one crust of bread

8/7/2019 One Crust of Bread

1/33


2/33


3/33

Reports in this series are intended as a contribution topublic debate on issues of world development and it ishoped that policy-makers and planners will take theminto account. They reflect Oxfam's concern for humanrights and a belief that new policies are needed to meetthe ch allenges of a rapidly changing wo rld.

ISBN 0 85598 026 5Copyright Oxfam 1977

This book converted to digital file in 2010


4/33

CONTENTS

ONE: INTRODUCTIONTWO: THE PRESENT SITUATION

The View from the MinistryThe UK, the World Food Situationand the Common Agricultural PolicyNutrition and Health in the UK

THREE: W H A T IS TO BE DONE?New D irections for AgricultureCo-ordination of Nutrition and FoodProduction the case for a new policy.Enough for Everyone

FOUR: CONCLUSIONFIVE: SUMMARY OF

RECOMMENDATIONS

Page5

911

13171923

25

AppendixReferencesAdditional BibliographyList of Abbreviations

27282929


5/33


6/33

ONE: INTRODUCTION1 The world's ability to feed itself must depend on sustaining agrowth of food production greater than the growth of pop-ulation and using the surplus to help meet the basic needs ofthe several hundred million people already suffering from

malnutrition.2 Right up to 1971 that primary condition was being fulfilled:the problem of hunger was not solved, but farm outputmanaged to keep pace with the population boom. Then in1972/3 the scales tipped ominously for the first time therewas suddenly less food available per person than before.Com bined with some disastrous harvests and spiralling worldgrain prices, this meant rapidly rising prices for those whocould afford to pay and empty plates for those who couldnot.3 As always the Less Developed Countries (LDCs) were par-ticularly hard hit. Recent estimates embodied in the EuropeanCom mission's Indicative Food Aid Programme (1976) indi-cate that if present trends are m aintained then by 1985 theLD Cs as a group will face a net grain deficit of perhaps 200million tons.

4 Thus in order to achieve a reasonable standard of nutritionfor their people the LDCs require the following first, theopportunity to expand their domestic food production tocater primarily for internal consumption and then for externalmarke ts. Secondly, they requ ire access to world m arkets at


7/33

fair prices, both as buyers and sellers. This should be coupledwith stability in these markets and access to stockpiles ofbasic food commodities, particularly grain, over the nextdecade to safeguard their long-term development planning.This report argues that any new agriculture and food strategyfor the UK must be based on a more economical use ofexisting resources and on the recognition that the worldmust be regarded as a gigantic farm in which each countrysupplies its basic food needs and makes the best use ofexisting inputs. By adhering to this principle and by settlinghigher production targets in this country we could help tomake food supplies on the world market more readily avail-able to the poorer, food-deficit countries. This would requirean in tegrated assessment of this country's nutritional needsand the use we make of our agricultural land and otherinputs* A policy which balances these two basic elementswould also contribute to improved standards of nutritionand consequently a healthier population.The present state of agricultural and related policies in theUK largely unco-ordinated and lacking clear objectives guarantees that we will fail in meeting the real requirementsof our own and the world community. There is a pressingneed for a new approach. This report seeks to provide asynthesis of the research and conclusions of experts withinand without government whose ideas coincide or interlock,thus suggesting an outline for the government strategy whichis conspicuously lacking.Part Two of this report looks at the current state of affairs interms of Britain's past and present role in the world market,the government's recent response to the overall situationand this country's nutritional needs. Proposals for a newfood and agriculture policy for Britain consistent with theobjectives stated above are discussed in Part Three. Someconcern the policy framework required for the new approach,others relate to specific, practical measures which could beslotted into it. These recomm endations are intended only asguidelines: they are not exhaustive, nor is it within the scopeof the report to discuss the technicalities of implementingthem. It is intended to publish supplementary papers over aperiod of time, dealing with particular aspects of the policy.


8/33

TW O: THE PRESENT SITUATIONThe View from the Ministry

8 The government's considered approach to agricultural policyis set out in the White Paper 'Food From Our Own Resources'of April 1975. A five-year plan to increase the productivityof the farm sector by 2 per cent per annum is the centraltheme of the Paper, which may be summarized as follows:9 The governm ent's policy will be based on the continuingexpansion of food production. It is predicted that " ... . mostbenefit is likely to come from a higher output of milk (withits by-product the beef from the dairy herd) and sugar beet.Cereals and sheepmeat should also make a significant con-tribution .. .. " The government also advocates a better useof both natural and human resources by such means as agreater utilization of grass-lands and incentives to attractworkers to the agricultural sector.

10 The White Paper seeks to outline a realistic and forwardlooking policy for British agriculture. However, the follow-ing criticisms can be made. First, the paper remains basedfirmly on traditional economic considerations rather thanon a reasoned appraisal of the nutritional needs of thepopulation of this country. Secondly, a five year projectiondoes not look far enough ahead , as many farmers have beenquick to point out. The changes advocated cannot be madeovernight and a policy looking at least ten years aheadwould have been more relevant. If properly constructed andseen to be in the na tion's best interests, a new policy based


