Food Policy in the United Kingdom An

Introduction Earthscan Food and Agriculture 1st

Edition Caraher pdf download

https://ebookgate.com/product/food-policy-in-the-united-kingdom-
an-introduction-earthscan-food-and-agriculture-1st-edition-
caraher/

Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookgate.com
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Practical Spectroscopy in Agriculture and Food Science 1st

Edition Y Posudin (Author)

https://ebookgate.com/product/practical-spectroscopy-in-agriculture-
and-food-science-1st-edition-y-posudin-author/

ebookgate.com

Cold Plasma in Food and Agriculture Fundamentals and

Applications 1st Edition Nn Misra

https://ebookgate.com/product/cold-plasma-in-food-and-agriculture-
fundamentals-and-applications-1st-edition-nn-misra/

ebookgate.com

Food Microbiology An Introduction 2nd Edition Thomas J.

Montville

https://ebookgate.com/product/food-microbiology-an-introduction-2nd-
edition-thomas-j-montville/

ebookgate.com

Food Policy for Developing Countries The Role of

Government in Global National and Local Food Systems 1st
Edition Per Pinstrup-Andersen
https://ebookgate.com/product/food-policy-for-developing-countries-
the-role-of-government-in-global-national-and-local-food-systems-1st-
edition-per-pinstrup-andersen/
ebookgate.com
Oils and Fats in the Food Industry Food Industry Briefing
1st Edition Frank Gunstone

https://ebookgate.com/product/oils-and-fats-in-the-food-industry-food-
industry-briefing-1st-edition-frank-gunstone/

ebookgate.com

American Tuna The Rise and Fall of an Improbable Food

Volume 37 California Studies in Food and Culture First
Edition Smith
https://ebookgate.com/product/american-tuna-the-rise-and-fall-of-an-
improbable-food-volume-37-california-studies-in-food-and-culture-
first-edition-smith/
ebookgate.com

Introduction to Food Toxicology 2nd Edition Sadras.

https://ebookgate.com/product/introduction-to-food-toxicology-2nd-
edition-sadras/

ebookgate.com

OECD FAO Agricultural Outlook 2006 2015 12th edition

Edition Food And Agriculture Organization Oecd

https://ebookgate.com/product/oecd-fao-agricultural-
outlook-2006-2015-12th-edition-edition-food-and-agriculture-
organization-oecd/
ebookgate.com

Food Regulation Law Science Policy and Practice 1st

Edition Neal D. Fortin

https://ebookgate.com/product/food-regulation-law-science-policy-and-
practice-1st-edition-neal-d-fortin/

ebookgate.com
Food Policy in the United Kingdom

This book provides an introduction to food policy in the United Kingdom, examining policy
development, implementation, influences and current issues.
The book begins by providing a wide-ranging introduction to food policy in the UK, situating
it within wider global debates and establishing key drivers, such as issues related to global
citizenship, trade and finance. The use of food control as a policy lever is also discussed and
contrasted with alternative approaches based on behaviour change. The book presents an
overview of the history of UK food policy, from which there is much to be learned, before
moving onto current challenges posed by political instability, both at home and abroad, global
pandemics and cost of living crises. Foremost is the need to manage public health, including
both malnutrition and obesity, while promoting sustainable and healthy diets, as well as the
broader issues around addressing food security and food poverty. The book also examines public
sector food initiatives, such as school food and early childhood provisions, and food regulation.
As a part of food regulation, chapters examine food scares and food fraud, from chalk in flour
to “horsegate”. The role of media, marketing and advertising is also considered within a policy
perspective. Taking a wider lens, the book also discusses the impact of global food trade and
the financialisation of food on food policy in the UK and vice versa. The book is supported by
instructor eResources on the Routledge website, designed to support student learning as well
as provide regular updates on UK food policy developments. The eResources include student
activities, group exercises and links to further reading and additional resources.
This book serves as a key introduction to UK food and agricultural policy for students,
scholars, policymakers and professionals, as well as those interested in food systems, public
health and social policy more widely.

Martin Caraher is Emeritus Professor of Food and Health Policy in the Centre for Food Policy
at City, University of London, UK. He was a founding member of the London Food Board and
has sat on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) advisory board. He
has published five books, including The Economics of Emergency Food Aid Provision (2018)
and Food Poverty and Insecurity (2016).

Sinéad Furey is a senior lecturer in Consumer Management and Food Innovation at Ulster
University Business School, UK. She previously worked in food and consumer policy roles for
the Consumer Council, Education and Training Inspectorate, and the Food Standards Agency
in Northern Ireland.

Rebecca Wells is a senior lecturer in Food Policy in the Centre for Food Policy at City,
University of London, UK, and the programme director for the Centre’s MSc in Food Policy.
She previously worked as a producer and food journalist on radio programmes for the BBC,
including BBC Radio 4’s The Food Programme.
Earthscan Food and Agriculture

Net Zero, Food and Farming

Climate Change and the UK Agri-Food System
Neil Ward

Conservation Agriculture in India

A Paradigm Shift for Sustainable Production
Edited by A.R. Sharma

Agricultural Commercialization, Gender Equality and the Right to Food

Insights from Ghana and Cambodia
Edited by Joanna Bourke Martignoni, Christophe Gironde, Christophe Golay,
Elisabeth Prügl and Dzodzi Tsikata

The Sociology of Farming

Concepts and Methods
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg

Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security

Commercial, Ethical and Health Considerations
Edited by Jasmeet Kour, Vishal Sharma and Imtiyaz Khanday

Climate Neutral and Resilient Farming Systems

Practical Solutions for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation
Edited by Sekhar Udaya Nagothu

Sustainable Apple Breeding and Cultivation in Germany

Commons-Based Agriculture and Social-Ecological Resilience
Hendrik Wolter

Food Policy in the United Kingdom

An Introduction
Martin Caraher, Sinéad Furey and Rebecca Wells

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/books/series/ECEFA/

Food Policy in the United Kingdom
An Introduction

Martin Caraher, Sinéad Furey and Rebecca Wells

Designed cover image: © Oscar Wong / Getty Images
First published 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2023 Martin Caraher, Sinéad Furey and Rebecca Wells
The right of Martin Caraher, Sinéad Furey and Rebecca Wells to be identified as authors of
this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Caraher, Martin, author. | Furey, Sinéad, author. | Wells, Rebecca
(Policy scientist), author.
Title: Food policy in the United Kingdom : an introduction / Martin Caraher, Sinéad Furey,
and Rebecca Wells.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2024 | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023005718 (print) | LCCN 2023005719 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032196824
(hardback) | ISBN 9781032196770 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003260301 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Food industry and trade—Government Policy—Great Britain. | Food
supply—Government Policy—Great Britain. | Nutrition policy—Great Britain.
Classification: LCC TX360.G7 C29 2023 (print) | LCC TX360.G7 (ebook) | DDC
363.80941—dc23/eng/20230210
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023005718
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023005719

ISBN: 978-1-032-19682-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-19677-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-26030-1 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003260301
Typeset in Times New Roman
by codeMantra
Access the Support Material: www.routledge.com/9781032196770
Lest we forget
Minnie Weaving, a mother of seven children in southeast London,
died in 1933. Her husband was unemployed and received 48 shillings
a week benefit. She fed her husband and children but starved herself
in order to do so, which contributed to her death. Her death sparked
a prolonged debate under the headline “Hungry England”. A large
public outcry coincided with the hunger or protest marches and this
became known as the “Hungry England” debate.
To all those in the UK who currently are experiencing food
insecurity: from the families who grow our food to the mothers who
self-sacrifice on behalf of their families and go hungry, to the activists
and policymakers who attempt to make this world a better place.
Keep on trying. We hope this book goes some way to making the
world a better place and helps establish a new debate about food in
our society.
Dedicated to the memory of Jane Dixon, who was an inspirational
academic and friend and who provided insights into food systems and
food insecurity.
Contents

