“Don’t make assumptions” stated Don Miguel Ruiz in his book ‘The Four Agreements’ - advice that we would do well to remember at the start of every discussion.

The chosen subject this month was ‘Exploring food security in the UK’ and an assumption was made that we all implicitly agreed on what
food security meant. David’s definition: “that there is enough food with enough nutrition to feed the whole population for ꭓ amount of time” was agreed upon, but quite late on in the discussion and after a rather provocative challenge that food security was not important. This challenge to the assumed parameters rather cast doubt on this definition.

For many decades the food industry as followed a ‘Just in time’ system of production and delivery – a retailing revolution in which large storage spaces were reclaimed, made possible by highly efficient computer systems and the reliability of transport and distribution. With the advent of an unsettled global economy affecting markets, with threats from hostile nations, increasing cyber-attacks and disrupted distribution, not to mention the effects of climate change on harvests, the ‘just in time’ system looks increasingly precarious.

We agreed that contingency plans were becoming ever essential, and while Barbara cited the need for businesses and institutions to have emergency plans, we felt that this requirement should be extended to the many layers of society, from individual households to government, and that the current government’s preparedness website was a token gesture as compared to many other European countries; that stockpiling your larder was ok, but food availability formed the safety net for a functioning society and should be approached as so.

Much emphasis was placed on consumers’ demands and their expectation for cheap food, often at the expense of the farmers; this theme developed into the conflict between consumer choice, (which was often unhealthy and placed unneeded strain on the NHS), and the promotion of a healthy diet with more locally sourced food.

Many factors in our current society mitigate against a fuller understanding of nutritional requirements and the benefits of (say) home-cooking. It was agreed that our consumer-led society, of which food was just a small part, was unsustainable, though it was suggested that when items became unavailable, consumers would simply change their choice, and that forcing dietary change would probably have an adverse reaction on consumers’ attitudes. However, educating and arming people with facts and including them into a national debate must be part of the plan, without being patronising or judgmental.

Many thanks for the varied and interesting contributions made by everyone in the group.