扒哥吃瓜

This is not a statement of government policy.

Rapid projects support government departments to understand the scientific evidence underpinning a policy issue or area by convening academic, industry and government experts at a single roundtable. These summary meeting notes seek to provide accessible science advice for policymakers. They represent the combined views of roundtable participants at the time of the discussion and are not statements of government policy.

This publication considers the following question, taken from a meeting note of a roundtable chaired by Professor Dame Angela McLean (Government Chief Scientific Adviser) facilitated by the Government Office for Science on 17 January 2025.

Summary of roundtable findings

Ecosystem collapse would place the UK鈥檚 agriculture system under great stress, which would affect its ability to pivot to new approaches and technologies. Impacts and mitigations will vary according to which ecosystem has collapsed; gradual ecosystem degradation would allow more time for adaptation compared to a sudden collapse.

The current UK food system is inefficient and wasteful, and UK food prices do not reflect the full environmental, energy, and health costs of production, especially for livestock.

While the UK produces enough calories domestically to feed the UK population, much calorific production is for livestock (albeit low-grade wheat not fit for humans). There is room to direct more food production for human use.

Technologies 鈥� both existing (plant pre-breeding) and emerging (Artificial Intelligence) 鈥� offer solutions to food system weaknesses and inefficiencies, but some technologies require significant resources, making sustainable energy systems vital for scalability and food resilience.

General points on UK food supply, ecosystem degradation/collapse and technology

1. The UK is around 60% self-sufficient in food overall, and roughly 74% self-sufficient in food types that can be grown domestically (Barling and others, 2008). The UK cannot be fully self-sufficient in food because it is not self-sufficient in producing nitrogen (from atmospheric sources) and does not have sufficient phosphorus reserves.

2. The impacts of 鈥� and mitigations for 鈥� an ecosystem collapse will depend in part on whether there is a process of gradual degradation or a sudden collapse. Gradual degradation allows more time for adaptation in food production, storage and distribution.

3. Impacts and mitigations will also vary according to which ecosystem has collapsed. For example, losing access to cost-efficient palm oil (Yan, 2017) would present major problems in producing processed foods. Outside of a crisis, there are limited incentives to explore alternatives (Ali and Zang, 2023).

4. Greater self-sufficiency in food production needs to be founded on providing a balanced diet: a combination of sufficient calories and nutrients (for example: vitamins). Producing calorific foods (wheat, potatoes, animal proteins) requires significant amounts of land. Producing nutrient-rich food requires less space (enabling approaches such as vertical horticulture).

5. The current UK food system is both broadly inefficient (for example, its food distribution networks) and wasteful (for example, its fertiliser use, consumer waste) (Cottee and others, 2022).

6. Maintaining UK food supply in extreme climate scenarios would need improvements in efficiency, reductions in waste and greater attention to boosting resilience (for example, reducing waste and returning recovered nutrients to the soil).

7. It would also require a farming sector sufficiently supported to become more innovative in sustainable food production.

8. UK food prices do not capture the full costs of production, including the environmental, energy and health costs of producing food 鈥� this is especially true of livestock. The full costs are hard to calculate without consensus on pricing biodiversity loss and other externalities (FAO, 2023).

9. While the UK produces enough calories domestically to feed the UK population, much calorific production is for livestock (albeit low-grade wheat not fit for humans). There is room to direct more food production for human use.

10. Ecosystem collapse would place the UK鈥檚 agriculture system under great stress, which would affect its ability to pivot to new approaches and technologies. (World War 2 represented a sudden shock comparable to ecosystem collapse in terms of challenges created and radical changes needed to feed people in the UK (Spring, 2021)).

11. Several issues raised previously point to the need for proactive, long-term transformation of the UK food system.

12. Some technologies offer potential solutions to inefficiencies and waste, but they too will require energy, water and other feedstocks to function (feedstocks are a material required as an input to a process). It can be difficult and resource intensive, for example, to switch feedstocks for both food processing and technological use.

13. A sudden ecosystem collapse (or an incident such as a nuclear explosion, which could itself cause an ecosystem collapse) may affect access to energy supplies, thereby compromising use of energy-intensive technologies for food production.

