How climate change and red tape could be jeopardising UK access to affordable food
It might be tempting, given how much coverage has focused on it recently, to assume the forthcoming changes to inheritance tax regime are the single biggest issue facing farmers these days.
But the reality is these tax changes come at a moment of extraordinary pressure, with farmers having to contend with a swathe of unsettling issues, many of which could prove existential for their livelihoods.
Put them all together and you realise that for many of those marching in the streets in London, inheritance tax isn’t the only problem – it’s more like the last straw.
Why does this matter for the rest of us? In part because there’s a deeper story here.
For decades, this country’s level of food security has been more or less constant. This country has produced roughly 60 per cent of our own food for two decades (the figure was even higher in the 1980s). But farmers warn that given all the pressures they’re facing, that critical buffer could be about to be removed, with domestic production falling and dependence on imported food rising.
Whether that eventuates remains to be seen. As of 2023 the amount of food supplied domestically was still 62 per cent of everything we consumed. But now let’s consider the challenges facing farmers (even before we get to inheritance tax).
The first of them comes back to Brexit.
Following Britain’s departure from the EU, the government is making dramatic and far reaching changes to the way it supports farmers. For years, those payments, part of the EU-wide Common Agricultural Policy, were based on the amount of land farmed by each recipient.
Alongside these main farm payments there were other bolt-on schemes – Environmental Land Management schemes, to give them their category name – designed to encourage farmers to do more to look after local wildlife. But these schemes were always small in comparison to the main land-based farm payments.
There were problems aplenty with this old scheme. For one thing, all told, it amounted to a subsidy for land ownership rather than food production. Nonetheless, for many farmers it was an essential support, without which they would have had to sell up and stop producing food.
Under Michael Gove, Defra committed to far-reaching changes to these subsidies. Farms across the UK would get the same total amounts, he said, but instead of the majority being based on how much land they were farming, a growing portion would be environmental subsidies.
When Labour came into government it committed to accelerating this process, with the result that by 2027, fully 100 per cent of farm payments will be for environmental schemes.
Whether this is the right or wrong move is a matter of keen debate within the farming community. Many farmers argue that the net impact of environmental schemes is to reduce the amount of land being farmed for food, and that the schemes serve to reduce their crop yields rather than increasing them. Defra, and environmental advocates, argue that unless the soil and local habitats are preserved and improved, Britain faces ever diminishing harvests in future.
Speaking of harvests, that brings us to another issue farmers are having to contend with at the moment – poor crop yields. The past winter was exceptionally wet, with the upshot that the latest figures just released by Defra show 2024 was the second lowest wheat harvest since comparable records began in the early 1980s.
Now, the whole point of farming is that it’s weather dependent – no two years are alike. It’s quite conceivable that 2025’s harvest bounces back from this year’s. But one projection made by climate scientists is that the coming decades could be wetter and more volatile, spelling more trouble for farmers.
On top of this is another challenge: trade competition. Following Brexit, the UK has signed two trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which raise the quotas of how much food each country can export to the UK. Look at trade data and you see a sharp increase in beef and dairy imports from Australia and New Zealand.
In other words, UK farmers are having to contend with more competition even as they contend with worse weather and drastic changes to their funding model.
Nor is this where the challenges end. Because we might also be in the midst of something else: a secular slowdown in farming productivity.
Look at a very, very long-range historic chart of crop yields in the UK. You see a few interesting features. For most of our history, from the Middle Ages through to today, the amount of wheat we could grow in a given hectare of land was pretty low and pretty constant.
Now look at what happened in the second half of the 20th century. Thanks to a combination of artificial fertilisers, combine harvesters and other technological leaps, yields leapt by 200 per cent.
This extraordinary leap is the story of British farming for the parents and grandparents of those family farms tending the land today: ever increasing yields even as the government provided large subsidies for farmers. It was, in terms of pure yields, the golden age for farms – fuelled in part by chemicals.
But now look at the far right hand side of the chart – the past 20 years or so. The line is no longer rising so fast. Farm productivity – at least based on this measure – has slowed quite markedly. Yields are no longer leaping in the way they once were.
Or, to put it another way, it’s getting tougher to generate a return for each hour of work and each pound of investment.
Farmers have staged protests at government plans
This might all seem miles away from the day-to-day debates on farming today. But each of these factors matters. Together, they help explain why things are getting tougher for farmers.
