As the recent egg crisis in the USA showed, world food supply chains are intensely vulnerable and prone to failure as they are dependent upon monocultures. What will happen if they do fail?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
What happens when the world's food runs out?
I ask the question because right now, we know that there is a crisis in egg supply in the USA. Nearly half of all chickens that were producing eggs in the USA either have been or are likely to be eliminated as a consequence of avian flu, and it could get even worse than that.
There's a knock-on effect with this in the European markets as well. Our egg prices have risen significantly, presumably because some of our egg production is being diverted to the USA either as eggs, which seems unlikely, or in some form of processed form, which seems much more likely. But the consequence of this threat is that one of the staple products used to produce ultra-processed food around the world is no longer in ready supply. The food supply chain is being severely disrupted, and this, to me, is one of the big threats that we face in the world.
We know all about Putin.
We know all about what's happening in the USA with Trump.
We know about the threats that they create, and there are others all around the world.
But let's talk about something physical, real and with absolute consequence for everybody for a moment, which is our food supply.
When we rely upon a very few staple food products to support our physical existence, we are at risk.
Historically, one of the best examples of this came in Ireland in the 1840s. We all know - well, those of us who have studied Irish history, which, unsurprisingly, I have with a name like mine - know that at that time the potato crop in Ireland failed. It failed because of a disease called potato blight. It's common, it still exists, but at that point, it was so serious that a large part of the Irish potato crop failed.
And the Irish potato crop, along with milk, was the main source of sustenance for most of the poorest people in Ireland, of whom there were 8 million at that time, with the Irish population having never recovered since they died, as a large number of people did as a consequence.
There was absolutely no reason for that. There was sufficient wheat in Ireland to feed everyone. But the British government in London would not allow that wheat to be used for the purposes of relieving the famine that was arising amongst those who were dependent upon potatoes, meaning that what actually happened in Ireland was not a famine at all. It was a starvation or a genocide.
But the point I'm making is that when there was dependence on a monoculture and that monoculture failed, then so too did the well-being of that population to such an extent that literally millions died, and millions more left the country to try to find a means of sustenance. And as I say, Ireland changed forever as a result.
Do we face that same risk now in the world in which we live, precisely because we are so heavily dependent upon monocultures? There are still only four main foodstuffs around the world, on which most people rely for a significant part of their calorific intake. They are rice and maize and wheat and potatoes.
We can, of course, add alongside that certain other products like soya, which is very important in many cases, and eggs if you like, and also some forms of meat, whether from cattle or pigs or chickens.
Now, whatever it is, all of those very limited number of sources of sustenance are intensely vulnerable to disease.
We know, for example, that one substance, which I admit is not core to wellbeing in terms of food, but which is incredibly commonly used, which is bananas, is intensely vulnerable to the risk of disease at present because of all the types of banana in the world that exists - and there are lots - we literally only consume one. And because we have so intensively cultivated it, it is now heavily vulnerable to disease.
Chickens are also heavily vulnerable disease, precisely because we have overbred them. And also cattle are similarly vulnerable to disease, as we saw not long ago.
All of this raises the question about the vulnerability that has been created to world food supply as a consequence of the industrial dependence upon monoculture to feed us via ultra-processed food. Nobody seems to be asking this question. What happens if any of these fail?
What happens if multiple sources of nutrition fail at the same time?
How do 8 billion people in the world get fed as a consequence, and what are the stresses that might come about as a result?
This is a fundamental question in political economy as far as I'm concerned, because the struggle over food, alongside the likely struggle that climate change is going to create over water, could shape world political economy over the coming decades.
We need to worry about monoculture.
We need to worry about ultra-processed food.
We need to worry about the fact that we are so heavily dependent upon processed food because we are literally being put at risk. As a result, our bodies might be suffering, but just as much, so might be the whole political infrastructure of the world, and this requires real answers to be found if we are to be truly resilient, which is what a proper food supply system should be.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Guy Singh-Watson at Riverford is good on all this. Here’s a link to his “Wicked Leaks” magazine:
https://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/
And this article in the current issue is useful:
https://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/features/are-local-food-hubs-the-antidote-to-supermarket-dominance/
Guy Singh-Watson also believes wealthy people should pay more tax!