14. Without secure and sustainable energy systems, many proposed solutions would be unfeasible at scale. The energy requirements for scaling up some technologies are substantial. This creates a dual challenge: securing energy infrastructure for immediate food system resilience while transitioning to sustainable energy systems that align with net zero commitments.

15. Implementation of new technologies 鈥� as with existing technologies 鈥� needs to be mindful of location (That is within efficient reach of necessary feedstocks and significant population centres) and needs connectivity to transport networks.

16. Some technologies need significant research, development and investment in order to be in a position to contribute to maintaining food supply. Incentives to invest in these technologies are limited without clear evidence for the likelihood of ecosystem collapse and future profitability.

The following sections summarise key inputs to and considerations around UK food supply. They include potential technologies for mitigating the impacts of global ecosystem degradation or collapse, barriers to adoption and other solutions.

Agricultural inputs

17. The UK can choose to increase and improve domestic fertiliser production through a combination of investment and innovation (POST, 2024).

18. The UK produces around 40% of its own nitrogen needs for fertilisers. The rest is imported and will require stable trade to continue (ADHB, 2024).

19. The UK could never be self-sufficient in phosphorus production (China and Morocco are the 2 largest suppliers) (Cordell and others, 2022a; Baker and others, 2024).

20. At the same time, half of the UK鈥檚 agricultural land is over-saturated with phosphorus, pointing to inefficiencies around use and environmental damage (Brownlie and others, 2022a; Cordell, 2022b).

21. There are emerging methods for recovering and recycling phosphorus (for example from sewage) and for extracting it from wetlands. Struvite recovery is not done in the UK because it is not economically viable at present (the same is true of methods for ammonia recovery). Research is needed into how to make phosphorus stripping more carbon and energy efficient.

22. Nutrients for fertilisers can be recovered from human and animal excrement, especially from livestock (Masso and others, 2022; Herman and others, 2022; Yang and others, 2023; UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2024), while more efficient use of phosphorous and nitrogen in production systems would reduce UK reliance on external mined phosphorous sources and on the recovery of nitrogen and phosphorous from these sources (Brownlie and others, 2022b; UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 2024).

23. There is some research into the feasibility of agrivoltaics for simultaneously producing crops for energy and food. The main barriers to scalability are the space required, limited yields and the lack of a means to evaluate its financial performance (Mamun and others, 2022).

Food production

24. It currently takes significant time to introduce new crop breeds. Revival of plant pre-breeding research and development in the UK to exploit available plant diversity and develop new, improved species of cereals (disease and pest resistance, fertiliser-use efficiency, heat/drought tolerant, more nutritious, producing higher yields) would improve resilience to climate change and ecosystem collapse (Thirtle, 1998; Mackay and others, 2011; Houses of Parliament, 2012).

25. While it takes 10 to 15 years from experimental breeding to commercial planting on average, gene editing could reduce this process to roughly 5 years.

26. Other emerging technologies include the spraying of Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) onto crops to elicit insecticidal properties (Zhang and others, 2024).

27. Pollinators are needed for horticultural production in most cases but are vulnerable to disease, predators and pesticides (Potts and others, 2016). Pollinator breeding could become necessary following ecosystem degradation.

28. A range of technologies are making traditional farming more efficient, such as deep learning, robotics and natural language processing to sort and classify foods, predict yields and improve food safety (Di Vaio and others, 2020; Zakaria and others, 2024).

29. AI systems, sensor networks and remote sensing can enhance real-time monitoring of ecosystem health indicators, optimise resource use in agricultural systems and help to manage complex supply chains.

30. Vertical horticulture can produce food using substantially less land than traditional agriculture. It is currently small scale and typically used for foods with minimal caloric value. It can generate productive yields but requires substantial capital costs and is energy intensive (Godfray and others, 2024); high energy prices following Russia鈥檚 invasion of Ukraine led to several start-ups failing (Financial Times, 2023).

