A sharp rise in fertiliser and energy costs, driven in part by geopolitical instability linked to the Iran conflict, has pushed prices for UK farmers up by as much as 70%. The consequences of this are not abstract. They will be felt directly in the cost of food, both domestically and globally, as higher input prices feed through to production and ultimately through to consumers.
It should now be clear for anyone working in the food industry that stability is no longer guaranteed. Supply chains are increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical tension, trade disruption, and climate shocks. The result is a system that may look efficient on paper but is far more fragile in practice.
The question is now whether we continue along the current path, absorbing these rising costs which ultimately impact the consumer, or whether we make the deliberate shift towards greater supply chain resilience and sustainability.
The fragility of the current global model
For decades, globalised agriculture has been built on the assumption that inputs and outputs will flow freely across borders. Fertiliser is a prime example. Its production is highly concentrated and deeply intertwined with global energy markets and political stability. When conflict disrupts supply, as we are now seeing, the effects cascade rapidly through the entire food system.
Traditional farming methods are particularly exposed to these shocks. They rely on a narrow set of inputs, large volumes of land, and predictable climatic conditions. When any one of these variables shifts, the system struggles to adapt. Rising fertiliser prices are not just a temporary inconvenience; they highlight the overall structural vulnerability at the heart of modern agriculture.
Layer onto this, the growing frequency of extreme weather events, like droughts and flooding, and it becomes clear that relying on farming as usual is no longer a viable strategy. The pressures are only growing.
Food as a matter of British resilience
Against this backdrop, food production is increasingly being viewed through the lens of national resilience and security. Just as energy independence has become a priority, so must food security.
The UK has an opportunity to rethink how it produces key foods and ingredients and prioritise building a more balanced system, one that combines the strengths of British farming with cutting-edge scientific innovation.
Clean food offers precisely this pathway. Technologies such as precision fermentation and cell cultivation can enable the production of proteins, fats, and other key ingredients in controlled environments in facilities, without agricultural land, and requiring far fewer inputs. In doing so, food manufacturers and retailers can reduce reliance on volatile supply chains, while also insulating production from climate variability.
This is why these technologies are increasingly being recognised not just as environmental solutions, but as a strategic investment, offering the ability to produce essential ingredients domestically, at scale, with far greater predictability.
A new way of making ingredients
For centuries, food production has been tied to land. However, that link can be loosened. Bioreactors, rather than fields, can produce a growing range of products: meat, eggs, fish, dairy proteins, coffee, chocolate as well as oils and fats.
These are not distant theoretical constructs. They are moving steadily towards commercial reality.
In the UK, for example, Clean Food Group has recently acquired a million-litre facility which will soon be able to produce large quantities of Cleanoil, which has the same characteristics as palm oil, but without the long supply chain and deforestation, right here on British shores.
Elsewhere in the US, an increasing number of companies have received regulatory approval to scale and sell chicken-less egg proteins, animal-free dairy and more.
The benefits of this approach are that production can be located closer to demand centres, reducing transport costs and exposure to global disruptions. Inputs can also be tightly controlled, improving efficiency and consistency. And crucially, given the current shortage, reliance on fertiliser-intensive crops can be greatly reduced.
Costs, as with any emerging technology, are currently higher than conventional alternatives. But with the rising costs of fertiliser and energy, that gap is narrowing quickly. As the scale of production of these new foods increases and processes improve, these products are approaching price competitiveness. The trajectory is familiar to that which we’ve seen in the energy market: early innovation, rapid cost decline, and eventual mainstream adoption.
Working with British farming
None of this implies side-lining traditional agriculture. On the contrary, the goal should be to complement and strengthen it. By shifting the most resource-intensive components of food production into controlled environments, we can reduce pressure on farmland. This creates space for British farmers to transition towards higher-value, lower-impact practices; whether that is regenerative agriculture, diversified cropping, or premium cuts of meat.
In this model, farming becomes less about maximising volume at all costs, and more about quality, sustainability, and stewardship. It aligns economic incentives with environmental outcomes, rather than placing them in opposition.
A moment for decisive action
The disruption we are experiencing now is not a temporary blip. It is a signal, and those who read it clearly will be best positioned for what comes next.
For food manufacturers and retailers, the strategic case for investing in clean food technologies has never been stronger. The combination of supply chain vulnerability, rising input costs, and growing climate instability means that the question is no longer whether to diversify production methods, but how quickly it can be done.
Britain has the scientific talent, the industrial infrastructure, and the policy momentum to become a genuine leader in this space. But that potential will only be realised if business leaders, investors, and the government act with urgency and conviction. Waiting for costs to fall further, or for the next supply shock to force the issue, is not a strategy. It is a risk. And it’s one that we cannot afford to ignore.