Good article.
Monbiots Regenesis, Chapter 4 shows what can be got from 8 hectares of poor soil (250kg/year of fruit & veg for 500 families). With zero fertiliser input. Whilst this does not solve problems with “where do all the spuds/wheat/etc” come from it is a start. The chicken plague (Wye Valley?) has to stop, plenty of other ways of getting protein e.g. chickpeas. Plenty of possible work arounds. The problem is UK public (who have been groomed to expect fast food/processed food) and the corp’s that deliver it. I have two community energy projects going – food will be a key “bolt-on” & which will include greenhouses – using green energy. All the tech exists what is missing is large-scale organisation. The article linked to shows that at a modest scale things are happening – it needs to happen natiowide and fast.
I currently have an allotment on the Riverford Farm, which my husband helps me with.
It is a model that all farms should follow, in that people who are encouraged to grow their own food have a greater appreciation of just how hard it is to produce good, wholesome veg and fruit.
The work that goes into it is more than worth it, as the taste and quality far surpasses that of shop-bought produce.
Organically-grown, as it encourages soil health, and all ‘waste’ used for composting, with the ‘no-dig’ method being the most desirable.
Unfortunately, many councils have closed down their allotments and sold the land for building houses, all of which will have a hankerchief-sized lawn behind it that is only good for drying washing.
Perhaps it’s my age, but it appears that the country has gone to hell these last 20 years, apparently led by governments and councils that don’t have a brain cell between them.
Allotments are also a lot of fun – I had one once, for several years.
So basically our narrow production methods have within them the seeds of their own destruction?
Plausible I think, but when you have governments talking about more deregulation as the answer to any of these problems, it appears that it will only make matters worse.
Diversity is the spice of life.
I’m a big fan of John Seddon, (systems thinker advocate) and his biggest criticism of government management of public services (and private ones) is the use of big tech Customer Relationship Modules (CRM) to manage services. His basic premise is that these systems are incapable of dealing with the true diversity of human need and actually re-define and limit need that can be dealt with. All they do he says is create ‘failure demand’ a queue of people who make their way to a real person to get their issues sorted out by a human being (if you are lucky) . Or, that demand is never met, pushed away and effectively gets hidden and emerges as a problem or phenomenon later as it grows unmet and unheeded for which the organisations concerned or other organisations pick up the outcomes and are totally unprepared for.
All this is down to an obsession with cutting the cost of everything in the public sector, most likely in order to make it more attractive for private investment. The service provider creates their own ideal customer with no doubt a spend profile per case as well – and that seems to be it! That is not the definition of a service. Efficient maybe but not effective – but Best Value always put the money first. And even the Labour government just thinks of anyone below a certain level of income as too ‘inefficient’ to care about.
Likewise food production is maximised for profit, predictability, economies of scale and ease of production but ignores things like nutrition and basic humane husbandry (which is why I am a vegetarian). Instead we must suffer chlorinated chicken and drug infested meat etc., to meet the requirements of the producer.
And what did Thatcher tell us in the early days of Neo-liberalism eh? That producer interests too often overcame the needs of customers. All the privatisations were going to create more producers and hold prices down and more choice, more quality.
And what did we get instead? Mergers, acquisitions – monopolies that deliver goods and services they determine are sufficient because it is all about their profit margin.
Diseases and bugs in people, foodstuffs and animal don’t care about profit margins. They will not be going away. The hubris behind making money will ensure that. BSE, Covid were all just warnings.
Crop monocultures are the farming manifestation of mass-production – just like what the New Economics Foundation used to call ‘the cloned high street’, or the ubiquity of English-language pop music, which I once heard passing a ger (yurt in Russian) in the countryside of Outer Mongolia.
It is an emergent property of capitalism, because the inherent incentives for profit-extraction demand, from the production side, cost-saving automation – and machines are only good at doing one thing all the time – and from the marketing side extending the same sales to more of the world.