31. Cell-cultivated products could substantially reduce the amount of agricultural land required (Sinke and others, 2023; Godfray and others, 2024). Cultured meat and precision fermentation to produce milk and cheese substitutes are examples. Both are expensive to produce and what emerges from fermenters is not ready to eat; it requires further processing. The main challenge to production of proteins by microbial fermentation, for example, is energy costs. However, other countries (Netherlands, Israel) are making greater strides in these technologies.

32. Nature-based solutions such as regenerative agriculture can increase pollinators and reduce emissions, although some argue that reduced fertiliser use and less intensive farming methods will affect yields in the short term. There is currently a lack of evidence around whether regenerative agriculture can improve soil health, its cost effectiveness, effect on yields and scalability.

33. There is some emerging technology for monitoring biodiversity loss, but it suffers from a lack of investment and is difficult to scale; there is also a lack of baseline for monitoring degradation.

34. There are opportunities to make food processing more adaptable and less wasteful by improving the capacity of production lines to tolerate greater variability in ingredients.

35. There are opportunities to make the UK food system less vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

36. Fisheries/aquaculture are also important sources of protein, particularly if insect feeds could be used. However, the sustainability of aquaculture will depend on the vulnerability of feedstocks to collapse (for example, Colombo and Turchini, 2021).

Food storage and managing demand

37. Reforming the UK鈥檚 just-in-time food system would improve demand management and resilience to shocks, including ecosystem collapse (Bellamy and others, 2024) 鈥� particularly through more efficient bulk storage.

38. Some key food sources are difficult to store. Protein quality in soya degrades over time, for example; research is needed into solutions for extending its storability.

39. However, efficiency gains achieved from better food storage can be undermined by poor distribution systems (as China has experienced; Dong and others, 2024).

40. In the UK, 70% of food waste happens in households (ONS, 2021); improved storage by consumers is also important. Examples of technology in this space include new packaging for extending shelf life and smart fridges (Liegeard and Manning, 2019) 鈥� but there is also a role here for education and for reconsideration of food costs to discourage waste.

41. There is clear capacity to make the UK catering sector less wasteful.

Consumer demand and behaviours

42. Any significant changes to food supply chains will require changes in consumer demand and habits, such as reduced meat consumption (FSA, 2023). Consumer demand and public acceptability are important to incentivising innovation in agri-tech 鈥� such as cell-cultivated products (de Oliveira Padilha and others, 2022; Onwezen and others, 2020).

43. At the same time, 10% to 15% of the UK population faces food poverty. The UK also has 鈥榝ood deserts鈥� (where only unhealthy food is readily available). Any scenario of ecosystem collapse or degradation can be expected to exacerbate these problems, which should be considered in plans for managing food supply.

44. There are potential technological approaches to educate the public about how to prepare and store food (including novel foods) more efficiently and less wastefully.

45. There are immersive technologies that can simulate how food systems and societies change in times of crisis (Food Alert and Cascades are examples, linked in the references under 鈥淪ocial simulation programme examples鈥�).

Meeting participants

The following participants attended the meeting:

• Angela McLean (GCSA, Chair)
• Aled Jones (Anglia Ruskin University)
• Charles Godfray (University of Oxford)
• Chris West (Stockholm Environment Institute/University of York)
• Elta Smith (Independent researcher)
• Graham Moore (John Innes Centre, Norwich)
• Jane Hill (University of York)
• John Ingram (University of Oxford)
• Lisa Collins (University of Surrey)
• Pantea Lotfian (Camrosh)
• Penny Johnes (University of Bristol)
• Sarah Bridle (University of York)
• Tom Breeze (University of Reading).

References

ADHB (2024).

Ali E and Zhang K. (2023)

Baker J, Schunk N, Scholz M, Merck A, Rebecca Logsdon Muenich, Westerhoff P, Elser JJ, Duckworth OW, Gatiboni L, Islam M, Marshall AM, Rosangela Sozzani and Mayer BK (2024).

