By Jimmy Woodrow, Chief Exec, Pasture for Life

Over the summer at least, “going hungry” will replace “going cold” in the media vocabulary.

For those of us working at the sharp end of the food system – farming – alongside the adjustments we will be making to our weekly shops, and concern for those we know who are having a harder time, it all begs an important question: what does this mean for the farmers and growers producing our food?

The honest answer is that the spike will land differently across British farming, between and within different farming systems. And these differences are already being weaponised in favour of certain versions of the future. The policy response needs to recognise where the real risks and opportunities lie.

Despite recent improvements in some areas, the sector remains wholly dependent on artificial fertiliser, red diesel and a range of other fossil fuel based products. The farms most directly exposed to a fertiliser and energy shock are those wedded to this high-input system, chasing yield and playing an economy of scale game, in most cases without any scale. Their risk is society’s risk and it’s right that the government should be taking that incredibly seriously. Food security is an overly politicised term but who can argue with the basic underlying concept?

A universally accepted analysis does not lead to universal conclusions, however.

The trend towards regenerative farming across the sector is showing that food system resilience can and should be built on a low input, agroecological approach. Agroecological practices – working with nature, building soil fertility through legumes, manure and rotations, reducing dependence on synthetic inputs and chemicals – have, by design, reduced exposure to exactly the cost lines that are now spiking.

This new movement has created new pathways for farmers to experiment with lower inputs and demonstrates that alternative approaches to food production are possible at scale. Strong evidence backing large reductions in key inputs, with in some cases minimal reduction in output, should light the way for farmers wondering where to turn. Those transitioning to a low input approach are more resilient to this shock, not less.

What holds back these farmers is not input costs but the structure of the market they sell into, and the fickleness of the retail sector. Ninety-five per cent of Britain’s food retail is sold through just twelve retailers and they have a woeful record of scaling best practice, focusing instead on premiumisation. The Groceries Code Adjudicator’s own 2023 report described retailer behaviour during the last cost-of-living crisis as “warfare” with suppliers and it is common knowledge within the sector that the price of organic produce was increased during Covid to offset price reductions of economy lines.

The alternative to this clear-eyed reduction of risk, with its focus on economic and ecological resilience, is sticking with business as usual. Squeezed by input costs from below and retailer pressure from above, a rational short-term response on farm is to intensify: push yields, raise stocking densities, defer the transition. The shock entrenches the model just when it needs to evolve. Those pushing this approach seek to maintain the status quo for reasons other than farmers’ – or the national – interests. These actors favour short-term financial support over long-term investment, on-shoring the production of inputs we should be phasing out and, bizarrely, additional bureaucracy, all perpetuating the problem.

This is the picture the policy response has to address. These shocks – geopolitical and climate related – are now coming thick and fast. By not accelerating the transition the government is just kicking the can down the road, ultimately making the whole sector more fragile, and national food security more exposed. A forward-focussed response protects the most vulnerable and at risk, targets support, and invests in designing a more fair and resilient farming future.

First, government should stop any immediate damage in the supply chain through a focus on fairness. Extend the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit beyond direct suppliers to the underlying producers, the farmers. Accelerate the fair dealing regulations under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020 to cover all primary produce. Resource the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator properly and enable it to operate. Without these, the spike will be paid for by the producers least able to absorb it, and the public investment in transition will leak straight out through the retail margin.

Second, farm payments should focus on what they were designed to do (pay for public goods) and accelerate the transition. SFI26 opens in June 2026 and should be targeted on helping farms who want to deliver a whole farm transition, not those chasing the money in isolated pockets on an annual cycle. The priority given to small farms (3–50ha) and those without existing ELM agreements should make this easier. Bridging support for farmers mid-transition who are carrying conversion-year yield dips into a price shock may be needed. Investment in independent and farmer-to-farmer, peer support services are really proving their worth in delivering change. Use this laser focus to bring private finance in alongside and plug gaps in the frameworks around ecosystem service markets, like a grassland carbon code.

Finally, build the infrastructure that allows alternative models to scale, currently the single biggest constraint on shorter, fairer, healthier supply chains, or value networks. Regional abattoirs. Vegetable processing. Mills. Dairy hubs. The government is eager to deploy capital spending and this is as good as it gets; evidence from Norfolk shows that for £1 invested it is possible to generate £6.54 in social value (economic, social and health outcomes). Many Protected Landscapes are leading the way on this, putting their limited funds to work for their local communities. An Agroecology Development Fund, and other structured instruments, can provide blended public and patient private capital, closing the transition finance gap that conventional agricultural lenders will not touch. Apply the public procurement provisions in the updated Social Value Act to strengthen markets for the good, healthy food we need, on terms farmers and SME food businesses can plan and invest for.

As with the energy transition, this latest crisis makes the strongest case for accelerating the farming transition. The task for the government is protecting producers from the old market structures that are ranged against them – and building the infrastructure that lets farmers and businesses innovate, spread and embed.