Food – The Green Tau

Green Tau: farming for a better future

9th November 2026

Walking with Christian Climate Action on a pilgrim way to Avebury, we walked through part of the Yatesbury House Farm. The path was lined with newly saplings (sadly some had succumbed to this year’s extreme hot weather). The fields on each side were a mix of plants including, I think, blue flowering flax. Black cattle grazed a wide expanse of the land, whilst we counted six kites – wheeling overhead – a goodly number of corvids, finches and a butterfly!

Yatesbury House Farm has been farming in harmony with nature organically since 1998, and biodynamically since 2004. The farm is closed to all inputs (excepting, pasture seeds, new seeds, new bulls, essential trace minerals for cattle and fuels for tractors and grain drying) – is everything that keeps the soil fertile and its livestock feed (silage etc – all the grain grown is for human consumption), is produced on the farm. Increasingly solar energy is reducing their dependency on imported fuel. The farm practices Agroforestry -including silvopastoral farming where cattle graze both pasture and woodlands, and where copses and hedgerows are planted to benefit both crops and nature. Future crops will include apples, hazelnuts, pears, plums, and walnuts.

Farms like this, help us to imagine what the wider landscape could look like if farming was so clearly focused on working with nature. On the flip side they remind us that if we want that future, we need to give our support by opting for organic produce and as importantly opting to eat less meat and dairy products. Letting cattle graze in harmony with nature, stocking to low density levels and supplementing their feed not with corn and soy but with silage, produces less – but better – meat.

Farming like this also contributes to the Kunming Montreal Biodiversity Framework. (1)

Target 2 calls for a restoration of 30% of all degraded ecosystems -which I’m sure includes farms where the soil’s fertility has been compromised.

Target 7 which calls for the reduction in pollution to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity – organic farming clearly meets this challenge.

Target 8 calls for the minimising of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and to build up resilience which would include farming practices that increase the ability of the soil to absorb excess flood water, to absorb carbon and that boosts biodiversity.

Target 10 calls for the enhancement of biodiversity and sustainability in agriculture, including the adoption biodiversity friendly practices such as agroecology.

Our walk was the precursor to our attendance at the National Trust’s AGM where a CCA inspired motion called on the NT to align its banking with its environmental credentials, was successfully approved by the members. (2) The two events are welcome signs that a better future is possible if we are willing to press for it.

To find out more about Yatesbury House Farm visit their website – https://www.yatesburyfarm.com/home -or watch this video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24y38h9QvU0

Counting on … day 120

9th November 2026

Room for Rewilding

Goulson understands rewilding to be “[o]ne of the most contentious and divisive issues amongst farmers in the UK at present, seen by some as a threat to the food system… The term refers, so what loosely, to setting aside land – usually farmed land – and then, as far as possible, allowing nature to look after itself.” Such rewilding projects can involve the reintroduction of species to restore the contributions they make to the shaping of a diversity of habitats. eg beavers to restore more flood resilient wetlands; large grazing animals to maintain a balance between scrub and grassland; pine martens to control grey squirrel populations. (P181 Eat the Planet Well)

Goulson advocates for a national land use strategy that identifies what land is best used not just for growing food – ie grade 1 farmland – but for capturing carbon, generating energy, supporting biodiversity, mitigating flooding, providing for recreation etc. (P183) He the draws our attention to what we might think of as the traditional look of the countryside and its associated livelihoods, is a constantly changing picture: from the pre-Neolithic age when farming was in its infancy and the land was a mix of wood and grassland and its people hunter gathers, to the medieval strip fields which were replaced by small enclosed fields and the downgrading of peasant farmers to farm hands, to the huge fields of modern times where miles of hedgerows have been removed, and where meadows have been replaced by monocultures of grasses and grains – and where fewer and fewer people find employment.

