Rethinking Agricultural and Food Policy 9781800881211, 1800881215

Citation preview

Rethinking Agricultural and Food Policy

RETHINKING POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES This series is a forum for innovative scholarly writing from across all substantive fields of political science and international studies. The series aims to enrich the study of these fields by promoting a cutting-edge approach to thought and analysis. Academic scrutiny and challenge is an essential component in the development of political science and international studies as fields of study, and the act of re-thinking and re-examining principles and precepts that may have been long-held is imperative. Rethinking Political Science and International Studies showcases authored books that address the field from a new angle, expose the weaknesses of existing concepts and arguments, or ‘re-frame’ the topic in some way. This might be through the introduction of radical ideas, through the integration of perspectives from other fields or even disciplines, through challenging existing paradigms, or simply through a level of analysis that elevates or sharpens our understanding of a subject. Titles in the series include: Rethinking International Relations Bertrand Badie Rethinking International Political Economy Benjamin J. Cohen Rethinking Environmental Security Simon Dalby Rethinking Agricultural and Food Policy Wyn P. Grant

Rethinking Agricultural and Food Policy Wyn P. Grant Emeritus Professor of Politics, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, UK

RETHINKING POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Wyn P. Grant 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2022937629 This book is available electronically in the Political Science and Public Policy subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800881211

ISBN 978 1 80088 120 4 (cased) ISBN 978 1 80088 121 1 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Contents List of tablesvi Prefacevii 1

Introduction: what needs to be rethought?

2

How food reaches the plate: the structure of the food chain

22

3

Consumer demand and producer responses

42

1

4 Globalization

62

5

The role of the state

80

6

Plant and animal health and welfare

100

7

Climate change

119

8

Conclusions: selecting priorities

137

References155 Index170

v

Tables 1.1

Private actors associated with food

2

1.2

Exceptionalism and post-exceptionalism

3

1.3

Producer support estimate as a percentage of gross farm receipts

7

1.4

Producer support estimates

9

2.1

Concentration in UK vet practices

32

5.1

CAP expenditure share of ten leading recipient member states 2021

92

vi

Preface I have worked on agricultural and food policy for almost 50 years and have sought to lend what support I could to a policy reform agenda. The challenges that are now faced, particularly that of climate change, are even more serious than those in the past and I therefore welcomed the opportunity provided by this Edward Elgar Publishing series to see what radical solutions might be feasible. I have always tried to pursue an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the food chain. Political scientists working in the area have always been a small and select band, and I have relied on the insights of agricultural economists and rural sociologists. The Research Councils’ Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU) enabled me to work with natural scientists on two projects. One was on biological forms of plant protection with Dr David Chandler and other collaborators, whilst that of the governance of livestock diseases was headed by Professor Graham Medley. I also benefited from the insights of other research projects in the programme, and in particular from the overall leadership of the late Professor Philip Lowe, who is sadly missed. I try as often as possible to visit farmers and growers in a variety of businesses to see the challenges they face at first hand, and I am grateful for the time they have made available to me to tour their businesses and to talk to them about the options for more sustainable forms of production. My partner Margaret Hitchcocks patiently tolerated the time and energy I expended on writing this book. Wyn Grant Leamington Spa, December 2021

vii

1. Introduction: what needs to be rethought? Food is at the very centre of life itself. It is the means by which we sustain ourselves, but it is much more than that. The way in which we consume it has a considerable effect on our health and well-being, for example in relation to obesity. It provides the setting for convivial gatherings with family and friends. The food we eat and the way in which we consume it is an expression of cultural preferences and values. The way in which it is produced raises profound ethical issues, in particular about the treatment of animals as sentient beings. Food production has a considerable impact on the environment and in turn is impacted upon by the environment, notably in relation to climate change. There is an increasing recognition that the production and consumption of food needs to be considered holistically, what the European Union (EU) terms a Farm to Fork Strategy. The importance of food means that it has been a long-term interest of governments which have intervened in food production in a variety of ways. This intervention has often been broader and deeper than in other sectors of the economy, and has occurred even in countries that engage in relatively little market intervention. It has led to a pattern of agricultural ‘exceptionalism’ in terms of institutions and policy, although that has experienced some erosion in the 21st century. Because of their tendency to be organized in distinct silos serving particular purposes or clienteles, governments have found it difficult to tackle the challenges associated with food in the holistic way that they require. A study of food policy in the United Kingdom (UK) found that 16 different departments were involved, although seven of these were of key importance. ‘Food policy-making is thus not only dispersed, but can also be opaque’ (Parsons, Sharpe and Hawkes, 2020, p. 8). Policy has too often been fragmented and even contradictory. It is possible to become overly preoccupied with government policy which often fails to achieve its objectives because of the use of inadequate or insufficiently targeted policy instruments. It is easy to overlook the host of private actors associated with the production and consumption of food. These are many and varied (see Table 1.1), and very often public policy objectives or substitutes for them are achieved by private actors. 1

2

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Table 1.1

Private actors associated with food

Production of food The farmer Served by input industries: machinery suppliers; seed suppliers; fertilizers and agrochemicals; veterinary medicine; labour providers; farm finance. Knowledge providers: academic researchers; state advisers; agronomists; vets. Processing of food Traders Food processors Consumption of food Air freight, shipping and haulage Caterers Retailers The individual consumer

At the core of this book is an argument that there are four principal drivers of change in food and agriculture. The first of these is the structure of the industry itself, ranging from the individual farmer and the input and output industries they are served by, through processors and traders, to caterers and retailers. Second is technology, which has had a transformative effect on food production and offers considerable, although sometimes overstated, potential for the future. Third are changing patterns of consumer demand, in part driven by increased prosperity and higher levels of knowledge about food. Fourth is the role of the state and a variety of international governance bodies.

FROM EXCEPTIONALISM TO POST-EXCEPTIONALISM The policy framework within which agriculture and food production has operated in the 21st century has changed substantially; indeed this process began in the 20th century. Agricultural policy could once be characterized as ‘exceptional’ (Grant, 1995). What this meant was that agriculture was treated differently from other sectors of the economy, with the whole emphasis on the primary production end of the food chain. Agriculture benefited from distinctive policies which included high levels of subsidy and protection even in otherwise market-oriented economies. It had a distinctive set of institutions concerned with its needs. This was underpinned by a set of ideas that justified this special treatment. Agriculture formed a distinctive ‘policy community’ with a relatively unchanging set of participants and agreed ‘rules of the game’. High entry barriers, aided by the complexity of policy, made it difficult for out-

Introduction: what needs to be rethought?

Table 1.2

3

Exceptionalism and post-exceptionalism

Exceptionalism

Post-exceptionalism

Distinctive institutions concerned with the perceived

Some erosion of distinctive institutions

needs of agriculture Substantial subsidies to agriculture

Some reduction in subsidies

Policy instruments for delivering subsidies are

Policy instruments ‘decoupled’ from production

market distorting, e.g., providing artificial floor to market Principal policy objective to maximize production

Other policy objectives, particularly environmental, assume a greater importance

Limited range of interests admitted to policy

Wider range of interests admitted to policy

community, principally farmers

community, including environmentalists

Agriculture outside international trade system

Agriculture brought within international trade system

Specialist commodity boards, e.g., for milk

Switch to a contract-based system

Specialist institutions for providing agricultural

Agricultural finance provided by general banking

finance

system or other providers

Favourable tax treatment

Most favourable tax arrangements remain in place

System of distinctive agricultural education and

Some institutions are closed, merged or experience

training institutions

budget reductions

National media television programmes devoted to

Television programmes address a ‘countryside’

agriculture

agenda that appeals to an urban audience

siders to exercise any influence on policy. The overall emphasis was ‘productionist’, that is, maximizing production as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Exceptionalism has given way to post-exceptionalism. What this means is that policy has become less distinctive, along with special institutional arrangements. The result is a more fragmented and less coherent policy landscape. New opportunities are created for private regulation by firms or specially created bodies, or through forms of co-regulation between the private sector and government. Exceptional features have not disappeared altogether, but their importance has diminished. New considerations, such as environmental impacts, have entered into the policy calculus. It should be added that this process has not proceeded at an even pace between countries or even within countries. Table 1.2 attempts to summarize the principal differences between exceptionalist and post-exceptionalist policy paradigms. Two notes of caution are necessary. The exceptionalist paradigm represents a relatively steady state where any change is usually incremental. The post-exceptionalist paradigm is much less stable and more dynamic. In many cases it is still in transition and has not reached an end state that can be accurately characterized. Second, it is important to distinguish between changes in the policy discourse and policy

4

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

outcomes. For example, it may be claimed that agricultural policy has undergone a process of ‘greening’, but the policy instruments used may be largely symbolic and have little effect on measureable environmental outcomes. What were the principal justifications advanced for the exceptional treatment of agriculture? The first is that ‘agricultural producers are faced with unacceptable natural risks’ (Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017, p. 1568). For all the advances in agronomy, the weather still has a substantial impact on farm production, particularly of crops. If the weather is too cold or too hot, too wet or too dry, this has a substantial impact on levels and quality of output (for example, more energy may be needed to be used to dry grain). This is particularly the case if the weather is unfavourable at the time of planting and early growth, or at harvesting. Storm damage can have a particularly serious impact at harvest time. Climate change is increasing the incidence of unpredictable changes in the weather. It has been argued that the best policy response is for farmers to insure themselves against severe weather events, but in practice the premiums could be too high to make it worthwhile. Selling crops forward at an agreed price can provide some security, but the opportunity to sell at a higher price at the time of production may be missed, or it may even be difficult to produce the agreed quantity. Pests and diseases can also ravage crops. To some extent their impact has been reduced by the availability of an armoury of synthetic plant protection products, with farmers advised on the type of product to be used and when to apply it by private sector agronomists. However, some of the more useful products have been banned because of judgements about their harmful effects. For example, neonicotinoids were crucial to successful oil seed rape (canola) production, but were banned by the EU because of what was claimed to be their harmful effect on bee populations. As a consequence, there was a substantial reduction in oil seed rape plantings, and this had an effect on agronomy as it was a very useful break crop. Genetically modified crops can give protection against insect pests, but are themselves highly controversial. The second justification advanced for exceptionalism was that ‘in a growing economy farm incomes may be chronically low’ (Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017, p. 1568). In Europe this led to a broader concern that relatively impoverished small-scale farmers might become a source of support for political movements of the extreme right or left. Of course, there has been a substantial substitution of capital for labour in agriculture, and displaced farm labourers have been able to move into less arduous and more lucrative occupations in other sectors of the economy. Subsidizing farm production is also a highly inefficient way of overcoming the farm income problem, as the bulk of the subsidies go to larger-scale farmers who have less need of them. Ideally subsidies would be used for investment that would improve the productivity of the farm business,

Introduction: what needs to be rethought?

5

thus generating a higher income, but in practice they are often diverted into consumption. The third justification for exceptionalism is that it contributes to food security. At the time of the formation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Cold War context led to concerns about the reliability of supplies arriving by sea, given that Europe was then a net importer of food. Farmer organizations often equate farm security with a high level of domestic self-sufficiency, but the debate about food security has widened beyond this narrow productionist objective. Food security concerns might be justified if a country was reliant on one external supplier to make up a shortfall in domestic production, but in practice this is never the case. Nevertheless, those writing from a radical perspective consider that it deserves to be taken seriously (Lang, 2021). This argument is returned to below. Daugbjerg and Feindt (2017) distinguish between three forms of post-exceptionalism, depending on how the four dimensions of ideas, institutions, actors and policies line up. The best chance for post-exceptionalism becoming stable and enduring is when the four dimensions line up and changes complement one another in a pattern of mutual reinforcement. This produces what they term ‘complementary post-exceptionalism’, in which policy reform is accompanied by redesigned policy instruments and the layering of new policies on top of existing ones. A key element here is a move from an exclusive policy community to an inclusive policy network that ‘needs to provide real inclusion of the new policy actors in decision making rather than merely positioning them at the margins of the network’ (Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017, p. 1579). However, in many cases alignment of the four policy dimensions may not be achieved, with tense post-exceptionalism the result. This means that there is ‘a transitional constellation in which a mixture of old and new ideational, institutional, interest group and policy components co-exists in an unbalanced way, which undermines its political viability’ (Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017, p. 1579). This is what Attorp and McAreavey (2020, p. 309) consider happened in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland, with political viability undermined ‘due to unbalanced power held by different actors’. A third real possibility is ‘reversal back to old exceptionalism’ (Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017, p. 1579). Maintaining the momentum for change may be difficult as policy attention moves elsewhere. The passage of time can ‘work in favour of dissatisfied old client groups and provides opportunities for reversing the incomplete reform’ (Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017, p. 1580). Another way of looking at this is in terms of a ‘shallow exceptionalism’ represented by the inclusion of new actors and institutions alongside policy instruments representing change, but the ideas around redistribution and farm subsidies remaining intact (Greer, 2017, p. 1599).

