Do we need to rethink our food security?

1 May 2026

a herd of sheep standing on top of a lush green field

Ben Reynolds

Ben Reynolds is Executive Director at the Institute for European Environmental Policy UK, prior to which he worked at Sustain the alliance for better food and farming for almost 20 years.

Whilst the link between rising food prices and the conflict in Iran may have only just begun to trouble front pages, it has been common knowledge amongst those working in food and farming. Much of the production and transport of the food we eat is reliant on artificial fertilisers and oil. UK production is dependent on the Middle East for import of these key inputs [1], whilst it also affects production of food we import, both through higher costs and limited availability affecting crop yields.

Different national responses are intriguing. Farmer protests against fuel price increase in Ireland have resulted in large Government aid packages [2], but these protests have not been seen in Britain. . At least not yet. On wider energy costs, the UK Government, to its credit is sticking to their guns to use this crisis to speed up the energy transition to clean energy [3]. The phrase ‘never waste a good crisis’ comes to mind. But is a similar transition in food and farming on the cards?

A new report from the National Preparedness Council [4] lays out a series of options for how the UK might respond to fertiliser prices rises. Simply put these are: stockpile; free market rules; subsidise; or shift away from artificial fertilisers. It’s not clear which (combination) of these Government is looking to back, but the lack of vision on this compared to wider energy transition is clear. As report co-author Professor Tim Lang has stressed in this and other reports, this is part of a wider need for the UK to seriously consider its preparedness and moreover food resilience. And he chooses this phrase carefully.

Food security means different things to different people - whether it be a focus on household access to food, or for short term self-sufficiency regardless of the environmental costs and future yield decline [5]. A better approach may come from a focus on food resilience. This framing attempts to better consider the long term factors that would see an increase in regenerative, organic or nature friendly farming, and also a move away from over-reliance of fragile and overconcentrated supply chains towards a greater diversity of everything from farms, to manufacturers and retailers, but also crucially what we produce – seeds, breeds, etc, alongside better consideration of where we grow it, and where it goes – which, in part, means what we eat.

Whilst this provides an alternative vision responding to the crises of Covid, Ukraine and now Iran, it may also hold the key to a more fundamental crisis in the form of climate change [6]. Many of the actions proposed within a vision for a more resilient food system are those that support mitigation and adaption to climate change – particularly supporting the transition to more climate-resilient farming [7], reducing waste and building more circular food systems [8], and a shift to less but better meat and dairy [9].

What might the Government do about this?

Notably in talking about the current Iran crisis, the Prime Minister also talks about building resilience. But central to the plan to reduce food prices is the agri-food deal with the EU as part of the Reset, which would in theory increase supply of cheaper food from the continent for British shelves. This may provide some short-term boon, but is not a long-term solution to global crises. Previous LCEF blogs have made the case for an increased public appetite for a more interventionist approach by Government on food [10]. It’s unlikely that the further implementation of the (English) Food Strategy will amount to much if it doesn’t include something of the legislative clout that many, Prof Lang included, are calling for [11]. Might the scale of this crisis prompt Government to put in place the investment, targets, monitoring and enforcement and public engagement needed? Or will they double down in underpinning an increasingly strained status quo?