Acknowledgementsix
List of figuresxi
List of tablesxiii
List of abbreviationsxv

1 Introduction 1

2 Food policy in the UK: from public health and nutrition to sustainable diets 13

3 Food policy and nutrition: the triple burden of modern diets 44

4 The growth of food insecurity: the new face of food poverty 65

5 Sustainable diets: linking nutrition and environment 92

6 Food media, marketing and advertising 112

7 The UK food industry 129

8 Global food trade and commodities: the financialisation of food 157

9 Public sector food initiatives: the case of school food and early
childhood provision 171

10 Food scares, food safety and food fraud from chalk in flour to “horsegate” 197

11 Examples of success in UK food policy 215

12 Conclusions, reflections and the future for food policy 231

Index 241
Acknowledgements

When we undertook to write this book, the world was a different place: no COVID, no l­ ockdowns
and no global economic depression. The world was not perfect by any means, but since then, the
situation has deteriorated with more many in the UK suffering from food poverty and hunger
re-emerging. To all those we work with – academics, practitioners and those in the front line of
food policy responses – we remain in awe of your work and dedication.
Martin, Sinéad and Rebecca

Martin would like to thank Sinéad and Rebecca for their patience in responding to his constant
demands for edits, reviews and cries for help. As always, love to Maggie who put up with my
having to write in lockdown and even further isolate myself in a year when we had planned to
travel and see friends, neither of which was possible. To all of those who I have been lucky to
work with over the years.
My background reading and research for this book has reunited me with many of the giants
of food policy and the inspirations for my initial move into food policy. Standing on the shoul-
ders of giants like Richard Titmus, Peter Townsend, John Boyd Orr, Tim Lang and Lizzie
Collingham has been indeed humbling and convinced me of one of the central themes of this
book: that there is much to be learned from the past, if only we listen and act.

Sinéad would like to thank Martin for inviting me to join him on this book writing adven-
ture. Reading his writing is inspirational in itself and his impressive list of recommended texts
reminds me not only of the great minds that have shaped the field of food policy and those issues
the three of us care so much about, but also that Martin is most definitely one of them. Martin
is my humble “food hero” whose opinions and logic help me fathom so many of the big issues
within this book and discipline. Thanks too to Rebecca for widening my food policy world and
mentoring me through food media, marketing and advertising.
I would particularly like to thank my Father, Matthew, for instilling in me the importance of
education and voicing one’s opinion with the courage of your convictions. Little wonder, then,
that I would enter a world of academia and consumer advocacy where the voice of the experts
by experience is so compelling and the most powerful words I will ever write and read.

Rebecca would like to thank Martin and Sinéad for inviting me to work with them on this
project, for their wisdom, insights and infinite patience. I am indebted to Martin, Tim Lang and
Sheila Dillon for inspiring and encouraging me to work in the field of food policy. Working with
colleagues and students at the Centre for Food Policy invigorates and rewards me every day,
and motivates me to continue working for a better, more sustainable and healthy food system
for everyone.
My heartfelt thanks go to my husband Jonathan and my two wonderful children, Hannah and
Evie, for making everything better.
Figures

2.1 Depiction of the food system 14

2.2 Public health levels of intervention 22
2.3 The Overton Window with an example of tackling obesity interventions 23
4.1 Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 81
4.2 Independent Food Aid Network hierarchy of responses to food insecurity 2021 83
7.1 The UK food chain 132
7.2 Ten most common changes in eating habits in the last 12 months 142
10.1 Timeline of the emergence of the horsemeat scandal 206
Tables

2.1 A list of definitions of food policy 16

2.2 Models of policy development 19
2.3 Some examples of the focus on individual behaviour and household skills 28
2.4 Ultra-processed food (UPF) or NOVA classification 32
3.1 Some key examples of nutrition policy and influences 45
3.2 Some examples of key health- and food-related policies in the past 50 years 47
3.3 Examples of assumptions regarding the reduction of dietary intake linked to
a lack of skills, knowledge and “ignorance” 54
4.1 Childhood under- and over-nutrition in the UK 67
4.2 References to poverty in National Food Strategy: the plan 79
5.1 Five models of public health 94
5.2 Policy examples of sustainable diet approaches 96
5.3 UN progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals 99
5.4 The Sustainable Development Goals 100
7.1 The range of the food industry 130
7.2 Summary of future scenarios for agricultural production 137
7.3 List of some defunct supermarkets (since the 1960s) and who purchased them 138
7.4 Shifting power in the food value-added chain 140
8.1 Some examples of concentration in global trade 159
9.1 Some key dates for school food policy 175
11.1 List of some important websites for local food projects 224
11.2 Examples of academic policy influencers 225
Abbreviations

AFN alternative food networks

AMR anti-microbial resistance
ANU Australian National University
ASA Advertising Standards Authority
AWB Australian Wheat Board
b-a-u business as usual
BIS basic income support
BMI Body Mass Index
BNPL buy now, pay later
Brexit this is a combination of Britain and exit used to describe the withdrawal process
of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
BRIC economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China
BRICS economics of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease)
CA conservation agriculture
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CAPO(s) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation(s)
CCIs Community Cooking Interventions
CHD coronary heart disease
CJD Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
CME Chicago Mercantile Exchange
COS Charitable Organisation Society
COVID-19 Coronavirus 2019
CPAG Child Poverty Action Group
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
CWFS Committee on World Food Security
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DfE Department for the Economy
DfEE Department for Education and Employment
DoH Department of Health
DR-NCDs diet-related non-communicable diseases
DWP Department for Work and Pensions
EC European Commission
ELMS Environmental Land Management Scheme
EU European Union
xvi Abbreviations
EU-SILC The European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FB food banks
FDI foreign direct investment
FHRS Food Hygiene Rating Scheme
FI food insecurity
FIIN Food Industry Intelligence Network
FMD foot and mouth disease
FNI food and nutrition insecurity
FNS food and nutrition security
FOPNL front of pack nutrition labels
FSA Food Standards Agency (UK)
FSM free school meals
GDP gross domestic product
GHG greenhouse gases
GM genetically modified (foods)
GNTs Global Nutrition Targets
GUFP Grow up Free from Poverty Coalition
HFCS high fructose corn syrup
HFSS (foods) high in fat, salt and sugar
HFSSM Household Food Security Survey Module
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFAN Independent Food Aid Network
JIT just in time retailing
LCA life cycle assessment
LCC life cycle costing
M&As mergers and acquisitions
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MIG minimum income guarantee
MNCs multinational corporations
MTL multiple traffic light (labels)
NACNE National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education
NCDs non-communicable diseases
NDPB non-departmental public body
NFS The National Food Strategy
NFU National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales
NGOs non-governmental organisations
NI Northern Ireland
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Ofcom Office of Communications
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (formerly the Office International des
Epizooties
ONS Office for National Statistics
OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
PHRD Public Health Responsibility Deal
PM Prime Minister
 Abbreviations xvii
PPPs public-private partnerships
REHIS Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland
RSA Royal Society of Arts
RUTF ready to use therapeutic food – milk-based ready to use food
SDIL Soft Drinks Industry Levy
SI sustainable intensification
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SNP Scottish National Party
SONA State of Nation Address
TNC(s) Trans National Corporation(s)
UBI universal basic income
UC Universal Credit
UCIs unhealthy commodity industries
UIF unemployment insurance funds
UK United Kingdom
UMB Universal Monthly Benefit
UN United Nations
UNDHR The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNEP The United Nations Environment Programme
UPFs ultra-processed foods
USA United States of America
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviet Union)
VSA voluntary service agreements
VSS voluntary sustainability standards
WFP World Food Programme
WFS World Food Security
WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
WWI World War I
WWII World War II
1 Introduction