9/33

on the considerations outlined in this report should be accept-able to all major parties and thus able to span changes ofgovernm ent over a decade or more. Thirdly, there is a lackof detail in the W hite Paper as to how the changes advocatedwill be b rought abou t. In many ways it seems to be simply anexhortation to farmers to grow more and sell more, so that itcan hardly be regarded as a policy document at all.11 Furtherm ore, the White Paper is condemned by the govern-ment's own statistics, as given in the H ouse of Commons bythe Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture in February1977. Apparently, almost two years after publication of 'FoodFrom Our Own Resources' and bearing in mind that this is afive year plan, our agricultural labour productivity index isexpected to fall from 133 in 1974/75 to 114 in 1976/77. At thesame time Britain's total net deficit on food, feed and drinkimports has risen from 2,905 million in 1974 to 3,566million in 1976. Thus, in addition to all its other shortcomingsthe new policy has failed to achieve its primary objectivewhich is to raise this country 's level of self-sufficiency infood.1

12 Moreover, the government claims to be "mindful" of theworld food situation, in considering the contribution thatagriculture can make to the domestic economy. It alsoasserts that UK policies should be framed with regard to theinterests of Third World countries as producers particularly of those products which we cannot growourselves. How then can the government justify itsintention to expand domestic beet sugar production2without outlining its possible ill effects on overseas caneproducers? Even the Lome' Convention of 1974 does notgive complete protection to the African, Caribbean andPacific (ACP) sugar-producing countries, which are stillvulnerable to the effects of increased European sugar beetproduction.3

13 In addition, when the White Paper speaks of curbing ourdemand for imported grain for animal feed it is in terms ofcutting back the potential annual increase from 3 milliontons to 1 million tons. In real terms we would therefore bestill increasing our demands on world grain supplies in orderto produce expensive and unnecessary additional proteinwhile the real needs of the less developed nations are ignored.14 As well as its signal failure to raise our own self-sufficiencyand to look to the needs of the LDCs, the White Paper, aswe have seen, also ignores the real nutritional requirementsof the population of this country. In effect, the government


10/33

has swept under the carpet those problems such as sickness,absenteeism and the other social ills, which accompany anunsuitable diet.

The UK, the World Food Situ-ation and the Common Agricul-tural Policy.15 In this country, as in all developed ones, changing tastesconditioned by affluence have produced a hamburger andsteak house mentality in which a large slab of red meat is

mistakenly believed to be the best source of protein forhealth and strength. As a consequence, 10 million tons ofgrain per annum enough to provide one year's basic diet(at 2 lbs per person per day) for 50 million people in manycountries is fed instead to British livestock, and thisrepresen ts an increase of more than 50% since 1951." Eventhe most efficient feed converter (i.e. the chicken) requires12 calories of feedstuffs, consisting largely of grain, in orderto produce one calorie in the form of edible meat. Thecorresponding ratios for pigmeat and beef are about 20:1and 30:1.5 There has to be something ethically and econom-ically wrong with a system which given the scale of globalmalnutrition allows a country to outbid another, not-withstanding its intention largely to waste the cereal's foodvalue by using it to produce animal protein in the form ofbeef, pork, etc.

16 Nonetheless, the UK was commendably one of the firstEuropean countries to announce its contribution to theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),designed to mobilise substantial new resources for foodproduction in the Third World. This contribution of 15million represents Britain's share (on a GN P basis) of whatthe western countries decided they should contribute to the$1,000 million Fund, and by this yardstick it is the appropriatesum. On the other hand, the $1,000 million target has notyet been reached, the UK contribution spread over threeyears represents only one per cent of our annual overseasdevelopment aid budget and is a pittance compared withhundreds of millions spent by the European Community onits Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The governmentshould lose no time in meeting the pledge of the UK dele-gation to the World Food Council that "in respect of the 9


11/33

Fund the United Kingdom would endeavour to co-operatewith those charged with closing the gap between the alreadypledged total including the British contribution and theoverall target".

17 With regard to the CAP: this is by far the most importantcomponent of the European Community's budget, absorbingsome 70 per cent of the total. Although member states stillhave national policies, in many instances the CAP over-rides these prices of farm products, market organisation,the control of international trade and the rationalisation offarm structures are covered by the CAP. Nevertheless,there are several areas where national governments havejurisdiction, as well as many grey areas in which responsibilityis not clearly defined.18 There are several important agricultural commodities thatare not subject to Community regulations, notably sheep-meat and potatoes. There is also the question of land useitself national governments are still empowered to balancethe competing claims of farming, forestry, building, miningand recreation. Systems of land tenure are still on a nationalbasis.19 The grey areas mentioned above include the question of aidto farmers, the pay and working conditions of agriculturallabourers and consumer protection. Here too, any nationalpolicy could probably be so constructed as to enjoy consid-erable freedom of manoeuvre.620 As will be seen, many of the proposals outlined in thethird part of this report could be formulated and adoptedwithout running counter to the letter of the law of the CAP .Furthermore, where national policy appears to be runningathwart the CAP, certain mechanisms can be used (e.g. theCouncil of Ministers and the European Parliament) toachieve harmonisation by negotiation or by changing theCAP itself.721 A recent comprehensive survey of the world commodityscene and the CAP8 indicates that, despite its originallyprotectionist nature, the CAP has displayed considerableflexibility in recent years. The trend appears to be awayfrom a policy devoted to the support of domestic producersand to one "attempting to apply an evenhanded stabilisationpolicy for (overseas) producers and consumers". As a resultthe community has been reminded of its dependence onThird World suppliers and has thus been ready to make10 agricultural concessions in return for trade agreements with


12/33

many LDCs. If these tendencies towards greater flexibilityand closer links with the developing world continue, thennew national policies based on a resolve to better the situa-tion of the LDCs would be more readily integrated into theframework of the CAP.22 Part Three of this report outlines the principal ingredients ofa new food and agriculture strategy for Britain which is inmarked contrast to that presented in the White Paper. Thisnew policy would be based firmly on the twin pillars ofinterdependence among nations and the nutritional require-ments of the inhabitants of these islands.

