Analyzing the Commission’s recommendations, Professor Chris Elliott advocates that Britain get its own affairs in order before seeking global export fame.
In July 2020, State Secretary for International Trade, Liz Truss, set up the Trade and Agriculture Commission. While this was motivated by Brexit, such an initiative has been required for many years. The Commission, chaired by Tim Smith, has now issued a long and fairly detailed opinion Report. Stakeholder engagement was significant and a total of 22 recommendations were made. While there is no way to check all of them in this short article, I picked a number that is close to my heart and checked it to some extent.
The overall themes of the report appear to be absolutely correct. Protecting our agro-food industries, protecting our planet, and protecting the health of all of our citizens. None of these are new and have been included in multiple reports from multiple sources recently. The hard part is meeting these extremely difficult, complex, and often conflicting needs. It would also be naive of us to believe that there will be no difficult choices and compromises. Indeed, „trade” in the broadest sense of the word will play a crucial role in the further development of Britain.
The first recommendation calls for the development of a bold, ambitious agricultural and food trade strategy. This is not surprising, but with little mention of the Dimbleby National Food Strategy in this report, it is not a good sign of this important work. Maybe I’m reading the wrong signals here, but we were promised Part 2 in early 2021 and there are no signs of white smoke on the horizon …
I write and speak often about the seven principles of food integrity, and I can see a number of recommendations mention them in some way. For example climate change, animal welfare, food safety, ethical trade and workers’ rights. What I think is missing is adequate emphasis on making healthier, more nutritious foods and moving away from the ultra-processed „junk” that is detrimental to our nation’s wellbeing.
Unsurprisingly, there are a number of recommendations about the global UK. export more food, become international thought leaders, etc. I have no problem with these proposals, but I shouldn’t put our own national strategy in order – and make sure it is not flooded with food produced to much poorer standards – be our focus ?
There is also a recommendation (number two) to appoint a minister with special responsibility for running the agricultural and food trade. This is the same ring of „global Britain” as the text calls for someone who „would lead to global standards for the environment, animal welfare and ethical trade being raised in international forums”. Rather, my plea is to involve the government in our national food strategy, with trade being only part of the portfolio of a senior minister.
This report contains many good and interesting recommendations and provides a good framework for moving forward. There will always be a fear of government recommendations on „cherry picking”. In my opinion, we cannot relax when it comes to protecting our food standards and the agri-food industry. We must continue to promote a national food system that is based on integrity and is not „weighed” by our government.
alinaf