Barling D, Sharpe R and Lang T (2008)

Bellamy AS, Benton T, Breeze TD, Brooks J, Campbell K, Doherty B, Elahi S, Falloon P, Frewer L, Garnett K, Gregory PJ, Hasnain S, Ingram JSI, Jackson P, Johnstone A, Lambie-Mumford H, Lonnie M, Loopstra R, McDermott K, Noble I, Parsons K, Power M, Thomas M and Wagstaff C (2024) United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024

British Society of Plant Breeders (2012)

Brownlie WJ, Sutton MA, Heal KV, Reay DS and Spears B (2022)

WJ Brownlie, WJ BM Spears, BM KV Heal, KV DS Reay, DS TG Benton, TG D Cordell, D Heathwaite, AL Hermann, L Johnes, PJ Masso, C McDowell, RW McGrath, JW Metson, GS Sakrabani, R Vanderbeck, I Zhang, F Sutton MA (2022b). Chapter 9. Synthesis - towards our phosphorus future, in: WJ Brownlie, MA Sutton, KV Heal, DS Reay, BM Spears (editors)

Colombo SM and Turchini GM (2021)

Cordell D, Benton TG, Withers PJA, Johnes PJ, Neset T, Spears BM (2022a) Chapter 3. Transforming food systems: implications for phosphorus, in: WJ Brownlie, MA Sutton, KV Heal, DS Reay, BM Spears (editors),

Cordell D, Jacobs B, Anderson A, Camargo-Valero M, Doody D, Forber K, Lyon C, Mackay E, Marshall R, Martin-Ortega J, May L, Okumah M, Rothwell S, Shahvi S, Sherry E, Spears B, and Withers P. (2022b). UK Phosphorus Transformation Strategy: Towards a circular UK food system

Cottee J, McCormack C, Hearne E, Sheane R. (2022). The Future of Feed How Low Opportunity Cost Livestock Feed Could Support a More Regenerative UK Food System. Second Report in the WWF-UK鈥檚

de Oliveira Padilha LG, Malek L and Umberger WJ (2022).

Di Vaio A, Boccia F, Landriani L and Palladino R (2020).

Dong K, Prytherch M, McElwee L, Kim P, Blanchette J and Hass R (2024).

FAO (2023).

FSA (2023).

Godfray CJ, Poore J and Ritchie H (2024).

Hermann L, McGrath JW,听Kabbe C, Macintosh KA,听van Dijk K, Brownlie WJ (2022). Chapter 7. Opportunities for recovering phosphorus from residue streams, in: WJ Brownlie, MA Sutton, KV Heal, DS Reay, BM Spears (editors),

Liegeard J and Manning L (2019).

Mackay I, A Horwell, Garner J, White JM, McKee JSC and Philpott H (2011).

Mamun MAA, Dargusch P, Wadley D, Zulkarnain NA and Aziz AA (2022).

Masso C, Zhang F, Adhya TK, Blackwell MSA, Macintosh KA, Johnes PJ, Haygarth PM, Withers PJA, Feng G, Li H, Zhang C, Wu J, Shen J, Stutter MI, Cheng L, Brownlie WJ (2022) Chapter 4. Opportunities for better phosphorus use in agriculture, in: WJ Brownlie, MA Sutton, KV Heal, DS Reay, BM Spears (editors),

ONS (2021).

Onwezen MC, Bouwman EP, Reinders MJ and Dagevos H (2020).

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2024)

Patty F (2023).

Potts SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca V, Ngo HT, Aizen MA, Biesmeijer JC, Breeze TD, Dicks LV, Garibaldi LA, Hill R, Settele J and Vanbergen AJ (2016).

Sinke P, Swartz E, Sanctorum H, van der Giesen C. and Odegard I (2023).

Social simulation programme examples: 听

Spring KA (2021)

Thirtle C (1998).

鈥�UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2024)

Yan W (2017)

Yang A, Ng KS, Thompson I, Tsui T TH, Zhang W, Nair P, Qiu S, Ingram J, Zurek M, Gupta B, Hasnain S, Surridge B, Cottee J, and Hayes G (2023).

鈥孼akaria S, Bradford M, Hutton E and Besse J (2024).

Zhang W, Li S, Zhou Z and Ma W (2024).