Nutrition and Health in the UK23 One of Oxfam's main aims is that all mankind has sufficientand suitable food, and we have for many years been concernedwith food-related problems in developing nations. We there-fore feel that we should m ake known our opinions regardingthe average Briton's diet which seems unsuitable in manyrespects. Due to the vigorous disagreement among expertsas to the average nutritional requirements of the people ofthis country, it is extremely difficult to establish the amountby which we overeat or indeed if we overeat at all. What is

certain is that the average Briton consumes i.e. eats orwastes some 3,000 Kcal per day and this is in excess of all theestimates of requirem ents which vary from 2,300 to 2,800.*No accurate figures are available on how much of the differ-ence between requirement and consumption is due to wasterather than overconsumption although a figure statingthat 25 % of all food (post farmgate) is wasted is frequentlyused as an indication of the level of waste.9 Because of theseproblems we shall concentrate our attention on the qualityof the British diet where the facts seem rather clearer.24 Over the past few years there has been increasing concernabout what we eat. A report published last year by a work-ing party of the R oyal College of Physicians and the BritishCardiac Society,10 for example, makes strong links betweena high consumption of animal fats (coupled with heavysmoking and a lack of exercise) and the incidence of heartdisease. Perhaps as much as one third of the population ofthe UK suffer from diet-linked ailments such as obesity anddigestive disorders. Thus we are making ourselves ill by

T h e British Nutrition Foundation , the Ministry of Agriculture and theFood & Agriculture Organisation of the UN all provide differing statistics. 11


13/33

consuming animal products most of which use severalpounds of grain for every pound that is produced. In addition,recent statistics underline the poor state of our teeth due inlarge part to excessive consumption of sugar and whatAm ericans call 'junk foods' 97 per cent of all British eightyear olds and 90 per cent of fourteen year olds need dentaltre atm en t.'' A very recent report on a symposium organisedby the B ritish Nutrition Foundation also expresses concernregarding the quality of our diet and our position in thecontext of world food supplies. '2

25 In Norway , a similar concern is prompting the formulationof a new agriculture and food policy based on considerationsof nutrition and public health as well as on market forces.l3Likewise a comprehensive (14 volume) nutritional surveyrecently carried out in Canada states "Government has avital regulatory role to play in ensuring that the Canadianfood supply is nutritionally adequate".14

26 It is surely an indictm ent of the policy of successive Britishgovernments since the war, that there has been no seriousattempt to achieve a balance between the nation's nutritionalneeds and the level of supplies. Despite its many undesirableeffects, the law of supply and demand seems to be the onlyone the planners recognise.27 The UK government should go further than those countriesquoted above and institute policies whereby agriculturalproduction is geared to the dietary needs of the populationof this country, the requirements of the less developednations and to the optimum utilization of all agriculturalresources both national and global.

12


14/33

THREE: W H A T IS TO BE DONE?

New Directions for Agriculture28 As a component of the 'world farm', the UK should capitalizefully on its agricultural resources by producing primarily tomeet our basic food needs, and concentrate on growingthose commodities which can be produced more economically

here than elsewhere.29 In the short term such a policy, being based on a shift from adiet depending largely on grain-fed meat to one relyingmore heavily on cereals and vegetables than at present, couldsignificantly alleviate the current world grain shortage. Inthe long run it would mean that as the world farm takesshape, food supplies generally would be more equitablydistributed, as each country produces its own basic diet.Only after everyone's basic nutiritional needs have beenmet would richer societies be able to produce and/or con-sume luxury items.

30 The achievem ent of these objectives would require a signifi-cant restructuring of the pattern s of agricultural productionin this country. The most effective way to modify thesewould be to change demand by means of a long-termgovernment-sponsored campaign of public education onnutrition. The 'push' of nutritional advice linked with the'pu ll' of attractive and nutritious foods should change eatinghabits in the desired direction.l5 (The Italian government,to cut down on expensive imported beef from within theCommunity, is already conducting a poster campaign inRome to encourage a move away from meat eating). 13


15/33

31 An alternative which has been suggested, is a major devalu-ation of the Green Pound, which could lead to a rise in UKprices and thus less waste and less over-consumption of suchexpensive items as meat. How ever, this is unlikely to occurat present as: (a) it could be tantamount to political suicideon the part of any government without an overwhelmingmajority, (b) it would deprive us of a valuable bargainingcounter for future negotiations with other European Com-munity mem bers on the CA P, and (c) would mean an end towhat amounts to considerable subsidies to this country fromthe Community.

32 We favour changing patterns of production, which would inturn interact with patterns of demand and give a furtherimpetus in the desired direction. A diet which is differentfrom the present one but no less varied and much morenutritious would result. W e would consume a good deal lessmeat, which is an expensive source of protein and one easilyreplaced by cheaper ones. We would also cut down ourintake of sugar, which taken in large quantities can be badfor one's health. The new diet would rely heavily on vege-tables, eggs, dairy products , fruit and especially cereals. Inthe short term , the UK would still import a certain amountof non-indigenous commodities (especially tea, coffee andsugar) and contra-seasonal products from the southernhemisphere, in order to meet needs which are not strictlynutritional, and to protect the interests of producers in theLDCs.