6

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

‘Post-exceptionalism is not a straightforward concept and there is no consensus in the literature on exactly what it is’ (Attorp and McAreavey 2020, p. 303). Its very ambiguity offers opportunities for the powerful to secure policy leverage and legitimacy. In their analysis, Attorp and McAreavey found a shift of power from primary producers to corporate business, specifically food processors and retailers. The next section examines three areas in which there have been significant changes in policies, policy instruments and institutions. However, this does not mean that there has not been an incomplete and fragile transition to post-exceptionalism.

THE EROSION OF EXCEPTIONALISM Levels of Subsidy As is evident from Table 1.3, levels of subsidy as a percentage of gross farm receipts have declined significantly over time, a process that started in the late 1980s. The overall Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figure fell from 38 per cent in 1986 to 18 per cent in 2019, although that is still a significantly higher figure than would be found in other economic sectors. The EU figure has fallen from nearly 40 per cent to under 20 per cent; and the United States figure has halved. Japan still has a high level of subsidy, but it has fallen by a third. The figures for Norway and Switzerland remain high, but they have substantial areas of remote and mountainous farming that could not survive without generous subsidies. Subsidies in Australia appear to have almost disappeared, but a note of caution is necessary. Policies to relieve drought may not be as straightforward as they seem, as the definition of drought may be socially constructed rather than based on objective criteria. The OECD noted in 2020: Challenging farming conditions due to continued drought have seen increasing use of response measures such as concessions on credit, water rates, fodder transport subsidies and additional ad hoc  payments. These contrast with the past approach aimed at strengthened farm resilience to drought as a normal farming condition and may encourage risk-taking by producers. (OECD, 2020a)

One also has to be aware of ‘beneath the radar’ interventions below the federal government level: ‘some state and territory governments continued to employ measures that may encourage risk-taking by producers, including the provision of fodder transport subsidies, water transport subsidies, and other ad hoc payments’ (OECD, 2019, p. 126). New Zealand removed all subsidies to agricultural producers as part of its post-1984 reforms. Prior to those reforms, New Zealand had a relatively high

7

Introduction: what needs to be rethought?

Table 1.3

Producer support estimate as a percentage of gross farm receipts 1986 (%)

1990 (%)

Australia

Country and international bodies

13

8

2019 (%) 2

Canada

38

33

9

European Union

39

33

19

Japan

65

52

41

New Zealand

20

2

30Mbps), compared to 87% of the households in the EU’ (European Commission, 2021d, p. 6). In developing countries, improving transport infrastructure to improve access to supplies and markets can bring considerable benefits. Even simple measures such as upgrading rural footpaths to villages to allow access for motorcycle taxis can be helpful (Jenkins, Peters and Richards, 2020). Crops and Climate Change The way in which crops are grown and harvested can contribute to climate change mitigation. Drones can assist the more efficient and hence reduced application of fertilizers, which are the main source of nitrous oxide emissions. The sequestration of carbon in soil opens up the possibility of carbon farming. Big companies are seeing marketing and profit opportunities, with BASF launching a Global Carbon Farming Program from 2022. This will use products and services from across BASF’s portfolio, ‘from seeds, traits, innovative chemical and biological crop protection products, to digital farming and fertilizer management solutions … It will help farmers to reduce on-farm emissions and sequester more carbon into the soil’ (AgriBusiness Global, 2021). For carbon farming to be widely adopted, trusted methods of measurement need to be established so that purchasers can be satisfied that they are getting value for money. Regenerative agriculture aims to improve or restore soils that have been degraded by rebuilding soil organic matter and increasing soil biology. The most important current trend arising from it has been the shift toward minimum tillage on arable farms. However, many farmers are sceptical, and so far it has only been adopted by a minority of farmers. Some see regenerative farming as going back in time, with its emphasis on rotations, diversity and livestock integration. In the longer run, simple lightweight tractors utilizing

Conclusions: selecting priorities

147

Global Positioning System (GPS) technology can help to reduce compaction risks, thereby improving soil health. Food is the end product of a system that uses water, fuel and energy that is wasted if the food is not eaten. If global food waste were a country, it would come third for greenhouse gas emissions, after China and the United States (US). Although food waste is a big problem, it is a way in which gains can be undertaken quickly to help mitigate climate change. However, this is reliant on changes in consumer behaviour in such areas as planning food buying to avoid overpurchasing; understanding food labels so that food that could still be eaten is not thrown away too quickly; using leftovers; and recycling food that cannot be used. Many of these actions are relatively simple and save the consumer money, but time pressures and a lack of knowledge can prevent consumers undertaking them. Poorer consumers may be helped by gleaning discarded crops that do not meet presentation standards. Retailers might also be encouraged to relax these presentation standards, although they may see that as a threat to their profit model. Indeed, it has been argued that their model of operation has negative consequences. ‘At its worst, long-life items are transferred to store cupboards in consumers’ homes and then left unused; empty calories are stored in bodies; and fresh foods go into bins’ (Jack, 2021, p. 18). Pollution and Biodiversity The world food system is the ‘biggest single driver of biodiversity and habitat loss’ (Nature Conservancy, 2021, p. 10). A novel way of thinking about this issue is in terms of ‘foodscapes; which are to be found across the globe wherever food is produced and which have distinctive biophysical and management attributes’. Some 80 foodscapes have been identified ranging from semi-arid grazing systems present on all continents to very small, confined areas. They are intended to provide a bridge between global transitions and local contexts. ‘Defining and mapping foodscapes makes it easier to envision which nature-based solutions are most relevant to the transition the foodscape will need to make to accommodate demand, conserve ecosystems and the services they provide, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions’ (Nature Conservancy, 2021, pp. 10-11). Positive linkages are possible between different policy actions. Some of the measures taken to mitigate climate change also have other beneficial environmental effects. For example, if fertilizer use is targeted and reduced, this has an impact on the pollution of rivers and streams. Eutrophication, or excessive plant and algal growth, in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems has been accelerated by the discharge of artificial fertilizers. Pesticides have been area of major concern, particularly in terms of their potential impact on beneficial insects such as pollinating bees. The argument

148

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

was made in Chapter 6 that natural biological alternatives offer a more environmentally friendly means of plant protection, but they have been held back by market considerations and also by the regulatory limitations of approval systems designed for synthetic pesticides. Given that relatively small firms are principally involved in the development of these products, their political constituency is weakly developed, although there has been some coalition-building with environmental groups. The proactive approach taken in the US towards biologicals needs to be replicated elsewhere, for example by the creation of an EU-wide agency dedicated to their promotion and regulatory approval. In some ways the issue of biodiversity, involving threats of species extension and habitat loss, is trickier to tackle than climate change. This is ‘because there does not exist a universal biodiversity indicator like the carbon dioxide equivalent for climate so no reference values are available to set up a tax and subsidy scheme’ (Dupraz and Guyomard, 2019, p. 23). The EU’s biodiversity strategy for 2030 seeks to provide a comprehensive and long-term plan to protect nature and reverse the degradation of ecosystems. The strategy aims to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. As a regulatory state, the EU has to admit that ‘protecting and restoring nature will need more than regulation alone’ (European Commission, 2021e, p. 3). The plan is built around a coherent network of protected areas; restoring ecosystems; and stepping up the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation. The implementation and enforcement gap has been a long-term problem (Grant, Matthews and Newell, 2000). In part this is because the EU mimics the German federal system in which implementation is a second-tier task. It is admitted that ‘although legislation is fit for purpose, implementation on the ground is lagging behind. This is having dramatic consequences on biodiversity and comes with a substantial economic cost’ (European Commission, 2021e, p. 15). Whether the proposed new biodiversity governance framework will overcome these challenges remains to be seen. Animal Welfare The debate about animal welfare has become more sophisticated and is placing greater demands on actors in the food chain. The increasing acceptance of the concept of animal sentience changes the terms of the debate. It makes it more difficult to see animals just as commodities, valued only in monetary terms. However, once again the development of new thinking does not translate readily into effective new policies. If one stands back from the debate on animal welfare, one is left with the impression that no doubt genuine expressions of concern reflected, for example, in surveys of public attitudes are not matched by effective action. In part this is because it is difficult to be ‘against’ animal welfare, but favourable

Conclusions: selecting priorities

149

sentiments do not necessarily lead to positive changes in practice. No doubt individual livestock keepers do their best to create and maintain high standards of animal welfare, assisted by the professional advice available from vets integrated in farm management teams. However, they are understandably concerned that having incurred additional costs to pursue higher standards, they are undercut by imports from countries not required to achieve equivalent standards. Consumers can potentially influence and reward higher standards, but there are limits to their willingness to pay a price premium. Retailers and caterers can play an important role in supporting higher welfare standards, demonstrating once again that private governance arrangements can complement the role of the state. However, where legislation is relatively underdeveloped, as in the United States, it does leave a policy vacuum. It is important to note that climate change could have important impacts on animal welfare, not least in developing countries. Among the many environmental and other challenges facing the food chain, it is important that animal welfare is not relegated to something that is seen as desirable but is not given sufficient attention by policy-makers. Non-governmental organizations have an important role to play in keeping animal welfare issues alive in terms of attention by the public and policy-makers. Many of the components of a food quality paradigm require a substantial change in the way in which public money is used to support agriculture and food systems. There has been some greening of policy at the edges. Nevertheless, ‘Only a fraction of subsidies support production practices that are good for climate and nature’ (WWF, 2021b, p. 2). The transition away from modes of support that simply underpin production and policy has to be carefully managed to avoid damage to farm businesses. However, they would benefit from increased funding for innovative technologies, different ways of farming, carbon sequestration and knowledge exchange. Institutional Architecture Securing change in agricultural and food policy requires an appropriate institutional architecture that is fit for purpose at domestic and international level. Institutions matter because they are the context in which policies are designed and implemented. They develop their own cultures which influence the selection of policies and the instruments used to put them into effect. Substantial reform of institutional arrangements is required. Tasks have to be divided up within government for practical organizational reasons, but it is important to think carefully about how this is done. Departments can too easily retreat into silos where they defend their own turf, and effective coordination arrangements are important. The internal prioritization of tasks within departments

150

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

also needs to be considered; for example, the relatively low priority given to preventive health measures in many government health departments. Paradoxically, attempts to give climate change a higher priority in government structures may not help the integration of agriculture and food into mitigation policies. The new German Coalition Government formed in December 2021 set up a new economy and climate change super-ministry, admittedly in part in response to the politics of constructing a three-party coalition. It was evident that, in line with the parameters of the climate change debate, the focus of this ministry would be on fossil fuels, phasing out coal power stations and increasing renewable generation, as well as increasing the numbers of electric cars. Action on agriculture and food was not on the agenda. It could be argued that this was a task for the federal Food and Agriculture Ministry headed after December 2021 by a vegetarian Green, Cem Özdemir. His initial pronouncements seemed intended to reassure farmers rather than setting out a climate change agenda. It may be necessary to reach beyond traditional department and ministry structures to stimulate new and innovative agriculture and food policies. One interesting model is the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), set up in the UK in 2008 and inspired by the success of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England. ‘Both have a strong, forward-looking remit, which involves technical decisions made by expert members within a process that is made transparent through the use of publicly available minutes’ (McGregor, Swales and Winning, 2012, p. 468). Although it is primarily an advisory body, reporting to the UK Government, Parliament and the devolved administrations, it also undertakes monitoring and effectively guides policy. Its pronouncements are seen as legitimate and evidence-based. They help to shape the policy debate and to move it forward. Reflecting the nature of the climate change debate, it took over a decade for the Climate Change Committee to tackle agriculture and food. In January 2020 a report ‘Land use: policies for a net-zero UK’ was published (Climate Change Committee, 2020). This was the CCC’s first ever in-depth advice on UK agricultural and land use policies. The report included a detailed range of options, including: increasing tree planting; encouraging low-carbon farming practices; restoring peatlands; encouraging bioenergy crops; and reducing food waste and consumption of the most carbon-intensive foods. None of these recommendations was particularly original or innovative, but they served the purpose of highlighting what needed to be done. In any case, the interest is to be found not in the particular policy recommendations, but in what a body of this kind could achieve. National governments could set up Committees on the Food Chain made up of experts from a range of backgrounds in the natural and social sciences. Relevant areas of expertise would include economics, sociology, agronomy, life sciences, climate change,