But there’s a broader issue at hand here. Despite having left the EU and implemented far reaching policies such as these, this country hasn’t really had a proper debate about food.
Do we prefer to subsidise farmers in an effort to maintain our domestic food supplies at 60 per cent of our consumption? Would we rather ditch those subsidies and rely on imports instead? Should we favour the long-term health of the environment over short term food production?
These are chewy questions – and ones we really ought to be debating a little more. This isn’t just about inheritance tax…
Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame, who faces federal campaign finance charges, is pushing for dismissal on the grounds that US prosecutors deceived her husband in a plea deal.
In a May 7 filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bond’s lawyers reiterated some of the claims Salame made in opposing his plea deal with the government, which ultimately still led to him serving time in prison. She claimed that prosecutors obtained a deal with Salame through “stealth and deception” by allegedly agreeing they would not file charges against Bond.
“Mr. Salame and Ms. Bond’s attorneys were advised that the agreement to cease investigating Ms. Bond could not be placed within the four corners of the Salame plea or other written agreement, but the government still offered it as an inducement to induce the plea,” said the filing, adding:
“At a minimum, enough exists to demonstrate a legitimate factual dispute as to the nature and scope of the promises made to Mr. Salame and Ms. Bond to induce his guilty plea such that a hearing with discovery is required.”
Prosecutors charged Bond in August 2024 with conspiracy to cause unlawful campaign contributions, causing and accepting excessive campaign contributions, causing and receiving an unlawful corporate contribution, and causing and receiving a conduit contribution related to her failed run for a seat in the US House of Representatives in 2022. Salame, who pleaded guilty to two felony charges in 2023 and was later sentenced to more than seven years in prison, attempted to void his deal with prosecutors, claiming it had included an agreement not to charge Bond.
Related: Former FTX executive Ryan Salame’s prison sentence reduced by 1 year
The May 7 filing requested the court suppress any statements Bond made after the alleged “inducement” in Salame’s deal. The former FTX executive made similar claims in court filings attempting to nullify his plea, but later dropped the matter and reported to prison in October 2024.
Bond hinted that her running as a Republican — similar politically-motivated claims made by Salame — had contributed to the campaign finance charges. The indictment alleged she filed false reports to the Federal Election Commission related to funds used for her campaign.
The FTX saga hasn’t ended… yet
Since the collapse of FTX in 2022, nearly all former executives indicted on charges related to the misuse of the crypto exchange’s funds have had their day in court.
Former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, who pleaded not guilty, went through a trial in 2023 and was later sentenced to 25 years in prison. His lawyers filed a notice of appeal, and reports suggested he may be looking for a pardon from US President Donald Trump.
Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research, was sentenced to two years in prison in September 2024 as part of a plea deal and began serving her time in November. Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, former FTX executives who also pleaded guilty to charges, were each sentenced to time served in 2024.
Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple and industry with no crypto legal precedent set
The US federal court for the Southern District of New York has sentenced former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky to 12 years in prison for fraud.
Mashinsky’s legal team sought a light sentence. They highlighted his spotless record before the Celsius incident, along with his military service and willingness to plead guilty. But US prosecutors were less inclined to leniency, suggesting on April 28 that the judge deliver a 20-year sentence for his actions.
Betting markets predicted a light sentence ahead of the May 8 hearing. Polymarket showed only 11% odds for a 20-year sentence or higher.
President Donald Trump began his second term with high-profile pardons of crypto executives, signalling that his administration may bring leniency to crypto fraudsters like Mashinsky. His sentencing today, however, suggests otherwise.
Trump’s DOJ wants Mashinsky sentence to serve as a warning
Crypto-related crimes have their limits, according to the current US Department of Justice. Jay Clayton, the Trump-nomianted US attorney leading the prosecution, said on April 28 that the suggested 20-year sentence serves as a “critical warning to other entrepreneurs, executives, and promoters in the cryptocurrency industry and in any future industry as-yet unconceived: that fraud will be punished severely, regardless of the technology or industry in which it occurs.”
Clayton argued that a strong sentence was warranted as the fraud targeted unsophisticated retail investors rather than institutional parties with protections and expertise. Mashinsky “preyed on ordinary individuals who relied on his promises of safety and financial security.”