So would further change actually be beneficial? Goulson believes so: “You my recall” he writes “from the previous chapter that taking up to 8% of fields out of arable production has no negative impact on yield, in part because farmers choose the least productive bits of land, and in part because the uncropped land then acted as a source of beneficial insects. I would argue that rewinding works in a similar way but on a larger scale. We have long known that farmers get better yields if their farm is near wilder, unfarmed areas, because pollinators spill out of those refuges into the farmland. Similarly, rewilded upland areas with more tree cover and perhaps beaver dams would reduce the catastrophic flooding of lowland farmland that can wipe outcrops ( as well as costing billions in flood damage to property). Rewilded areas help tackle climate change, which poses numerous threats to food production…) (p187)

What Goulson doesn’t mention here, is that if we were to adopt a diet that included less meat and dairy, we would need less land for feeding and rearing livestock. And indeed some of that land could be diverted to growing more of the foods – fruits, vegetables, beans and pulses – that we would be enjoying instead!

Counting on … day 119

6th November 2026

Nature friendly farming

Goulson begins this chapter with what is again at the nub of the issue. “As we have explores, there is overwhelming evidence that the industrialisation of farming is a major driver of the loss of wildlife around the globe; ecosystems rich in wildlife have been swept away, and replaced by serried ranks of oil palms, vines or vast fields of arable crops, which are treated multiple times per year with many different pesticides to keep the crop as close to a perfect monoculture as possible. Industrialised farming and nature are mutually exclusive.

“Loss of wildlife from the land is clearly undesirable for many reasons, not least of which is that it undermines the stability of farming itself, which needs bees and pollinators, ladybirds and other natural enemies of crop pests, and the diverse array of small creatures that keep soil healthy and recycle nutrients.” (P168 Eat the Planet Well)

Goulson follows this with an overview of the many ways in which nature-friendly farming provides a positive and productive alternative. He takes the example of hedgerows which were ripped out following the Second World War to make maximise field size and increase productivity. On the ground trials and research shows the contrary to be true. “If every arable farmer …put the least productive 8% of their land into wildlife habitats, there would apparently be no impact on overall crop production but huge benefits for nature; 8 per cent of arable land in the UK would amount to a staggering 320,000 hectares of wildlife habitat.” (P169) Other examples covered include expanded crop rotations, agroforestry, the UK government’s and various EU environmental policies and subsidies, as well as regenerative and organic farming practices, ending with this recap:-

“In short, conventional farming could adopt a suite of measures that would boost biodiversity considerably with little or no impact on overall crop yield or farm profitability, and some of these would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We should be encouraging and supporting farmers to deploy as many of these measures as possible, ideally with government funding and incentives. Going organic also boosts biodiversity, but comes at the cost of decreased yield for some crops. The ideal system, from both environmental and human health perspectives, would combine both, but to be viable without increasing food imports this would require a shift in diet.” (P179)

Counting on …day 118

5th November 2026

Fish and seafood

Is eating fish sustainable? If we eat them at a faster rate than they can reproduce, then clearly no – which is why various governments have introduced fish quotas. But – “Fishing can be a classic ‘tragedy of the commons’, whereby anyone cheating the system – catching more than thwir share – makes a profit in the short term, while the cost of their selfish action is shared by all.” (P189 Eat the Planet Well).

Further issues around the sustainability of fishing include methods of fishing – bottom trawlers both severely degrade the seabed and drag up by-catch – ie fish and marine life that because is not suitable for sale, is discarded. Lost of discarded fishing gear adds to the already dangerous amounts of plastic in the oceans – this is bad for marine life and potentially for those eating that marine life. Most seafood that is eaten contains a mix of plastic particles. Fish often also contain various potentially harmful chemicals, including mercury, which bio-accumulation become increasingly concentrated in fish at the top of the food chain. (P151)

Ia fish farming sustainable? Like the industrialised farming of livestock, fish farming at scale is far from a natural lifestyle for the fish. Fed on concentrated feed to increase growth rates, over crowded in water which becomes polluted with faeces and in which disease can be rife, leading to an over reliance on antibiotics, sustainability is doubtful.

Goulson’s advice is that “…anyone who plans to continue eating seafood should support initiatives to set aside portions of the marine environment as protected areas. These support biodiversity, capture carbon, and can act s breeding grounds for commercial fish species which then spill out into the surrounding seas, increasing the sustainable catch. Nearly 40% of the UK’s territorial waters are nominally designated as Marine Protected Areas, but most of these provide little or no actual protection, still allowing harmful practices such as bottom trawling and some industrial activities. In 2023, the UK government announced that three small areas would become Highly Protected Marine Areas, with a total ban on fishing, but these cover a pitiful half a per cent of British waters.” (P167)

Counting on … day 117

4th November 2026

Switch to meat and milk alternatives?