Introduction: modern concerns with food policy

Food policy has, in recent times, become a topic of both policy and public concern driven by
factors such as food scandals, rising rates of obesity, food poverty and insecurity, the UK leav-
ing the European Union (Brexit), the COVID-19 crisis, the climate and weather crises, the pos-
sible relaxing of food standards posed by new bilateral trade deals in a post-Brexit world and
geopolitical issues such as the war in Ukraine (Lang, 2020, Lang & McKee, 2022).
Such concerns have led to reviews of the food system: the first, called “Food Matters” in
2008 commissioned by a Labour government, and in 2019, two National Food Strategy (NFS)
reports (Cabinet Office, 2008, Dimbleby, 2020, 2021), both of which failed to gain policy trac-
tion and achieve widespread policy change or action. The 2021 “National Food Strategy: The
Plan” (NFS) and its recommendations were considered by the government in March 2022.
The NFS was the second report in a two-part series and sets out 14 recommendations for gov-
ernmental consideration. Suggested remedies include addressing diet-related inequality with
the majority being rejected (Dimbleby & Lewis, 2023), breaking the “junk food cycle” and the
impact of current agricultural practices on land and health as well as changes in legislation and
the food system. It also contains a considerable amount of detail on trade and trade agreements
and outlines the implications for British agriculture and national food security. In many ways,
the report is ambitious and sometimes radical in its recommendations, such as the tax on sugar
and salt which could raise £3 billion annually as well as push food companies to reformulate
their products. Within days of the NFS being published the Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson
indicated that “I am not, I must say, attracted to the idea of extra taxes on hard-working people”
(Smyth, 2021). This despite the tax being primarily designed to encourage reformulation by
manufacturers. The government response was muted, and in the midst of a political leadership
crisis, we saw some PMs, three in 2022,1 not only disregarding the conclusions and recommen-
dations of the NFS but also threatening to roll back other already implemented and promised
reforms such as the soda tax and restrictions on advertising and labelling (Food Ethics Council,
2022, Lang, 2022a, White, 2022, Yap, 2022).
There are developments in Northern Ireland and Scotland with a Food Strategy Consultation
in 2021 and a Food and Drink Good Nation Policy, respectively. So, while there is a lot of white
noise about food policy, we remain to see the practical results of this in terms of policy and
legislation implementation. In many ways this book explores the gap between talk about and
action for food policy.
This chapter sets out a broad perspective for food policy in the UK, which includes Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland. This includes issues related to global citizenship, trade and
finance as drivers of policy and how they operate at the micro, meso and macro levels of influ-
ence. The chapter finishes by providing a broad overview of the remaining 11 book chapters.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003260301-1
2 Introduction
British food policy in a global context
The focus of this book is food policy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland,2 but of course the UK does not exist in a vacuum; it is dependent on other countries
for trade and some foods and other countries rely on both trade and aid from the UK; this is the
issue of global citizenship. Concerns with food cross many areas of interest from agriculture to
health outcomes and have links with trade, global warming and foreign policy and aid. There
are internal or domestic issues for the UK in terms of governance of its food production and
growing as well as its place in a global world where interconnections are complex; the UK has
a strong reliance on imports of food, especially fruit and vegetables, as its own horticultural
sector is weak (Dimbleby, 2021, Lang, 2020). This issue of foreign aid is important in terms
of the role of the UK as global citizen and its contribution to the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and climate change agenda (Biermann, Kanie & Kim, 2017, World
Health Organization, 2021). The plight of growers/producers in developing and emerging econ-
omies, are also being impacted by decisions to cut aid budgets. In the UK, the foreign aid budget
in 2021 was reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income (Kobayashi, Heinrich &
Bryant, 2021). This follows a growing movement by developed nations as they move from food
aid to food trade and economic liberalisation to tackle global food supply issues such as food
insecurity (Barrett & Maxwell, 2005, Hebinck et al., 2018, Moyo, 2010, Nunn & Qian, 2014).
In early 2022, with the invasion of Ukraine, there were global concerns over the world supply of
wheat; 23% of global trade in wheat originated from Ukraine. Much of its exports went to North
Africa, a region already suffering from political upheavals and economic crises.
Following the 2008 Great Recession, food-related riots in North Africa gave rise to political
upheaval and the Arab Spring. There were fears for food security in Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt
because of the Ukrainian crisis. As countries such as the UK and the US roll back on foreign
aid budgets, their role is being replaced by private companies who under the heading of corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR) are providing support to growers in Africa and Asia (McGoey,
2015). The aid aspect is epitomised by the Gates Foundation, but many companies now operate
their own internal polices generally under the guise of CSR commitments (Rieff, 2016, 2015,
Various Public Interest, Health, and Citizens’ Groups, 2017). These issues are picked up in
Chapter 8.
These concerns with food policy have been dealt with by policies within separate areas,
sometimes referred to as “silo policymaking”. This often resulted in fallout from one area to
another and a lack of coherence: for example, foreign policy very rarely considered the issue
of food access and how food trade deals might impact on foreign policy. The City of London
is one of the global centres for trade in food products, yet this trade is lightly regulated and
has ­little ­relevance to the SDGs and reducing food insecurity and the livelihoods of small
farmers.
There was a shift in health policy to attempts to incorporate health in all policies, and now
with food policy, a similar emphasis is to have food in all policies or at a minimum for all poli-
cies to be “food proofed” (Kickbusch & Buckett, 2010, Parsons & Hawkes, 2019). Likewise,
there have been attempts to develop a comprehensive approach to food policy by linking dif-
ferent areas: obesity with food poverty, hunger and obesity and links with the food supply sys-
tem (Peńa & Bacallao, 2000), food production and healthy dietary consumption in the area of
eco-nutrition (Lang & Mason, 2018, Mason & Lang, 2017). These approaches will be explored
in the chapters that follow. While arguing for a comprehensive approach to policymaking and
food policy, there needs to be pragmatic tactics taking the chance for change where possible.
So, if the focus is obesity, as it often is with current concerns with overweight and diet-related
 Introduction 3
non-communicable diseases (DR-NCDs), then this can be the fulcrum for policy change.
In practical terms, we should remember that food policy is the art of the possible and needs to
take its ­opportunities when they arise. We will see in Chapters 2, 3, 9 and 11 that a health and
nutrition focus has traditionally been at the core of food policy and Chapters 2, 3 and 4 set out
the issues related to eco-nutrition and poverty. The linking of healthy eating with sustainable
food production offers a way forward, linking issues from farm to fork, and offers a possible
link to how policy can be comprehensively formulated.
In all of this, the UK has contributed significantly to the development of food policy in prac-
tice and as an academic discipline. The Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London,
has the world’s first dedicated centre for food policy along with masters and PhD programmes.
The origins of this can be found in the focus on food policy in World War I (WWI) and World
War II (WWII). The writings of John Boyd Orr were influential in proposing a social side to
nutrition and a wider approach to food and nutrition (Orr, 1936, Orr & Lubbock, 1940). He sug-
gested to the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt the idea of a “world food plan” which resulted
in the establishment of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) in 1945 (Orr, 1966). These
aspects will be dealt with in more detail in Chapters 2, 3, 8 and 9.
The domestic UK food policy scenario is concerned with providing affordable, healthy,
acceptable and sustainable food to the UK population; a second role is, or should be, concerned
with that of the UK as a global citizen and its contribution to food producers in other countries
and contribution to the SDGs (Biermann, Kanie & Kim, 2017). We cannot and should not aim
for the first if it compromises the health of those in emerging nations; this is simply off-shoring
the problem. This perspective will appear throughout the chapters in using the idea “Nobody
Wins Unless Everybody Wins” attributed to Bruce Springsteen in the fiscally conservative US
Reagan years (Taylor, 2010).

