A Short History of How Britain Feeds Itself

Paul Lovatt Smith comes from a farming background. He is a geologist and organic smallholder
with an interest in history.

Prehistory

In the beginning there was hunter-gathering. This supported a population of less than 10,0001.

Farming found its way to Britain around 6,000 years ago, during the late Stone Age, dramatically
increasing the people-carrying capacity of the land. Forests began to be cleared for fields and food
supply increased as technology advanced. By the early Bronze Age 4,000 years ago, it has been
estimated that the population had reached 250,0001. The discovery of iron 2,800 years ago must
have caused a further sharp increase in the process and by the time of the Roman invasion in 43 AD
Britain’s population probably exceeded 1 million2.

Pre-Industrial Revolution

From Roman times up until the Industrial Revolution the overall trend in population was a gradual
increase to 6.9 million in 17503, though this disguises dramatic rises and falls. A rise to up to 4 million
during the Roman period, followed by a collapse to 1 – 2 million during the Dark Ages has been
estimated4. Recovery to around 6 million by 1300 was set back by the Great Famine of 1315 – 17
and the Black Death plague of 1348 – 50, which reduced the population to around 3 million in 13503.

Catastrophes aside, why did the population in the 1,700-year long post-Roman, preindustrial period
never get beyond what now seems a small figure of 7 million? Most probably it was food supply that
was the fundamental control. Although there were continual advances in farming, such as larger
breeds, new varieties of crops and more complex rotations, which increased food supply5, the basics
of traditional farming – mixed livestock and arable, organic and self-sustaining – remained the same.
Also, at some point in this period the area of agricultural land plateaued at its current value of 17.2
million hectares, as the supply of wood from the remaining forest became critically low. It may
surprise some to learn that, in England at least, historians think that this milestone had already been
reached by 1300 AD5.

Industrial Revolution and Empire

The step-change increase which coincided with the Industrial Revolution at the beginning of the 19th
Century is the most significant population event in historical times. The event marks a 75 fold rise in
the rate of population increase, from around 0.35 million per century, to around 26 million per
century, a rate which continues to the present day. Two increases in the food supply were at the
root of this step change.

First, as machines began to replace human and animal labour, more food became available. This was
partly because people began to need less food as more jobs became non-manual: the average
amount of food energy consumed per person from 1300 – 1800 has been calculated at 3,050 kcal
per day5; today’s average adult requirement is 2,250 kcal6. Also, the gradual replacement of draught
and transport animals, such as horses and oxen, by machines, meant that the land and food that
they needed became available for humans. This was another important contribution: even as late as
1927, in the partly-mechanized traditional farming system of Sweden, it has been calculated that
horses consumed 18% of all the energy harvested7.

Second, and more significantly, the development of the British Empire during the 19th Century
provided safe access to food from abroad at an affordable price. From around 1800 Britain started to
import food8 and India, Canada and Australia soon became significant sources of wheat. This allowed
the population to expand, which in turn drove the expansion of the Empire. Doubts about the
wisdom of relying on imported food in the event of a crisis were overshadowed by the attractions of
power, wealth and adventure which the Empire afforded. By 1871, Britain was importing 40%8 of its
food and the population had risen to 27 million and by the height of the Empire in 1914 imports
were at 60%8 with a population of 42 million.

The crisis duly came in the shape of the two world wars of the 20th Century, when Britain’s food
imports were specifically targeted by the enemy. Tens of thousands lost their lives on food convoys
on the high seas, food was rationed and there were huge efforts to maximize food production such
as the ‘Dig for Victory’ campaign. Despite this, in the Second World War we have it on good
authority that half of our food still needed to be imported: “Because you see the 46 millions in our
island harassed about their food supply, of which they grow only half, even in wartime….” Sir
Winston Churchill, March 1946.

Post-World War 2

The near-starvation of the wars forced the Government to seek self-sufficiency in food. Science was
inventing new agro-chemicals: pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilizers which had the effect of
multiplying yields several times over. The use of such chemicals fundamentally changed the farming
system from low to high input, from self-sustaining to consuming and from mixed farming to
monoculture. The change was initially resisted by many farmers who doubted its sustainability,
disliked using poisons and were unhappy to become dependent on large industrial companies, but
by the end of the 1950s most had been won over by financial incentives. Britain’s 6,000 year old
farming system was dropped and the great post-war chemical farming experiment – otherwise
known as the Green Revolution – began.

