, long-term forces are pushing costs higher.
The Prime Minister has made tackling the cost-of-living crisis his number one priority this year to rectify Labour’s falling position in the polls. Yet, addressing the challenges within our food system appears to be low on the Government’s agenda. Since the publication of the food strategy last summer, this has yet to be sustained into anything concrete despite 65% of the public supporting a Food Bill which would introduce duties and targets on government bodies to make healthy food more accessible and affordable. We cannot allow a system that delivers rising bills and diminishing domestic production to continue.
Therefore, to address this trend, I am supporting over 100 organisations, including supermarkets such as M&S and the Co-Op, alongside food businesses and investors, who signed a joint statement, backing the need for legislation on the food system. This isn’t just another piece of legislation: it would lock in long-term affordability of nutritious food, provide certainty for producers and businesses, and give consumers confidence that access to healthy food won’t be left to the whims of global markets. By setting durable legal frameworks, we would protect the food system against the rising uncertainty of global shocks.
A ‘Good Food Bill’ could set statutory targets for domestic food production alongside clear protections for affordability, something the current Government has so far failed to deliver. It would tie together support for farmers and ensure that public procurement and school meals prioritise healthy, locally produced food. In the next 10 years, the number of children overweight and with obesity is expected to climb another five percentage points – affecting >40% of 11-year-olds by 2035. Currently, with the expense of nutritious food, access to junk food, and cost-of-living pressures, it will be impossible to deliver several of the Government’s ambitions, including delivering the healthiest generation of children ever. This is about resilience and fairness, not over-protectionism.
If we do not act, the alternative is stark. Without such frameworks, households pay ever-higher prices, childhood obesity will rise, while domestic production falls, and British farmers pay the consequences. We will import more food, increasing our vulnerability to disruptions mentioned before. And the result of this will be a food system that is less resilient, less nutritious, and less affordable.
We must break that cycle. A secure and affordable food system is not a luxury but a necessity. The Good Food Bill outlines practical steps toward that goal.
If the Government is serious about tackling the cost-of-living crisis, fixing Britain’s food system is the place to start. I urge those across the House to join me in championing this in Parliament.
* Sarah Dyke is the MP for Glastonbury and Somerton and Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Rural Affairs.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
David Warren
Roland
David Raw
Peter Chambers
8 Comments
The only way to increase food production beyond that which is being produced as a result of market forces, is to interfere with the working of that market. This could involve tariffs or foreign produced food, though that contradicts our ambition to rejoin the single market and our support for free trade generally. Or we could increase the level of subsidy provided to food producers – which may, again, be regarded as unfair competition within the Single Market rules.
Should be wish to increase food affordability, it should be noted that subsidising nutritious food would not help reduce the numbers in poverty using the existing definition of poverty (60% of median income) since providing subsidies for food does not increase incomes. Similarly, providing free nutritious school means will also not affect the statistic for this living in poverty despite it having a huge impact on those struggling to make their incomes stretch.
At some point we will need to have a grown up debate about getting a better measure of poverty that just linking it to median income and focusing more on the ability of people to meet the costs of life’s essentials.
The UK currently produces about 65% of the food it consumes. (Compare 33% at the start of WW2 and 44% at the end despite Dig for Victory etc)
I think it is highly unlikely that the UK (current population c70 million) would be able to produce 100% of its calories, which is what the article seems to be trying to advocate without quite saying so. No bananas, oranges and avocados for example, and no rice as well, so bang goes the Indian takeaway.
It follows that food security depends on secring foreign supply as much as producing our own. One way of doing that is of course joining the Single Market and becoming part of a new Customs Union with the EU as quickly as possible.
There is also conflict here with an agenda that seeks rewilding and de-intensification/decarbonisation of agriculture. For example, there is pressure to ban glyphosate on health grounds. Glyphosate is a critical part of the min-til system of cultivation – allowing management of soil in a way that is less damaging to its structure and without ploughing – which consumes huge amounts of hydrocarbons.
And yet again there is a Lib Dem proposal that demands public spending in one form or another. I agree a secure and affordable food system is a necessity: it’s up there with defence and ecological stability as top priority but something has to give.
By coincidence in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/09/uk-food-security-iran-war
I’m yet again saddened to see a Lib Dem MP calling for petty protectionist measures to protect defunct farmers from market forces. I thought we were an internationalist party? One which cared about the environment? No doubt if the coal mines hadn’t shut Sarah would be calling on them to stay open.
The Iran conflict has shown that we’re still subject to disruptions in the shipping of fertilizer regardless of where our food is actually grown.
In Southern Europe land is less scarce and conditions are more favourable for crop production. This is comparative advantage, one of the benefits of internationalism that Lib Dems should be advocating for.
Conflating the issue with childhood obesity is a new one. No reason to think imported food is less healthy. Ed Davey was waving around Scottish Square sausage the last time he kicked off about this.
Giving UK farmers better protections may reduce in a slight increase in UK food supply (this is bad for our environment btw) but there’s no reason to think this would offset the damage to the consumer done by increasing the cost of imported food.
Finally its not where the food came from that determines its carbon footprint (this is minor) its which foods we choose to eat. If we want cheaper, more sustainable, healthier food we should be advocating for a return to the single market/customs union (good point Joan) and a plant based diet.
@Tristan
The Netherlands produces the equivalent * of more than 100% of its equivalent calories.
I do not see why it is impossible in the UK, which has a similar climate and 0.25Ha of agricultural land per person rather than ~0.08Ha as in the Netherlands.
* I’m ignoring the bananas turnips etc substitutions.
I agree we should return to the single market and customs union as well Richard but the political reality is that currently we are not, so therefore I think it is reasonable for Sarah to be saying these things.
@ Matt Wardman
“The Netherlands produces the equivalent * of more than 100% of its equivalent calories”.
I’ve had a poke around the web but can’t kfnd a source for this . I can find quite a lot of related things, like ” the Dutch have 1% of the land but produce 6% of the Eu’s food” and “the Dutch are the world’s second biggest agricultural exporter by value.”
The Dutch concentrate on high value high intensity farming: lots of greenhouses, veal, poultry (4th largest exporter in the world. If the welfare standards are acceptable that’s OK, but the protein (especially white meat and eggs) depends on big imports of animal feed – the Dutch produce about 10% of the wheat and barley they need both for this and for human consumption.. To grow these you need broad acres.
The Dutch grow and trade and they do it very well, but I’d say Holland is not a country that’s self sufficient in calories.
Further, the Dutch have big problems with nitrogen run offs from the agricultural industry. Think the River Wye but in all the canals.
On the horticultural side many of those products (tomatos etc) are grown in heated greenhouses. A few years ago there was debate as to whether importing from Italy and/or Spain resulted in lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to home grown. The equations may well be changing as renewable energy becomes more abundant and cheaper – but it isn’t simple.
Is it time that we looked again at food miles? If we made it a mandatory labelling requirement and simplified how it was measured it could become a key measure of what people bought at their local supermarket. It would also enhance a sense of connection between what we eat and the land from which it comes.