Rationale
Despite devoting 69% of its land to agriculture, the UK’s food system is increasingly defined by a loss of control. As small family farms give way to intensive livestock units in the name of “food security”, Britain’s dependence on imported food persists. The livestock industry now finds itself on shaky ground, having become structurally reliant on two external forces: foreign corporate capital and overseas land.
This report, undertaken for the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, investigates how the UK’s dependence on both factory farming and other land-hungry animal agriculture has created a “double vulnerability”, eroding both food sovereignty (the democratic control of food production) and food security (the resilience of physical supply).
What We Did
In Part I of our investigation, we aimed to determine how much of the country’s animal agriculture sector is ultimately owned by foreign entities, despite being within British borders. To accomplish this, we collected revenue data from the leading beef, pork, poultry, fish/seafood, dairy, and egg producers and processors in the UK, traced their ultimate ownership, and determined the foreign share of the domestic market (by revenue).
In Part II of our investigation, we calculated how much land the UK requires overseas to feed its population and which countries hold that land. We accomplished this by analysing food and livestock feed imports into the UK and determining the corresponding land behind each import (e.g. the cropland required to feed the pigs that are later imported as pork).
Our analysis of industry revenue and land-use data reveals that the UK has effectively outsourced the stability of its food system.
What We Found & What It Means
Food sovereignty instability
The UK faces a significant “democratic deficit” in its domestic supply chain. We found that foreign entities now control approximately 45.5% of the UK’s own animal agricultural production and processing by revenue. This dominance is most acute in the dairy (64%), pork (52%), and beef (45%) sectors.
Consequently, strategic decisions over investment, pricing, and supply for nearly half the animal-based food market are taken by boards sitting outside the UK. In effect, the UK has relinquished control to international, profit-driven enterprises and thereby jeopardised Britain’s food sovereignty.
Moreover, the extent of foreign ownership within UK animal agriculture suggests that at least some of the profits from the rural economy are flowing to parent companies outside the country.
Food security instability
The UK’s reliance on livestock creates a physical dependency on foreign resources. To maintain current consumption patterns, the UK requires approximately 15.4 million hectares of overseas land — an area larger than England and Wales combined.
This footprint is highly concentrated, with 43% located in Ireland and the vast majority of all overseas agricultural land (75%) tied to cattle and dairy supply chains.
This creates dangerous “chokepoints”, exposing UK consumers to climate shocks, trade disputes, and geopolitical friction in a small number of partner countries. Should Britain’s few trade partners be unable or unwilling to supply, the current UK food system collapses.
This system even fails to deliver on the core promise of cheap food, as the country is continuously left vulnerable to global food price surges.
The current model creates a worst-of-both-worlds scenario: the UK bears the environmental burden of intensive farming while parent companies abroad accrue profits and security relies on foreign soil.
Where We Go from Here
To reverse this, we urge the government to facilitate a just farming transition that prioritises both food security and food sovereignty. We recommend two key actions:
Prioritise British agriculture while reducing dependence on foreign land.
Deprioritise livestock systems in favour of domestic horticulture to reduce our overseas land footprint and mitigate exposure to global climate and geopolitical shocks. Deprioritising animal product imports that require large swaths of grazing lands abroad would have the greatest impact, as grasslands dominate the UK’s overseas land footprint (71% of the UK’s agricultural land footprint abroad is grassland).
By shifting national priorities toward the currently neglected horticulture sector, the UK can boost its self-sufficiency (fresh vegetable self-sufficiency currently lies at 53% and fresh fruit at a mere 16%), keep land use at a minimum and ensure that value remains within the rural economy rather than being repatriated abroad via large multinationals. Inspired by the Netherlands (the world’s second highest agricultural exporter, despite only having a third of the UK’s croppable land), the UK has made strides in horticulture via Thanet Earth, Britain’s largest glasshouse complex. Continued support for the expansion and increased efficiency of horticulture will be key to Britain’s food sovereignty and security.
The UK might also consider directing additional support toward alternative proteins to help reclaim its food sovereignty and security, much like severely import-dependent and land-scarce countries in other regions have done (e.g. Singapore, Israel, UAE).
Facilitate sustainable farming.
Supply and demand must go hand in hand. As such, the government can further assist a sovereign and secure food system by implementing public procurement standards, fiscal measures and labelling regulations that encourage Britons’ uptake of local fruit, vegetables and legumes. These measures would address the nation’s food security and climate goals while also ensuring the success of British farmers who transition to sustainable farming — and would do so without encroaching on Britons’ free will.