Global equity and food policy

So, providing affordable, healthy, acceptable and sustainable food to the UK population must
not come at the expense of others. Collingham points out that “From the mid-nineteenth century,
the country looked to its trading empire to supply it with staple foods” (Collingham, 2017, pp.
217–218). The long-term impacts of such a policy have given rise to the development of “ghost
acres”; this is another aspect of off-shoring.3 This is land, often in poor and developing nations
of the world, which is used to grow feed for cattle in richer nations as well as fresh fruit and
vegetables. They are called ghost as they are not seen by consumers. But more than this, such a
policy shifts the burden of environmental damage and risks to those countries. In the nineteenth
century, such policies were driven by cheap labour and the absence of “expensive” labour stand-
ards (Kropotkin, 2008).
In the early stages of Empire (mid-nineteenth century), this was driven by the need to sup-
ply “cheap” food to the rapidly expanding urban classes and ensure political stability. Cheap
food was deemed necessary to avoid the food riots of the 1800s and to help power the industrial
revolution by ensuring that the workers had at least the basic minimum necessary for bodily
health. Some argue that the modern equivalent of these riots are the emergence of food banks
and queues for food; the last food riots were in 1932 in Belfast (Cooper & Dumpleton, 2013,
Mitchell, 2017, Power, 2022). The modern shift in UK relationships has been from common-
wealth countries and former colonies to more global trading – globalisation (Collingham, 2017,
McKeon, 2021). The point here is not an anti-trade perspective but an equity one, where those
growing food for us in the UK are often not adequately compensated for their labours and the
requirements of production often result in localised damage to the environment and a shift from
4 Introduction
growing local indigenous food to dependency on growing crops for cash (George, 2010, 1986,
McKeon, 2021).
Moves towards a neoliberal economic approach result in low regulation, low tax economy,
with little taxable income available to spend on public infrastructure and food companies. Large
transnational companies (TNCs) concerned about their supply chains have begun to invest in
local infrastructures and agricultural support systems. The move away from traditional public
policy by national governments which involved providing food welfare, whether direct (provi-
sion of food) or indirect (cash transfers), has created a space which “Big Food” and charity
have stepped in to fill, often reluctantly. This move to company-funded is welfare referred to as
“welfare capitalism”, which again reflects the retreat of government from making welfare policy
to a focus on private and NGO sector governance (Lacy-Nichols & Williams, 2021, Richards,
Kjærnes & Vik, 2016, Riches & Silvasti, 2014). At a global level, TNCs see this as investment
in their futures and support training for farmers and capital investment projects. There are some
positives to such moves. Often, corporations have resources bigger than many nation states
and can move faster than state institutions, thus ensuring action is prompt and directed at the
problem.
In the wake of the 2008 Great Recession, some of the big TNCs were shocked by the lack of
global accountability and the fact that the actions of some hedge funds threatened the viability
of their supplies. This aspect of “financialisation” will be dealt with in more detail in Chapter 8.
This refocus also allows companies an opportunity to rebrand civil activism demands within a
consumer activism model, usually under a CSR banner (Belasco, 2007). This gives rise to a new
form of food policy which is closely wrapped up and even controlled by trade and food industry
interests (Blas & Farchy, 2021).
The downside of a food policy based on welfare capitalism is the unregulated nature of
such policy developments, with the food industry investing where they can gain most and only
investing in commodities that they trade in such as coffee, cocoa, sugar or cereals. Such an
approach also limits benefits to those who fall within the commercial interests of the sponsoring
company and does not guarantee an increase in income for growers/producers. For example,
while cocoa production is concentrated in 30 countries with 90% grown on plots of less than ten
hectares, the percentage price of the finished chocolate bar going to cocoa farmers over the last
30 years has decreased from 6% to 3% (Leissle, 2018). Cases such as this are not confined to
low-income and emerging economies: dairy and beef farmers in the Global North, including the
UK, have experienced similar problems with falling farm incomes. Another danger is the lack or
limited investment in infrastructures such as transport and education, which are in essence pub-
licly owned assets (Goodbody, 2022, Schneider, 2022). This shift in governmentality from the
state to the private sector is a concept which will be explored across various chapters (Marston
& McDonald, 2006). Such developments, while welcome, should not and cannot replace public-
based food policy. Such schemes should run parallel to government-based food policy and may
require regulation. Beveridge said in 1928 in his reflections on WWI that it was feasible to
substitute “managed for automated provisioning of the people” (Beveridge, 1928, pp. 337–338).
However, the notion of controlling or even regulating the food industry has become an anath-
ema to governments, including that of the UK, as they pursue policies based on neoliberal
economics with low-tax, low-wage, low-regulation and “small state” economies (Chang, 2022).

Finance versus well-being and healthy eating

A strong influence (even counter-influence) on food policy has always been the financial aspect
and the contribution of food growing, production and consumption to Gross Domestic Product
 Introduction 5
(GDP). Scientific data on nutrition and health are appreciated by policymakers, but these data
have to compete with other evidence, including the financial and political aspects. For the UK,
agriculture gradually over time ceased to be considered important as its percentage contribution
to GDP sank: by the end of the 1980s it was 3%, by the early 2000s it was less than 1% and it
is now estimated to be 0.5% of the GDP. There are arguments from those on the political right
and those advocates of free trade who contend that the UK should not invest in food production
and farming but import its food needs. The case hinges on the argument that the contribution
of British agriculture to GDP is minuscule and that, as argued by a senior government advisor,
the food sector is not “critically important” to the economy – and that agriculture and fishery
production “certainly isn’t” (Owen, 2020). For the UK, WWII was an exception to this when
national security and the concern with food supplies convinced the government to take con-
trol of the food supply system (Collingham, 2017, Hammond, 1954). The establishment of the
Ministry of Food in WWII introduced a form of food policy which was referred to as “food
control” (Fearnley-Whittingstall, 2010, Hammond, 1954, Sitwell, 2017). This period is often
regarded by policymakers as the golden era of food policy. It is important to distinguish the dif-
ferent social context that WWII introduced; restrictions on food choice through rationing and
a points system were accepted as part of the greater good and the view that the measures were
applied to all in the population (Kynaston, 2007). Hammond (1954), as one who was party to
much of this policymaking, considers that improvements to health from rationing in WWII were
incidental and not planned.

Food control as food policy

There is a long tradition of UK “food control” ranging from the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846
through both World Wars which saw the creation of a post called the “Food Controller” and a
Ministry of Food to, in modern times, a more liberal and freedom of choice approach to food
policy. The reasons for this food control vary but in essence seem to be enacted when there is
(1) a humanitarian crisis (Corn Laws and The Great Irish famine, An Górta Mór); (2) the state
is in peril (e.g. poor health of recruits to the army for the Boer War, feeding the population in
WWII) (Hammond, 1951, Kinealy & Moran, 2020, Woodham-Smith, 1962); or (3) vested inter-
ests are threatened. In times of peace, there seems to be less state intervention in food policy.
The food poverty of the interwar years and the “Hungry 1930s” saw little direct intervention in
tackling food poverty and hunger (Smith & Nicolson, 1995, Vernon, 2007). Food control was
deemed to be suitable for the war years but judged to be unacceptable in peace time.
Food control does in many senses mean some restrictions on choice, and in times of peace,
this seems to be an unacceptable intrusion for the majority. The tension is that many may be
suffering from nutritional inadequacies and food insecurity, and food control could help benefit
them. But, this is often deemed to be less important than the issue of choice. In 2022 with global
crises in food supply, food price increases and the war in Ukraine, there may be a need to revisit,
and perhaps implement, some aspects of “food control” (Lang, 2022b, Lang & McKee, 2022).
The first official use of the term food policy was around WWI when there were calls for a
national “food policy”. This was repeated for WWII where the term used was food control;
this involved the state through the Ministry of Food taking control of the food supply chain
from growing and buying of food stocks to rationing and the provision of food in workplaces.
A Ministry of Food was established in both World Wars and in the first instance lasted until 1921
and then from 1939 to 1954. The interwar years ignored the lessons learned from WWI for food
policy to alleviate poverty and hunger (Beveridge 1928, Hammond 1951). The advent of WWII
saw an increased focus on food policies driven by a concern with national food security and the
6 Introduction
reliance on imports (Le Gros Clark & Titmuss, 1939). In 1939/1940, a Subcommittee on Food
Policy led to the establishment of a Food (Defence Plans) Department. This was located as a
subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the focus was on national security and
a concern with imports of food and disruptions to food supply due to U-boat activity. Health and
nutrition were secondary issues and improvements in diet were the fallout from rationing and
pricing controls which were based on an austere but healthy diet (Hammond, 1954). Hammond
(1951) in his conclusions and reflections on food control during WWII says:

The present volume might well have been entitled “The Expansion of Food Policy”. That
theme, or perhaps one should say succession of themes, must not be allowed to obscure
another, less spectacular but scarcely less important in the whole work of the Ministry of
Food: the continuous adaptation of both old and new control machinery to the fortunes of
war and to the inexorable fact of economic change.
(Hammond, 1951, p. 375)

Yet, even Hammond saw little from the experience of WWII that could be applied or be accept-
able in peacetime as the memory of rationing and privation were seen as “controls” to escape.
Rationing and food control were acceptable to the public as the visible effects of rationing
were apparent from reductions in food queues with a flat rate of rationing which was the same
allowance for everyone, with some special consideration for at-risk groups such as children and
pregnant women.