The Mashinsky defense team drew attention to Mashinsky’s character, highlighting his long career in business, devotion to family and service with the Israel Defense Forces.
His lawyers also drew distinctions between Mashinsky’s case and that of Bankman-Fried, claiming, “There are no allegations — let alone any proof — that Alex misappropriated, embezzled or stole any customer assets or any Celsius money.”
On May 5, Mashinsky’s legal team argued that these mitigating factors should warrant a sentence of no more than 366 days.
“The government’s venom-laced submission recasts this case as one involving a predator with an intent to target victims, harm them, and steal their money,” his team said.
Mashinsky’s lawyers called the suggested 20-year term a “death-in-prison sentence.”
Mashinsky’s sentence follows high-profile Trump pardons for crypto execs
Trump started his term with the pardon of Silk Road 2.0 founder Ross Ulbricht, whose acceptance of Bitcoin (BTC) on his narcotics trading platform endeared him to the crypto community.
The president also commuted the sentences of Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo and Samuel Reed, three BitMEX crypto exchange executives who pleaded guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act and failing to establish a proper Anti-Money Laundering program.
Sam Mangel, a consultant to white-collar convicts who advised former Trump staffer Steve Bannon and Bankman-Fried, told Politico there has been a large spike in interest in presidential pardons.
“Everybody that is in prison now is keenly aware of the environment, and it’s become a very hot topic within the low- and minimum-security inmate communities,” said Mangel.
Related: US stablecoin bill loses democrats amid Trump corruption concerns
High-profile crypto defendants seem to have taken notice, too. Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin advocate and libertarian activist, is facing federal tax evasion charges. In January, he released a video making an outright plea to Trump for a commutation. Ver claimed that he is the victim of lawfare and likened his persecution to Trump’s legal problems following the Jan. 6 scandal.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced former CEO of now-defunct exchange FTX, likened his court experience with Trump’s defamation lawsuit in an interview with The New York Sun on Feb. 18. He claimed his trial was politicized under the Biden administration and that he didn’t think there was “a very fair and balanced view or approach.” His parents also reportedly met with lawyers and people close to the Trump administration to explore the possibility of a presidential pardon.
Trump’s commutation of the BitMEX executives has even led former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao to apply for clemency. On May 6, Zhao said that his lawyers had submitted an application and were awaiting a response.
The current administration is still writing the rules of the road as regulators reshuffle personnel and priorities and new legal frameworks for crypto take shape. The picture is further muddled by Trump’s own crypto projects, which have raised concerns over corruption and conflicts of interest. Mashinsky’s sentence shows that, for the financial world, certain crimes will not go unpunished.
Magazine: Adam Back says Bitcoin price cycle ’10x bigger’ but will still decisively break above $100K
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins of 2025 Act, known as the GENIUS Act, failed to pass cloture in the United States Senate on May 8, dealing a slight blow to cryptocurrency regulation in the country.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Bill Hagerty and co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cynthia Lummis and Angela Alsobrooks, received last-minute pushback from Democrats, who took aim at the bill and raised concerns about US President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures.
To address the concerns of Senate Democrats, the bill had already been amended to include stricter requirements for stablecoin issuers for further provisions for Anti-Money Laundering.
The GENIUS Act was seen as a bipartisan effort to increase regulatory clarity for digital assets in the United States. The focus of the bill, stablecoins used for payments, was looked at as extending dollar dominance internationally and straying away from more controversial crypto topics.
After the procedure failed, Senate Majority Leader John Thune criticized Democrats, saying, “Democrats have been accommodated every step of the way […] frankly, I just don’t get it.”
‘Disappointment’ at cloture vote failure
After the GENIUS Act failed to meet cloture, some individuals took to social media to express their displeasure at Congress’s lack of progress toward a sensible digital asset regulatory framework.
Lummis published a statement that read, “I’m deeply disappointed that we were unable to pass this important, bipartisan-crafted stablecoin legislation today. Make no mistake, digital assets are the future and America must lead the way.”
She wasn’t the only Republican sharing her thoughts about the situation.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued a lengthy statement on X, writing that for stablecoins and other digital assets “to thrive globally, the world needs American leadership.”
Blockchain Association CEO Kristin Smith said in a statement that while “disappointed that the GENIUS Act did not pass its cloture vote today, we remain encouraged by the bipartisan engagement on this critical digital asset legislation.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway