Wars serve up both hard truths and revelations. The conflict in the Middle East has proven, once again, the fragility of the UK’s energy supply. But it’s also shown that the government’s rush to unhook the country from fossil fuels is smart. The public agrees, especially if politicians avoid abstract goals like net zero and talk instead about tangible improvements to people’s lives. Lower bills, not just low emissions.

The last month has also put the country’s food security in the spotlight. Households are facing a second cost of living spike within five years. Prices of red diesel and fertiliser have shot up, which will hurt farmers’ bottom lines this year and maybe shrink next year’s harvest. Gas-reliant glasshouse growers warn about shortages of salad, tomatoes and cucumbers. Britain’s confidence in being 60% self-sufficient feels shaky when we recall that even the crops, milk and meat we grow better than most depend on a constant flow of imported inputs.

There’s a glaring difference in the political conversation about food and energy security. Greening Britain’s grid and switching to heat pumps and electric cars is a transformation. It requires all of us to make changes, small and substantial, to going about our everyday, which add up to a drastically different economy.

The debate about food security is much less ambitious. Campaigners put much of their effort, quite rightly, into protecting those most vulnerable, those who are food insecure. Meanwhile, the industry mainstream cares about maintaining the supply of what Britain grows already and increasing production where we’ve historically fallen short. Look at the joint statement by the government’s new Food and Farming Partnership Board. This is less about transformation than keeping the old show on the road.

Each of us knows at least some of the elements of a more secure food system. Enough health, affordable and tasty food for everyone. More plentiful and accessible fruit, vegetables, pulses and minimally processed options. More local businesses in every neighbourhood where people can buy what they need, and more of our weekly shop produced, manufactured and sold within our own regions. (As Tim Lang points out, in a world of drones and cyber warfare, a nation reliant on a few dozen supermarket distribution hubs is vulnerable.)

British farms would produce their own renewable energy and power their combines and quads with hydrogen and electricity. They’d be more circular in using resources and less dependent on feed and fertiliser shipped in from abroad. Modelling by FFCC and the Sustainable Food Trust has shown that UK farming could embrace regenerative or nature-friendly approaches wholesale, boosting soil health and biodiversity while maintaining or improving the country’s self-sufficiency. These models demand a trade-off in what the country eats and grows: much less chicken and pork, a bit less beef and lamb, much more green stuff.

Some of this is happening now. Some is a distant dream. But it would all come together in a very different food system, a system much more resilient to the shocks we know are coming and contributing, as it should, to the nation’s health and prosperity. It’s a scale of change that our energy system is going through already.

The question, then, is how the food security debate can match the ambition of the green energy push? How can change in the food system attract the same urgency and scale of investment in a different future?

First, let’s put more attention on how transformed food security would make people’s lives better. For households, that means talking about keeping the price of basics stable in the long run. Or an affordable greengrocer on everyone’s doorstep. Or community kitchens and public diners where everyone can get a hot, healthy dinner, any day of the week. For farms and food businesses, there would be all sorts of opportunities, as the country grows, makes and delivers healthier food through a wider range of outlets. Farmers wouldn’t be wincing at their latest bill for feed, fert or fuel, but would be freed to focus on the fundamentals – people, land, animals, weather.

Second, it’s time to toughen up. Achieving long-term food security would mean there are losers as well as winners. A lot of industry chatter swirls around visions and consensus, but usually winds up reverting to the lowest common denominator and dodging the stuff that’s hard. There will be certain businesses and business models, food product categories, farming practices, and infrastructure like factories and sheds that would have to change radically, perhaps disappearing altogether. But big business can adapt. That’s just a functioning market. And for smaller firms, like farms, policy can pursue a fair transition: incentivising the uptake of new technology, producing more of the foods we need, repurposing equipment, machinery and buildings, and looking after and training staff.

Getting on the road to food security doesn’t require a sudden, mass conversion. It doesn’t need every business and lobby group to sign up to the same, long-term plan. To take the first step, to extend the somewhat stunted national conversation, the recipe is positivity plus frankness. It’s a scary world out there, but the UK has enormous advantages. Feeding Britain better in the long run is an exciting opportunity. We need to talk straight about the prize and what it will take to get there.