Problem is, I doubt if regulating capitalism can resolve this and other effects of agribusiness like chemical pollution and soil loss, which is why we see the EU caught in an unresolvable conflict between regulation and farmers – we end up with lots of rules and forms and hurdles often inappropriate to small farmers – who after all live among family and friends in local communities that want to look after the natural environment – but that actually favour big remote agribusiness, which has the capacity to cope with the extra admin, even though it’s big business that is the real problem.
The answer, surely, is not to keep building more and more external regulatory machinery, ever more labyrinthine paper trails, but to build in to the very basis of company law incentives for social and environmental responsibility.
I like that idea
Add in my point about government today as well.
I do think the state should ask for more in the tremendous deal it offers of limited liability – I think in at least 3 areas:
1. Governance: widening the legal duty of directors of limited liability companies to act not just in the interests of shareholders, but also of employees, impacted communities, and the natural environment.
2. Representation: for larger businesses, elected employee and community representation on the board, and tax incentives for the extension of ownership to employees and other stakeholders.
3. Reporting: social alongside financial auditing; the bigger the business, the more detailed the reporting and audit requirements, including – for the very largest – supply-chains.
The sanction implied is of course loss of limited liability – ie. directors (and ‘persons with significant control’ – ie. big investors) that allow social or environmental irresponsibility risk personal liability for the damage.
1 is already, in principle, a legal requirement.
2 is not
3 I wholeheartedly approve of
We’re also running out of soil, which is only kept viable through use of nitrogen, phosphorus & potassium fertilizers. Nitrogen fertilizers are derived from fossil fuels, which will run out soon, and phosphorus needs to be mined, with very few obvious resources left available.
And then consider the biodiversity loss caused by the mass extinction event our species has precipitated — there is now only 2.5kg of wild mammal mass for every human on the planet:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/07/mm-7-ecological-nosedive/
Worrying about economic growth in this context seems somewhat insane. We should massively restrict consumption immediately and move to some sort of rationing system for basic needs.
Thanks
Monbiot is already ahead of the game, creating his own family mini stockpile
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/16/britain-food-supply-donald-trump-stockpile
Indeed.
Hopefully most people need a doctor infrequently, we need farmers at least three times a day.
(An apple a day keeps the doctor away – pips of truth as apples are recommended for colon cancer).
On the matter of UK food security, there was a good edition of the Food Programme recently: ‘ Are We Prepared? Could the UK Feed Itself in a Crisis?
Five years on from the first Covid lockdown Dan Saladino asks if our food supply can withstand more shock to the system? Is there resilience to face another pandemic or even war? ‘
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00290dd
In it, Tim Lang talks about the research he did for the recently published government report on UK food system security and reilience.
A Guardian piece on the report is here
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/06/urgent-action-needed-to-ensure-uk-food-security-report-warns
and the report is here
https://nationalpreparednesscommission.uk/publications/just-in-case-7-steps-to-narrow-the-uk-civil-food-resilience-gap/
Thanks
Tim is very good
I was strongly reminded of Jay Rayner’s piece: “If you can’t feed a country, you haven’t got a country”. I was shocked to be reminded that this was from the Brexit-vote era. It still holds true.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/21/brexit-coming-food-crisis-seasonal-migrant-labour-eu
As interesting was this piece from Rayner’s blog:
https://www.jayrayner.co.uk/blog/michael-gove-asked-me-to-a-meeting-to-share-my-expertise-i-declined-instead-ive-given-him-a-piece-of-my-mind
Starmer had all these concerns flagged up even in 2016. The proof of his shallowness in his preparation for “leading MY Party” in government gets worse with every passing day. His Rose Garden, or Rose Circle, of advisors don’t do long-term planning – they never have to, it’s all short-term stuff to boost the share price before their “going concern” gets taken over.