33 As a result of the dietary changes outlined above, thereshould be a significant drop in the consumption of beef, andit is hoped that domestic beef production could be eventuallygeared to the feed available from grass and certain by-productsinstead of relying heavily on grain, as is the case at present.Apart from a small number of cattle grazing on marginalgrassland, beef would be obtained by culling the dairy herdand from Third World countries such as Botswana. Weenvisage an eventual reduction of two-thirds in the size ofthe beef herd , while the dairy herd would remain at approxi-mately its present level. Sheepmeat would remain animportant part of the diet, while the poultry and pig indus-tries would be allowed to find their own levels in response tochanges in demand. Farmers would be encouraged to feedthe last two on recycled food waste and such small unavoid-able grain surpluses as may occur.16

34 In order to meet increased requirements for cereals, some14 two million acres of perm anent pasture will need to be


16/33

switched to grain cultivation and a reduction in temporarygrassland will be needed to maximise tillage acreage.

35 We can assume from the recent land classification of Englandand Wales that only approximately 22 million acres aresuitable for arable crops and that part of this area would bebest devoted to grass. It also indicates that little of theexisting rough grazing, occupying one-third of total farmlandbut producing only one-twentieth of the total output, couldbe upgraded.17 (The Appendix gives details of land use.)Thus, any changes must be based on making better use ofthese categories of land as they are at present.

36 As well as helping the world's poor by the methods outlinedin paragraphs 28 and 29, the adoption of the new diet couldbenefit the LDCs in another way. Part at least of their foodproblem is caused by their elite's whole-hearted adoption ofEuropean-style diets which are often nutritionally unsuitableand invariably economically wasteful. As Moises Behar ofthe World Health Organisation (WHO) has pointed out in arecent paper, a European diet for everyone is neitherpossible nor desirable as the earth's resources could notsupport all of mankind at this lvel.18 If we adopt a morefrugal diet it is possible that the rich in the developing nationsmay follow our example, as they have done in adopting theirpresent European one. This coupled with worldwidenutrition education could result in a more suitable and lesswasteful use of food.

37 However, there seems little point in attempting to evolvemore rational agricultural systems and lifestyles aimed atconserving finite resources, if we continue to misuse valu-able assets in other ways, and we suggest that there are fourmain areas in which considerable savings could be made.

38 First, we should slow the rate at which agricultural land isused for urban, industrial and recreational development 37,000 acres per annum.19 Much of this is good farmlandunnecessarily misused because of the lack of a co-ordinatedplan for land utilization. Efforts should be made to locatenew housing and industry on already existing sites, and tominimise demands made by motorway construction. Anindication of the need for vigorous action is that the loss of37,000 acres each year represents the loss of perhaps 22 lbsof potatoes for every man, woman and child in the UK, or 9per cent of the total annual consumption. Even morefrightening, if this loss continues at the same rate, then bythe year 2157, agriculture of any sort will be impossible inBritain.20 15


17/33

39 As an integral part of any policy based on more effectiveland use, individuals could make a positive contribution bygrowing m ore fruit and vegetables on allotments as they didwith success in World War II. There are at present about500,000 allotments in the UK, each approximately 300square yards in extent and costing 2 or 3 a year to rent.There is a fast rising public interest in allotments and thenumber of people on local authority waiting lists rose from2,000 in 1972 to 100,000 in 1976. In the Grea ter London areaalone there are at least 10,000 acres of unused land suitablefor allotments, with an annual potential equivalent of 100,000tons of potatoes the yearly consumption of 1,200,000individuals. 21 Local Authorities should do much more tofulfil their statutory duty to provide allotments, encouragethe use of waste land for food production and foster significantincreases in output from domestic gardens. In addition tosupplying fresh and varied foods, allotments and gardenshave great social value as they provide fresh air and exercisefor the ir users and also educate them in the need to conserveland and other natural resources.

40 Th e second major area in which large scale saving can bemade is that of avoidable food waste, which currently runsat approximately 25 per cent of total production, comparedwith unavoidable post harvest losses of about the samemagnitude in LDCs.22 It is important that the governmentadopt a policy position on this issue. Part of this huge wastage,calculated at 500 million per annum, could be reclaimedfor animal feeding (or for soil conditioning) and thus contri-bute to our drive toward self-reliance. The governmentshould consider allocating funds to local authorities, toenable them to set up and m aintain central processing plantsfor converting waste food from hospitals, hotels, etc to pigfood, and pig farmers should be actively encouraged toswitch from grain to swill feeding. (Oxfam is to publish arepo rt on this subject later this year.) The public should alsobe educated in ways of avoiding wastage of food in thehome.

41 Th e third sector in which considerable saving of resourcescan be made is that of energy. British agriculture, in com-mon with that of other Western nations, has in the pastdepended on a high energy input, mostly imported, whichup to now has yielded good returns. However, bearing inmind the finite nature of fossil fuels and the continuedescalation of their costs, alternative energy sources shouldbe researched by the government as a matter of urgency.16 The use of processed straw as fuel, manure as a soil nutrient,


18/33

the production of methane from animal and crop wastes,and a more economic use of greenhouse heating are some ofthe more important areas.2342 Fourthly, the high energy input into food packaging which isperhaps as much as one-third of the total used in foodproduction, should be the subject of officially sponsoredresearch. The opinion of consumers, especially housewives,should be sounded on this score. It appears that a ground-swell of public opinion is already manifesting itself theNational Federation of Consumer Groups is currentlymounting a campaign against excessive packaging.43 In the next section we suggest some modifications to thestructure of the administrative machinery in this country,which could assist the government to put the changes wehave advocated into operation.

