Important update:
In light of recent announcements by the Labour party, I have updated this page to include what seems like a full frontal attack on our food and farmers.
Jeremy Clarkson, on LBC radio, has claimed the new tax rules “make farming nigh on impossible”, adding that Reeves’ plans are the equivalent of taking “a machine gun” to land owners.
And it isn’t just the UK that is under attack by the globalists, more than 2,000 tractors lumbered along clogged highways during the morning rush hour of 1 October 2019 in the Netherlands to protest the government’s “drastic measures” to reduce emissions of nitrogen, through “forced buy out” and “shutting down” livestock farms.
It’s all just part of Claus Shwabs’ WEF 2030 plan that’s right our of an L Ron Hubbard dystopian sci-fi novel.
Profit or Health?
Today, most of the food we eat is sourced from an industrialised system that prioritises profits and efficiency over health and sustainability.
Food often travels vast distances before reaching consumers, contributing significantly to global carbon emissions and compromising food quality.
According to the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) and the World Bank, 80% of the UK’s fruit and 50% of its vegetables are imported.
Green beans, for example, travel over 6,000 miles from Kenya, while Egyptian sweet potatoes clock in at around 3,000 miles (source: WITS, World Bank).
The Carbon Trust notes that food transportation alone accounts for around 6% of global carbon emissions, with fresh produce imports contributing substantially to our overall carbon footprint.
These long-distance supply chains are not just environmentally damaging; they’re a direct challenge to food security, leaving consumers at the mercy of global pricing and supply disruptions.
Corporate Control Over Food Production
From farm to supermarket, the corporate grip on our food is unrelenting.
Corporations control nearly every step of the journey, and this concentration of power means that food production is often more about profit than quality.
According to a report by the ETC Group, the top four corporations control over 60% of the global seed market.
These corporations favour high-yield monocultures over crop diversity, pushing out traditional, heirloom, and locally adapted varieties.
This reduction in seed diversity has an immediate impact on food security, as a lack of biodiversity increases vulnerability to pests, diseases, and climate change.
The UK Seed Sovereignty Programme highlights that restrictive seed laws, often influenced by EU policies, limit the types of seeds farmers can grow and sell, favoring the interests of large corporations over small-scale farmers and traditional growers.
This stranglehold on seed variety undermines not only agricultural resilience but also our basic right to a diverse and nutritious food supply.
The Cost of Chemicals in Industrial Agriculture
One of the less visible yet deeply concerning aspects of industrial farming is its heavy reliance on chemical treatments to maintain high-yield monocultures.
This dependency has led to widespread use of chemicals, such as glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer and resulted in significant lawsuits in the United States (source: The Guardian).
Beyond glyphosate, industrial farming utilises a complex mix of chemicals to treat seeds, promote growth, and ward off pathogens.
Here are a few commonly used chemicals in seed coatings and treatments:
Potassium Nitrate (KNO₃): Speeds up germination by priming seeds. Calcium Chloride (CaCl₂): Improves seed germination rates and plant growth. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG): Moisture-retentive seed primer to assist germination. Sulfuric Acid (H₂SO₄): Breaks down hard seed coats to speed up germination. Calcium Carbonate (CaCO₃): Used in pelleting to make small seeds easier to plant. Methylcellulose: Binds seed coatings, aiding in precision planting. Zinc Sulfate (ZnSO₄): Supports early plant growth, especially in zinc-deficient soils. Molybdenum Trioxide (MoO₃): Coating nutrient for nitrogen fixation. Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) and Ethyl Cellulose: Coating agents for seed compatibility with precision farming. Benomyl (Fungicide): Protects seeds from soil-borne pathogens. Sodium Hypochlorite (NaClO): Disinfectant to reduce disease risk. Hydrogen Peroxide (H₂O₂): Disinfectant for seed sterilisation. Gibberellic Acid (GA₃): Plant hormone that encourages stem elongation and germination. Rhizobium spp. and Mycorrhizal Fungi: Beneficial microbes that improve nutrient absorption and root health.