Conclusions: selecting priorities

151

diet and nutrition. Such committees could develop comprehensive and authoritative strategies that would give a rather disparate debate greater focus and provide a basis for action. Some tinkering has taken place at the national level with agriculture ministries, in terms of either rebadging them or including a wider range of functions. A general lack of integration with health policy continues to be a problem. In part this reflects the relative neglect of preventive policy by health departments in favour of tackling immediate challenges in terms of acute and chronic health. There would be no point in merging even the food divisions of agriculture ministries with health departments, as they would simply be submerged, but there need to be stronger coordination arrangements between health and agriculture departments. Food and agriculture ministries should have a junior minister responsible for health, nutrition and diet. It has been suggested that each government department should have a rural policy division. In particular, this would help with the revitalization of the rural economy as some farming activities were scaled back as a result of lower conventional support levels or policies related to climate change mitigation. Although such divisions might help to ensure that the specific needs of rural areas were taken into account, they would be apart from the main missions of most departments and hence risk being marginalized. The success of institutions ultimately depends on the skill and commitment of the people working within them. The tasks to be faced in devising and implementing better food policy are complex and challenging. ‘Inadequate human and leadership capabilities on the ground are holding back the ability to implement real change. Greater human resource for implementation is essential at the local, national, regional and global levels’ (Hawkes, 2021). One source of encouragement is the development of specialist postgraduate programmes in food policy in higher education, creating new forms of expertise. International Governance Arrangements Economic globalization has not been matched by the development of political structures that can provide a regulatory framework, hence the development of private governance arrangements such as GlobalGAP. The food chain operates on a global basis and many of the challenges that the food system faces such as climate change are international in character. There is a good knowledge base on the global food chain and its environmental impacts, with the FAO and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) playing key roles in information gathering and analysis, facilitating the globalization of ideas about agricultural and food policy. The development of the producer subsidy equivalent (PSE) by the OECD, later the producer support estimate, drew attention to the sheer size of

152

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

agricultural subsidies and raised questions about whether they offered value for money. ‘The OECD PSE database provides the highest quality of consistent cross-country data on agricultural policies and levels of agricultural support available’ (OECD, 2019, p. 8). This data has permitted a fine-grained analysis of the environmental impact of particular agricultural support policies. The analysis found that ‘negative impacts on GHG emissions for two of the most coupled forms of support policies (market price support and payments based on input use), with emissions increasing in every single situation for each of these policies in both model frameworks’ (OECD, 2019, p. 36). Information of this kind can help policy-makers to avoid the most negative impacts of agricultural support policies. The FAO seeks to enable countries to design and make adjustments to their national food security and nutrition strategies, with a particular focus on governance and the incorporation of the human right to food. The organization identifies 33 major policy themes, ranging from access to rural finance through ‘climate smart agriculture’, to trade policy. It could be argued that this approach falls into the familiar trap of identifying too many priorities, so that resources and attention are stretched. The performance of the FAO has been criticized on a number of grounds. It has been argued that it is conservative and slow to adapt to change, including new agendas. It has been criticized for slow performance and for a heavy and costly bureaucracy that has become increasingly politicized. NGOs have criticized the way in which it has used the term ‘climate smart agriculture’. ‘They worry that, despite their promising-sounding name, the technologies being promoted are ultimately socially unjust and environmentally harmful, and while they may help to protect the climate in the short term, in the long run they could lead to an ecological, economic and social impasse’ (KfW, 2016). In particular, they are concerned about a focus on capital-intensive solutions that rely on resistant crops or specific fertilizers or machines. The importance of trade policy has been emphasized at a number of points in this book, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) takes an essentially liberal approach, seeking reductions in subsidies and trade barriers to make markets fairer and more competitive. ‘The Dispute Settlement Body has an important role in the world’s food and agriculture system. Most cases ‒ more than 60% from 1995 to 2014 ‒ concerned animals and animal products, vegetable products, or foodstuffs, even though these sectors represent less than 15% of world trade’ (Glauber, Laborde and Parent, 2019). Most of these disputes have involved high-income countries which account for the greater proportion of agricultural trade. Although the WTO has made progress on specific issues such as export subsidies, the trade system still operates asymmetrically between developed and developing countries. The US and the EU retain high tariff barriers on agri-

Conclusions: selecting priorities

153

cultural goods, even making allowance for some exemptions. Environmental considerations have taken second place, with the primary objective being the maximization of GDP. More trade necessarily involves more emissions from transport. Some criticize the liberalization thrust of the WTO, others its failure to make sufficient progress on liberalization given its consensual decision-making arrangements. The World Health Organization (WHO) has as its main objectives: achieving universal health coverage; addressing health emergencies; and promoting healthier populations. Food gets scant mention in its Global Work Programme for 2019-23 in terms of reformulating products to help a healthy diet and stopping the marketing of unhealthy foods. Climate change is discussed primarily in terms of the impact on small island developing states. Covid-19 has necessarily directed the WHO’s main focus elsewhere. Unavoidably, global organizations concerned with agriculture and food have their own agendas and missions. Are they able to work together on matters of common concern? Certainly this is possible on data collection and analysis and technical questions, and this does feed into the debate on policy options. The FAO‒OECD annual Agricultural Outlook assesses the progress towards achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of international food safety standards that have been adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and is funded jointly by the FAO and the WHO. It was discussed in Chapter 4, particularly in terms of its relationship with the private governance arrangement, GlobalGAP. The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), is a joint initiative of the WTO, World Bank, FAO, WHO and the World Organization for Animal Health. It aims to assist developing countries to establish and implement sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards to ensure health protection and facilitate trade expansion. All these are useful forms of cooperation, but is there collaboration to tackle the major challenges faced by the agri-food system, such as climate change? There is no effective coordinated policy response on these issues. International organizations are divided from each other and often internally as well. Their record of effectiveness, outside of data gathering and analysis, is not impressive. Compared with the structural power of globalization, and of financialization in particular, they present a feeble picture.

CONCLUSION: GROUND FOR HOPE? The challenges for the agri-food system identified in this book are formidable. The impact of the existing system on the planet, from individual diets to climate change, is negative in many important respects. Any attempt at change faces consumer attitudes that are difficult to shift, and embedded production structures and their lobbies. The institutional architecture at domestic and

154

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

international level is deficient, but attempts to reform and revitalize it encounter inertia, defenders of the status quo and vested interests. The worst features of the exceptionalist paradigm have been challenged, but nothing coherent has taken its place, and a resurgence of exceptionalism cannot be ruled out, given the political calculus. This is not to say that there are no grounds for hope of a better future. New ideas and perspectives abound, contributed by a variety of disciplines on the basis of meticulous research. Without succumbing to technological hype, there are some interesting new technologies that offer the possibility of more environmentally friendly forms of production. Some changes are taking place in the way in which consumers view and value food. There are producers who recognize that a ‘business as usual’ model will fail in the long run, in a way that harms them as well as wider society. It is important to prioritize given resource constraints and the limits to the ability to acquire and utilize new information. Three tasks should be given priority by advocates and decision-makers. First, agriculture and food should be mainstreamed within the climate change debate, leading to appropriate policy measures that match its contribution to GHG emissions. Second, diet and nutrition have to be made central features of an integrated food policy, and this requires effective public education campaigns. Third, in order to achieve these policy objectives, institutional structures need thoroughgoing reform at domestic and international level. Such an agenda could deliver real and needed change and secure a better future for the planet and its people.

References Abbott, D.W. et al. (2020) ‘Seaweed and seaweed bioactives for mitigation of enteric methane: challenges and opportunities’, Animals, 10, 1-28. Abrahale, K. et al. (2018) ‘Street food research worldwide: a scoping review’, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietics, 32, 152-74. Abram, M. (2021) ‘Why regulatory changes are needed for biopesticides’, Farmers Weekly, 18 November, 44-6. AgriBusiness Global (2021) ‘BASF Agricultural Solutions to launch global carbon farming program’, https://​www​.agribusinessglobal​.com/​sustainability/​basf​-agricult ural-solutions-to-launch-global-carbon-farming-program/, last accessed 14 December 2021. AHDB (2021) ‘Farm business incomes increasingly reliant on direct payments’, https:// ahdb​.org​.uk/​news/​farm​-business​-incomes​-increasingly​-reliant​-on​-direct​-payments, last accessed 2 December 2021. Aldwych Partners (2020) ‘UK veterinary care – competition risk assessment’, https://​a ldwychpartners​.co​.uk/​uk​-veterinary​-care​-competition​-risk​-assessment, last accessed 22 April 2021. Allen, W.G. (1958) The Reluctant Politician, London: Christopher Johnson. Anderson, K. and W. Martin (2006) ‘Agriculture, trade reform and the Doha Agenda’, in K. Anderson and W. Martin (eds) Agriculture Reform and the Doha Development Agenda, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 3-35. Antier, C. et al. (2020) ‘Glyphosate use in the European agricultural sector and a framework for its further monitoring’, Sustainability, 12, 1-22. Arnold, N. et al. (2022) ‘Governing food futures: towards a “responsibility” turn in food and agriculture’, Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 82-6. Attorp, A. and R. McAreavey (2020) ‘Muck, brass and smoke: policy post-exceptionalism in the agri-food sector’, Journal of Rural Studies, 79, 302-10. Azcárate, T.G. (2021) ‘Looking in the rear-view mirror: changes in the Common Agricultural Policy in the first five years of EuroChoices’, EuroChoices, 20(2), 54-7. Bailey, A. et al. (2010) Biopesticides: Pest Management and Regulation, Wallingford: CABI. Barrera, E.L. and T. Hertel (2021) ‘Global food waste across the income spectrum: implications for food prices, production and resource use’, Food Policy, 98, https://​ www​.sciencedirect​.com/​science/​article/​pii/​S0306919220300762, last accessed 26 November 2021. Beacham, A.M., L.H. Vickers and J.M. Monaghan (2019) ‘Vertical farming: a summary of approaches to growing skywards’, Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 19, 277-83. Beauchemin, K.A. et al. (2020) ‘Review: fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesiis: lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation’, Animal, 14(S1), s2-s16. Bergstrom, L. and H. Kirchmann (2016) ‘Are the claimed benefits of organic agriculture justified?’, Nature Plants, 2, Article Number 16099, 1-2. 155

156

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Bloomberg Businessweek (2020) ‘Farmers fight John Deere over who gets to fix a $800,000 tractor’, https://​www​.bloomberg​.com/​news/​features/​2020​-03​-05/​farmers​ -fight​-john​-deere​-over​-who​-gets​-to​-fix​-an​-800​-000​-tractor, last accessed 7 October 2020. Blythman, J. (2005) Shopped: the Shocking Power of British Supermarkets, London: Harper Perennial. Boer, J., A. Witt and H. Aiking (2016) ‘Help the climate, change your diet: a cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society’, Appetite, 98, 19-27. Bose, J., T. Hills and D. Sgroi (2020) ‘Climate change and diet’, IZA Institute of Labour Economics Discussion Paper No. 13426. Bowles, L. (2021) ‘Agro-ecology holds the key to fighting climate change’, Farmers Weekly, 10 December, 30-31. Bown, C.P.T. and S. Keynes (2020) ‘Why Trump shot the sheriffs: the end of WTO Dispute Settlement 1.0’, Peterson Institute for International Economics Working Paper. Boyetchko, S.M. (2020) ‘Improving methods for developing new microbial pesticides’, in N. Birch and T. Glare (eds) Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds, 3-20. Brohm, D. and N. Domurath (2017) ‘The sustainability trend’, in K.G. Grunert (ed.) Consumer Trends and New Product Opportunities in the Food Sector, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 33-41. Browne, A. (2021) ‘Golden nuggets’, The Spectator, 5 June. Bryant, C. and J. Barnett (2020) ‘Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: an updated review (2018-2020)’, Applied Sciences, 10, 1-25. Bureau, J-C. and L-P. Mahé (2015) ‘Was the CAP reform a success?’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 87-135. Campbell, B.M. et al. (2016) ‘Reducing risks to food security from climate change’, Global Food Security, 11, 34-43. Carnibella, F. (2021) ‘From inflatable cows to COP 27: how can food be mainstreamed in international climate action?’, https://​foodresearch​.org​.uk/​blogs/​from​-inflatable​ -cows​-to​-cop​-27, last accessed 29 November 2021. Centre for Future Studies (2019) The Future of UK Food and Drink Wholesaling, Canterbury: University of Kent. Chadwick, D.R. et al. (2018) ‘The contribution of cattle urine and dung to nitrous oxide emissions. Quantification of country specific emission factors and implications for national inventories’, Science of the Total Environment, 635, 607-17. Chandler, D. (2021) ‘Optimising the performance of biopesticides and improving grower practice’, https://​warwick​.ac​.uk/​fac/​sci/​lifesci/​wcc/​research/​biopesticides/​ amberproject/​amberdetails/​amber​_improving​_biopesticide​_performance​.pdf, last accessed 22 October 2021. Chartres, C. (2012) ‘Water and food security’, in R. Rayfuse and N. Weisfelt (eds) The Challenge of Food Security, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 128-46. Chikri, S. and J-F. Hocquette (2020) ‘The myth of cultured meat: a review’, Frontiers in Nutrition, 7, 1-19. Chung, M.G., Y. Li and J. Liu (2021) ‘Global red and processed meat trade and non-communicable diseases’, BMJ Global Health, 6, https://​gh​.bmj​.com/​content/​ bmjgh/​6/​11/​e006394​.full​.pdf, last accessed 22 November 2021.