National food education

From an early stage, food policy initiatives driven by concerns with national food security were
supported by measures to educate the masses; this has remained a constant feature of UK-based
food policy. The initial approaches to education were crude and a form of indoctrination or
propaganda. For example, at the end of WWI, the Food Advice Division of the Ministry of
Food established food advice centres and food advice organisers; there were 50 centres and
150 advisors, and by 1946, there were centres in nearly every major town and 22,000 wore a
badge proclaiming them as “food leaders”. The focus in the centres was on basic cooking and
­“motherliness”, designed to meet the national interest (Vernon, 2007). This approach to food
policy was based on behaviour change and a view of the working classes as lacking skills and
knowledge necessary for the management of the household. As we will see in Chapter 2, such
views were contrasted with those that argued the issues were those of income and inequality.
The view of poverty as an individual and moral failing is one that has carried over into modern
developments (Seabrook, 2013, Wells & Caraher, 2014), albeit it is tackled in a more sophisti-
cated way as is the case with psychological nudges (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).
There have been calls for the reinstitution of a Ministry of Food or at least a clear structure to
govern food policy implementation (Parsons & Barling, 2022, Stitt & Prisk, 1997). WWII food
control involved the state in controlling and managing areas of international trade, stockpil-
ing foods to control price and access, setting up state-controlled restaurants (known as British
Restaurants or National Kitchens) and rationing. Modern concerns seem to be with finding easy
ways to deliver food policy with a light touch from government, whereas what is becoming
more apparent is that a complete overhaul of our food system is needed from “farm to flush” or
“farm to fork” (Dimbleby, 2021, Slater, Baker & Lawrence, 2022). Soft or downstream policy
options which rely on behaviour change on their own are no longer sufficient to deliver the nec-
essary changes to safeguard health and the environment. We will see in Chapters 2 and 3 how
 Introduction 7
some are attempting to move to a model of food policy which incorporates or links environment
and well-being (Mason & Lang, 2017).

Food policy and equity: a recurring theme

Food policy has long had a concern with inequality and how to provide equity around food.
Since the 1930s, the social nutrition movement was concerned with broadening the reach of
food policies (Orr, 1936 and Brockway, 1936). This was continued in the 1980s, 1990s and
2000s through the work of pioneering social activists and researchers such as Caroline Walker,
Suzi Leather, Elizabeth Dowler and Tim Lang (Lang, Barling & Caraher, 2009). Today, this
work continues through a network of food aware groups and individuals. An underpinning con-
cern throughout this book is inequality and how the current food system does not serve everyone
equally and indeed fails many. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed many of the weaknesses in
the food system – it did not cause them. Inequality and poverty monitoring along with nutri-
tion inequality measurement remain concerns and are addressed throughout the chapters in this
volume, for example, in Chapter 4. The amount spent on food in the household budget, known
as Engel’s law, is an observation that as income rises, the proportion of income spent on food
falls, even if absolute expenditure on food rises (Clements & Si, 2018, Torres Pabón, 2019,
Zimmerman, 1932). So the income elasticity of demand for food oscillates between 0 and 1. Of
course, this is not true for all income groups and those in the lower income brackets can spend
up to 30% of their income on food while those in higher income brackets spend as low as 6%
(Barosh et al., 2014). Hence an inequality and one that with Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic
has seen the gap increase (Barosh et al., 2014, Food Foundation, 2021).
Agriculture is the basis of the food supply chain, yet in many ways is one of the “losers”
in the food supply chain. In sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture accounts for 53% of total global
employment and food security and poverty reduction is correlated to the agricultural production
(Giller et al., 2021). Following the global economic crisis in 2008, there were major impacts on
global food poverty levels and political unrest; for example, the Arab Spring was triggered by
concerns and riots over rising food prices (Ansani & Daniele, 2012, Johnstone & Mazo, 2011).
The crises we now see (as of 2022–2023) are extensive and more far-reaching than that of 2008;
extremes of food insecurity leading to famine are threatened because of the breakdown in global
food supply chains (Lang & McKee, 2022).

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent global crises

Since starting this book, we have gone through two major global crises: the COVID-19 lock-
downs and the war in Ukraine. Just as we thought we were recovering from the COVID-19
pandemic with the removal of lockdowns, the invasion of Ukraine introduced another crisis. A
new word was introduced into dictionaries in 2022 and this was “permacrises” to indicate the
perilous state of world affairs. The price volatility seen in the early stages of the COVID-19 pan-
demic began to level out, but in 2022 the war in Ukraine, along with a number of other global
factors (climate, COVID, trade wars), resulted in food price increases. For example, futures for
wheat rose by 20% in the first three months of 2022 and then 70% in the next three. The Oxfam
report concluded that the COVID-19 crisis and the cost of living crisis triggered by the war in
Ukraine have resulted in increases in extreme poverty while the profits of large food corpora-
tions and the wealth of individuals increased (Oxfam, 2022). Some global trading companies
have seen their fortune increase by almost USD$ 20 million a day since the start of the COVID-
19 pandemic (Oxfam, 2022). Price volatility (the range of price movements over a particular
8 Introduction
period of time) has been at its highest level in the past 50 years (Oxfam, 2022, p. 2). The report
shows that “billionaires and corporations in the food, energy, pharmaceutical, and technology
sectors are reaping huge rewards at the same time as the soaring cost of living is hurting so many
worldwide”. The report goes on to say that the pandemic has resulted in a new billionaire every
30 hours while a million people “fall into extreme poverty” (Oxfam, 2022, p. 3). Price ­volatility
may be good for financial markets but is bad for farmers – especially small farmers – and pro-
ducers and ultimately for the consumer.
The global food system is complex and has many inter-relationships with other industries.
As an example, take what is generally referred to as the “Haber-Bosch” process4: this involves
chemical firms making ammonia which goes towards the making of fertilisers; the by-products of
the process then are used in other fertiliser production as well as disinfectant, diesel exhaust fluid,
carbon dioxide (CO2) used in the food industry for stunning pigs and chickens, for fizzy drinks as
well as a preservative in some bagged food products. Rises in energy prices have resulted in some
plants shutting down or cutting back production. Thus, fertiliser is in short supply, leading to price
rises, leading to farmers applying less to crops, leading to smaller yields, all contributing to food
price increases. Shortages of CO2 supplies have meant that there is a problem with the slaughter
of pigs and chickens, where it has resulted in a shortage of some goods on supermarket shelves.
The impacts within global food commodity chains are direct and indirect, the latter can be
seen from reductions in the “Haber-Bosch” process. An indirect example comes from Australia
where shortages of food on supermarket shelves were due to a lack of one of the by-products
from the “Haber-Bosch” process, the diesel additive AdBlue. So, food deliveries in Australia
were under threat due to a lack of uric acid from China and the policy of self-sufficiency being
pursued by the Chinese government (Lau, 2022). All this shows the global reach and intercon-
nectedness of the food system.
In previous food crises, the solution was often to shift supply from one area of the globe to
another; so, a poor harvest of grain in Canada could be supplemented by grain from the Black
Sea area. These options are seriously curtailed by poor harvests, the war in Ukraine and coun-
tries limiting exports to protect their own populations. For example, China has launched a self-
sufficiency food policy and restricted exports, introduced tariffs on imports and is engaged in
trade wars with Australia and the USA (Lau, 2022). All this forms a part of future food policy
and shows how fragile the food system is and how food policy needs to adopt a broad palate to
address problems such as climate change and war.

This book
This book has a UK focus but draws on global food policy literature to help frame the debate.
This book consists of 12 chapters and these are as far as possible designed to stand alone. The
UK has a long tradition of food policy, although perhaps not always effective and in certain
instances benefitting those for whom it was intended. There is an abundant academic literature,
both past and present, on the UK. This will, as appropriate, be supplemented by international
citation where this supports or adds to the UK-based literature. This chapter has set out a broad
background introduction to food policy in the UK within a global framework. A broad route
map to the other chapters is provided below. Chapters will contain models and theories related
to food policy, so Chapter 2 sets out some of the key principles, concepts and models underpin-
ning food policy. This chapter, we recommend reading as the basis for other chapters, particu-
larly the Overton Window and some examples of history repeating itself. This is followed by a
chapter on “Food Policy and nutrition: the triple burden of modern diets”. This sets out a short
 Introduction 9
history of how nutrition has been key and often kept food policy in the ­public eye and led to the
development of food policies. The concept of the triple burden of malnutrition and new devel-
opments with respect to development of eco-nutrition/sustainable diets is discussed. Chapters
4–6 deal with the issue of food insecurity followed by sustainable diets and then Chapter 6 on
the influence of food media and advertising. The UK food system is set out in Chapter 7 using
the headings of agriculture, retail and hospitality to explain the UK food supply chain. Given
the UK reliance on food imports and exports as well as the importance of London as a financial
trading centre for foodstuffs, the international perspective is the focus of Chapter 8, specifically
the “financialisation” of food as a commodity. Chapter 9 sets out public sector food initiatives
that have been initiated in the UK, focusing on school meals. Food safety and related issues of
food fraud and food scares are focused on in Chapter 10. Successful exemplars of food policy
advocacy and implementation are the concern of Chapter 11. Finally, Chapter 12 sets out some
issues for the future, and how food policy might develop or have to adapt to the future is, of
course, hard to predict, but new technologies and changes in the food system will pose new
challenges for food policy.