Goulson begins by noting the rising levels of consumption of vegan and vegetarian substitutes – although these may be the result of highly processed ingredients. He also notes the ongoing research into and development of, meat substitutes using ‘precision fermentation’ using microbes such as selected yeasts and bacteria. And of course he reminds us that fermentation is widely used in many existing food items such as beer, cheese, sauerkraut, tofu etc.

However, “The very large plus side is that a switch to a lab-grown meat or precision-fermented protein sources in place of conventional meat and dairy would be a game changer for our planet. It would free up roughly 92% of all land that is currently used for livestock grazing and to grow food for livestock…that could be turned over to nature and carbon capture. This would eliminate the vast greenhouse gas emissions associated with livestock farming. It would be the single largest step we could realistically take in the near future to combat climate change and biodiversity collapse.

“That may seem like a glittering prize for environmentalists, but of course life is rarely quite to simple. A change like this would be hugely controversial, and have obvious and devastating consequences for the livelihoods of livestock farmers. On the other hand, if we carry on along our current trajectory, then climate change will devastate economies and livelihoods, cause extreme weather events that kill millions, flood low-lying lands including many coastal cities, render large chunks of Africa uninhabitable, and drive mass migration and social upheaval. Many scientists, me included, predict the collapse of civilisation this century if we don’t do much to combat biodiversity loss and climate change. Having to adapt to a world without livestock farming seems like small potatoes in comparison.” (143)

This I feel is at the heart of the book. We need to change the way we eat and the way we farm if we are to safeguard our lives on this planet.

Goulson argues that rather than UPFs substitutes, the healthiest option is to eat a diversity of protein-rich plants – lentils, beans and peas and products such as tofu and tempeh. As regards milk alternatives, he commends those plant-based milks that avoid the more complex additions of stabilisers, acidity regulators and emulsifiers. However he equally highlights that dairy milk is a good source of vitamins D and B, calcium and iodine and on that basis recommends dairy milk for children. (P146)

Counting on … day 116

3rd November 2026

Do livestock suffer?

Not only does meat and dairy production have a massive environmental footprint, its progress from birth to abattoir is frequently unimaginable.

In this chapter Goulson explores the reality of the living conditions of livestock which are frequently not the bucolic frolicking in meadows of happy animals that advertisements suggest. At root much of the inhumane farming of livestock is driven by the pressure to produce ever cheaper food products. Where chicken was once a treat for a special occasion, chicken is now very cheap. Goulson quotes £6 for four chicken breasts or a mere £4 for an oven ready chicken. (P128) To achieve those prices costs have to be pinched as much as possible. “Typically, in the UK, each chicken is reared with 25,000 others in a large, dimly lit building, usually windowless, with sawdust in the floor. The dim light discourages movement, so that the birds do not waste energy. They eat carefully formulated feed, usually soy-based, with much of the soy brown in South America, in what was once tropical forest…Often the feed has palm oil added too, and/or fish meal from small fish such as sand eels. The birds are stocked at … nineteen grown chickens squeezed into every 1 meter by 1 meter …Naturally, chickens have a life expectancy of twelve years or more, but meat chickens are slaughtered at five or six weeks old…” (p128-9 Eat the Planet Well) Goulson follows through this chapter with equally disturbing descriptions of the raising of egg-laying hens, pigs, dairy and beef cattle.

Although he doesn’t advocate not eating meat or dairy products, he asks that if we do do so, surely at the least we should ensure the wellbeing of each animal throughout its short life. He recommends choosing products that have in someway been certified to ensure this – whether that be organic, Pasture for Life, and RSPCA Assured – but notes that certification is not always enough.

