The UK’s food system is built on keeping prices low – but this year’s droughts show up its failings

This year’s drought^[1] has once again put farmers in the spotlight, with yields in some crops falling by as much as 50%^[2]. But behind the headlines of empty reservoirs and wilting fields lies a bigger problem: the way the UK’s food system is organised, managed and governed.

For generations, UK food policy has prioritised stable, low prices^[3] above all else. This dates right back to Britain’s repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and the birth of free trade in grain. While the policy was meant to keep bread affordable, its influence has endured. The idea that food must remain cheap and price-stable^[4], often at the expense of resilience in the face of climate shocks, is embedded.

These days, it means supermarket shelves stay full and prices rise more slowly than in many other European countries^[5]. But the model comes at a hidden cost: it strips resilience out of the supply chain. When extreme weather hits, the whole system wobbles – and consumers end up paying anyway.

The UK produces about 62% of the food it consumes^[6], but only 53% of the fresh vegetables. The rest comes from imports – often from climate-vulnerable regions such as Spain, Italy and North Africa.

That dependence once diversified risk. Now, when multiple regions are hit by droughts or floods, there are far fewer alternatives.

In the UK, supermarkets run “just-in-time” logistics systems^[7] meaning produce is delivered to distribution centres and stores exactly when it is needed, with little or no stock held in reserve.

This model is designed to cut costs and reduce waste, and for highly perishable items like fresh fruit and vegetables it can seem essential. But it also makes the system brittle – when harvests fail or imports are delayed, shelves empty quickly.

Strategic storage – whether in the form of grain reserves, frozen produce or regional “cold-chain” hubs – could provide resilience without undermining freshness for short-life products.

At the moment though, farmers deliver crops straight from the field to distribution centres, leaving no buffer in case of a bad harvest. And contracts are often one-sided. If a crop doesn’t meet strict cosmetic standards^[8], or if a retailer changes its order^[9], farmers carry the loss.

All of this means that as soon as weather reduces supply, shortages ripple through the chain and the consumer sees higher prices. In June 2025, food inflation climbed to 4.5% year-on-year^[10] – the fastest rise since early 2024^[11].

But the UK still throws away 9.5 million tonnes^[12] of food every year, worth around £19 billion. About 60% of that is wasted by households, but supermarkets are far from blameless.

Retailers discard more than 200,000 tonnes of fresh produce^[13] annually, often because it doesn’t meet strict appearance standards. Farmers report^[14] ploughing perfectly edible crops back into the soil when contracts are cancelled due to faulty demand forecasts.

This isn’t just bad for the environment, it undermines food security^[15]. In a year when farmers are struggling to produce crops, the idea that a third of food^[16] is lost or wasted worldwide highlights how poorly managed the system really is.

The uncomfortable truth is that resilience may mean less predictability. The current model shields consumers from seasonal variations by spreading risk along the chain – usually on to farmers or overseas producers. But this comes at the expense of long-term stability.

If instead consumers accepted that prices might fluctuate more in the short term – reflecting the true cost of climate shocks – supply chains could be redesigned for resilience. Farmers could be paid fairly to invest in adaptation, and retailers could prioritise secure contracts over the cheapest imports.