Show the Working

Prioritise 'Buy British' for food security

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Prioritise 'Buy British' for food security” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

minor · low confidence

The policy promises tax breaks and a costly public-procurement mandate with no stated funding source, which would likely increase the fiscal bill. No independent costing exists, so the size of the hit is genuinely uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: No IFS or OBR costing of the tax breaks or the uplift in public-sector food procurement costs exists, so the magnitude of the fiscal impact is unquantifiable from available evidence.

Our reading: The policy contains two clear fiscal instruments — tax breaks for food processors and abattoirs, and a 75% UK-sourcing mandate on taxpayer-funded bodies — neither of which comes with a costed funding mechanism. Tax breaks are an unambiguous reduction in revenue. The procurement mandate imposes higher costs on the public sector because, as the evidence shows, protectionist approaches drive food prices above world market rates, and the UK currently sources only 57% of consumption domestically, meaning compliance would require paying premiums for domestic supply that may not exist at scale. Both channels put upward pressure on public expenditure or reduce revenue without an identified offset, which is the definition of a fiscal worsening. The magnitude is scored 'minor' rather than 'moderate' because no independent costing exists — the true scale is unknown — and because the tax-break element is targeted at smaller businesses rather than the whole sector. The Food Foundation welcomes the procurement ambition, suggesting there may be efficiency or resilience co-benefits, but these are not fiscal savings that offset the direct cost. The confidence is low precisely because the absence of any OBR or IFS modelling means the fiscal drag could be trivial or substantial depending on take-up and price effects.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

A 'Buy British' mandate could boost domestic agricultural businesses and reduce supply-chain vulnerabilities, but protectionist procurement rules typically raise food prices and risk trade disputes — both of which would weigh on living standards. The net effect depends heavily on how strictly the mandate is enforced and whether trade partners retaliate.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether WTO-compliant enforcement is achievable and whether trading partners retaliate, which would determine if the policy raises consumer prices significantly and triggers a wider hit to UK economic openness.

Our reading: The policy has two material and competing effects on O13. On the positive side, the procurement mandate and tax breaks for smaller processors would channel demand toward domestic agricultural businesses, supporting a sector that has faced rising costs. The Food Foundation endorses using public procurement as a lever, and there is a plausible supply-side benefit to business dynamism in food production. Near-term, this could modestly improve economic opportunity in rural and food-processing communities. On the negative side, the UK currently imports 43% of its food by value, and for some categories (e.g. fresh fruit) domestic production covers only 17% of need. Closing that gap rapidly — or mandating procurement targets that exceed domestic capacity — would structurally require either higher prices or significant supply-chain disruption. Independent analysis consistently finds that protectionist food policies raise prices above world-market rates. After already severe food inflation (39% rise since 2020), further price increases would erode real living standards, with the heaviest burden on lower-income households. WTO compliance risk adds a further layer: if the mandate triggers trade disputes, broader export access and economic openness could be harmed, denting aggregate prosperity. Diversity of supply sources is itself a food security tool, so a rigid domestic sourcing target may paradoxically increase vulnerability to domestic harvest failures. Overall, the policy offers a genuine but geographically narrow boost to farm-sector dynamism while imposing broader costs on consumer living standards through price pressure and trade risk. Both effects are real and evidence-supported, making this a genuine 'mixed' verdict rather than a clear directional call.

Inequality & fair shares — Hurts

minor · moderate confidence

Protectionist food sourcing mandates tend to push food prices up, and price rises hit low-income households hardest — widening the gap between rich and poor. Tax breaks for smaller processors could help regional economies but are unlikely to offset the distributional drag from higher food costs.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much domestic food prices actually rise depends on whether the 70–75% targets can be met through existing UK supply or require costly structural shifts — the price impact could be negligible or significant.

Our reading: The central inequality question is: who bears the cost of higher food prices, and who captures the gains from the policy? On costs: the evidence is clear that protectionist food policies raise prices above world market rates, and that food price increases fall disproportionately on lower-income and larger households. Given that UK self-sufficiency is already well below the 70–75% targets for many product categories (notably fruit at 17% self-sufficiency), meeting those targets would require either major domestic supply expansion or accepting shortfalls — both scenarios risk upward price pressure. The gains from tax breaks for smaller processors and abattoirs could reduce regional inequality modestly by supporting rural and agricultural communities, and the public procurement mandate is welcomed by some as a lever for good — but these benefits are diffuse and hard to quantify, and they accrue primarily to producers and businesses rather than to lower-income consumers. The net distributional effect is therefore regressive: the costs (higher food prices) fall more heavily on low-income households as a share of their budget, while the gains (more domestic agricultural activity, some regional economic support) are more broadly spread or accrue to producers. This widens the gap between richer and poorer households. The magnitude is assessed as minor rather than moderate because the policy does not directly cut transfers or raise income taxes, and the price impact — while directionally regressive — is uncertain in scale. Absent the policy, food prices would continue to be set largely by global market rates; the additional cost imposed by domestic sourcing mandates is a real but modest additional burden.

