Here we come to the uncomfortable core of the problem. Price is the key factor in our behaviour with food and food may, simply, be too cheap. Certainly, in Britain it is cheaper than at any time in history: we spend less than 10% of household income on food and drink. In 1950, we spent around 25%. In the developing world, 50% or more of income is spent on food. Tellingly, Britain spends less than any other country in Europe.
Now I think this is brilliant - and it could be better still if we'd only dump all the daft protectionism - but it seems the lefties don't - they want taxes to make food more expensive (accompanied by higher benefits and a 'living wage' so the poor can still afford to eat):
An alternative to voluntary change is to tax the food industry in just proportion to the damage it causes. Another idea gaining ground across Europe is for a sugar tax – the cheap processed foods and soft drinks that carry the largest profit margins (and which are a key cause of obesity) depend hugely on sugar for their appeal. Food price rises would result and the supermarkets' vast profits might have to take a hit. Those who would really suffer are the poor and their children and that is a challenge to be met fairly with a living wage, not by caps on benefits or food banks.
I would smile indulgently at this drivel but it makes me really angry that these self-righteous, middle-class lefties presume to believe that cheap food is a bad thing. It isn't, it is unquestionably a good thing. It means we can spend our money on other things - things a little further up Maslow's jolly old hierarchy. You know like art, music, holidays and antique-effect wooden furniture for our farmhouse kitchens. The sort of things that Observer editorialists take for granted.