References

157

Clapp, J. (2007) ‘WTO agricultural negotiations and the Global South’, in D. Lee and R. Wilkinson (eds) The WTO after Hong Kong, Abingdon: Routledge, 37-55. Clapp, J. (2015) ‘ABCD and beyond: from grain merchants to agricultural value chain managers’, Canadian Food Studies, 2, 126-35. Clapp, J. (2017) ‘Responsibility to the rescue? Governing private financial investment in global agriculture’, Agriculture and Human Values, 34, 223-35. Clapp, J. and D. Fuchs (2009) ‘Agrifood corporations, global governance and sustainability: a framework for analysis’, in J. Clapp and D. Fuchs (eds) Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1-25. Clapp, J. and S.R. Isakson (2018) Speculative Harvests: Financialization, Food and Agriculture, Black Point: Fernwood. Clark, B. et al. (2017) ‘Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: a meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies’, Food Policy, 68, 112-27. Clarke, P. (2021) ‘Mini insect farms to be rolled out on Morrisons’ egg farms’, Farmers Weekly, 10 December. Clarke, R. et al. (2002) Buyer Power Competition and Power in European Food Retailing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Climate Change Committee (2020) ‘Land use: policies for a net-zero UK’, https://​ www​.theccc​.org​.uk/​publication/​land​-use​-policies​-for​-a​-net​-zero​-uk/​, last accessed 15 April 2022. Cocoa Barometer (2020) ‘Executive summary’, https://​ www​ .voicenetwork​ .eu/​ wp​ -content/​uploads/​2020/​11/​2020​-Cocoa​-Barometer​-Executive​-Summary​.pdf, last accessed 30 November 2021. Coleman, W., W. Grant and T. Josling (2004) Agriculture in the New Global Economy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Collantes, F. (2020) The Political Economy of the Common Agricultural Policy. Coordinated Capitalism or Bureaucratic Monster?, London: Routledge. Compassion in World Farming (2019) ‘Animal welfare top priority for EU citizens’, https://​www​.comp​assioninfo​odbusiness​.com/​our​-news/​2019/​05/​animal​-welfare​-top​ -priority​-for​-eu​-citizens, last accessed 1 November 2021. Connolly-Boutin, L. and B. Smit (2016) ‘Climate change, food security and livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa’, Regional Environmental Change, 16, 385-99. Cox, G., P. Lowe and M. Winter (1986) ‘Agriculture and conservation in Britain: a policy community under siege’, in G. Cox, P. Lowe and M. Winter (eds) Agriculture: People and Policies, London: Allen & Unwin, 181-215. Cromsigt, P.G.M. et al. (2018) ‘Trophic rewilding as a climate change mitigation strategy?’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, https://​ro​yalsociety​ publishing​.org/​doi/​full/​10​.1098/​rstb​.2017​.0440, last accessed 9 December 2021. Crop Health North (2021) ‘Biologicals for disease and pest control: a farmer case study’, https://​www​.crophealthnorth​.co​.uk/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2019/​03/​EdwardsGwynn​ -CropTec​-widescreen​.pdf, last accessed 22 October 2021. Crossman, R. (1976) The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister: Volume 2, London: Hamish Hamilton and Jonathan Cape. Cunningham, C. (2021) ‘Five ways to minimise methane through nutrition’, Farmers Weekly, 15 October, 40-44. Darnhofer, I. (2014) ‘Resilience and why it matters to farm management’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41, 461-84. Daugbjerg, C. and P. Feindt (2017) ‘Post-exceptionalism in public policy: transforming food and agricultural policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1565-84.

158

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Daugbjerg, C. and A. Swinbank (2008) ‘Curbing agricultural exceptionalism: the EU’s response to external challenge’, World Economy, 31, 632-52. Daum, T. and R. Birner (2020) ‘Agricultural mechanization in Africa: myths, realities and an emerging research agenda’, Global Food Security, 26, 1-10. de Haas, Y. et al. (2021) ‘Selective breeding as a mitigation tool for methane emissions from dairy cattle’, Animal, https://​www​.sciencedirect​.com/​science/​article/​pii/​ S1751731121001373, last accessed 12 November 2021. Defra (2018) ‘Moving away from direct payments’, https://​assets​.publishing​.service​ .gov​.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​attachment​_data/​file/​740669/​agri​-bill​ -evidence​-slide​-pack​-direct​-payments​.pdf, last accessed 2 December 2021. Defra (2020) Consultation on the ‘Revised National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (Plant Protection Products)’, https://​consult​.defra​.gov​.uk/​pesticides​ -future​-strategy/​sustainable​-use​-of​-pesticides​-national​-action​-plan/​supporting​ _documents/​NAP​ConsultationDocument​.pdf, last accessed 22 October 2021. Denormandie, J. and E. Köstinger (2021) ‘Declaration by the Agricultural Ministers of France and of Austria on plant-based protein, towards a European protein strategy and thereby increasing the EU’s self-sufficiency’, https://​info​.bmlrt​.gv​.at/​dam/​jcr:​ e056d439​-b736​-439d​-a0a2​-fe03a02a5e44/​Deklaration​%20EN​.pdf, last accessed 21 December 2021. Ducrot, C. et al. (2011) ‘Issues and special features of animal health research’, Veterinary Research, 42, 1-10. Dunham, W. (2018) ‘Biocontrol’s position in the global market place’, presentation to ABIM conference, Basel. Dupraz, P. and H. Guyomard (2019) ‘Environment and climate change in the Common Agricultural Policy’, EuroChoices, 18(1), 18-25. The Economist (2021a) ‘A bug’s life’, 18 September, 36. The Economist (2021b) ‘Field day’, 31 July, 50-52. Eugène, M., K. Klumpp and D. Sauvant (2021) ‘Methane mitigating options with forages fed to ruminants’, Grass and Forage Science, 76, 196-204. Euractiv (2021) ‘German commission urges phase out of CAP direct payments’, https://​ www​.euractiv​.com/​section/​agriculture​-food/​news, last accessed 8 September 2021. Eurobarometer (2016) ‘Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare’, https://​europa​ .eu/​eurobarometer/​surveys/​detail/​2096, last accessed 12 April 2022. European Commission (1991) ‘Communication of the Commission to the Council. The development and future of the CAP: Reflections Paper of the Commission’, COM (91) 100 final, Brussels. European Commission (1994) The Economics of the Common Agricultural Policy, Reports and Studies No. 5, European Economy, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community. European Commission (2007) A New Animal Health Strategy for the European Union 2007-13, Com 539 (2007), final, Brussels. European Commission (2012) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals, 2012-2015’, Brussels: COM 6 final/2. European Commission (2016) Special Eurobarometer 442. Attitudes of European towards Animal Welfare, Brussels: Directorate General for Communications. European Commission (2019a) Fertilisers in the EU: Prices, Trade and Use, Brussels: EU Agricultural Market Briefs No. 15.

References

159

European Commission (2019b) ‘Drop in fertiliser use slows down’, https://​ec​.europa​ .eu/​info/​news/​drop​-fertiliser​-use​-slows​-down​-precision​-farming​-offers​-possibilities​ -further​-reductions​-2019​-jul​-01​_en, last accessed 13 October 2020. European Commission (2020) ‘Communication from the Commission: A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system’, Brussels: COM/2020/381/final. European Commission (2021a) ‘Carbon farming’, https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​clima/​content/​ carbon​-farming​_en, last accessed 11 June 2021. European Commission (2021b) ‘EU country factsheets’, https://​ ec​ .europa​ .eu/​ info/​ food​-farming​-fisheries/​farming/​facts​-and​-figures/​performance​-agricultural​-policy/​ agriculture​-country/​eu​-country​-factsheets​-0​_en, last accessed 23 September 2021. European Commission (2021c) ‘Commission Staff Working Document. Evaluation of the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015’, Brussels: SWD(2021) 76 final. European Commission (2021d) ‘A long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas ‒ towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040’, SWD(2021) 166-7 final, https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​info/​sites/​default/​files/​strategy/​strategy​_documents/​docu ments/ltvra-c2021-345_en.pdf, last accessed 14 December 2021. European Commission (2021e) ‘Communication from the Commission EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives’, https://​eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​ resource​.html​?uri​=​cellar:​a3c806a6​-9ab3​-11ea​-9d2d​-01aa75ed71a1​.0001​.02/​DOC​ _1​&​format​=​PDF, last accessed 15 December 2021. Evans, J. and E. Terazono (2020) ‘Unilever aims for €1bm sales from plant based products by 2027’, Financial Times, 18 November. Evans, J. and E. Terazono (2021) ‘The battle for the future of milk’, Financial Times, 7 May. Evans, J. and K. Wiggins (2021) ‘Private equity’s bet on a cottage industry’, Financial Times, 21 April. Fairtrade (2020) ‘Cocoa farmers’, https://​www​.fairtrade​.org​.uk/​farmers​-and​-workers/​ cocoa/​, accessed 9 November 2020. FAO (2018) ‘Emissions due to agriculture. Global, regional and country trends 2000-2018’, https://​www​.fao​.org/​3/​cb3808en/​cb3808en​.pdf, last accessed 10 November 2021. FAO (2020) ‘FAO’s role in seeds’, http://​ www​ .fao​ .org/​ seeds/​ en/​ , last accessed 9 November 2021. FAO (2021a) Analytical Brief 31, ‘The share of agri-food systems in total greenhouse gas emissions. Global, regional and country trends 1990-2019’, https://​www​.fao​ .org/​3/​cb7514en​.pdf, last accessed 10 November 2021. FAO (2021b) ‘Food loss and food waste’, https://​www​.fao​.org/​food​-loss​-and​-food​ -waste/​flw​-data, last accessed 26 November 2021. Feehan, P. (2021) ‘Dietary change at COP26: the missing ingredient?’, https://​foodr esearch​.org​.uk/​blogs/​dietary​-change​-at​-cop26​-the​-missing​-ingredient/​, last accessed 18 November 2021. Feindt, P.H. et al. (2020) ‘How can public policies enhance the resilience of farming systems?’, presentation to the Defra and Agricultural Economics Society conference, London. Fiankor, D-D. et al. (2020) ‘Does GlobalGAP certification promote agrifood exports?’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 47, 247-72. Foy, H. (2021) ‘Russia’s turkey tycoon catches insect bug’, Financial Times, 10 May.

160

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Freidberg, S. (2017) ‘Trading in the secretive commodity’, Economy and Society, 46, 499-521. Fuchs, D. et al. (2012) ‘Food security in the era of retail governance’, in R. Rayfuse and N. Weisfelt (eds) The Challenge of Food Security: International Policy and Regulatory Frameworks, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 275-91. Fuchs, D., A. Kalafgianni and M. Arentsen (2009) ‘Retail power, private standards and sustainability in the global food system’, in J. Clapp and D. Fuchs (eds), Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 29-59. Fuchs, D., R. Meyer-Eppler and U. Hamenstädt (2013) ‘Food for thought: the politics of financialization in the agrifood system’, Competition and Change, 17, 219-33. Garnett, P., B. Doherty and T. Heron (2020) ‘Vulnerability of the United Kingdom’s food supply chains exposed by Covid-19’, Nature Food, 11, 315-18. Garzon, I. (2006) Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy: History of Paradigm Change, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Geary, T.G., G.A. Conder and B. Bishop (2004) ‘The changing landscape of antiparasitic drug discovery for veterinary medicine’, Trends in Parasitology, 20, 449-55. Georges, H. and H. Ray (2017) ‘Genome editing of crops: a renewed opportunity for food security’, GM Crops and Food, 8, 1-12. Gibbard, E. and D. Jones (2021) ‘Robotic weed control to kick off this autumn’, Farmers Weekly, 30 April, 46-7. Gibbs, S. (2021) ‘Meat-free Mondays rile Argentina’s beef farmers’, The Times, 15 May. Glauber, J.W., D. Laborde and M. Parent (2019) ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement procedure is on the verge of crisis’, International Food Policy Research Institute, https://​ www​.ifpri​.org/​blog/​wto​-dispute​-settlement​-procedure​-verge​-crisis, last accessed 21 December 2021. Glauber, J.W. and V. Smith (2021a) ‘Trends in US agricultural policy since 2000 and implications for the next twenty years’, EuroChoices, 20(2), 58-63. Glauber, J.W. and V. Smith (2021b) ‘US farm support under a Biden administration. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?’, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69, 37-43. GlobalGAP (2021) ‘A modular approach to integrated farm assurance’, https://​ globalgap​.org/​uk​_en/​for​-producers/​globalg​.a​.p/​integrated​-farm​-assurance​-ifa/​ last accessed 19 July 2021. Global Nutrition Report (2021) ‘Executive summary’, https://​ g​ lobalnutri​ tionreport​ .org/​reports/​2021​-global​-nutrition​-report/​executive​-summary/​, last accessed 16 December 2021. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (2021) ‘Policy tool’, https://​www​.glopan​.org/​policy​_tool/​, last accessed 16 December 2021. Gosnell, H., N. Gill and M. Voyer (2019) ‘Transformational adaptation on the farm: processes of change and persistence in transitions to “climate-smart” regenerative agriculture’, Global Environmental Change, 59, 1-13. Grandview Research (2020) Agriculture Equipment Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Application, https://​www​.grandviewresearch​.com/​industry​ -analysis/​agricultural​-machinery​-market, last accessed 7 October 2020. Grant, W. (1981) ‘The politics of the green pound’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 19, 313-29. Grant, W. (1995) ‘Is agricultural policy still exceptional?’, Political Quarterly, 66, 1995, 156-69.

