Disappointing, not robust, lacking details, no meat (in every sense), feeble etc, etc.
These stinging words can’t be what the government wanted for a white paper billed as the first such strategy in 75 years.
At a time when ringing endorsements are hard to come by, why produce a white paper of no substance?
The Government knows the weight of expectation with the white paper and its own aims it wants to satisfy.
If there is one thing that is lacking from what’s been produced is consistency in the path we’re on. It feels like we’re subject to well meaning thoughts and ideas and little else.
Self sufficiency is talked about yet there is no mention in the strategy of setting a minimum target for domestic food production.
Henry Dimbleby was brought in and made a number of high-profile suggestions. None of these have made it into the final strategy. He has since called for the government to be bolder.
The investment in the food industry seems to be lacking too, as a highly skilled food workforce is essential. This is an area which, if thought through, could help link education to industry – and benefit many.
Businesses are looking to the government’s leaders to help them navigate and emerge stronger from current large-scale, complex problems. Most have accepted that going back to the way things were in 2019 and before is not an option — or even a goal. Thinking ahead to 2023, they want a better future, informed by the lessons of 2021 and now 2022.
Getting food policies to suit various parties is challenging, but could help with so many aspects of our lives. After so much work by Henry Dimbleby and the food and drink industry in response to meeting various government initiatives around healthy eating, it is a shame that the response from government is incomplete.