“If you can’t feed a country…”
Good point
This paper by the National Preparedness Commission starts off by describing how the UK’s Food Resilience Planning is in a truly woeful state and then makes an extensive series of recommendations. It’s a very long read, and it’s just the Executive Summary!
https://nationalpreparednesscommission.uk/publications/just-in-case-7-steps-to-narrow-the-uk-civil-food-resilience-gap/#toc_Existing_policy_frameworks
Here’s a ChatGPT-generated summary of the National Preparedness Commission report. By showing us how so much needs to be done, it also tells us how little has been done to date:
Below is a plain English summary of the key points from the report “Just In Case: 7 Steps to Narrow the UK Civil Food Resilience Gap” by the National Preparedness Commission:
Identifying Vulnerabilities:
The report begins by highlighting that the UK’s food system is increasingly at risk from a range of disruptions—whether due to geopolitical tensions, supply chain failures, or unexpected emergencies. It stresses that the current arrangements leave a “food resilience gap” that could jeopardize national stability in a crisis.
Seven Strategic Steps:
To address this gap, the report lays out seven concrete recommendations:
Boost Domestic Production: Increase investments and support for local agriculture so that the UK isn’t overly dependent on imported food.
Diversify Supply Chains: Encourage a more varied and robust supply network to reduce the risk if one source or route is disrupted.
Establish Strategic Stockpiles: Create and maintain reserves of key food items to ensure availability during emergencies.
Improve Coordination: Enhance the collaboration between government agencies, local authorities, and industry stakeholders to ensure a coherent, effective response when needed.
Invest in Infrastructure: Upgrade transportation and distribution systems so that food can be moved efficiently even under strained conditions.
Promote Innovation and Research: Invest in new technologies and methods that can improve food production and distribution, ensuring long-term resilience.
Enhance Public Communication: Educate and prepare the public about food resilience, ensuring that there is a clear understanding of the measures in place and what to expect during a crisis.
Economic and Social Importance:
The report argues that bolstering food resilience isn’t just a matter of national security—it also supports economic stability and public confidence. A reliable food system helps prevent panic and protects the overall economy in times of disruption.
Integration with Broader Policy:
It emphasizes the need to integrate these food resilience measures into wider government planning and emergency preparedness frameworks. This integration is crucial to ensure that improvements are sustained and that the UK is better prepared for future shocks.
Long-Term Vision:
Finally, the report stresses that these steps are part of a long-term strategy. In a changing global landscape—with challenges like Brexit, climate change, and geopolitical instability—the UK must proactively secure its food supply to protect its citizens and maintain economic stability.
In essence, the report calls for a multi-faceted approach to significantly improve the UK’s civil food resilience, combining immediate actions with a strategic long-term vision.
Not forgetting foot and mouth in Europe
Why?
That’s surely a threat to our food supply if it spreads
It’s a question of supply chains and is not limited to food. 🙁
For at least the last 50 years companies have been trying to optimise their supply chains, amongst other things by using “just in time” methodology. When all goes well this maximises profit, but it makes the supply chain very fragile and vulnerable. We saw this both with the pandemic and at the start of the Ukraine war. We are seeing it again with the mad man in the White House playing silly buggers with tariffs (to put it excessively politely).
Yes, we need more diverse food supplies, multiple different varieties of all sorts of things. This is possible at the moment because these different varieties do exist (though Trump appears to be trying to destroy seed banks in the US too). But we also need more diverse sources of supply of all sorts of things. Relying on few sources (and for food, a few varieties), e.g. from China, is dangerous because the supply chain is then fragile. We do need global trade but not to such an extent that it endangers supply chains.
This has a particular resonance at the moment because of yesterday’s debacle of recalling the House of Commons due of the potential closure of the Scunthorpe blast furnace. I say debacle because the situation over iron has been brewing for decades under multiple governments. To then require an emergency sitting is absurd in a well-ordered government (which this is not).
Autarky is not possible and is not desirable, it is going to the other extreme. But we probably do need to be able to source some of our own commodities including, perhaps, iron. At the very least this requires government planning and an industrial plan to ensure that supply chains, including food, are robust (sadly I don’t have confidence in this government to do the requisite planning). This will require, as I see it, the government owning companies to provide some of these essentials where companies do not already exist. And these companies will not be the most commercially competitive (which is why they should be government owned); the most competitive will use fragile supply chains. So the government needs to be honest that not every company can be the most commercially efficient and that government support will be needed for some industries. Note that I do not expect the government to own all the industry in one sector, only a part to ensure reliability of critical supplies. That is, I’m am not advocating that the government own large swathes of the economy, rather that we have a mixed economy with government support for strategically critical industries (whilst still supporting much global trade).