Notes
1 Conservative PMs from 2016: Theresa May July 2016–July 2019, Boris Johnson July 2019–September
2022, Liz Truss September 2022–October 2022, Rishi Sunak October 2022.
2 UK will be used as a shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the
rest of this book.
3 Used to refer to when a business or country transfers growing or production process to another country
where regulation, land, labour and taxes are lower.
4 This involves the extraction of ammonia from the air of which Nitrogen is a key component. Carbon
dioxide (CO2) is a by-product of this process. The process uses large amounts of energy and the
increase in energy prices linked to the war in Ukraine has increased costs significantly.

References
Ansani, A. & Daniele, V. 2012, “The economic motivations of the Arab Spring”, International Journal of
Development and Conflict, vol. 18, no. 2(03), p. 1250013. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010269012500135
Barosh, L., Friel, S., Engelhardt, K. & Chan, L. 2014, “The cost of a healthy and sustainable diet – who
can afford it?”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 7–12. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12158
Barrett, C.B. & Maxwell, D.G. 2005, Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting Its Role, Routledge, London.
Belasco, W. 2007, Appetite for Change: How the Counteculture Took on the Food Industry and Won. 2nd
edn, Cornell University Press, New York.
Beveridge, W.H. 1928, British Food Control, Humphrey Milford, London.
Biermann, F., Kanie, N. & Kim, R.E. 2017, “Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the
UN Sustainable Development Goals”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, vol. 26–27, pp.
26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010
Blas, J. & Farchy, J. 2021, The World for Sale: Money, Power and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s
Resources, Random House Business, London.
Brockway, A.F. 1932, Hungry England, Victor Gollancz, London.
Cabinet Office 2008, Food Matters Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century, Cabinet Office, HM
Government, London.
Chang, H. 2022, Edible Economics: A Hungry Economist Explains the World, Allen Lane, Great Britian.
Clements, K.W. & Si, J. 2018, “Engel’s law, diet diversity, and the quality of food consumption”, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax053
10 Introduction
Collingham, L. 2017, The Hungry Empire: How Britain’s Quest for Food Shaped the Modern World, The
Bodley Head, London.
Cooper, N. & Dumpleton, S. 2013, Walking the Breadline: The Scandal of Food Poverty in 21st-Century
Britain, Church Action on Poverty, Oxford.
Dimbleby, H. 2021, National Food Strategy, Independent Review: The Plan, https://www.­
nationalfoodstrategy.org.
Dimbleby, H. 2020, The National Food Strategy: Part One – July 2020, DEFRA, London.
Dimbleby, H. & Lewis, J. 2023, Ravenous: How to get ourselves and our planet into shape, Profile Books,
London.
Fearnley-Whittingstall, J. 2010, The Ministry of Food, Hodder and Stoughton, Frome.
Food Ethics Council 2022, Responding to the Government Food Strategy, Food Ethics Council, https://
www.foodethicscouncil.org/resource/government-food-strategy-response/.
Food Foundation 2021, A Crisis within a Crisis: The Impact of Covid-19 on Household Food Security,
Food Foundation, London.
George, S. 2010, Whose Crises, Whose Future? Towards a Greener, Fairer, Richer World, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
George, S. 1986, How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reasons for World Hunger, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Giller, K.E., Delaune, T., Silva, J.V., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A.G.T., van Wijk, M.,
Hammond, J., Hochman, Z., Taulya, G., Chikowo, R., Narayanan, S., Kishore, A., Bresciani, F.,
Teixeira, H.M., Andersson, J.A. & van Ittersum, M.K. 2021, “The future of farming: who will produce
our food?”, Food Security, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1073–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01184-6
Goodbody, W. 2022, Nestlé to Pay Cocoa Growers to Keep Children in School, Radió Telefís Éireann
(RTE), https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2022/0127/1276133-nestle/.
Hammond, R.J. 1954, Food and Agriculture in Britain 1939–45: Aspects of Wartime Control, Stanfoprd
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Hammond, R.J. 1951, Food, Volume 1. The Growth of Policy, H.M.S.O., London.
Hebinck, A., Galli, F., Arcuri, S., Carroll, B., O’Connor, D. & Oostindie, H. 2018, “Capturing change in
European food assistance practices: a transformative social innovation perspective”, Local Environment,
vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1423046
Johnstone, S. & Mazo, J. 2011, “Global warming and the Arab Spring”, Survival, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 11–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2011.571006
Kickbusch, I. & Buckett, K. 2010, Implementing Health in All Polcies, Government of South Australia,
Adelaide.
Kinealy, C. & Moran, G. 2020, Irish Famines before and after the Great Hunger, Quinnipiac University
Press, Spain.
Kobayashi, Y., Heinrich, T. & Bryant, K.A. 2021, “Public support for development aid during the COVID-
19 pandemic”, World Development, no. 138, p. 105248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105248
Kropotkin, P. 2008, The Conquest of Bread, AK Press, Oakland, CA.
Kynaston, D. 2007, Austerity Britian 1945–51, Bloomsbury, London.
Lacy-Nichols, J. & Williams, O. 2021, “‘Part of the solution’: food corporation strategies for regula-
tory capture and legitimacy”, International Journal of Health Policy Management, vol. 10, no. 12, pp.
845–856. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2021.111
Lang, T. 2022a, “Boris Johnson’s food strategy fails to address food poverty and the cost-of-­living
crisis”, The New Statesman, [Online], vol. 13th June, pp. 15th June. Available from: https://
www.newstatesman.com/environment/food-farming/2022/06/boris-johnsons-food-strategy-
fails-to-address-food-poverty-and-the-cost-of-living-crisis.
Lang, T. 2022b, “Food Policy in a changing world: implications for nutritionists”, Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, pp. 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665122000817
Lang, T. 2020, Feeding Britain: Our Food Problems and How to Fix Them, Pelican, London.
Lang, T., Barling, D. & Caraher, M. 2009, Food Policy: Integrating Health, Environment and Society,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
 Introduction 11
Lang, T. & Mason, P. 2018, “Sustainable diet policy development: implications of multi-criteria and other
approaches, 2008–2017”, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 331–346. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0029665117004074
Lang, T. & McKee, M. 2022, “The reinvasion of Ukraine threatens global food supplies”, BMJ, vol. 376,
p. o676.
Lau, M. 2022, China can’t count on global markets for food security, Xi Jinping says, 7th March
edn, South China Morning Post, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3169467/
china-cant-count-global-markets-food-security-xi-jinping-says.
Le Gros Clark, F. & Titmuss, R. 1939, Our Food Problem: A Study of National Security, Penguin Books,
Harmondsworth.
Leissle, K. 2018, Cocoa, Polity, Cambridge, UK.
Marston, G. & McDonald, C. 2006, Analysing Social Policy: A Governmental Approach, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Mason, P. & Lang, T. 2017, Sustainable Diets: How Ecological Nutrition Can Transform Consumption
and the Food System, Routledge, London.
McGoey, K. 2015, No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy,
Verso, London.
McKeon, N. 2021, “Global Food Governance”, Development, vol. 64, pp. 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41301-021-00299-9
Mitchell, S. 2017, Struggle or Starve: Working-Class Unity in Belfast’s 1932 Outdoor Relief Riots,
Haymarket Books, Chicago, IL.
Moyo, D. 2010, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, Penguin,
London.
Nunn, N. & Qian, N. 2014, “US Food Aid and Civil Conflict”, American Economic Review, vol. 104, no.
6, pp. 1630–1666.
Orr, J.B. 1966, As I Recall, MacGibbon & Kee, London.
Orr, J.B. 1936, Food, Health and Income: Report on a Survey of Adequacy of Diet in Relation to Income,
MacMillan & Co, London.
Orr, J.B. & Lubbock, D. 1940, Feeding the People in War-Time, MacMillan and Co, London.
Owen, G. 2020, ‘Britain doesn’t need farmers’, leaked emails claim: Major new Whitehall storm erupts over
incendiary suggestions made by Dominic Cummings’ adviser after Number 10 brands senior m ­ andarin
who quit over Priti Patel row ‘Sir Calamity, [Online edn], MailOnline, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/
article-8060473/Britain-doesnt-need-farmers-reveal-leaked-emails-senior-government-official.html.
Oxfam. 2022, Profiting from Pain, Oxfam, https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/
s3fs-­p ublic/2022-05/Oxfam%20Media%20Brief%20-%20EN%20-%20Profiting%20From%20
Pain%2C%20Davos%202022%20Part%202.pdf.
Parsons, K. & Barling, D. 2022, “England’s food policy coordination and the Covid-19 response”, Food
Security, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01280-1
Parsons, K. & Hawkes, C. 2019, Brief 4: Embedding Food in All Policies, Centre for Food Policy, London.
Peńa, M. & Bacallao, J. 2000, Obesity and Poverty: A New Public Health Challenge. Scientific Publication
no 576, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC.
Power, M. 2022, Hunger, Whiteness and Religion in Neoliberal Britain: An Inequality of Power, Policy
Press, Bristol.
Richards, C., Kjærnes, U. & Vik, J. 2016, “Food security in welfare capitalism: comparing social entitle-
ments to food in Australia and Norway”, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 43, pp. 61–70.
Riches, G. & Silvasti, T. 2014, First World Hunger Revisited: Food Charity or the Right to Food? 2nd edn,
Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Rieff, D. 2016, The Reproach of Hunger: Food, Justice and Money in the 21st Century, Verso, London.
Rieff, D. 2015, Philanthrocapitalism: A Self-Love Story: Why Do Super-Rich Activists Mock Their Critics
Instead of Listening to Them?, 1st October edn, The Nation, https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/
philanthrocapitalism-a-self-love-story/.
12 Introduction
Schneider, M. 2022, How a living income can help remake cocoa farming, Nestlé, https://www.nestle.com/
stories/living-income-cocoa-farming-responsible-sourcing.
Seabrook, J. 2013, Pauperland: Poverty and the Poor in Britain, Hurst and Co., London.
Sitwell, W. 2017, Eggs or Anarchy: The Remarkable Story of the Man Tasked with the Impossible: To Feed
a Nation at War, Simon and Schuster, London.
Slater, S., Baker, P. & Lawrence, M. 2022, “An analysis of the transformative potential of major food
system report recommendations”, Global Food Security, vol. 32, p. 100610.
Smith, D. & Nicolson, M. 1995, “Nutrtion, Education, Ignorance and Income: A Twentieth Century
Debate” in The Science and Culture of Nutrition 1840–1940, eds. H. Kamminga & A. Cunningham,
Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 288–318.
Smyth, C. 2021, Johnson sours hopes of a sugar tax, Friday July 16th, No 73625, page 6 edn, The Times,
London.
Stitt, S. & Prisk, E. 1997, “A Ministry of Food for Britain for 21st Century?”, Nutr Health, vol. 12, no. 1,
pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/026010609701200101
Taylor, B. 2010, “Why nobody wins unless everybody wins”, Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.
org/2010/12/why-nobody-wins-unless-everybo.
Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. 2009, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness,
New international edn, Penguin, London.
Torres Pabón, G. 2019, “What food do we buy and how much do we spend on it? Socioeconomic condi-
tions and budget for food consumption (Colombia, 1993–2014)”, Revista Colombiana de Sociología,
vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 191–228.
Various Public Interest, Health, and Citizens’ Groups 2017, Open Letter to the Executive Board of the
World Health Organization: Re: Conflict of interest safeguards far too weak to protect WHO from
­influence of regulated industries (the case of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), Open Letter, http://­
healthscienceandlaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Public-Interest-Position.WHO_.FENSAGates.
Jan2017.pdf.
Vernon, J. 2007, Hunger: A Modern History, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA; London.
Wells, R. & Caraher, M. 2014, “UK print media coverage of the food bank phenomenon: from food
­welfare to food charity?”, British Food Journal, vol. 116, no. 9, pp. 1426–1445. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BFJ-03-2014-0123
White, M. 2022, “Half hearted and half baked: the government’s new food strategy”, BMJ, vol. 377,
p. o1520. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o1520
Woodham-Smith, C. 1962, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849, 1st edn, Harper and Row, New York.
World Health Organization 2021, COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health: The Health
Argument for Climate Action, World Health Organization, Geneva.
Yap, C. 2022, Leaked Food Strategy vs Published Strategy: A Side by Side Analysis, https://fixourfood.org/
leaked-strategy-vs-published-strategy-a-side-by-side-analysis/.
Zimmerman, C.C. 1932, “Ernst Engel’s law of expenditures for food”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 78–101.
2 Food policy in the UK
From public health and nutrition to
sustainable diets

