Thought-provoking as always, Helen. And one of those thoughts is:
What's the best way to get from where we are to where we could or should be?
A total free-market approach? If not, how much?
A total state-led approach? If not, how much?
Adopt what works best elsewhere? If so, where?
My own view, for what it's worth, is that nothing much good will happen without a serious intervention by some sort of state-farm-retail coalition, one that ties everything you refer to here into a cohesive whole.
Because it's blatantly clear that allowing the market to dictate the rules has got us into this situation, while expecting a government to manage the process has inefficiency and failure written all over it.
I have no idea what the ultimate answer is, or the actual process (that's way above my pay grade), but working backwards from an ideal state appears to broadly support this concept.
Is there a real-world scenario somewhere out there that needs serious consideration?
You’ve put your finger on the hard bit here, which is that there probably isn’t a single lever that gets us from “here” to “there”. I’m wary of the idea that consumers can fix this on their own, not because spending choices do not matter, but because households are already squeezed so tightly that “just buy local” can sound like a moral instruction aimed at people with the least room to manoeuvre.
For me the realistic path, without a civil war or a total rewrite of the state, is a mix of pressure and redesign. Yes, we vote with our spending where we can and we keep money circulating in local economies, but we also have to put sustained pressure on government and big food to change the rules of the game so the outcomes benefit farmers and the public rather than only rewarding scale and extraction. That means procurement, fairer contracts, competition policy, rebuilding local processing and distribution, and support that is stable enough for farmers to plan around, not schemes that open and close like a lottery.
And I think your coalition point is where the “real world” answer probably sits. Not a pure free market, and not a fully state run system either, but a set of binding agreements that link farm viability, public health, and retail behaviour into one coherent direction of travel. The UK is a good example of why this matters, because we tolerate eye watering electricity costs and then act as if food should be permanently cheap, even though it is costly to produce well. That mismatch is a policy choice, not a law of nature, and it is exactly why leaving it to the market alone keeps landing us in the same place.
We have a weekly delivery of a veg box from our local organic farm. I love the element of surprise and it saves us money and waste because:
A) We don’t have the expense or carbon cost of driving to a supermarket. (I gave up supermarkets for lent several years ago and have never looked back)
B) Not going to a supermarket means I don’t end up buying a load of stuff I don’t need because it’s on special offer or I fancy it. This improves our diet and reduces waste. If I require something I pop down to our local village shop which has everything I need (even tahini and organic sourdough bread) without bombarding me with masses of stuff I don’t. And there’s only so much you can fit in bike panniers.
C) On the odd occasions I do end up in a supermarket I am horrified by how much plastic everything is wrapped in.
I should add that we are on a low wage and I believe that living like this is cheaper. But as a regenerative farmer’s daughter I guess I already have the mindset.
You’ve put your finger on the hard bit here, which is that there probably isn’t a single lever that gets us from “here” to “there”. I’m wary of the idea that consumers can fix this on their own, not because spending choices do not matter, but because households are already squeezed so tightly that “just buy local” can sound like a moral instruction aimed at people with the least room to manoeuvre.
For me the realistic path, without a civil war or a total rewrite of the state, is a mix of pressure and redesign. Yes, we vote with our spending where we can and we keep money circulating in local economies, but we also have to put sustained pressure on government and big food to change the rules of the game so the outcomes benefit farmers and the public rather than only rewarding scale and extraction. That means procurement, fairer contracts, competition policy, rebuilding local processing and distribution, and support that is stable enough for farmers to plan around, not schemes that open and close like a lottery.
And I think your coalition point is where the “real world” answer probably sits. Not a pure free market, and not a fully state run system either, but a set of binding agreements that link farm viability, public health, and retail behaviour into one coherent direction of travel. The UK is a good example of why this matters, because we tolerate eye watering electricity costs and then act as if food should be permanently cheap, even though it is costly to produce well. That mismatch is a policy choice, not a law of nature, and it is exactly why leaving it to the market alone keeps landing us in the same place.