Cost of living — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Forcing more food to be sourced from the UK is likely to push up food prices, hitting lower-income households hardest — though the labelling and procurement measures alone would have little direct effect on prices. The key uncertainty is how strictly the targets are enforced and whether domestic supply can realistically substitute for imports.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the 70% domestic sourcing target is enforced through trade restrictions (which would raise prices significantly) or only through softer incentives (which would have a smaller price effect).

Our reading: The baseline shows UK food already sources 57% domestically; reaching 70% would require substituting a substantial share of EU and rest-of-world imports. For foods like fresh fruit where the UK is only 17% self-sufficient, domestic substitution is not realistically achievable at comparable cost. The academic and trade-economics literature cited consistently projects that protectionist food policies raise prices above world market rates — this is the dominant finding in the evidence provided, and no cited source rebuts it with modelled data showing price reductions. Against a backdrop where food prices have already risen 39% since 2020 and low-income households are bearing the sharpest burden, any further upward pressure on food costs represents a material worsening of cost-of-living for the most vulnerable. The public procurement mandate (75% for taxpayer-funded bodies) has a more limited direct price effect on most consumers, and the Food Foundation welcomes that specific measure; but it does not offset the broader price risk from the 70% economy-wide target. Tax breaks for smaller processors could modestly improve domestic supply capacity, but cannot bridge the gap in categories where climate and geography constrain UK production. WTO legal friction adds further risk of supply disruption. The direction of effect on O2 is therefore a worsening, of moderate magnitude (not major, because the policy's enforcement mechanism is unspecified and softer incentive-only versions would have a smaller effect), felt within this parliament as procurement mandates take hold.

Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture

moderate · low confidence

The 'Buy British' policy could boost farm and food-processing jobs and pay through increased domestic demand and tax breaks, but protectionist measures risk raising food prices, which would squeeze workers' real wages — especially for low-income households. The net effect on workers depends heavily on whether any job gains in agriculture offset real-wage losses from higher food costs.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether any job and income gains for agricultural and food-processing workers outweigh the real-wage losses from higher food prices for low-paid working households.

Our reading: For O4 — good work and fair pay — this policy has two opposing effects on workers. On the upside, the public procurement mandate (75% UK-sourced food for taxpayer-funded bodies) combined with tax breaks for smaller food processors and abattoirs would increase domestic demand for UK agricultural and food-processing labour. The agricultural sector has faced rising costs and competition, so a demand boost could support jobs and pay in rural food-producing communities. On the downside, the policy's protectionist character risks raising food prices above world market rates. Given that food prices have already risen sharply (39% since 2020, adding £1,300/year per household), and that low-income working households are most exposed to food inflation, higher domestic food prices would directly erode real wages for the workers the policy is nominally helping. The structural constraint is significant: the UK is only 62% self-sufficient overall and just 17% self-sufficient in fresh fruit, so hitting 70–75% targets would require either major supply-side expansion (slow and uncertain) or sharp import restrictions (price-inflationary). The verdict is 'mixed' at moderate magnitude: real job and income gains are plausible for agricultural and food-processing workers, but real-wage losses via food inflation are also plausible for the same workers as consumers. Confidence is low because no direct modelling of this specific policy's employment or wage effects is available in the provided evidence.

Crime, justice & national security — Helps

minor · low confidence

Raising domestic food production towards 70% self-sufficiency would modestly improve the UK's resilience to supply-chain shocks and external disruptions, which is a genuine national-security benefit. However, WTO legal challenges could undermine the mandate, and experts note that diversity of supply sources — not just domestic share — is also a key pillar of food security.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the public-procurement mandate and production targets survive WTO legal challenge and actually lift domestic self-sufficiency to the stated level, rather than being diluted or overturned.

Our reading: O5 includes resilience to external threats as an indicator. Food supply security is a recognised dimension of national resilience: if global shocks or trade frictions disrupt imports, a higher domestic production share reduces exposure. The current self-sufficiency baseline is 57–62% (depending on measurement), and the policy targets 70%, a real if modest uplift. The public-procurement mandate for 75% UK-sourced food is a concrete, funded mechanism — not merely aspirational — which passes the soft-verb threshold. This justifies a direction of 'improves' rather than 'negligible'. However, three factors limit both magnitude and confidence. First, diversity of supply is itself a food-security asset; concentrating sourcing domestically could increase vulnerability to domestic harvest failures rather than reduce it. Second, for key categories like fresh fruit, the UK is only 17% self-sufficient, meaning the 70% aggregate target likely relies on substitution toward foods the UK can produce, which may not map onto actual consumption demand. Third, WTO legal exposure is real and could prevent the mandate from operating as stated. On balance the direction is a minor, long-term improvement in supply-chain resilience — the mechanism is plausible and the target is concrete — but the magnitude is constrained by the limits of domestic production capacity and legal uncertainty, warranting low confidence.

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home