References

161

Grant, W. (1997) The Common Agricultural Policy, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Grant, W. (2010) ‘Policy instruments in the Common Agricultural Policy’, West European Politics, 33, 22-38. Grant, W. and R. Gwynn (2020) ‘Improving regulatory approval processes for biopesticides and other new biological technologies in agriculture’, in N. Birch and T. Glare (eds) Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds, 45-60. Grant, W., D. Matthews and P. Newell (2000) The Effectiveness of EU Environmental Policy, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Greaves, J. (2009) ‘Biopesticides, regulatory innovation and the regulatory state’, Public Policy and Administration, 24, 245-64. Greer, A. (2017) ‘Post-exceptional politics in agriculture: an examination of the 2013 CAP reform’, Journal of European Public Policy, 24, 1585-603. Grunert, K.G. (2017) ‘The health trend’ in K.G. Grunert (ed.) Consumer Trends and New Product Opportunities in the Food Sector, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 15-31. Grunert, K.G. et al. (2019) ‘Well-being as a global food trend: health, sustainability and authenticity’, Danish Food Innovation paper. Haas, R. and M. Petz (2017) ‘Introduction to the food chain’, in K.G. Grunert (ed.) Consumer Trends and New Product Opportunities in the Food Sector, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 83-101. Hainmuller, J., M.J. Hiscox and M. Tampe (2011) Sustainable Development for Cocoa Farmers in Ghana, London: International Growth Centre. Hammoudi, A., R. Hoffmann and Y. Surry (2009) ‘Food safety standards and agri-food supply chains: an introductory overview’, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36, 469-78. Harvey, M., S. Quilley and H. Beynon (2002) Exploring the Tomato: Transformations of Nature, Society and Economy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hasegawa, T. et al. (2018) ‘Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy’, Nature Climate Change, 8, 699-703. Hasegawa, T. et al. (2021) ‘Extreme climate events increase risk of global food insecurity and adaptation needs’, Nature Food, 2, 587-95. Hawkes, C. (2021) ‘New global reports indicate need for greater human capacity and systems thinking’, https://​www​.​thebetterf​oodjourney​.com/​blog/​new​-global​-food​ -reports​-indicate​-imperative​-for​-greater​-human​-capacity​-and​-systems​-thinking, last accessed 16 December 2021. Hayden, M.T., R. Mattimoe and L. Jack (2021) ‘Sensemaking and the influencing factors on farmer decision-making’, Journal of Rural Studies, 84, 31-44. Heise, H. and L. Theuvsen (2018) ‘German dairy farmers’ attitudes towards farm animal welfare and their willingness to participate in animal welfare programs: a cluster analysis’, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 21, 1121-36. Henson, S. and J. Humphrey (2011) ‘Codex Alimentarius and private standards’, in B.M.J. van der Meule (ed.) Private Food Law, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 149-74. Hernandez, M.A. and Torero, M. (2013) ‘Market concentration and pricing behaviour in the fertilizer industry: a global approach’, Agricultural Economics, 44, 723-34. Hewson, J. (2003) ‘What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequences’, Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44, 496-99.

162

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Hill, B. and D. Bradley (2021) ‘Coping with risks from natural disasters on farms in Wales – does insurance have a role?’, EuroChoices, 20(2), 64-9. Hillman, J.S. (1994) ‘The US perspective’ in R.C. Hine, K.A. Ingersent and A.J. Rayner (eds), Agriculture in the Uruguay Round, London: Macmillan, 26-54. Holly, W. (2018) ‘How much does big pharma make from animal antibiotics?’, The Guardian, 19 June. Horne, S. (2020) ‘Farm business bites deeper into its borrowing facilities’, Farmers Weekly, 6 November, 18-19. Horne, S. (2021) ’More change on the way as interest in farm vet sector grows’, Farmers Weekly, 22 October, 25. House of Commons (2002) ‘Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 10th report’, para. 17, https://​publications​.parliament​.uk/​pa/​cm200102/​cmselect/​ cmenvfru/​991/​99103​.htm, last accessed 12 April 2022. IBMA (2021) ‘Biocontrol Market Size ‒ IBMA Member Survey Spring 2021’, https://​ ibma​-global​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​10/​2021​-10​-18​-IBMA​-Members​-Survey​ -2021​-Results​.pdf, last accessed 25 October 2021. IHS Markt (2020) ‘Animal health industry overview’, https://​agribusiness​.ihsmarkit​ .com/​sectors/​animal​-health/​index​.html, last accessed 19 October 2020. Ingenbleek, P.T.M. et al. (2012) ‘EU animal welfare policy: developing a comprehensive policy framework’, Food Policy, 37, 690-99. Ingram, J. (2008) ‘Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England’, Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 405-18. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (2021) ‘Launch of Regen10 at COP26’, https://​www​.iucn​.org/​news/​nature​-based​-solutions/​202111/​launch​ -regen10​-cop26, last accessed 29 November 2021. Jack, L. (2021) ‘The secrets of supermarketing: a model balanced on a knife-edge’, FRC Food Policy Discussion Paper, https://​foodresearch​.org​.uk/​publications/​the​ -supermarket​-system​-balanced​-on​-a​-knife​-edge/​, last accessed 16 December 2021. Jairath, G. et al. (2021) ‘A holistic approach to access the viability of cultured meat: a review’, Trends in Food Science and Technology, 110, 700-10. Jenkins, J., K. Peters and P. Richards (2020) ‘At the end of the feeder road: upgrading rural footpaths to motorcycle taxi-accessible tracks in Liberia’, NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 92, 1-12. Jongeneel, R. and A. Gonzalez-Martinez (2021) ‘Climate change and agriculture: an integrated Dutch perspective’, EuroChoices, 20(2), 30-36. Jorgensen, D. (2015) ‘Rethinking rewilding’, Geoforum, 65, 482-8. Kalfagianni, A. and D. Fuchs (2015) ‘Private agri-food governance and the challenges for sustainability’, in G.M. Robinson and A. Carson (eds) Handbook on the Globalisation of Agriculture, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 274-90. Kassam, D., T. Friedrich and R. Derpsch (2019) ‘Global spread of conservation agriculture’, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 76, 29-51. Kay, A. (1998) The Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, CABI: Wallingford. KfW (2016) ‘The current controversy between the FAO and NGOs regarding climate-smart agriculture’, https://​www​.kfw​-entwicklungsbank​.de/​PDF/​Download​ -Center/​PDF​-Dokumente​-Development​-Research/​2016​-08​-11​-EK​_climate​-smart​ -agriculture​_EN​.pdf, last accessed 21 December 2021.

References

163

Kiss, J. and M. Delos (2020) ‘Implementing biopesticides as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) programme’, in N. Birch and T. Glare (eds) Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds, 21-44. Kneen, B. (2002) Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies, 2nd edition, London: Pluto Press. Lacetera, N. (2019) ‘Impact of climate change on animal health and welfare’, Animal Frontiers, 9, 26-31. Lang, T. (2021) Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them, London: Pelican. Lawrence, G., S.R. Sippel and D. Burch (2015) ‘The financialisation of food and farming’, in G.M. Robinson and D.A. Carson (eds), Handbook on the Globalisation of Agriculture, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 309-27. Le Goff, U. et al. (2022) ‘Raising up to the climate challenge – understanding and assessing farmers’ strategies to build their resilience. A comparative analysis between Ugandan and Swiss farmers’, Journal of Rural Studies, 89, 1-12. Leonard, B. et al. (2017) ‘Policy drivers of farm succession and inheritance’, Land Use Policy, 61, 147-59. Lewontin, R.C. (2000) ‘The maturing of capitalist agriculture: farmer as proletarian’, in F. Magdoff, J.B. Foster and F.H. Buttel (eds) Hungry for Profit: the Agribusiness Threat to Food, Farmers and the Environment, New York: Monthly Review Press, 93-106. Liew, C.S. (2021) ‘Will indoor vertical farming address food insecurity and help meet future food demand?’, https://​www​.agribusinessglobal​.com/​markets/​will​-indoor​ -vertical​-farming​-address​-food​-insecurity​-and​-help​-meet​-future​-food​-demand/​, last accessed 1 December 2021. Loth, S. (2021) ‘The trouble with beef’, Which?, January, 32-4. Lowe, P. (2009) Unlocking Expertise: A Report on Veterinary Expertise in Food Animal Production, London: Defra, Vets and Veterinary Services Steering Group. Lynch, J. and T. Garnett (2021) ‘Policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: is agricultural methane a special case?’, EuroChoices, 20 (2), 11-16. MacDonald, G.K. et al. (2015) ‘Rethinking agricultural trade relationships in an era of globalization’, BioSciences, 65, 275-89. Maraseni, T.N. and J. Qu (2016) ‘An international comparison of agricultural nitrous oxide emissions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1256-66. Marsden T., A. Flynn and M. Harrison (2000) Consuming Interests: The Social Provision of Foods, London: UCL Press. Marteau, T.M., N. Chater and E.E. Garnett (2021) ‘Changing behaviour for net zero 2050’, British Medical Journal, 375n2293, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.1136/​bmjn2293, last accessed 18 November 2021. Martin, S.J. and J. Clapp (2015) ‘Finance for agriculture or agriculture for finance?’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 15, 549-59. Matacena, R. and P. Corvo (2020) ‘Practices of food sovereignty in England and Italy: short food supply chains and the promise of de-commodification’, Sociologia Ruralis, 60, 414-35. Matthews, A. (2018) ‘Is there a particular generational renewal problem in EU agriculture?’, http://​capreform​.eu/​is​-there​-a​-particular​-generational​-renewal​-problem​-in​ -EU​-agriculture, last accessed 26 March 2021. Matthews, A. (2021) ‘Are the COP26 climate change negotiations ready to embrace agriculture?’, EuroChoices, 20, 2, 4-9.

164

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Matthews, A. and C. Roederer-Rynning (2020) ‘Brexit complicates the EU’s efforts to reform its Common Agricultural Policy’, https://​blogs​.lse​.ac​.uk/​brexit/​2020/​02/​06/​ brexit​-complicates​-the​-eus​-efforts​-to​-reform​-its​-common​-agricultural​-policy/​, last accessed 2 December 2021. May, D., S. Arancibia and L. Manning (2021) ‘Understanding UK farmers’ Brexit voting decision: a behavioural approach’, Journal of Rural Studies, 81, 281-93. McEldowney, J., W Grant and G. Medley (2013) The Regulation of Animal Health and Welfare, Abingdon: Routledge. McGregor, P.G., J.K. Swales and M.A. Winning (2012) ‘A review of the role and remit of the committee on climate change’, Energy Policy, 41, 466-73. Meuwissen, M. et al. (2020) ‘The struggle of farming systems in Europe: looking for explanations through the lens of resilience’, EuroChoices, 19(2), 4-10. Meuwissen, M. and P.H. Feindt (2020) ‘Multiple suggestions to enhance resilience’, EuroChoices, 19(2), 3. Michl, P.R (2008) ‘Tinbergen rules the Taylor rule’, Eastern Economic Journal, 34, 293-309. Milbourne, P. and H. Coulson (2021) ‘Migrant labour in the UK’s post-Brexit agri-food system: ambiguities, contradictions and precarities’, Journal of Rural Studies, 86, 430-39. Millstone, E. and T. Lang (2003) The Atlas of Food, London: Earthscan. Moehler, R. (2015) ‘Is there a need for a mid-term review of the 2013 CAP reform?’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 531-40. Mourits, M., J. Schans and O.A. Lansok (2010) ‘Plant health policy’, in A. Oskam, G. Meester and H. Silvis (eds) EU Policy for Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 235-42. Moyer, W. and T. Josling (2002) Agricultural Policy Reform, Aldershot: Ashgate. Munshi, N. and E. Terazono (2020) ‘West Africa vs Big Chocolate: battle over price sours relations’, Financial Times, 11 December. Murphy, S., D. Burch and J. Clapp (2012) ‘Cereal secrets: the world’s largest grain traders and global agriculture’, https://​oi​-files​-d8​-prod​.s3​.eu​-west​-2​.amazonaws​ .com/​s3fs​-public/​file​_attachments/​rr​-cereal​-secrets​-grain​-traders​-agriculture​ -30082012​-en​_4​.pdf, last accessed 27 July 2021 National Audit Office (2021) The UK Border: Post UK-EU Transition Period, Summary, https://​www​.nao​.org​.uk/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​11/​The​-UK​-border​-Po st-UK-EU-transition-period.pdf, last accessed 2 December 2021. National Food Strategy (2021) The Plan, https://​www​.​nationalfo​odstrategy​.org/​, last accessed 12 November 2021. Nature (2021) ‘New rules will make UK gene-edited crop research easier’, https://​www​ .nature​.com/​articles/​d41586​-021​-01572​-0, last accessed 1 December 2021. Nature Conservancy (2021) Foodscapes: Towards Food System Transition, https://​ www​.nature​.org/​content/​dam/​tnc/​nature/​en/​documents/​TNC​_FoodscapesReport​ _ExecutiveSummary​_English​.pdf, last accessed 16 December 2021. New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade (2021), ‘EU Common Agricultural Policy aims to be “fairer, greener, more animal friendly and flexible”’, https://​www​.mfat​.govt​ .nz/​en/​trade/​mfat​-market​-reports/​market​-reports​-europe/​eu​-common​-agricultural​ -policy, last accessed 8 September 2021. NFU Mutual (2021) Diversification Report, https://​www​.nfumutual​.co​.uk/​globalassets/​ farming/​diversification/​report​-2021/​diversification​-report​.pdf, last accessed 13 July 2021.