Introduction
This chapter provides a background to the origins of food policy in the UK detailing influences
at different epochs and how social, commercial and financial conditions and views have influ-
enced the form and degree of intervention that currently modern food policy takes. This helps
establish the basis for the other chapters by providing some underpinning, using examples of
past influences and key theoretical concepts. It also details some models of food policy which
are distinguished by the differences between “research for food policy” and “research on and of
food policy”. These are essentially two different perspectives: the former is where research is
used to inform food policy initiatives; the latter is then an examination of how, in practice, food
policy is formulated and enacted. The Overton Window will be used in this and other chapters
to help make sense of the changing and sometimes not changing nature of food policy. Signposts
to a number of food policy models are provided to show how food policy is currently develop-
ing (Newman, 2013, Szałek, 2013, Hawkes & Parsons, 2019, Parsons, 2019, 2022, Parsons &
Hawkes, 2019a, 2019b, Parsons, Hawkes & Wells, 2019).
We all eat, and food policy has an ambition to cover the gamut of activities from farm to fork
(paddock to plate, farm to flush, soil to society), and this includes a concern with the control of
food systems at a global level (Newman, 2013). Food policy, as an academic subject, lays claim
to the study of the relationship between all these areas and how policies are developed or not
developed despite the weight of the evidence. Food policy can cover enormous and diverse ter-
rains with numerous claims to being inter- or multidisciplinary (Lang, Barling & Caraher, 2009).
Existing food policies can be broadly divided into two groups; the first are those that have nutri-
tional health as their focus and the second group is agricultural/processing policies (Bronner,
1997, Milo & Helsing 1998). This is despite calls for the development of joint food and nutri-
tion policies by the World Health Organization following the 1992 International Conference
on Nutrition (World Health Organization, Food and Agricultural Organization, 1992). Egger
and Swinburn make the link between nutrition and the planetary issues in the subtitle of their
book How we’re eating ourselves and the planet to death (Egger & Swinburn, 2010). There
is another argument that food policy should not become a distinct area of endeavour seeking
instead to become part of, and embedded in, other policies. Like the concept of health in all poli-
cies, the argument is that food should be in all policies (Kickbusch & Buckett, 2010, Lawless
et al., 2012). This in reality is difficult to achieve and the fallback position is often to develop a
separate food policy to act as an umbrella for actions in different spheres. This often takes the
form of a nutrition-based policy and/or a separate agricultural one, often with some cross refer-
ence to other policies (Milo & Helsing, 1998, Caraher & Coveney, 2004). Of course, the greater
the overlap between these two areas, the more an integrated approach is achieved. In practice,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003260301-2
14 Food policy in the UK
production and consumption are often separated in the real world of policymaking. Part of the
function of the academic discipline of food policy is to analyse and explain why this is to pro-
vide ways forward in policymaking.
This breadth of potential coverage of food policy is both its strength and also its weakness,
as it struggles to build its evidence base both “for” and “of” food policy. Actions in the name of
one area of interest can have a knock-on effect elsewhere. Food policy from the 1950s onwards
has been marked by a patchwork of policies in issues as wide ranging as trade policy, price con-
trols, nutrition and agriculture. There have been attempts to link healthy diets with sustainable
production. Mason and Lang propose a multi-criteria, six-pronged approach to sustainable diets,
giving equal weight to nutrition and public health, the environment, sociocultural issues, food
quality, economics and governance (Mason & Lang, 2017, Lang & Mason, 2018). This latter
perspective can also be incorporated under the taxonomy of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) called
the NOVA classification. For England, the food systems diagram (Figure 2.1) from Parsons,

Figure 2.1 Depiction of the food system.