The Co-ordination of Nutritionand Food Production the casefor a new policy44 At present no single ministry has responsibility for the keyrelationship between food production, consumption andhealth. The Department of Prices and Consumer Protectionis concerned mainly with prices and food subsidies. TheMinistry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) hasoverall responsibility for land use, agriculture and diet, butnot for health as such, which is the domain of the Depart-ment of Health and Social Security (DHSS).45 A former Minister of State for Agriculture in 1974, when

questioned about the possible health hazards in certainchicken meat, replied that public health was not the concernof his department.24 Food, health and nutrition should bethe responsibility of one single body and this should be setup as soon as possible.46 Similarly, no single ministry or department exists to integrateBritish food and agricultural strategies into international,initiatives to solve the recurrent world food crises. MAFF isconcerned with internal food affairs and the Ministry of

Overseas Development (ODM) only with matters of overseasfood aid, with comparatively few areas covered jointly.47 A num ber of authorities were consulted on the form, if any, 17


19/33

the new body should take, and four differing opinionsemerged from this: to leave the system as it is; to set up twoseparate ministries to deal with nutrition and land userespectively; to institute an entirely new ministry; to set upan inter-ministerial committee with executive powers.48 It is the last, moderate, view based on changes in the existingstructure on which the succeeding paragraphs are based. ACommittee operating at ministerial level on Nutrition andFood Production would bring together the responsibilitiesnow scattered among different departments and add otherswhich are now only dealt with in an arbitrary and ad hocmanner.49 This Com mittee would base its policies on the recommend-ations of an inter-ministerial working group with independent

advisers and top level backing. Such a working group shouldbe set up immediately as an essential preliminary to anystructural change.50 The first broad area of responsibility of the Comm itteewould be in the field of education as it relates to food andnutrition. It is hoped that a campaign could be set in motionwhich would lead to a greater degree of awareness amongthe general public on all matters relating to food and diet.The public should be actively encouraged to explore different

types of food (especially vegetable proteins, to replaceanimal ones) and alternative modes of cooking, borrowingideas from other cultures where applicable and particularlyfrom immigrant groups already in this country. Housewives,especially, could adjust the diet of their families to changingeconomic and social conditions and should be educated ineconomical and waste-saving methods of food preparationand cooking. A n example of what can be done in the field ofpublic education comes from the USA, where ABC hasprepared a series of cartoon advertisements for plugginggreen beans, celery, cheese and cauliflower. These are to beslotted into children's TV programmes to counteract theadvertising of sweets and 'iunk food'.2551 Such a campaign could lead to a significant change in publictaste and thus of consumption and by extension to modifi-cations in the patterns of production of foodstuffs. The newCommittee would be empowered to guide, influence andpersuade (e.g. by such means as preferential pricing andsubsidies) farmers into using their land for products whichwould help the drive towards a more healthy diet and greater18 productivity.26


20/33


21/33

relates to the production potential and consumption require-ments of the developing countries (and bearing in mind therapidly increasing effective demand of the Arab oil states).For example Europe has the advantage of much greaterflexibility in land use , for reasons of climate and soil quality,than many developing regions. Given the necessary incentives,much of the UK's agricultural acreage can be shifted fromstock rearing to crop growing or vice versa, whereas incountries such as Botswana or Argen tina, the land is so poorthat they can only produce beef by ranching methods andthus have become locked into a one-commodity systemwhich is heavily reliant on overseas markets. To make thebest possible use of the world's agricultural resources,therefore, would mean in this case maximising bothproduction of and markets for grass-fed livestock fromoverseas. At the same time the UK should not use highgrade land for beef rearing.

56 The need for diversification into several crops will becomemore important for some developing countries now dependenton an export cash crop economy, if they seek to implement a'basic needs' strategy and become more self-reliant in theirdomestic food supplies. The U K, compared with some otherdeveloped coun tries, has a good record in the degree of freeaccess permitted to agricultural produce from the ThirdWorld. It could take an important initiative either unilaterallyorwithintheEuropeanCommunitytoextendamodifiedformof the Lome" Convention's Stabex* provisions to countriesintentionally reducing their exports of a given commodity,where alternative supplies from other developing countriesare reasonably available and where the compensation can beapplied to effective structural adjustment.2857 On the important question of creating stockpiles of grain, akey factor in efforts to achieve some measure of world food

security and more orderly marke ts to provide LDCs with timefor p lanning, the UK reaction has been distinctly unenthus-iastic. Though there are now reasonable hopes of a newInternational Grains Agreement, including provision forstockpiles, cominginto force in 1978, thiscountrywillnothavetaken a leading role to achieve it. This, despite the clearinterest that the UK, as a major importer, should have inlongterm m arket stability. As Oxfam pointed out in a memo-randum to the House of Commons Select Committee on*A scheme to stabilise export earnings. Part of the Lome Conventionbetween the European Comm unity and 46African, Caribbean and Pacific20 States (AC P).