Thought-provoking as always, Helen. And one of those thoughts is:
What's the best way to get from where we are to where we could or should be?
A total free-market approach? If not, how much?
A total state-led approach? If not, how much?
Adopt what works best elsewhere? If so, where?
My own view, for what it's worth, is that nothing much good will happen without a serious intervention by some sort of state-farm-retail coalition, one that ties everything you refer to here into a cohesive whole.
Because it's blatantly clear that allowing the market to dictate the rules has got us into this situation, while expecting a government to manage the process has inefficiency and failure written all over it.
I have no idea what the ultimate answer is, or the actual process (that's way above my pay grade), but working backwards from an ideal state appears to broadly support this concept.
Is there a real-world scenario somewhere out there that needs serious consideration?
You’ve put your finger on the hard bit here, which is that there probably isn’t a single lever that gets us from “here” to “there”. I’m wary of the idea that consumers can fix this on their own, not because spending choices do not matter, but because households are already squeezed so tightly that “just buy local” can sound like a moral instruction aimed at people with the least room to manoeuvre.
For me the realistic path, without a civil war or a total rewrite of the state, is a mix of pressure and redesign. Yes, we vote with our spending where we can and we keep money circulating in local economies, but we also have to put sustained pressure on government and big food to change the rules of the game so the outcomes benefit farmers and the public rather than only rewarding scale and extraction. That means procurement, fairer contracts, competition policy, rebuilding local processing and distribution, and support that is stable enough for farmers to plan around, not schemes that open and close like a lottery.
And I think your coalition point is where the “real world” answer probably sits. Not a pure free market, and not a fully state run system either, but a set of binding agreements that link farm viability, public health, and retail behaviour into one coherent direction of travel. The UK is a good example of why this matters, because we tolerate eye watering electricity costs and then act as if food should be permanently cheap, even though it is costly to produce well. That mismatch is a policy choice, not a law of nature, and it is exactly why leaving it to the market alone keeps landing us in the same place.
We have a weekly delivery of a veg box from our local organic farm. I love the element of surprise and it saves us money and waste because:
A) We don’t have the expense or carbon cost of driving to a supermarket. (I gave up supermarkets for lent several years ago and have never looked back)
B) Not going to a supermarket means I don’t end up buying a load of stuff I don’t need because it’s on special offer or I fancy it. This improves our diet and reduces waste. If I require something I pop down to our local village shop which has everything I need (even tahini and organic sourdough bread) without bombarding me with masses of stuff I don’t. And there’s only so much you can fit in bike panniers.
C) On the odd occasions I do end up in a supermarket I am horrified by how much plastic everything is wrapped in.
I should add that we are on a low wage and I believe that living like this is cheaper. But as a regenerative farmer’s daughter I guess I already have the mindset.
You’ve put your finger on the hard bit here, which is that there probably isn’t a single lever that gets us from “here” to “there”. I’m wary of the idea that consumers can fix this on their own, not because spending choices do not matter, but because households are already squeezed so tightly that “just buy local” can sound like a moral instruction aimed at people with the least room to manoeuvre.
For me the realistic path, without a civil war or a total rewrite of the state, is a mix of pressure and redesign. Yes, we vote with our spending where we can and we keep money circulating in local economies, but we also have to put sustained pressure on government and big food to change the rules of the game so the outcomes benefit farmers and the public rather than only rewarding scale and extraction. That means procurement, fairer contracts, competition policy, rebuilding local processing and distribution, and support that is stable enough for farmers to plan around, not schemes that open and close like a lottery.
And I think your coalition point is where the “real world” answer probably sits. Not a pure free market, and not a fully state run system either, but a set of binding agreements that link farm viability, public health, and retail behaviour into one coherent direction of travel. The UK is a good example of why this matters, because we tolerate eye watering electricity costs and then act as if food should be permanently cheap, even though it is costly to produce well. That mismatch is a policy choice, not a law of nature, and it is exactly why leaving it to the market alone keeps landing us in the same place.