TThe fate of environmentalists is to spend their lives trying not to be vindicated. What we fear is justification. But there is one threat that bothers me more than the others. It is the collapse of the global food system. It is impossible to predict what the immediate trigger will be. But a war with Iran is exactly the kind of event it would be.
I have been arguing for some time, based on years of scientific data, that this risk exists and that governments are woefully unprepared for it. In 2023, I submitted a parliamentary inquiry into environmental change and food security, along with an extensive list of references. When I was called as a witness, I spent a lot of time explaining that the issue was much broader than the scope of the investigation.
Some MPs understood that, but the government as a whole seems to have no idea what we’re facing. That is, the global food system is as systemically weak as the global financial system was before the 2008 financial crisis.
Potential vulnerabilities are readily apparent, such as fertilizer supply shortages due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and crop failures due to climate change. But these are not what they are. Those are the kinds of disruptions that can cause things. That in itself is the whole system sliding off a cliff. The same factors that would have caused the financial system to collapse in the absence of a multitrillion-dollar bailout now threaten to collapse the food system.
Recent data shows that every part of this system is now highly concentrated in the hands of a small number of companies, with increasing integration both vertically and horizontally. One recent study found that the U.S. food system has become “almost twice as integrated as the overall economic system.” Some of these companies have diversified into financial products and are now more like banks than commodity traders, but they do not have the same level of regulation. They may argue that financialization helps hedge risks, but one paper states that it is “nearly impossible to distinguish between hedging and speculation.” I don’t know how much risk they are exposed to, but it doesn’t seem very good. Due in part to their influence, the world has moved toward “world-standard meals” provided by world-standard farms.
These vulnerabilities are exacerbated by the use of just-in-time supply chains and the fact that much of the world’s trade passes through many chokepoints. Some have warned that the Strait of Hormuz, along with the Suez Canal, Turkish Strait, Panama Canal and Malacca Strait, is a key chokepoint and its blockage could threaten the flow of food, fertilizer, fuel and other vital agricultural products. A year ago, I cited “…military attacks on the Straits and Canals” as a major disruption risk, exacerbated by Donald Trump’s antics. The thought that Yemen’s Houthi rebels, backed by the Iranian government, could simultaneously resume attacks on ships in the Red Sea keeps us up at night.
This means reducing diversity, redundancy (system spare capacity), modularity (degree of compartmentalization), backups (other ways of providing food), asynchrony (preventing sudden shock build-ups), and circuit breakers (primarily an effective form of regulation), which are key elements of system resilience. If any of these properties are lost, a red light will flash. However, the entire dashboard became brighter.
If a system loses its resilience, it is difficult to predict when and how it will go down. Bankruptcy of a company? Closing two or more chokepoints at the same time? A major IT failure? Severe climate change coinciding with a geopolitical crisis? The next step could be contagious bankruptcies and cascading failures across the sector. Then… well, beyond imagination. The chain between buyers and sellers, which is as fundamental to our food supply as it is to food production, can suddenly break. When people panic, shelves become empty. Crops rot in fields, silos, and ports. Restarting a system with a broken financial architecture may prove impossible on the timescales needed to prevent mass starvation. As a complex society, we are focused on potential end-of-life events.
We know what needs to happen. Dismantling large corporations. Put the system under appropriate regulatory control. Diversify our diet and the means of its production. Reduce dependence on a few major exporting countries. Build strategic food reserves that people everywhere can access. But Trump is not the only problem. Almost all governments benefit from corporate and fiscal power. The measures needed to avoid catastrophe are the ones we are least prepared to take. The chances of a global consensus on this global issue are almost zero.
The best we can hope for is that our own brave politicians will protect us from the worst effects. An important step is to encourage a transition to a plant-based diet. Some people have a hard time understanding the connection, but it’s simple. A plant-based diet requires far fewer resources, requiring only a quarter of the land required for a standard Western diet, and requires far fewer fertilizers and other inputs. Just as switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy increases energy security, switching from animals to plants increases food security. Don’t take my word for it. This is an important message in the national security assessment, but the government has tried to withhold it from public view. Probably because it would disrupt too many powerful interests. Chinese researchers have reached the same conclusion about their own country. In other words, increased consumption of animal products is dangerously compromising the resilience of that food.
However, British policy is nothing short of foolish. Responding to warnings about food vulnerability, Environment Minister and former financial lobbyist Emma Reynolds said she wanted to expand domestic poultry production. Given that the sector relies primarily on imported feed (such as soybeans from Brazil and corn from the United States), her plan will more Vulnerable. But she offers little else. It does not suggest strategic stockpiles, alternative supply chains, or useful defenses of any kind.
Policy here and in most parts of the world seems to consist of letting the “market” (i.e. a few large global corporations) decide what happens next. There is another way to say it. Our government is leaving a group of ruthless speculators to play the dice with our lives.