While these treatments may improve yields, they also add an unseen layer of chemicals to our food supply, raising concerns about long-term impacts on human health and the environment.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) continues to assess these chemicals, as research raises questions about their potential adverse effects on consumers and ecosystems.
Evidence and Environmental Impact
The environmental cost of chemical use and monoculture farming is equally concerning.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) reports a 56% decline in farmland bird species since 1970, primarily due to habitat loss from monoculture and pesticide use (source: RSPB).
Globalised agriculture, driven by high-yield monocultures and corporate land acquisitions, extends these impacts worldwide.
Large-scale land purchases by corporations are linked to deforestation in Africa and Latin America, where forests are rapidly cleared to make way for industrial crop production.
Such activities devastate ecosystems and displace local communities, raising urgent concerns about sustainability and human rights abuses.
Are These Chemicals the Worst?
The chemicals listed are among the most commonly used in industrial seed treatments, but they are not necessarily the most hazardous.
Compounds like glyphosate and certain fungicides, for example, carry significant health and environmental risks due to their widespread application and persistence in ecosystems.
Additionally, chemicals like neonicotinoids (used in some seed treatments) are particularly harmful to pollinators, contributing to the global decline in bee populations.
While the listed chemicals serve specific purposes in industrial farming, they represent just a fraction of the many synthetic inputs used across the sector, many of which have raised significant concerns for their potential long-term effects on biodiversity, human health, and the resilience of our food systems.
British Agriculture: A Struggle for Survival
In the UK, farming is under severe pressure due to subsidy reductions, environmental policy shifts, and increasing foreign land ownership.
The Financial Times reports that British farmers, now facing subsidy cuts of up to 50%, are being forced to reduce food production to stay financially viable.
Many farmers are pivoting to alternatives like biofuels or rewilding, rather than focusing on food production, encouraged by the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS).
ELMS promotes greener practices, such as carbon sequestration and habitat restoration, to meet environmental goals.
However, while these policies aim to support sustainable practices, they raise serious concerns around food security, job stability, and rural economies.
In Wales, the impact of these policy changes is expected to be severe, with projections indicating a 10% reduction in livestock numbers and a £199 million drop in farm income, leading to an estimated 5,000 job losses.
Such shifts in policy threaten to destabilise local food production and erode rural livelihoods, particularly as small farmers struggle to adjust to rapidly changing economic conditions.
Recently, former adviser to the Tony Blair government, John McTernan, made controversial statements that reflect a dismissive attitude towards small farmers and their role in the British food system.
In an interview with Patrick Christys on GB News on 11 November, McTernan argued that the UK “doesn’t need small farmers”, suggesting that “if farmers want to go on the street, we could do to them what Margaret Thatcher did to the miners.”
He further stated, “it’s an industry we can do without,” and added, “if people are so upset that they want to go on the streets and spread slurry, then we don’t need the small farmers.”
Such remarks highlight a disregard for the very people who form the backbone of British agriculture and rural communities.
These comments align with recent changes to Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which now places a 20% inheritance tax charge on farms valued over £1 million.
This change places an additional financial burden on family-owned farms and further jeopardizes the viability of small-scale agriculture, as it raises the costs of farm succession and makes it more challenging for smaller farms to continue across generations.
Together, these policies and attitudes risk displacing small farmers, undermining rural economies, and eroding local food resilience at a time when food security is more critical than ever.
Edinburgh Council Agrees Plant-Based Treaty Action Plan
The City of Edinburgh Council have climate ambitions and have agreed a city-wide Plant-Based Treaty Action Plan.
Whist council leader Cammy Day states:
“I want to be clear that this does not seek to eliminate meat and dairy. It’s not about removing freedom of choice”
only a few paragraphs further down on the same page they state:
“Across all primary schools, there is one meat-free day per week, with secondary schools providing 100% meat-free main meals one day per week”.
which doesn’t seem like any choice at all for those poor children who want a healthy, balanced diet.
A vegan diet does not provide the body the nutrients it needs and is completely devoid of some vitamins.