References

165

Nicholas-Davies, S., S. Fowler and P. Midmore (2020) ‘Telling stories – farmers offer new insights into farming resilience’, EuroChoices, 19(2), 12-16. Niles, M.T. et al. (2019) ‘Policy options to streamline the carbon market for agricultural nitrous oxide emissions’, Climate Policy, 19, 893-907. OECD (2017) Evaluation of Agricultural Policy Reforms in the European Union: The Common Agricultural Policy 2014-20, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2019) Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2019, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2020a) Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2020, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2020b) Food Supply Chains and Covid-19: Impacts and Policy Lessons, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD-FAO (2016) OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Food Supply Chain, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD-FAO (2021) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Olper, A. (2008) ‘Causes and constraints of the 2003 EU Agricultural Policy reforms’, in T. Swinnen (ed.) The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 83-101. Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Packer, R. (2006) The Politics of BSE, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Parsons, K., R. Sharpe and K. Hawkes (2020) Who Makes Food Policy in England, and the Need for Coordinated Policy Making in Response to Covid, London: Centre for Food Policy. Pearson, C. (2012) ‘A fresh look at the roots of food insecurity’, in R. Rayfuse and N. Weisfelt (eds) The Challenge of Food Insecurity: International Policy and Regulatory Frameworks, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 19-43. Petz, M. and R. Haas (2017) ‘The authenticity trend’ in in K.G. Grunert (ed.) Consumer Trends and New Product Opportunities in the Food Sector, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 43-64. Pilling, D. (2021) ‘Making chocolate bars can give Ghana a taste of prosperity’, Financial Times, 3 June. Pitson, C. et al. (2020) ‘How much farm succession is needed to ensure resilience of farming systems?’, EuroChoices, 19(2), 37-44. Plumb, H. (2001) The Plumb Line, London: Greycoat Press. Poore, J. and T. Nemecek (2018) ‘Reducing food’s environmental impact through producers and consumers’, Science, 360, 987-92. Pritchard, B. and D. Burch (2003) Agri-Food Globalization in Perspective: International Restructuring in the Processing Tomato Industry, Aldershot: Ashgate. Proctor, H.S. (2012) ‘Animal sentience: where are we and where are we heading?’, Animals, 2, 628-39. Proctor, H.S., G. Carder and A.R. Cornish (2013) ‘Searching for animal sentience: a systematic review of the scientific literature’, Animals, 3, 882-906. Puri, V., A. Nayyar and L. Raja (2017) ‘Agricultural drones: a modern breakthrough in precision agriculture’, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 20, 507-18.

166

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Rani, K. et al. (2013) ‘Biological approach in biopesticides – an overview’, Elixir Agriculture, 55, 12936-40. Rao, T. and J.L. Jurat-Fuentes (2020) ‘Advances in the use of entomopathogenic bacteria/microbial control agents (MCAs) as biopesticides in suppressing crop insect pests’, in N. Birch and T. Glare (eds) Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds, 99-134. Rapp, D. (1988) How the US Got into Agriculture And Why It Can’t Get Out, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc. Rayfuse, R. and N. Weisfelt (2012) ‘An overview’, in R. Rayfuse and N. Weisfelt (eds) The Challenge of Food Insecurity: International Policy and Regulatory Frameworks, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 3-15. Reay, D.S. et al. (2012) ‘Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions’, Nature Climate Change, 410-16. Reddy, G.V.P., A. Sharma and A. Guerrero (2020) ‘Advances in the use of semiochemicals in integrated pest management: pheromones’, in N. Birch and T. Glare (eds) Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, Cambridge: Burleigh Dodds, 251-81. Reganold, J.P. and J.M. Watcher (2016a), ‘Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century’, Nature Plants, 2, Article Number 15221, 1-7. Reganold, J.P. and J.M. Wachter (2016b) ‘Reply to “Are the claimed benefits of organic agriculture justified?”’, Nature Plants, 2, Article Number 16100, 1-2. Reidsma, P. et al. (2020) ‘How do stakeholders perceive the sustainability and resilience of EU farming systems?’, EuroChoices, 19(2), 18-26. Rewilding Britain (2021) Rewilding and Climate Breakdown, https://​s3​.eu​-west​-2​ .amazonaws​.com/​assets​.rewildingbritain​.org​.uk/​images/​RB​_carbon​-report​_final​ .pdf, last accessed 9 December 2021. Reynolds, C. et al. (2019) ‘Review: consumption-stage food waste interventions – what works and how to design better interventions’, Food Policy, 83, 7-27. Richardson, K. et al. (2018) ‘Food security outcomes under a changing climate: impacts of mitigation and adaptation on vulnerability to food insecurity’, Climate Change, 327-41. Rigg, J. et al. (2020) ‘Who will tend the farm? Interrogating the ageing Asian farmer’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 47, 306-25. Riley, J. (2021) ‘Levy bodies launch toolkit to debunk myths about red meat’, Farmers Weekly, 1 October, 12. Robinson, G.M. and D.A. Carson (2015) ‘The globalisation of agriculture’, in G.M. Robinson and D.A. Carson (eds), Handbook on the Globalisation of Agriculture , Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1-28. Roederer-Rynning, C. (2015) ‘COMAGRI and the “CAP after 2013” reform: in search of a collective sense of purpose’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 331-56. Ruete, M. (2015) ‘Financing for agriculture: how to boost opportunities for developing countries’, Investment in Agriculture Policy Brief #3, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Sainsbury’s (2021) Future of Food Report, https://​www​.about​.sainsburys​.co​.uk/​~/​ media/​Files/​S/​Sainsburys/​pdf​-downloads/​futureoffood​-10c​.pdf, last accessed 11 May 2021. Salerno, T. (2017) ‘Cargill’s corporate growth in times of crises: how agro-commodity traders are increasing profits in the midst of volatility’, Agriculture and Human Values, 34, 211-22.

References

167

Saunois, M. et al. (2016) ‘The growing role of methane in anthropogenic climate change’, Environmental Research Letters, 11, 1-4. Self, P. and Storing, H. (1962) The State and the Farmer, London: George Allen & Unwin. Sell, S.K. (2009) ‘Corporations, seeds and intellectual property rights governance’, in J. Clapp and D. Fuchs (eds) Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 187-223. Shortall, O. et al. (2018) ‘True cowmen and commercial farmers: exploring vets’ and dairy farmers’ contrasting views of “good farming” in relation to biosecurity’, Sociologia Ruralis, 58, 583-603. Siegrist, M., V.H.M. Visschers and C. Hartmann (2015) ‘Factors influencing changes in sustainability perception of various food behaviors: results of a longitudinal study’, Food Quality and Preference, 46, 33-39. Smith, D.A. and Ocampo, S. (2021) ‘The evolution of US retail concentration’, BLS Working Paper 526, Washington, DC: Department of Labor. Smith, V.H. and J.W. Glauber (2019) ‘The future of US farm policy’, EuroChoices, 18(1), 42-8. South-East Farmer (2020) ‘Range of expert advice and support’, October, 32-5. Sparks, T.A. and B.A. Lorsbach (2017) ‘Perspectives on the agrochemical industry and agrochemical discovery’, Pest Management Science, 73, 672-7. Speroni, M. et al. (2015) ‘Economic impact of cross compliance in the field of animal welfare: assessment of animal welfare in two dairy farms’, Italian Journal of Agronomy, 10, 1-6. Swinbank, A. and C. Tanner (1996) Farm Policy and Trade Conflict: The Uruguay Round and CAP Reform, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swinnen, J. (2008a) ‘Introduction’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 1-8. Swinnen, J. (2008b) ‘The political economy of the Fischler Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: a perfect storm?’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Perfect Storm: The Political Economy of the Fischler Reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 135-66. Swinnen, J. (2015a) ‘An imperfect storm in the political economy of the Common Agricultural Policy’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 443-84. Swinnen, J. (2015b) ‘The political economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy: introduction and key conclusions’, in J. Swinnen (ed.) The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy, Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 1-30. Swinnen, J. (2016) ‘Economics and politics of food standards, trade and development’, Agricultural Economics, 47, 7-19. Tan, H.S.G. et al. (2015) ‘Insects as food: exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance’, Food Quality and Preference, 42, 78-89. Tan, M., F.J. He and G.A. MacGregor (2020), ‘Obesity and Covid-19: the role of the food industry’, British Medical Journal, 10 June, 1-2. Tang, C. et al. (2019) ‘Edible insects as a food source: a review’, Food Production, Processing and Nutrition, 1(8), 1-13. Tangermann, S. (1996) ‘CAP reform. What next?’, Paper presented at CREDIT conference, Nottingham.

168

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Terazono, E. (2021a) ‘Farming insects for food battles the “ick” factor’, Financial Times, 7 June. Terazono, E. (2021b) ‘Lab grown chicken start up slashes production costs’, Financial Times, 6 May. Terazono, E. and C. Hodgson (2021) ‘How methane-producing cows leapt to the frontline of climate change’, Financial Times, 10 October. Thompson, B. et al. (2018) ‘The effect of date labels on willingness to consume dairy products: implications for food waste reduction’, Waste Management, 78, 124-34. Tian, H. et al. (2020) ‘A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks’, Nature, 586, 248-55. Toma, L. (2020) ‘Tackling food waste and improving food safety to boost resilience’, presentation to the Defra and Agricultural Economics Society conference, London. Toma, L., E.C. Font and B. Thompson (2020) ‘Impact of consumers’ understanding of date labelling on food waste behaviour’, Operational Research, 20, 543-60. Trewern, J., J. Chenoweth and I. Christie (2022) ‘“Does it change the nature of food and capitalism?” Exploring expert perspectives on public policies for a transition to a “less and better” meat and dairy’, Environmental Science and Policy, 128, 110-20. Triggs, M. (2021a) ‘“Net zero” possible at last’, South East Farmer, June, 5. Triggs, M. (2021b) ‘50 years of combining: two combines for the price of a service’, South-East Farmer, September, 32-6. UK Food Statistics (2020) ‘Food Statistics in your pocket: Food Chain’, GOV.UK, www​.gov​.uk, last accessed 8 April 2021. UK-RAS Network (2018) Agriculture Robotics: The Future of Robotic Agriculture, https://​www​.ukras​.org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​01/​UKRASWP​_Agri​culturalRo​ botics2018​_online​.pdf, last accessed 10 June 2021. United Nations (2021) ‘New FAO analysis reveals carbon footprint of agri-food supply chain’, https://​news​.un​.org/​en/​story/​2021/​11/​1105172, last accessed 9 November 2021. United Nations Environment Programme (2021) Food Waste Index Report 2021, https://​www​.unep​.org/​resources/​report/​unep​-food​-waste​-index​-report​-2021, last accessed 26 November 2021. van Huis, A. (2013) ‘Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security’, Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 563-83. van Huis, A. and D.G. Ooninex (2017) ‘The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(43), 1-14. Vijn, S. et al. (2020) ‘Key considerations for the use of seaweed to reduce enteric methane emissions from cattle’, Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 1135-44. Visser, O., J. Clapp and S.R. Isakson (2015) ‘Introduction to a Symposium on Global Finance and the Agri-Food Sector: Risk and Regulation’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 15, 541-8. Voas, S. (2017) ‘Scotland’s BVD eradication scheme: an update’, Veterinary Record, 180 (18), 6 May, 451-2. Vogeler, C.S. (2021) ‘Politicizing farm animal welfare: a comparative study of policy change in the United States of America’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5-6), 526-43. Wattnem, T. (2016) ‘Seed laws, certification and standardization: outlawing informal seed systems in the Global South’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 43, 850-67. Webster, B. (2021) ‘New green farm subsidy under attack’, https://​www​.thetimes​ .co​.uk/​article/​new​-green​-farm​-subsidy​-under​-attack​-9dptg7cn8, last accessed 2 December 2021.

