National Food Strategy public dialogue participants want the government to urgently correct the 'upside-down' food system
Click the image for the public dialogue report published today.
Ahead of the UN Food Systems Summit and UN Climate Summit (COP26), the full findings of a UKRI Sciencewise public dialogue commissioned by Defra have now been published. Hopkins Van Mil was commissioned to design, facilitate and report on the dialogue and is proud to share the views of participants in full today.
The Sciencewise public dialogue informed the National Food Strategy final report, adding the voices of its participants to those of scientists, policy makers, farmers, food producers, distributors and trade bodies. The dialogue provides rich detail on how people from across the UK view the food system and what changes they would like to see. It also chimes with growing global calls for greater alignment between food systems and climate policy.
Participants in the dialogue conclude the UK food system is currently ‘upside-down’ and needs to be urgently corrected to deliver vital improvements for people, nature and the planet: "healthy food is more expensive and less accessible, while unhealthy food is available everywhere and at any time". In its current state, participants felt the UK food system was damaging human health, the environment and the climate. Tackling climate change was seen as a "fundamental priority for the food system".
Key findings include a call for change:
Participants strongly support changing the food system – and are even fearful of the prospect of no change.
They are united in a desire for systemic and long-term thinking to address the problems in the food system.
There was a call for government to create the right conditions for businesses, producers and individuals to act responsibly and for everyone to play their part as consumers, citizens and communities.
Covid-19 and climate change are seen as opportunities to make significant and long-term changes for the benefit of people and the planet in the future.
Participants want to see an integrated suite of interventions to address multiple problems simultaneously, but views differ on the efficacy of incremental versus dramatic change.
Participants feel that the less restrictive interventions (e.g. information) are useful, but not enough by themselves, but more restrictive interventions (e.g. bans) risk a backlash.
It was vital to participants that interventions don’t exacerbate social inequalities or pit different groups against each other.
The film below shares some of our participants’ views on what it meant to take part in a dialogue which spanned key moments in the Covid-19 pandemic.