Counting on … day 115

2nd November 2026

Ultra processed food

“In the past fifty years, our diets have undergone the biggest shift for 12,000 years – since the dawn of agriculture.” (P109 Eat the Planet Well) Goulson describes that earlier shift as being from a hunter-gatherer diet of great diversity to one of a more limited diet of what could easily be farmed, with a reliance on grains – a limitation that itself caused dietary deficiencies. Fast forward to the twentieth century, and alongside a growing obsession with nutrition, a growth in ultra processed foods. These are, in essence, synthetic foods made from a limited number of ingredients – principally wheat, rice, corn and soy – that re-created into a diverse range of foodstuffs by “extracting substances such as oils, starch, sugar and protein from basic foodstuffs, or by grinding and pureeing animal carcasses, and then reconstituting these substances with gelling agents, salt, flavour enhancers, anti-foaming agents, sweetness, colours, preservatives, antipyretic, emulsifiers and stabilisers” writes Goulson. “The food industry loves such products, as they are based in cheap ingredients and hence can be sold at a very profitable market-up. Preservatives are added to ensure the convenience of a long shelf life, and most of these products require little or no preparation before eating. Moreover, these synthetic foods are designed to be moreish and slow to induce satiation, so that we eat a lot of them; this is good for profits, not so good for us.

“A further advantage of UPFs from a food industry persevere is that they can be tinkered with to suit the latest food FSDA or nutritional advice, making it seem like they are the healthy choice. You might replace sugar with sweetener, add a few vitamins to a sugary cereal, or use more than one type of refined grain to bake a loaf of wholesome-sounding ‘multigrain’ bread. Even Pringles now come in a ‘multigrain’ option.” (P110 and 111)

What are the health hazards of UPFs? Goulson refers us to a systematic review of twenty-three relevant studies that “concluded that high levels of consumption were associated with increased mortality, obesity, low HDL cholesterol and metabolic syndrome (a combination of diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity)” whilst other studies pointed to risks of depression, higher risks of cancer, and of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. (P119)

How to identify UPFs? Goulson starts with Michael Pollan’s advice:

don’t eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognise as food, and avoid food products containing ingredients that are
Unfamiliar
Unpronounceable
More than five in number* or that
Include high-fructose corn syrup. To which Goulson adds, anything where sugar comprises more than 10% by weight of contains artificial sweeteners; or ingredients thtvhve been hydrogenated, refined, hydrolysed, modified, bleached or enriched. (P121-2)

Goulson also points out that vegan and vegetarian foods are as equally likely to be highly processed in including vegan sausages, cream, cheeses etc.

He concludes: “Remember that, on average, UK, US and Canadian citizens consume about 50-60% of their calories as ultra-processed foods; it is that which makes us ill. Treating yourself to the odd packet of crisps or an icecream or whatever else tickles your fancy, is fine.” (P125)

* Although bear in mind that a curry or tagine, say, may well have a lot more ingredients given the variety and range of spices and vegetables included.

Counting on … day 114

28th October 2026

What to do about soy and palm oil?

You well be surprised to learn that soy and palm oil are by far the biggest sources of vegetable oil in our diets: 76 million tonnes of palm oil and 59 million tonnes of soy are harvested every year. The next most co:mon vegetable oil is rape seed coming in at 25 million tonnes, whilst olive oil measures a mere 3 million tonnes. (P100 Eat the Planet Well).

Most of the soy oil is used to manufacture high protein animal feed. Soy that is used to create protein rich tofu, soya milk, soy sauce etc uses but a fraction.

Palm oil is widely used in food processing. Palm oil yields are high, making it a cheap oil. It is versatile, stable during cooking and semi solid at room temperature. It can be found in products as diverse as bread, icecream, biscuits, breakfast cereals, chocolate and even baby food. It is also widely used in products such as shampoo, toothpaste and cosmetics. A wonder ingredient! But the problem lies in where and how oil palms are grown. They grow best in hot humid conditions with plenty of rainfall such as occurs in rainforest habitats. Vast tracts of rainforest have been cleared to make way for mono crop oil palm plantations, causing ecological and climatic devastation.