22/33

Overseas Development during its recent study of world foodproblems, part of the difficulty has been that Europeancountries (including the UK) are represented in thenegotiations for world food stocks by their Ministries ofAgriculture. The Committee took this up andrecommended in its final report that the Ministry ofOverseas Development be given equal status with MAFF inthese negotiations, but for its part ODM has replied that itdoes not need to be involved. Since the creation ofstockpiles is of vital interest to the poorer developingcountries, with implications for our wider trading relationswith them, it is highly unsatisfactory from all points of viewthat these talks should be conducted for the government byan essentially domestic ministry.58 The expected agreement between the major exporting andimporting countries for the build-up of international co-ordinated stockpiles of grain has particular relevance to thesometimes bitter argument over the feeding of grain tolivestock in the U K. Those representing the interests of theThird World have sometimes seemed (at least to their oppo-nents in the National Farmers Union and elsewhere) to beasserting that a cutback in consumption of grain-fed meatwould automatically lead to lower world grain prices and thusgive the poor developing countries, whose needs are much

more basic than ours , a better chance to buy the wheat theyrequ ire. The principal counter-arguments to this have beenthat Eu rope , which already uses substantial amounts of grainfor livestock feeding, would be better placed to take advantageof any lowering of world prices, and that the price reductionwould be short-lived as the ma jor producers would respond byreducing ou tput.59 With a stockpiling agreement in effect, however, these nega-tive factors will lose their force. Assuming that the floor pricemust be one sufficiently remunerative not to affect productionadversely, the result will be that when prices tend to fall belowthat level grain will be bought in for stock. Until adequatestocks are built up by which time there will need to be anagreement for the transfer of surpluses to needy countrieswhich cannot exert effective dem andthis will, in fact, give areal impetus to 'eat less grain fed meat' campaigns. This isbecause individual efforts will then be directly conducive tothe accumulation of stocks and thus to the objectives of world

food security.60 In the meantime, the UK as a member of the EuropeanCommunity has signified its acceptance of the International 21


23/33

UndertakingonWorldFoodSecurity,whichrequiresgovern-ments to set at least voluntary stock targets. So far it seems thatthere has been little progress towards the implementation ofthis principal provision. The main burden of designing andimplementing a new policy for food and agriculture as outlinedin this repo rt must inevitably fall on government. But there isalready considerable public understanding of the need for anew integrated approach to domestic and global problems inthis and other sectors. A number of voluntary agencies andinterest groups throughout the country are now activelyengaged in stimulating public awareness about food problemsand agricultural development. Public opinion is neither asstatic nor as conservative as the Ministry of Agriculture maysometimes be persuaded.by industry interests, and there isalready the foundation at community level for a major edu-cational campaign, if the government has the will to lead it.61 ThereisnoreasontobelievethattheBritishpeopleareatheai.more selfish, more cynical or more short-sighted than 30 yearsago when the Attlee government, in the hardship of theimmediate post-war period, introduced bread rationing inorder to free grain for the hungry overseas.29

22


24/33

FOUR: CONCLUSION62 In th is paper w e have presented proposals which w e believeth e g o v e rn m en t a n d p eo p le of this cou ntr y could adop t as th ebasis for a relevant food/agricultural policy for th e 1980s an dbeyo nd . The y a re p red ica ted on a mo reequ i tab le a l locat ionofworld food resources , a well-balanced nutrit ional policy a n dthe home produc t ion of a g rea te r p rop or t ion of our domest icfood supplies .6 3 A d o p t i o n of these guidel ines would represent a realisticr e a p p r a i s a l o f t h e n e e d s a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o ft h i s c o u n t r y an d c o u l d l e a d t o a p o p u la t i o n b e t t er f e d t h a n e v e rbefore . A t the same time, being long-term in its aim s, the newpolicy would increase th e farm er's sense of security , an d givethe far m ing sec tor am ple t ime toad just . S imilar ly , it would, byvir tue of the c o m p l e m e n t i n g of technology with husbandrygive far m ers and farm w orke rsal ike a bet ter re la t ionship withthe i r env i ronment and an unders tand ing of the need to

co n se rv e it , which is conspicuously lacking in mu ch mo d e rnfa rming .64 Th ese chang es could , w e be l ieve , b e brought about by com -paratively minor shifts in government pol icy and publicp a t t e rn s of co n su mp t io n . In the wider context of the worldfood situation, w e have taken up a position between those w hoadvocate large-scale, rapid, radicaland perhaps violentchangeand those proposing individual voluntary action like eatingone ha m bu rge r less each week . W e have ado pted e le me nts ofboth these schools of t h o u g h t to prov ide us with what w eser iously bel ieve would pro ve to be a ra t iona l , modera te a n dachievable agricultural policy for the UK (and p e rh ap s forother industr ia l ised nat ions) over th e next two deca des. 23


25/33

65 These proposals are based on a more responsible use ofresources combined with the adoption of a healthier diet.This would inculcate an increased sense of well-being inindividual, community and society alike. Finally, and mostimportantly, they would foster an acceptance among thepeople of this country of the responsibilities and benefits offull world citizenship.

24


26/33

FIVE: SUMMARY OFRECOMMENDATIONST h e p r inc ipa l r e c om m e n da t ion s of t h i s r e po r t a re a s fo ll ows :

6 6 T h e g o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d a p p o i n t a n i n t e r - m i n i s t e r ia l w o r k -i n g g r o u p w i t h s o m e i n d e p e n d e n t a d v i s e r s t o f o r m u l a t e af o o d a n d a g r i c u l t u r e p o li c y w h i c h w o u l d h a r m o n i s e l a n d u s ew i t h t h e c o u n t r y ' s n u t r i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d w i t h w o r l df o o d n e e d s , ( p a r a g r a p h 4 9 ) .