We need a strong mixed economy.
When will politicians realise?
Should you want it, I can help on FMD, from experience.
When the next outbreak happens, we will have a big problem (politically and practically).
But more important now, is that for some years now we have not had a national food security policy (“we can just import it”). Oh dear.
FMD is in Hungary/Slovakia at present. (affects cloven footed animals, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and in Europe their wild equivalents, boar, feral goats, deer.
Healthy carriers can transmit the disease.
Key problem with FMD is it is highly contagious, and spreads easily on the wind (esp if pigs are involved) as well as on fomites. Closing borders doesn’t stop the wind. It is possible for it to blow across the channel, no small boats required and Border Force can’t stop it
Vaccination is a highly political issue (not because of antivax conspiracies but because of food profits), and is disliked by the food industry because countries that use it can’t export meat for 6 months after the last vaccination
In UK, slaughter & disposal of carcasses is also a political issue. They currently go to rendering plants, theoretically in biosecure containers (in practice, these have often been very bioINsecure).
Finally, any control programe is very labour intensive (I once was part of the “drawdown” reserve labour force for a vaccination plan, we got fully mobilised once but never actually did the vaccinations – in the 2007 Guildford outbreak).
I think if FMD hit us now, and it might well, we couldn’t do what we have done before, to control it – loss of expertise, loss of manpower, lack of political will.
Control measures effectively replicate covid lockdown for farmers and their families. Compensation is not available except for slaughtered animals so NOT getting infected during an outbreak in your area, is the worst financial disaster for a farmer because you can’t move or sell or slaughter (for food) your stock so you lose a LOT of income and you get no compensation.
Suicide rates rise dramatically during outbreaks (farmers have access to shotguns and drugs).
I have direct personal experience of the human costs, through volunteering on phonebanks organising grants from the Addington Fund, during the 2001 UK outbreak.
FMD is horrible, but unfortunately, politicians don’t want to talk about it (or much else about food and agriculture) in between outbreaks, and during an outbreak, the “urgent” takes priority over the “important”.
I shudder to think how Keir Starmer would deal with an FMD outbreak, and that key binary decision (which he would have to make, and make quickly, within the first 1-2 weeks) on whether to slaughter out, or vaccinate (and stop meat exports for 6 months). Without information from his donors, focus groups, controllers, Trevor Chinn or Morgan McSweeney, he won’t know what to do.
Hi Richard
Timely comment from you. There was an interesting memo written by insider professionals recently on the way the food industry has its head in the sand on the issue of food resilience. See https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/04/03/food-and-drink-industry-heading-towards-melt-down-insiders-warn/
Thanks
Hi
A good question. The crunch day can be delayed significantly by significantly reducing waste throughout the entire food chain, from farm through to consumers’ fridges and cupboards.
And as many above have rightly stated, rid the planet of monoculture which has spawned multinationals offering solutions to the problems monoculture has spawned. Glyphosate then GM glyphosate resistant crops etc. Even regenerative arable farming, while great for rehabilitating destroyed soil structure on which we all rely on for much of our food production, requires glyphosate. Look at for a real life practical alternative. https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2025-04-13/forage-farms-andrews-natural-sequence-farming/103201248
This reinforces your article:
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/news/whistleblowers-warn-uk-food-industry-heading-for-climate-disaster/702944.article
Thanks
If, as Richard says, ‘widening the legal duty of directors of limited liability companies to act not just in the interests of shareholders, but also of . . . the natural environment’, is already a legal requirement, I don’t understand why, in the case of Thames Water, company law seems so far to have trumped (sorry!) the legal challenge brought by, among others, Witney Against Sewage Pollution. Why are the ‘rights’ (surely not?) of shareholders and so-called investors being placed above those of 16m customers and the natural environment?
We literally have no company law enforcement agency in the UK