There is a rather important bit of this argument that tends to get missed.
What exactly is a “subsidy”?
For decades, farmers in the UK received what were essentially direct payments based largely on the amount of land they farmed. These were part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and, after Brexit, were initially continued using UK government money.
But that system has been changing. In England, the old Basic Payment Scheme ended in 2023. It was replaced by temporary delinked payments, which are being progressively reduced and will disappear altogether after 2027.
So, when someone thinks, “Farmers get paid subsidies to produce food,” it is worth asking which payments they mean, and if their understanding is based on the historic payments. Because increasingly, that is not what the money is for.
So, what are farmers being paid for now?
The new system is based around paying farmers for things society wants them to do. Things such as:
🌱 improving soil health
🐝 providing habitat for pollinators
🐦 protecting wildlife and ground-nesting birds
🌳 planting and maintaining trees and hedgerows
💧 protecting water and reducing pollution
🧱 maintaining historic features such as traditional walls
👩🏫 providing educational opportunities to learn about farming and the environment
📋 collecting information and carrying out agreed land-management activities
🚜 investing in productivity and more efficient farming
The Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), for example, explicitly pays for actions that protect and benefit the environment, support food production and improve productivity.
In other words, a farmer isn’t being handed a pile of money simply for owning a field. They are being paid to do something that the government, and therefore society, has decided has a value.
And whilst these things are worthwhile, they often come with a cost to the farmer. If a farmer takes productive land out of production to create habitat, there is an opportunity cost. If they delay cutting or grazing an area to protect nesting birds, they may lose the use of that land at the most productive time. If they maintain a historic feature because we collectively want it preserved, somebody has to pay for the work.
To be clear: the payment isn’t free money. It can be paying for their time, their costs or the income they lose by carrying out something society wants them to do. And that distinction matters.
And there is another side to this that is often overlooked. Farmers can also effectively subsidise the food we eat when the price they receive for what they produce is less than it costs them to produce it
Farmers are businesses. They still have to buy: fuel, fertiliser, seed, machinery, buildings, electricity, insurance, labour, veterinary services, repairs, finance…and then they have to sell what they produce into a market where they generally don’t get to decide the price.
When the price received doesn’t cover the cost of production, the farmer is effectively absorbing that difference. That doesn’t mean every farmer or every crop is produced at a loss, but it is an important part of the wider conversation about the cost of food.
So, when we talk about farmers being “subsidised”, it is worth remembering that farmers can also be subsidising the food system themselves – by absorbing costs that aren’t reflected in the price they receive.
And this is where the supermarket price becomes important. The price you pay for a loaf of bread, a bag of potatoes or a pint of milk isn’t simply:
Farmer’s costs + farmer’s profit – subsidy = supermarket price.
There are processors, manufacturers, transport, packaging, distribution, retailers, energy, labour and a whole host of other costs between the farm gate and your shopping basket. The farmer’s share is often surprisingly small. And often, the really misunderstood part is, farm support isn’t simply “free money for farmers”.
Historically, agricultural support helped underpin farm incomes and therefore helped keep domestic production viable. It also meant that the price of food was kept lower. That doesn’t mean every penny of subsidy was magically knocked off the price of your shopping. It means supporting the farming sector can help maintain the capacity to produce food here rather than watching farms disappear because producing it isn’t economically viable.
And that matters because… You can’t suddenly manufacture a farming industry when you realise you need one. Once farms have gone out of business, land has changed use, infrastructure has disappeared and people have left the industry, rebuilding that capacity isn’t something you do quickly – if ever.
We have spent years enjoying relatively cheap and plentiful food. We’ve become accustomed to it. But food security isn’t just about whether there is food in the supermarket today. It’s about whether we still have the farmers, land, skills, infrastructure and productive capacity to produce food tomorrow.
And that is why supporting British farmers isn’t necessarily about giving farmers more money. Sometimes it’s about recognising what we actually expect farmers to provide for us – food, landscapes, wildlife, environmental management, education and a resilient domestic food supply – and recognising that some of those things have a cost.
Because if we want all of those things…someone has to pay for them.
And if we decide we don’t want to pay farmers to provide them? That’s a perfectly legitimate policy choice. But then we shouldn’t be surprised when we get less farmers.
The question shouldn’t simply be: “How much money do farmers get?”
It should be: “What are we paying them to do – and what would it cost us if they stopped doing it?”
Because those are two very different questions.
Support British farmers and buy direct from local farmers whenever you can. Find your farmers at www.produceandprovide.co.uk