References

169

Wessel, M. and P.M. Foluke Quist-Wessel (2015) ‘Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments’, NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 74-5, 1-7. Wilson, G. (2005) ‘Farmers, interests and the American state’, in D. Halpin (ed.) Surviving Global Change?, Aldershot: Ashgate, 167-87. World Bank (2020) ‘Agriculture finance and agricultural insurance’, https://​ www​ .worldbank​.org/​en/​topic/​financialsector/​brief/​agricultural​-finance, last accessed 8 December 2020. WWF (2021a) The Future of Feed: a WWF Roadmap to Accelerating Insect Protein in UK Feeds, http://​www​.wwf​.org​.uk/​sites/​default/​files/​2021​-06/​The​_future​_of​_feed​ _July​_2021​.pdf, last accessed 13 July 2021. WWF (2021b) ‘The Missing Ingredient: a Food Systems Approach for a 1.5 ̊ World: A WWF Manifesto for COP26, https://​wwfint​.awsassets​.panda​.org/​downloads/​ cop26​_food​_manifesto​.pdf, last accessed 16 December 2021. WWF-WRAP (2020) Halving Food Loss and Waste in the EU by 2030: The Major Steps Needed to Accelerate Progress, Berlin: WWF. Xu, X. et al. (2021) ‘Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods’, Nature Food, 2, 724-32. Zagata, L. and L-A. Sutherland (2015) ‘Deconstructing the “young farmer” problem in Europe. Towards a research agenda’, Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 39-51.

Index agri-food companies 28 agri-food input businesses 27 agrifood markets 65 agri-food sector, in Northern Ireland 5 agri-food system 119-20, 153 Agrium 29 agrochemicals 11, 25, 27-30, 69 agroecological agriculture 135 agroecology 135 agroforestry 50 agronomists 4, 20, 30, 106, 110 agronomy 4, 30, 80, 150 algae-based meat substitutes 46 amino acids 48 animal breeding 124, 126 animal diseases 80 bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) eradication scheme 98 economic impact of 111 epidemic and zoonotic diseases 111 foot-and-mouth disease 12 rumen acidosis 124 vaccination to control 111 animal feed, production of 144 animal health and welfare 20 animal welfare programmes (AWPs) 116 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments 113 definitional issues 110-12 duty to respect all animals 112 European Commission’s Animal Health Strategy 110-11 of farm animals 112 farm animal welfare (FAW) 116 farmer-based measures for 114 farmer costs and willingness to pay for 115-17 governance of 115 health crises 12 market-based measures for 114 pig welfare 117

ABCD agricultural trading companies 74-6, 78 acidification, due to leaching of ammonia 45 Agenda 2000 reforms 88-9 agribiotechnology 28 agribusiness 65, 69, 71, 75 agricultural commodity markets, deregulation of 78 agricultural economies, in developing countries 143 agricultural education and programmes 10 agricultural exceptionalism, phenomenon of 1, 62 agricultural extension services 110 agricultural insurance 33 agricultural machinery 26 agricultural markets, financialization of 62 Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 10 agricultural products, certification of 65 agricultural trade 68-74, 72 Doha Development Round 73-4 political economy of 69 pressures for liberalization 70-71 WTO Uruguay Round (1986-93) 71-3 agricultural trading companies 62, 74-6, 78 agriculture climate-smart 51 exceptionalism in 5, 62, 70 financialization of 77-9 mechanization of 85 risk management 77 robots and drones, deployment of 53-5 in sub-Saharan Africa 122 subsidies see farm subsidies Agriculture Act (1947), UK 9-10 agriculture finance 33-4 170

Index

policy instrument regarding 113-15 public attitudes toward 112-13 standards of 115 UK’s Red Tractor scheme 114 vaccination of animals 111 veterinary medicines for 30-32 animal manure 45 animal productivity 124 animal protection laws 112 in US 113 animal protein 58, 145 animal sentience 112 concept of 148 animal welfare-friendly products 113, 117-18 animal welfare organizations 115 annual cropping systems 100 Arab Spring 139 Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) 74-5 Argentine Rural Society, The 46 artificial fertilizers 127, 147 atmospheric nitrogen 28 authenticity, concept of 49-51 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) 103 balance-of-payments 70 Bank of England 33 Monetary Policy Committee 150 BASE UK 51 BASF 30, 104, 146 Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) 8, 36, 89, 93 beef cows 124 farmers 145 production 46 beetle banks 102 ‘beneath the radar’ interventions 6 Better Origin (start-up company) 48 biocontrol technologies 106 biodiversity 34 and habitat loss 147 pollution and 147-8 bioeconomy, for climate-friendly activities 55 bioenergy crops 150 biofuel production 75 biological control agents for 102-3 meaning of 102-3

171

biological plant protection products 17 biological technology-specific crop registration pathways 109 biopesticides 101-2 active ingredients 109 best-practice guidance 107 categories of 103 comparative trials of 106 contribution to environmental protection 109 IPM 109 defined 102 delivery method 107 deployment of 105 development of 108 future prospects of 110 market demand of 104 obstacles to wider and faster adoption of levels of efficacy 104-6 market structure 103-4 need for knowledge 106-7 regulatory failures 107-9 performance of 110 political influence of 104 product development and marketing 104 regulatory framework for 107 as replacement for synthetic pesticides 110 suitability of 104 use of difficulty in 106 Genoeg schemes in the Netherlands on 110 in greenhouses and polytunnels 104 need for knowledge for 106-7 on-farm guidance and training on 110 schemes in UK on 110 Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) 108 bioprotectants 106 biotechnological revolution 28 Black River Asset Management 78 Blair House Accord 71 bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) eradication scheme 98 Brexit 36, 93-6, 108

172

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

British Columbia Investment Management Corporation 75 bromoform 126 BSE crisis (1996) 12 Bunge 75 ‘business as usual’ settlement 92, 154 Canada Pension Plan Investment Board 75 carbon border taxes, on meat products 130 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 58, 120, 127 carbon farming 55-6, 146, 150 carbon-intensive foods 150 carbon removals and storage 55 carbon sequestration 144, 146, 149 carbon sink 55, 134, 145 Cargill 58, 75-6, 78, 125 Case Corporation 26 catering industry 38 cattle farming, greenhouses gases produced by 46 cattle feeding, on seaweed 125 cattle pastures 127 cattle-rich countries 126 Chandler, David 107 ChemChina 30 chemical and biological crop protection products 146 chemical crop protection products 106 chemical pesticides, use of 17, 101 childhood obesity 44 chocolate bars, production of 24 chocolate industry 24 Ciolos, Damian 90 citizen‒consumer gap 117 clean meat 59 production of 60 climate change crops and 146-7 and fossil fuels 129 impact on food chain 119 small island developing states 153 mitigation of 143-53 relation with meat production 45 climate smart agriculture 51, 152 coal power stations 150

coal, use for power generation 129 coastal marine ecosystems 147 cobweb cycles 80 cocoa farming households 24 cocoa production, case of 24-5 Codex Alimentarius 67, 153 Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) 67, 153 Cold War 5 Committee on Climate Change (CCC) 150 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000), US 77 Commodity Index Funds 77 commodity markets, financialization of 78 commodity-trading companies 74 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 5, 8, 17, 70, 80, 84-92, 137, 140 assessment of 86 expenditure share of ten leading recipient member states 92 in France 91 greening of 84, 91 implementation of 86 market-oriented 91 modernisation of 89 objectives of 85 reform trajectory 86-92 Strategic Plans 91 transfer of funds to new members 89 see also food policy community kitchens 133 compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 25 Conference of the Parties (COP26) 119, 140 Global Methane Pledge 126 limits of 135-6 media coverage of 129 Regen10 135 conservation agriculture see regenerative farming conservation tillage 127 consumer behaviour 40, 132 consumer demand 42 long-run changes in authenticity 49-51 food and health 43-4 insects 47-9

Index

sustainability 44-7 consumer purchasing behaviour 138 control points and compliance criteria (CPCC) 66 Cornwall Gleaning Network 133 coronary heart disease 128 ‘Cotton Club’ countries 70 Covid-19 pandemic 14, 36, 56, 97, 139-40 impact on global food supply chains 63, 64-5 lockdown measures 64 role of obesity in affecting patient responses to 44 social distancing measures 64 CRISPR-Cas 9 technology 61 crop diversity, maximization of 52 Crop Health North project 106 crop insurance 81 crop protection 105 products for 101 approval of 108 crop yield 29 Crossman Diaries 11 crowdfunding 56 cultured meat 58-60 benefits of 58-9 threat to livestock farming 60 dairy cows 124 dairy farmers 8, 10, 71, 74, 112, 145 dairy industry 25 dairy milk 47 decision-making 40 deforestation 120 in Brazil 76 developing countries 19, 24, 27, 38, 44, 48-9, 60, 62, 66-7, 72-6, 120, 123-4, 133, 143-6, 149, 152-3 diesel fuel 51 diet 128-31 high in red and processed meat 128 linkage between health and environmental policy 128 plant-based 130 provisioning of meat and meat products 131 digital farming 146 diseconomies of scale 35

173

Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) 72 diversification 27, 35-6, 75, 145 domestic subsidy regimes 73 drone surveillance 54 drought definition of 6 food policies against 6 due diligence, risk-based 65 dycandiamide (DCD) 127 East Africa’s annual fossil emissions 134 economic globalization 151 economies of scale 29, 34-5, 54, 58, 86, 145 economy farm 4 ecosystems, degradation of 148 edible insects, consumption of 48 eggs, carbon-neutral 48 electric cars 150 energy consumption 18 environmental damage, caused by intensive farming methods 12 Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme 94 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 108 Escorts 27 European animal antibiotics market 31 European Commission 50 Animal Health Strategy 110 goal of 111 European Community (EC) 70 European Court of Justice 61 European Parliament 114 European Union (EU) 80 agricultural export refunds 73 agricultural land under organic farming 17 agricultural policy 89 animal welfare legislation in 114-15 animal welfare rules 20 Brexit referendum 93 concession on export subsidies 73 emissions trading system 143 Farm to Fork Strategy 1, 16-20, 137 guiding principle of policymaking 14 Lisbon, Treaty of 112 market value of fertilisers 29

174

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

as net importer of food 5 Euro Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP) 65 exceptionalism in agriculture 5, 62, 70 export subsidies 8, 70-71, 73, 80, 152 family farming 83 famine, risk of 14 farm animal welfare (FAW) 116 farm assurance schemes 115 farm businesses 15, 34-5 counter-productive 38 diversification of 35-6 succession and generational renewal of 37-8 in United Kingdom 93 Farm Council 73 farm equipment 25-7 farmers’ wealth, detriment of 29 Farmers Weekly survey 93 farm-gate emissions 123 farm income 4, 9, 35, 85, 91, 93, 96-7 farming community 11-12, 33, 51, 89 farming innovations 23 farm machinery 26, 34 farm management 30, 31, 149 farm production, subsidizing of 4 farm shops 22 farm subsidies 5 justification for 140 levels of 6-8 in New Zealand 6-7 Farm to Fork Strategy 1, 16-20, 114, 137 sustainability goals of 20 feed additives 127 fermentation 45, 123, 125 fermenting bacteria 123 fertilizer industry 29 fertilizer management 146 fertilizers affordability of 29 use of 17, 27-30 financialization of agriculture 77-9 Fischler, Franz 9, 88 fishmeal 47 flexitarians 46 fodder transport subsidies 6 food carbon-intensive 150 human right to 152

importance of 1 nutritional composition of 17 price campaigns 18 private actors associated with 2 recycling of 147 shortages of 142 value of 18 food additives 144 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 119-20, 142, 151-2 FAO‒OECD annual Agricultural Outlook 153 Food Loss Index 132 Food Waste Index 132 Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme 67 OECD‒FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains 64 performance of 152 food away from home sector 38 foodbanks 133 food chain 22, 39, 132, 137 challenges facing 149 cold storage facilities 19 Committees on 150 extent and sources of challenge 119-20 greenhouse gas emissions and 140 impact of climate change on 119 industrialization of 23 knowledge transfer across 20 new forms of private governance in GlobalGAP standard 65-8 operation of 151 process of financialization 33 structure of 141 types of 63 Food Code 67 food economy in Africa and South Asia 63 just-in-time nature of 14 food industry 44 food insecurity, vulnerability to 121 food label instructions 132 food-labelling scheme 115 food loss in developing countries 133 difference with food waste 132 Food Loss Index 132

Index

food packaging 19 environmental impact of 19 use of plastics in 19 food policy 119 constraints on better policy 138-40 against drought 6 erosion of exceptionalism 6-13 from exceptionalism to post-exceptionalism 2-6 first priority of mitigating climate change 143-53 instruments of 8-9 renationalization of 90 role of the state in formulation of see state’ role, in formulation of agricultural and food policy towards a new paradigm 140-43 drivers of change 141-2 food quality paradigm 142-3 in United Kingdom (UK) 1 food practices, industrialization of 49 food price movements 75 food prices, rise in 122, 139 food processing 81 food processing industry 64 food processors 23, 24 food procurement 22 food production 1-2, 10, 45, 47, 49, 61, 119 and consumption to sustainability 44 and distribution 141 efficiency of 18 for human consumption 18 impact of pests on 100 sustainable 17 technologies for 42 food products 59 gene-edited 60 reaching the final consumer 38-41 Food Programme (BBC) 59 food quality, paradigm of 142-3, 149 food retail supermarkets 39 food safety 89 concerns for 19 consumer demand for 65 food security 5, 59, 69, 76, 81, 85, 100, 119 climate change implications for 121-2 concept of 13