Another downside of palm oil is that it is higher than other plant oils in saturated fats – 52% (NB Coconut oil is even higher at 89%).*

“So” asks Goulson, “should we boycott palm oil? There is no clear answer, so I can only tell you my decision. If palm oil were a healthy ingredient used in nutritious foods, I might reluctantly recommend that we consume it, choosing products certified by RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) and pushing RSPO standards to be improved to prevent further deforestation. In reality, palm oil offers little nutrition beyond raw calories, is probably bday for our hearts, and is largely only available in ultra-processed foods that are almost universally awful for our health…. I for one will not consume the oil.” (P108 Eat the Planet Well)

*Butter contains about 70% saturated fatty acids.

NB vegan butters tend to contain either palm or coconut oil to gain their semi solid consistency. For more information visit https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/is-vegan-butter-healthy

Counting on … day 113

27th October 2026

Is organic food healthier?

One view is that being free of pesticides etc organic food is healthier; it is also felt that such food may also be fresher (less dependent on chemical sprays to prolong its shelf-life), to be more nutritious, containing more antioxidants and being free of GM ingredients. Another plus view is that organic farming ensures better animal welfare and better welfare for the environment.

On the other hand organic food can be seen as expensive and overhyped.

Either way organic food has to be produced in accordance with a strict set of regulations that encompass how the soil is farmed and how livestock are raised and their access to open air and grazing.

Goulson reviews various research projects that aim to quantify the benefits or not of organic food. Two areas where there does seem to be clear evidence is that organically reared cows, wing fed more on grass, hay and silage, produce milk and meat that is higher in omega-3 fatty acids. The other clear benefit of organically raised livestock is that they are not routinely treated with antibiotics as a prophylactic meaning that less of these antibiotics in the environment and therefore less of a build up of antibiotic resistance.

He concludes “Overall, it is clear that those who eat organic food as part of various positive lifestyle choices will be exposed to fewer pesticides, consume more antioxidants and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and they and their children will be less likely to develop various ailments, from eczema to lymphoma. They can also feel relieved to know they are not funding the cruel industry of intensive animal husbandry and its associated ills, including the spread of MRSA. It seems like a no-brained to me: so far as you can afford it, eat organic.” (P90 Eat the Planet Well)

It strikes me that governments intent of benefiting their citizens – and reducing health costs – should be proactively encouraging organic food production AND ensuring that everyone can afford a healthy diet.

As regards GM crops, which Goulson also covers, he concludes “If the development of GM crops were funded by charitable bodies of governments with the goal of growing food more sustainably, their safety was carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis, the seeds were given to farmers for free, and farmers were allowed to gather their own seed for future use, then I think GM technology has a place. When used to lock farmers into an intensive, high-in out farming system, it can be actively harmful. The value of GM technology depends on who is wielding it and where their motivation lies.” (P99 Eat the Planet Well)

Counting on … day 112

26th October 2026

Poisoning ourselves

“In Europe, about 500 different pesticides are licensed for use on our crops, with almost twice as many available in the US. These are all poisons, intended to kill insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), fungi (fungicides), or slugs and snails (molluscides). Some are naturally occurring compounds extracted from plants, and a few are simple inorganic compounds such as copper salts. Most, however, are complex organic compounds synthesised in a lab – chemical structures that never previously existed. They vary hugely in how much of them is used, how and when they are sprayed, and their chemical and physical properties, all of which affects the likelihood of them ending up in the food on your fork. They also vary greatly on how harmful they might be to us as humans.” (P74 Eat the Planet Well)

Goulson notes that many chemicals band in Europe still enter our food supplies via imported produce. Worryingly he also points out the difficulty of determining the impact of a combination of pesticides etc on our health – for few crops receive only one dose and more typically a raft of different chemicals will be used at different stage of the the growth of the crop, in,causing just before and after harvesting.

Equally the impact of these chemicals on our health may vary depending on how long we are exposed to them and whether the residues accumulate in our bodies.

He concludes “All things considered, it would seem wise to avoid consuming pesticides and feeding the, to our children so far as possible. This can be challenging, as most of the cheap and readily available food in supermarkets and fast-food outlets comes from intensive farming and is likely to be contaminated one way or another. Avoiding pesticides is inconvenient, and sometimes more expensive, but it is not impossible. The most obvious strategy is to buy organic, which we will explore next.” (P83 Eat the Planet Well)