6 7 T h e t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e o f t h e w o r k i n g g r o u p s h o u l d b es u c h a s t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e s u b s e q u e n t e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f aC o m m i t t e e o n N u t r i t i o n a n d F o o d P r o d u c t i o n t o h a n d l e t h ise s se n t i a l a re a o f po l i c y , g ive n t ha t t he e x i s t i ng de pa r tme n ta ls t r u c t u r e a p p e a r s t o m a k e a d e q u a t e p l a n n i n g a n d c o -o r d i n a t i o n d i f f i c u l t , ( p a r a g r a p h 4 8 )6 8 A l o n g t e r m c a m p a i g n o f p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n in b a s i cnu t r i t i on wi th a v i e w to fos t e r i ng a t r e nd t owa rd a he a l t h i e rd i e t shou ld be t he f i r s t p r i o r i t y o f t he Commi t t e e . Th i sshou ld mod i fy t he pa t t e rn o f p roduc t ion o f foods tu f f s by t hea g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r , ( p a r a g r a p h s 5 0 - 5 1 )6 9 C h a n g e s i n p a t t e r n s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n i n t h isc o u n t r y s h o u l d b e m a d e w i t h a n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e g r o w i n gi n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f a l l c o u n t r i e s a n d t h e r e s h o u l d b e a f i r mc o m m i t m e n t t o p o l i c i e s o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r a la d j u s t m e n t , s o t h a t w o r l d a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n e x p a n d s ,d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s r e c e i v e a g r e a t e r s h a r e o f t r a d e a n d ab e t t e r b a l a n c e is s t r u c k b e t w e e n s u p p l y a n d d e m a n d , ( p a r a -g r a p hs 28 -37 a n d 54-56) . 25


27/33

70 In order to allow the LDCs time to advance their ownagricultural development policies the British governmentshould be prepared to donate its due share to internationalgrain stockpiles set up with this end in view, (paragraphs57-61).71 Th ere should be a more frugal use of agricultural inputs inthis country in order to conserve the world's dwindling finiteresources. Wherever possible marginal land and waste materialsshould be used productively, (paragraphs 38-42).72 Funds for agricultural research should be recognised as anessential investment in making optimum use of nationalresources and contributing to the very substantial increase inworld production which is required over the next twodecades, (paragraph 53).

26


28/33

AppendixLand Classification of BritainGrade 1 Land with very minor or nophysical limitations. Yieldsare high, cropping highlyflexible and most crops canbe grown.Grade 2 Land with some minorlimitations. A wide rangeof crops can be grown.Grade 3 Land with some moderatelimitations. Grass andcereals are usually theprincipal crop .Grade 4 Land with severe limitationsdue to adverse soil, reliefand climated.

1,000,000 acres.(404,700 hectares)

5,000,000 acres.(2,023,500 hectares)16,000,000 acres .(6,475,000 hectares)

8,000,000 acres.(3,237,600 hectares)Grade 5 Land generally used forrough grazing. 16,000,000 acres.(6,475,000 hectares)

Source: K Mellanby 'CanBritain Feed Itself?'Page 11 based on theAgricultural LandClassification ofEngland and W ales,plus extrapolated figuresfor Scotland

27


29/33

References1 Written answer by the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture,

Hansard Issue 1064, col.647 ff. 24 February 1977.2 British Sugar Corporation News Release, London, 9 September 1976.3 Simon Harris and G.B. Hazelburg, Effects of the Lome Convention,

Overseas Development Institute, Review No.2, London, 1975.4 World Development Movement, Action and Briefing Paper 1/75,London, 1975.

5 David Jones, Food and Interdependence, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, London, 1976, p.23.

6 Professor Denis K. Britton, National Policies within the CAP, FoodPolicy Volume 1, No.5, Guildford, November 1976.

7 Oxfam Public Affairs Report No. 3, Europe and the World Without,London, 1977, para93.

8 Simon Harris, The World Commodity Scene and the Common Agri-cultural Policy, Wye College, 1975.

9 The Times, 29 November 1976.10 Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians, Prevention of CoronaryHeart Disease, Journal of RCP, Volume 10, No.3, London, April 1976.

11 Office of Population Census, Children's Dental Health in England andWales, London, 1973.

12 D. Hollingsworth and E.L. Morse (Eds), People and Food Tomorrow,Applied Science Publishers, London, 1977.

13 Norwegian Goverment, Report to the Storting, No.32, Oslo, November1975.

14 Nutrition Canada National Survey, Ottawa, 1973, p. 117.15 Professor Arnold Bender, Personal Communication, 3 September 197616 Professor K. Blaxter FRS, Can Britain Feed Itself?, New Scientist,London, 20 March 1975.17 Professor K.MeUanby, Can Britain Feed Itself?, Merlin, London, 1975,

p.lOff.18 Moises Behar, European Diets vs Traditional Foods, Food Policy

Volume 1, No.5, Guildford, November 1976.19 WrittenAnswer,SecretaryofStateforAgriculture,HansardIssuel064,

col. 356,17 February 1977.20 Alice Coleman, Is Planning Really Necessary?, The Geographical

Journal, Volume 142, Part 3, London, November 1976.21 a) FriendsoftheEarth, Allotments Campaign Manual, London, 1975.

b) Time Out, Cultivating the City, London, 23 May 1975.22 Robin Roy, Wastage in the UK Food System, Earth Resources ResearchPublications, London 1976, p.5.23 Gerald Leach, Energy and Food Production, International Institute

for Environmental Development, London, 1975.24 Joanne Bower, Do we need a Minister of Nutrition? Ecologist London

July 1975.25 Daily Mail, 25 August 1976.26 Sir Henry Plumb, President of the National Farmer's Union, indicated in

a speech on 18 July 1975 that farmers will grow anything for a fair price.27 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, Progress Report on

Networks among Scientific Institutions, Rome, June 1976.28 Oxfam Public Affairs ReportN o.3 ,opcit ,pa ra 67.29 LordShinwell(memberoftheAttleeCabinet),PersonalCommunication,28 9 July 1976.