The experiment was superficially successful. Calculations soon revealed that, on a restricted diet,
Britain could be self-sufficient in food10. Food imports dropped from around 50% in 1945 to 35% in
19818, a period when population growth added another 11 million people. Increasingly however, the
sustainability of chemical farming has been called into question. It has played a major part in the
huge reduction in wildlife which has taken place in the last 50 years11. It is emitting 52 million tonnes
of CO2 equivalent annually, which is 9% of the UK’s emissions of greenhouse gases12. It is exhausting
soils13. On top of this there is increasing concern about the effects of agro-chemicals on human
health14. As a result, there is a large and growing body of farmers who think that an organic system
is the only sustainable way to farm15.

Other agricultural technology has been invented in the post-war period, with applications to both
chemical and organic farming systems. Genetic modification has greatly reduced the time it takes to
change characteristics of livestock and crops to suit particular needs. Unfortunately most of the
applications so far have been to chemical farming, driven by the vested interests of the agri-chemical
industry. The information technology revolution has also had an impact, for example centimetre-
scale satellite positioning and mechanical automation are increasing the efficiency and yields of
arable farming.

British farming today is sandwiched between two sets of giants – the agro-chemical industry on the
supply side and national or global markets on the customer side. In addition, it is heavily subsidized
on a per-acre basis. Profitability has therefore become directly related to size, so the trend has been
for larger and more corporately-owned farms. Smaller family farms have generally only survived by
diversifying into non-agricultural activities, or by supplying the small minority of consumers who
prioritize other factors – health, animal welfare, the environment and the local economy – over price
for their food.

In a globalized world, many people, including the UK government16, do not regard self-sufficiency as
being all that important to food security any more. It is interesting how this view has gradually
changed in the 70 years since the end of the Second World War.

Industrial Era Analysis

The graph below illustrates how Britain has been fed during the period of unprecedented population
growth from 1750 onwards. By applying the historical data8 for the fraction (by weight) of imported
to indigenous food to the population figures, it shows the proportions fed by imports and British
farming. The fed-by-farming sector is further divided into estimates of the contribution from
traditional (mechanized and un-mechanized) and chemical systems. Today’s official organic sector,
which occupies 3.9% of agricultural land17, is included in the mechanized traditional/organic
category.
The graph highlights the following points:

 The mechanization of the Industrial Revolution caused the population fed from farming to
nearly treble, from under 7 million in 1750, to a plateau of around 18 million from 1850
onwards.
 Britain’s lack of self-sufficiency in food is nothing new, having lasted for over 200 years.
 The population fed from farming approximately doubled in the first 30 years of chemical
farming.

Lessons from History

There is no immunity from catastrophe, either man-made or natural. In particular, relying heavily on
imported food, such as we have grown used to over the last 200 years, has led to suffering and
death on two occasions – World Wars 1 and 2. The post-war solution to the import problem,
chemical farming, has harmful side-effects, yields have plateaued and its sustainability is being
increasingly called into question.

The good news is that history demonstrates that human ingenuity – new ideas and technology – is
the way in which greater populations are supported and problems are solved. Much of this process
has been a gradual background effect, but there have been several step-changes, in particular the
move from hunter-gathering to farming in the Stone Age, the Industrial Revolution and the agro-
chemical revolution of the 1950s.

In addition, there is still a jewel hidden in Britain’s larder: traditional organic farming, the sustainable
engine of our ancestors’ food supply and the partner of our biodiverse ecosystem for 6,000 years. In
peacetime this system has fed around 18 million people and in wartime around 23 million.

The Potential of Organic Farming

Could Britain’s population today be fed from traditional organic farming, or some other organic
farming system such as permaculture? Some in the organic camp say that we could and point to high
productivity in some, mainly horticultural, organic farms and smallholdings. An often-cited reference
is an article written by Simon Fairlie, a respected agriculturalist, in 200718, in which he estimates that
traditional organic farming could feed a population of around 70 million, based on his assumptions
of current yields and diet. Other largely untested organic and permaculture systems could, he
proposes, feed even more. However, he is at pains to point out that these estimates are his own
“back of an A4 envelope” calculations, which require review and much more research.

Many farmers and growers, though they might prefer organic to chemical farming, doubt such
claims. Organic yields are lower than for chemical farming and none of the claims take into account
historical productivity. Even to feed today’s population of 64 million requires a trebling in
productivity since 1945, which would have needed a step-change in organic farming technology
similar to the effect of the Industrial Revolution. There have been technological improvements, but
nothing on this scale. For what it is worth, my own practical experience of traditional organic
farming in a modern setting shows productivity similar to pre-Second World War levels.
What other evidence is there? The Global Footprint Network, whose research is widely used by the
United Nations, N.G.O.s and governments, thinks that Britain’s ecological footprint is three times the
size of its land area19, in other words the population would need to be 21 million in order to have an
equitable footprint. The historical data above suggests that 18 million in peacetime and 23 million in
wartime is the maximum historical population fed by traditional organic farming. To sum up, it is
unfortunately very difficult, on the basis of all the evidence, to see how British organic farming could
support anything close to the current population.

