National and International Strategies for Food Security

Food security at a national scale: the UK

A country is food secure when people have reliable access to enough safe, nutritious and affordable food. Producing more food can help, but the supply must also withstand disruption and people must be able to afford it.

The UK uses both domestic production and imports. Imports provide variety and foods that are difficult to grow in the UK, but harvest failures overseas can reduce supplies and raise prices. Increasing production within the UK can reduce exposure to these problems. Two approaches illustrate this: the past intensification of farming and the present use of hydroponics.

Past attempt: intensifying farming, 1940s–1980s

During the Second World War, attacks on shipping disrupted food imports. After the war ended in 1945, increasing food production remained a priority across the UK and Europe. Intensive farming aimed to produce more food from the land available by increasing inputs and improving farming methods.

Farmers selectively bred crops and animals with higher yields. Fertilisers supplied mineral nutrients for plant growth, pesticides controlled pests and herbicides reduced competition from weeds. Improved irrigation, including groundwater pumping and electric sprinklers, supplied water when rainfall was insufficient.

Mechanisation allowed machines to sow, spray and harvest crops efficiently. Large areas planted with one crop—monoculture—made these operations easier to organise. Together, these changes increased production and reduced reliance on imported cereals.

How effective was intensification?

In the 1940s, imports accounted for about 70% of the UK's cereal supply; by the 1980s, this had fallen to about 20%. This is strong evidence that the UK became better able to meet its cereal needs through domestic production, reducing its dependence on overseas supplies.

However, greater production did not remove every risk. A large area of one crop can be vulnerable to the same pest or disease, while drought can affect harvests across many farms. During the 1976 drought, cereal production dropped by about 500,000 tonnes. Domestic production therefore remained vulnerable to weather.

There were also costs to the land supporting future production. Heavy chemical use could pollute soil and water, and pesticides could harm pollinators such as bees and butterflies. Over-exploitation increased soil erosion and reduced fertility. The expansion of large farms also removed hedgerows and reduced biodiversity.

Overall, intensification was effective at increasing cereal availability and reducing import dependence. Its success was more limited when judged against the reliability of harvests and the long-term condition of farmland.

Present attempt: hydroponic production

Hydroponics grows plants without soil, supplying their roots with water containing dissolved mineral nutrients. In greenhouse facilities, growers can extend the growing season and reduce dependence on local soil conditions. This allows more fresh produce to be grown within the UK rather than imported.

A named example is Thanet Earth in Kent, which grows tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers hydroponically. It produces over 10% of the UK's supply of these crops and employs over 500 people. Although this is one production site, it demonstrates how hydroponics can contribute to food security at a national scale.

Water can be recycled, reducing pressure on supplies. Natural predators can control pests and reduce the need for chemical pesticides. Hydroponics can also make some spaces productive that would not be suitable for conventional soil-based farming.

How effective is hydroponics?

Extending production through the year increases the availability of UK-grown vegetables and reduces reliance on imports. This can make supplies less exposed to overseas shortages and price increases. Thanet Earth's contribution shows that hydroponics can operate on a substantial commercial scale.

However, facilities are expensive to build and run, and greenhouses require large amounts of energy. These costs can make produce more expensive, limiting the benefit for households already struggling to afford food. High investment costs also make it difficult for small farms to adopt the method. Building facilities on rural land can damage habitats.

Hydroponics is therefore a useful contribution rather than a complete solution. It strengthens the supply of particular fresh vegetables, but does not provide every type of food the UK needs or guarantee affordable access for everyone.

Comparing the two approaches

Past intensification increased the quantity of food produced, with a clear reduction in cereal import dependence. Present hydroponics offers greater control over growing conditions and can use water efficiently, but is constrained by energy requirements and cost.

Both improve domestic availability. Neither removes all risks: conventional farming remains exposed to weather and land degradation, while hydroponics depends on costly facilities and energy. Their effectiveness must be judged by reliable supply and affordability, not production alone.