30/33

Additional BibliographyAgricultural Research Centre/Medical Research Centre, Food and Nutrition

Research, HMSO, London, 1974.Michael Allaby, Who Will Eat?, Stacey, London, 1972.Tristram Beresford, We Plough the Fields, Pelican, London, 1975.M. Chisholm(Ed), Resources for Britain's Future, Pelican, London, 1972.Conservation Society, Priority for Agriculture, London, February, 1975.Food and Agriculture Organisation, Director-General's Proposed Strategy

of International Agricultural Adjustment, Rome, August 1975.Friendsofthe Earth, Losing Ground, London 1975.SusanGeorge, How the Other Half Dies, Pelican, London, 1975.J. Marsh and C. Ritson, Agricultural Policy and the Common Market,

Political and Economic Planning, London, 1971.Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Manual of Nutrition, HMSO.

London, 1970.C. Ritson, Should Britain Feed Itself?, University of Reading, 1975.ColinTudge, Nothing to Eat but Food, to be published 1977.United Nations, Report on World Food Conference, New York. 1975.Howard Wagstaff, World Fooda Political Task, Fabian Research Series,

No.326, London, 1976.LordWalston, Dealing with Hunger, Bodley Head, London, 1976.Waron Want, World FoodProfits of Doom, London. 1975.

AbbreviationsACP The African, Caribbean and Pacific countries which are

signatories to the Lome Convention.ARC Agricultural Research Council.CAP Common Agricultural Policy.CAS Centre for Agricultural Strategy.DHSS Department of Health and Social Security.FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.GNP Gross National Product.IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development.LDCs Less Developed Countries.MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.ODM Ministry of Overseas Development.WHO World Health Organization. 29


31/33

Previous titles in this series from the O xfam Public Affairs Unit

The Doctor-Go-RoundWhat can be done to achieve adequate health care for the huge numbers ofpeople in the world who now receive little or none? While a person in Britainreceives more doctor-care in a year than the average Ethiopian can expect in alifetime, what kind of health programmes are needed to bridge the gap? And howmu ch longer can Britain expect to rely on transfusions of medical manpower fromdeveloping countries whose need for improved health serbvices is much morebasic than our own? The debate in Britain about the future of the National HealthService has its parallel also at the international level. The Doctor-Go-Roundexp lores the links between the two and offers some conclusions about the futuredirection of UK policy.24pp. Price 35p + 12p postage.Whose Right to Work?While exacting a heavy toll of unemployment and human hardship, the deepreces sion of the mid-1970s has also created the conditions for a basic reshapingof the world economy. Our future depends on using this opportunity to revitaliseour own econ om ic life in Britain in ways that will also open up new livelihoods andbetter prospects for the poor of the developing world. Taking up the issues confrontedby the 1976 World Employment Conference, this report examines and makesrecommendations on the scope for action by government, employers and tradeunions.48pp. Price 50p + 12p postage.

Europe and the World WithoutHow Europe shapes its future for the next 10 or 20 years will determine to animpo rtant de gree how the developing countries are able to shape theirs. And viceversa. Europe and the World Without examines the wide range of Communitypolicies and programmes which affect development in the Third World, includingfinance, trade, agriculture, employment, industry and migration. The reportconclud es with recomm endations to the European Commission and the membergovernments for improving the Community's performance in meeting its globalresponsibilities.48pp. Price 50p + 12p postage.

To order by post, see details inside ba ck cover.


32/33

OXFAM IS . . .

i

. . . a partnership of people working together to achieve for all the basichuman rights of food, shelter and reasonable conditions of life.. . . committed to a process of development by peaceful means, encour-aging peopleespecially the poor and underprivileged overseastorecognise and cultivate their potential in accordance with their ownneeds and values.. . . action for development founded on the belief that the world'smaterial resources, if shared equitably, are sufficient for all people tofind a measure of fulfilment and to meet their basic needs.

If you wish to help Oxfam by making regular donations, this can be doneby filling in either the banker's order or the covenant form below. Pleasereturn to Oxfam at 274 Banbury Road, Oxford.

Banker's order PAU 4To the Manager (Name of bank)at (Address of bank)

Please pay Oxfam every month/yearstarting on (date) until further noticeName

Address

SignedTo Barclays Bank. High Street Ox ford 120 65 311 Account S0646792/6O646784quoting our reference.

My covenant to Oxfam PAU 4/ Mr/Mrs/Miss

FULL NAME IN BLOCK CAPITALS PLEASEof. (addressl

undertake to pay Oxfam each year for seven years (o r during my lifetime if shorter)from today, the sum that will, after the deduction of income tax at the basic ratebedate Signed and sealedTo com plete this covenant your signature requires a witness.Witnesses signatureWitnesses address

Just put here the amount you wish to pay annually and we do the rest


33/33

one crust of bread

Documents