The Future

The UK’s population is now 64 million and rising, food imports are at 40% and rising. Development is
eating up virgin land at the rate of around 4,700 hectares per year20.

Climate change and sea level rise are set to become major external influences in the future. A
warming climate will have some positive effects on British farming, but sea level rise looks set to
further reduce the area of low-lying farmland.

Technology is being developed to produce artificial food in factories. Such science is in its infancy,
and it will need large quantities of non-polluting energy, which is itself a science that is still
developing, therefore it is likely that this is decades away from being a practical solution. Artificial
food is far from being a panacea; it may come with health risks and would not be desirable for some
people (including me).

With imports rising, more and more people, a likely downside to farming yields, increasing evidence
of harm from agro-chemicals, little immediate prospect of any step-change technological fix, ever-
more reliable predicted threats from climate change and the lessons of history in mind, it is difficult
not to be concerned about how Britain will feed itself in the future.

It may be that the only solution to our food problem is one which will come from a change within
our hearts and minds rather than from any invented technology. People are becoming more
interested in food, farming and the environment and some even question the high value placed on
continual growth.

Most of us think that Britain would be better off with a stable or smaller population21, for many
reasons, including food supply. Perhaps we are coming to a point in our history where, in order to
try to survive and thrive in harmony with each other, this beautiful island and our fellow creatures,
as well as to feed ourselves securely and healthily, we will start to consider ways of encouraging our
population back down to more self-sustainable levels.

References

1. Pryor, F. (2003). Britain BC. London: Harper Perennial.

2. Richards, J. (2011). BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Overview: Iron Age, 800 BC - AD
43. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/overview_british_prehistory_iron
age_01.shtml
3. Estimated by adding 1/5th to the population of England (Jeffries, J. (2005). The UK
population: past, present and future. London: UK Office of National Statistics) due to a lack
of data for Scotland and Wales in this period.

4. Wood, M. (2012, May 25). BBC News - Viewpoint: The time Britain slid into chaos. Retrieved
March 11, 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18159752

5. Allen, R. C. (2005). English and Welsh Agriculture, 1300-1850: Outputs, Inputs and Income

6. National Health Service. (2015, March 17). What should my daily intake of calories be? -
Health questions - NHS Choices. Retrieved March 17, 2015, from NHS Choices:
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1126.aspx?categoryid=51

7. Fairlie, S. (2010). Meat A Benign Extravagence. Permanent Publications.

8. DEFRA. (2008). Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World. London: DEFRA.

9. Cabinet Office. (2008). Food Matters: towards a stratgey for the 21st Century. London:
Cabinet Office.

10. Mellanby, K. (1975). Can Britain Feed Itself. Merlin.

11. RSPB and Others. (2013). State of Nature. RSPB.

12. Webb, N. (2014). UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2012. Department of Energy and
Climate Change.

13. Case, P. (2014, October 21). Only 100 harvests left in UK farm soils, scientists warn - Farmers
Weekly. Retrieved 2015, from Farmers Weekly: http://www.fwi.co.uk/news/only-100-
harvests-left-in-uk-farm-soils-scientists-warn.htm

14. Pesticide Action Network UK. (2015, March). Home. Retrieved March 2015, from Pesticide
Action Network UK: http://www.pan-uk.org/

15. Oxford Real Farming Conference. (2015, March 17). The Oxford Real Farming Conference.
Retrieved March 17, 2015, from The Oxford Real Farming Conference: http://orfc.org.uk/

16. DEFRA. (2010). UK Food Security Assessment: Detailed Analysis. London: DEFRA.

17. Soil Association. (2013). Organic Market Report 2013. Soil Association.

18. Fairlie, S. (2007/8, Winter). Can Britain Feed Itself? The Land .

19. Global Footprint Network. (2015, March). National Footprints Account 2015 Edition. Global
Footprint Network.

20. DEFRA. (2011). Costing potential actions to offset the impact of development on biodiversity.
London: GHK.
21. Population Matters. (2015, March). Opinion polls « Population Matters. Retrieved March
2015, from Population Matters » for a sustainable future:
http://www.populationmatters.org/making-case/opinion-polls/