175

Farm to Fork Strategy 16 importance of 82 and nutrition strategies 152 relevancy to radical thinking 13-14 food service 17 food service providers 132 food supplies 101 globalization of 49 food supply chain 119 greenhouse gas emissions associated with 19 food system environmental impact of 18 global integration of 63 Food Systems Policy Tool 143 food technologies 58-9 food trade gap 14 food waste 131-3, 147 and ‘best before’ date 132 consumer behaviour 132 in developing countries 19 difference with food loss 132 due to rising incomes 133 feeding of food waste to freshly hatched larvae 48 Food Waste Index 132 global food consumer waste 132 at global level 131 impact on EU economy 19 reduction of 18 target for 19 vegetable waste 133 foot-and-mouth disease 12 forage digestibility 125 fossil fuels 119, 129, 143, 150 French Revolution 139 freshwater marine ecosystems 147 Future Meat 58 gamma-ray detection technology 56 geenhouse crops 105 gene-edited (GE) crops 60-61 risk assessment of field trials of 61 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 70, 71, 87-8 genetically modified crops 4, 60 genetically modified organisms (GMOs) 59 genome-edited plants as 61 genetically modified (GM) seeds 27

176

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

Glasgow Climate Pact 126, 135 glasshouse, ground-based 57 global agrifood sector 65 Global Carbon Farming Program 146 global coffee trade 63 global financial crisis 79, 138-9 global food supply chains 63-5 challenges due to Covid-19 pandemic 63, 64-5 structure of 63 global food waste 147 GlobalGAP 65-8, 79, 139, 151, 153 certification 68 in relation to Codex 67 global human-induced emissions 127 globalization development of 62 economic 79 effect on agriculture and food 62 Global Methane Pledge 126 Global Positioning System (GPS) technology 54, 147 Global South 22, 27, 29, 71, 73, 76, 81 Global Work Programme (2019-23) 153 glyphosate (herbicide) 100 Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) 65 grassland biomes 134 Great Depression 96 green currencies, system of 8 Green Deal (European Commission) 16 sustainability goals of 20 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 57, 98, 119, 129, 131, 140, 143, 147, 154 associated with the food supply chain 19 European reference price for agricultural 143-4 from global agri-food systems 119 human-caused 119 from livestock 123 produced by cattle farming 46 reduction of 119 greenhouses 104-5 rooftop 57 greening, process of 4 Green Revolution, of the 1950s and 1960s 14 green tractors 26 Groceries Code 39

gross domestic product (GDP) 11, 72, 146, 153 gross farm income 9 Gwynn, Roma 107 Haber‒Bosch process 28 hazardous pesticides 17 health agenda, of trade agreement 128 health and well-being 1 health emergencies 153 heart disease and stroke, risk of 43 home delivery services 38 horticulture 23, 95, 107, 109 human right to food 152 hydroponics 56 Independent Vetcare (IVC) 31 input industries farm equipment 25-7 finance 33-4 seeds, fertilizers and agrochemicals 27-30 veterinary medicines 30-32 insecticides 29, 100 insect production, industrialization of 49 insect protein 47-8 insects benefits of insects as food 49 consumption of edible insects 48 demand for insect meal 48 as human food source 49 ick factor 49 mini farms 48 sex pheromones 103 as source of animal feed and food 47-9 start-up costs for farming insects 49 institutional architecture 138, 143, 149-51, 153 integrated farming 50 integrated pest management (IPM) 17, 50, 66, 91 intellectual property rights, for germplasm 27 International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association (IBMA) 101 international governance arrangements 151-3

177

Index

international trade, liberalization of 71 international trading system 74 intervention purchasing, mechanism of 8, 87 John Deere (American company) 26 junk foods, ban on advertising of 44 just-in-time delivery, principles of 22 Kenya Pest Controls Products Board (PCPB) 109 Kyriakades, Stella 114 land-based agriculture 60, 145 land clearing 53 landfill refuse dumps 123 Landscape Recovery Scheme 94 land use change emissions 120 ‘Land use: policies for a net-zero UK’ report (2020) 150 least-developed countries 25, 70 LED lighting 57 Licensed Buying Company (LBC) 24 life-threatening diseases, risks of 18 Lisbon, Treaty of 112 livestock farmers 145-6 grazing 52-3 industry 113 keepers 149 production 45, 47, 60, 131 living income differential (LID) 24 Local Nature Recovery Programme 94 Louis Dreyfus 75 low-carbon farming practices 150 MacSharry, Ray 88 Mansholt, Sicco 86 market intelligence 76 market-oriented economies 2 mature muscle cells, harvesting of 58 maximum residue levels (MRLs) 109 meat consumption in developing countries 144 and food security 59 green meat-free Mondays campaign 46

offsetting the impact on livestock farmers 145-6 of pig meat 117 plant-based alternatives to 144 red and processed meat consumption 128, 130 reduction in 123, 144-5 meat-free days 46 meat production harmful effects of 45 impact on the environment 46 relation to climate change 45 mechanized harvesting 26 methane emissions 120, 122-7, 145 benefits of seaweed for reduction of 125 by cattle 45, 129 strategy for reduction of 125 methane-producing bacteria, growth of 126 microbial pesticides based on entomopathogenic bacteria 103 sales of 103 Mid-Term Review of 2003 88 milk cheque 10 milk products, contamination of 127 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), UK BSE crisis (1996) 12 commitment to the farmers’ cause 10 complexities of farm policy outside 11 dismantling of 12 effectiveness of 12 relationships with organized farmers 9-13 replacement by Defra 12 responsibility of 9 Morrisons (supermarket chain) 126 muscle biopsy 58 National Farmers’ Union (NFU) 9, 95 national plant protein strategies 144 National Test Programme 98 ‘natural’ food products, consumer demand for 49 natural gas, transport and use of 123 natural hazards 33

178

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

natural selection 29 New Zealand agricultural access to UK markets at guaranteed prices 7 economic liberalization 7 removal of subsidies to agricultural producers 6 Supplementary Minimum Payments (SMPs) 7 Think Big energy projects 7 next generation access (NGA) 146 NFU Mutual 36 nitrogen fertilizer 28-9 nitrous oxide 127-8 emissions from organic fertilizers 128 non-communicable diseases 128 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 68, 73, 137, 149 non-tariff barriers 71 Nutrien (Canadian company) 29 nutrient cycling, in crops 52 nutrient deficiencies 55 oil seed rape (canola) production 4 oleic acid 60 on-farm production 35 organic agriculture 49 benefits and disadvantages of 50 organic farming agricultural land under 17 opportunities for farmers 51 organic food 49-50 organic soils, drainage and burning of 120 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 6, 64, 82, 91, 102, 151 FAO‒OECD annual Agricultural Outlook 153 OECD‒FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains 64-5 producer subsidy equivalent (PSE) database 151-2 Origin Enterprises 30 ownership and availability of land 34 ozone 122, 126

Pareto rule 85 Paris Agreement 119 peatbogs, restoration of 134 peatlands, restoration of 94, 150 pesticides, use of 17, 47 pest mortality, levels of 106 pests biological control of 105 challenge to food security 100 impact on food production 100 integrated pest management (IPM) 50, 101 life cycle of 102 pheromones 102-3 pig meat consumption of 117 production of 34 pig production 115 plant-based drinks market 47 plant-based meats 58 sales of 46 plant breeding 28 plant factories 56 plant production 100 plant proteins 46, 58, 144 ploughing, practice of 52 policy community 2, 5, 10-12 policy instruments 1, 4-6, 8-9, 44, 62, 84, 86, 96, 113-15, 138 PotashCorp 29 poultry 115 production of 75 price guarantees 10 Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (PRAI) 142 producer subsidy equivalent (PSE) 151 Producer Support Estimate (PSE) 9, 151 production and sale of commodities 23 profit-maximization 131 in farm businesses 34 by food companies 18 public‒private partnerships 21 Rabobank 48, 57 regenerative agriculture 51-3, 135, 146 regenerative farming 50-51, 127, 146 renewable energy 35-6 research and development (R&D) 30 resilience, concept of 14-16

179

Index

retailers 2, 6, 20, 38-9, 41, 65-6, 77, 105, 109, 115, 132-3 retail governance, development of 40 rewilding, concept of 134-5 rice agriculture practices, modification of 123 ‘Right to Farm’ statutes 114 risk management 15 in agricultural sector 77 robots and drones, deployment of 53-5 for milking 54 for weed control 53 Rodale, Robert 51 Rome, Treaty of 17, 84 Rosedene Farm 49 Roundup see glyphosate (herbicide) Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA), UK 115 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), UK 11 rumen acidosis 124 rumen fermentation process 125 rural development 9, 83, 89, 93, 146 rural economy, revitalization of 9, 36, 151 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement 72 sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards 153 satellite imagery 56 seeds 27-30 self-regulation, deployment of 142 self-sustaining ecosystems 134 semi-arid grazing systems 147 semiochemicals 102-3 sentience, in animal 112, 148 sex pheromones 103 shelf-life, of food 132 Singapore chicken nuggets 59 Singapore Food Authority 59 Single Farm Payment (SFP) see Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) slurry management 45 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 101 small island developing states, impact of climate change on 153 social justice, to the food supply system 62

soil biology 52, 146 soil erosion 45 soil fertility 15, 52, 60 soil-free growing systems 56 soil health 51-2, 147 soil organic matter 52, 146 soyabean 46, 60 species extension and habitat loss, threats of 148 Square Mile Farms 56 Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 153 standards of care 35 start-ups 56-7 state’ role, in formulation of agricultural and food policy Brexit and 93-6 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 84-92 historic role 80-82 regional and devolved governments 97-8 shifting paradigms 82-3 in United States 96-7 state-sponsored co-operatives 10 stem cells 58 storm damage 4 street food vending 38 subsidies 4-10, 68-71, 73, 80-82, 85, 89, 94, 97, 127, 140, 149, 152 Suckler Beef Climate Group 98 Supplementary Minimum Payments (SMPs) 7 supply chains 14, 16-17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 39, 49, 56, 63-5, 75, 79, 83, 119-20, 131 sustainability 12, 18, 20, 42, 44-7, 51, 61, 68, 78 Sustainable Development Goals 131, 153 Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) 94 sustainable food system 13, 16-17, 19 Syngenta 30 synthetic pesticides 28, 101-2, 105, 107, 110, 148 synthetic plant protection products 4 tariff barriers, on agricultural goods 152-3 tariff quota 73 taste satisfaction 42

180

Rethinking agricultural and food policy

technology transfer 110 trade 67-8 agricultural 68-70, 72, 79 coffee 63 conflicts 15 Doha Development Round 73-4 food trade gap 14 international 62, 64, 111 liberalization of 79 in meat products 111 Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 153 Trump’s policies 97 Uruguay Round trade negotiations (1986-93) 9 tree planting 94, 150 Tyson Foods 58 unhealthy foods, marketing of 153 Unilever 46-7 United Kingdom (UK) Agriculture Act (1947) 9-10 Basic Payment Scheme 36 Biopesticides Scheme 110 Blair Government 12 demand for insect meal 48 Department for International Development (DFID) Crops Protection Programme 109 Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme 134 farm businesses in 93 food difficulties 40 food trade with the EU 96 future soya footprint 48 ‘Land use: policies for a net-zero UK’ report (2020) 150 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) see Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), UK National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides 107 National Food Strategy 137 ‘public money for public goods’ approach 94 rate of morbid obesity in 44

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 32 Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) 115 vet practices 32 United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 64, 119, 128, 142 Food Loss Index 132 Food Waste Index 132 Framework Convention on Climate Change 119 Sustainable Development Goals 153 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 142 United States (US) agriculture and food policies in 96-7 animal protection laws in 113-14 Biden Administration 97 Chicago Board of Trade 78 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000) 77 Department of Agriculture 12-13, 59 development of biopesticides 108 Export Enhancement Program 97 Farm Bill 96, 113 Food and Drug Administration 59 food away from home sector 38 livestock industry 113 Reagan Administration 70 ‘Right to Farm’ statutes 114 Trump Administration 72, 97 universal health coverage 153 urbanization and income growth 128 Uruguay Round trade negotiations (1986-93) 9, 71-3 vaccination of animals 111 value-added products 43 value-added speciality crops 105 vertical farming 56-7, 141, 145 veterinarians 111 veterinary medicines 23, 25, 30-32, 69 VetPartners 31 Voluntary Coupled Support 91 waste management and littering 19 water transport subsidies 6 weeds, control of 29

181

Index

use of robots and drones for 53 weed seeds, germinating of 52 willingness to pay (WTP) 112, 115-17, 149 wind farms 35 Wojciechowski, Janusz 92 World Bank 142 Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (PRAI) 142 World Business Council for Sustainable Development 135 World Food Group 135 world food system 147 World Health Organization (WHO) 67, 100, 109 objectives of 153 universal health coverage 153

World Organization for Animal Health 153 world’s food and agriculture system 152 world trade, internationalisation of 62 World Trade Organization (WTO) 69, 128, 153 Dispute Settlement Body 152 Doha Development Round 73-4 Uruguay Round (1986-93) for agricultural trade 71-3 Yorkshire Agricultural Society’s Farmer Scientist Network 106 ‘zap’ crops 105 Zelp 125 zoonotic diseases 111