Who Controls Our Land?
Ownership of the UK’s farmland is becoming increasingly concentrated, with vast portions controlled by foreign interests, wealthy individuals, and private organisations.
In Scotland, this issue is particularly pronounced, with over 83% of rural land privately owned, according to a report from the Herald Scotland.
Just 0.5% of the UK population owns more than half of England’s land, demonstrating a concentration of ownership that restricts access to land for local farmers, drives up land prices, and intensifies barriers for small-scale, local agriculture.
One of the largest landholders is the Crown Estate Scotland, a public corporation that manages land and property assets owned by the British monarchy “in right of the Crown.”
This estate spans over 87,880 acres (equivalent to twice the size of Glasgow), leased for a range of purposes, including farming, commercial operations, and sports activities. These assets alone are valued at £568.2 million (source: Crown Estate Scotland, 2022).
Foreign ownership also plays a significant role in the UK’s land market, with properties held by overseas investors further tightening access to land for local farming.
Qatar, for instance, owns the Cluny Estate near Laggan and the Eilean Aigas Estate near Beauly, valued at £14.3 million.
China, through its state-owned China Investment Corporation (CIC), owns properties worth collectively £10.7m and has acquired properties like 17 Charlotte Square in Edinburgh (valued at £5 million) through Luxembourg and Isle of Man holdings.
The Carbon Cost of Food Transportation
Our reliance on imported foods has significant environmental implications.
With 80% of the UK’s fruit and 50% of its vegetables sourced from abroad, the food we eat often travels thousands of miles before it reaches our tables.
For instance, green beans from Kenya cover over 6,000 miles, while Egyptian sweet potatoes travel approximately 3,000 miles to reach the UK (source: WITS, World Bank).
Food transportation accounts for around 6% of global carbon emissions (source: Carbon Trust), with fresh produce and meat imports contributing significantly to this figure.
This dependence on long-distance imports results in high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, ultimately undermining our climate goals and increasing our carbon footprint.
By sourcing food locally or growing microgreens at home, we can reduce our reliance on these high-impact, globalised supply chains.
The Environmental Cost of Packaging: Plastic Waste and Health Risks
In addition to transportation emissions, the packaging of food imports also carries an environmental toll.
UK supermarkets are some of the largest contributors to avoidable plastic waste in Europe, generating nearly 29.8 billion pieces of plastic packaging waste annually (source: The Times).
This packaging, often non-recyclable, ends up in landfills or the ocean, further exacerbating environmental harm.
Food packaging also carries risks to human health.
Chemicals such as Bisphenol A (BPA) and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are frequently found in packaging materials.
BPA has been linked to endocrine disruption and even cancer, while PFAS exposure is associated with liver damage and reduced immunity (source: EFSA).
These chemicals leach into food, posing long-term health risks to consumers.
By reducing our reliance on packaged foods, particularly imports, and focusing on local or homegrown alternatives like microgreens, we can significantly reduce plastic waste and potential health hazards, aligning our food choices with environmental and personal health interests.
Joining the Movement for Food Independence
By growing your own microgreens with Skye Mountain, you’re taking a stand against an industrial food system that has turned a basic human right into a commodity.
Each leaf you grow disrupts the chain of middlemen, carbon emissions, and chemicals inherent in conventional food production.
This movement isn’t just about microgreens; it’s a step towards a localised, ethical, and resilient food model that also strengthens local economies.
And should you decide to sell some of the microgreens you grow, you can make a healthy contribution to the economy of your local community.
When we grow and buy locally, we make a powerful investment in our communities.
Studies show that for every £1 spent locally, up to 63p recirculates within the local economy, enhancing community prosperity.
Additionally, local retailers retain 289% more revenue in the local economy compared to chain stores, underscoring the significant economic benefits of shopping locally.
This creates a positive feedback loop, fostering resilience, supporting small businesses, and building a prosperous future for all.
Together, we’re cultivating a food system that not only respects people and the planet but also directly invests in the strength and sustainability of our communities.