Source: Parsons, Hawkes and Wells (2019).
 Food policy in the UK 15
Hawkes and Wells (2019) considers how the food system food policy can attempt to escape food
policy silos for more on this see chapter 5.
Parsons identified 16 English government departments that have a say in food policy
(Sharpe, Parsons & Hawkes, 2020, Parsons, 2021). The lead agency is the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In 2002, following the foot-and-mouth disease
outbreak among cattle, DEFRA was established and took over the functions of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food combined with some other food functions from the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and the Home Office (National Audit
Office, 2002).
For England, in 2020 and 2021, independent reports from Henry Dimbleby, non-executive
director at DEFRA, were produced (Dimbleby, 2020, 2021). The 2021 “National Food Strategy:
The Plan” (NFS) made a plea for an integrated approach to food policy. The response to the final
strategy document has been weak, and not just that, but the formal response has been weak with
many of the suggested ideas being ignored (Dimbleby & Lewis, 2023). At the same time, due to
political turbulence in Parliament, some previously enacted pieces of legislation were threatened
with being withdrawn1 (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2022,
Food Ethics Council, 2022, Goodwin, 2022, White, 2022).
Plans to tackle obesity continue to be released as drip-feed initiatives; there are concerns
that obesity policy is not fit for purpose and that despite “government-proposed obesity policies
in England (n = 689) within obesity strategies (n =14) over almost three decades (1992–2020)
there has been a failure to learn lessons from policy failures” (Theis & White, 2021). This
process of drip-feeding initiatives continued in February 2022, with a commitment to ensur-
ing school lunches in England meet national standards contained in a White Paper on tackling
inequality between the regions; but we know that the existing school food standards are not
being met or monitored (Dimbleby & Vincent, 2013, Dimbleby, 2021). Additionally, there are
plans as part of a “levelling-up agenda” to allow GPs “to prescribe vouchers for fresh fruit and
vegetables” and “cooking lessons and nutritional education”. Close reading of these proposals
makes it clear that these are to be pilots and not widespread initiatives across the UK. The NFS
was ambitious and in some instances radical in its proposals (the introduction of sugar and fat
taxes) and clearly called for an integrated approach to food policy, but the scenario described
above shows the difficulty in achieving coherence in policymaking as policy drip feeds from
different departments and linked to different agendas.
The author of the NFS resigned his official role as a government advisor and said the “so-
called ‘Government Food Strategy that was unveiled in June 2022, in response to my review,
is not a strategy at all. It is merely a handful of disparate policy ideas, many of them chosen
because they are unlikely to raise much of a media storm” (Dimbleby, Lewis, 2023, page 17) .

So what is food policy or what should it be?

It is more and more recognised that food policy is, or should be, the set of policies that influence
the food system, not separate nutrition or agricultural policies. This is captured in the following
definition by Pinstrup-Andersen and Watson who said:

Food policies are plans of action related to the food system. More specifically, food policy
consists of the setting of goals for the food system or its parts, including natural resources,
production, processing, marketing, food consumption & safety, & nutrition, and determin-
ing the processes of achieving these goals.
(Pinstrup-Andersen & Watson II, 2011, p. 29)
16 Food policy in the UK
A lot of academic work has focussed on food policy within a public policy context, and this is
certainly where its roots lie. Guba (1984) identified eight different types of policy:

1 An assertion of intents or goals.

2 The accumulated decision of a governing body to guide that which is within its sphere of
control (directly/indirectly).
3 A guide to discretionary action.
4 A strategy used to solve or ameliorate a problem.
5 Sanctioned behaviour, either informally or formally.
6 A norm of conduct.
7 An output of the policy making system.
8 The effect of the policy making and policy implementation system.

Birkland identifies multiple definitions of what constitutes public policy and that public ­policies
have several common characteristics, such as (i) they are decisions of the government to
­implement or not; (ii) they involve governmental and non-governmental actors; (iii) they are
motivated by public welfare; and (iv) they are oriented towards a general objective, such as
the solution of a social problem (Birkland, 2015). So, to the eight above, we add that of non-
intervention or the decision not to implement a policy.
Table 2.1 contains a list of definitions of food policy. Many of the definitions assume a logical
approach to food policy development and do not fully acknowledge the influence of powerful
players such as “Big Food” or the fact that non-action can itself be a policy approach. They are,
in fact, what food policy should be and not what it is in practice. Again, think of the distinction
between research of policy “for” food policy and research “on or of” food policy in practice.

Table 2.1 A list of definitions of food policy

Definition

Food policy is a strategy that views the food economy and policies relating to it in an integrated way and in a
broad economic and political context (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1981).
Food policy encompasses the collective efforts of governments to influence the decision-making
environment of food producers, food consumers and food marketing agents in order to further social
objectives (Timmer, Falcon & Pearson, 1983).
Food policy and nutrition policy can best be considered together, as they both concern the food supply.
Food and nutrition policy as a whole may be defined as a concerted set of actions based on scientific
principles, intended to ensure the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply and the accessibility
of affordable and properly labelled food to all population groups and that encourage and facilitate the
healthy use of food (Milo & Helsing, 1998).
The decision-making that shapes the way the world of food operates and is controlled (Lang & Heasman,
2004).
Food policy constitutes the policies that shape who eats what, when, where and how much (Lang,
Barling & Caraher, 2009).
Food policy encompasses laws, regulations, decisions and actions by governments and other institutions
that influence food production, distribution and consumption (Wilde, 2018).
“Food policy” comprises the policies that influence and shape the food system – everything and
everybody involved in producing, storing, packing, processing, distributing, consuming and disposing
of food. Integrated food policies take account of the interconnections in the food system to enable
nutrition, health, environmental, social and economic goals to be delivered more coherently. Inclusive
food policies take account of people’s voices and experiences across the food system to enable goals to
be delivered more effectively and equitably (Centre for Food Policy, n.d.).
 Food policy in the UK 17
The process of policymaking is influenced by powerful lobbies and financial interests (Clapp
& Scrinis, 2017, Nestle, 2018, Sacks et al., 2018, Wood, Ruskin & Sacks, 2020, Baker et al.,
2021, Lauber, Rutter & Gilmore, 2021). As we noted in Chapter 1, large corporations or trans-
national companies (TNCs) are developing welfare policies for their suppliers, including setting
up pension schemes and paying growers to send their children to school. In welfare studies, this
is referred to as welfare economies or welfare capitalism. For food policy, this may represent
a new dimension for study (Goodbody, 2022). The involvement of vested interests such as the
food industry in policymaking is contentious, especially when it involves unhealthy commodity
industries (UCIs). This development by the private sector moves beyond being involved and
influencing public or government food policy to the industry developing its own set of food
policies.
What the definitions in Table 2.1 have in common is that food policies should intervene and
influence some aspect of the food system. But, in many instances, they are not specific about the
range of influences. Milo and Helsing, (1998) referring to policymaking in the WHO European
region, point out that the problem is often one of linking different departments:

The gap between the departments of agriculture and health, however, often seemed dif-
ficult to bridge. There is nevertheless hope that, with more consumer concern about food
and health, common interests will bring these sectors together again.
(p. 1)

We see the continuation of this divide in the development of food policies in the UK. Parsons
(2020) refers to DEFRA in England and its role in food policy as a “super ministry”. The fact
that the NFS was coordinated through DEFRA supports this contention and is reinforced by its
broad remit for food, farming, environment and rural affairs. In many ways, this supports the
contention in Chapter 1 that economics and business influence the development of food policies
and DEFRA has more links with business and farming than the Department of Health. The inter-
connectedness and sometimes even the disconnect between these various areas and departments
often form the ground for research on food policy (Panjwani & Caraher, 2014, Knai et al., 2015,
Panjwani & Caraher, 2018). Much food policy is still silo policymaking, and often involves
battles between government departments and outside agencies over territory and the relative
importance of areas such as health versus jobs in the food industry (Lang, Barling & Caraher,
2009, Carey et al., 2016, Lacy-Nichols & Williams, 2021).

Conceptual models of policymaking

There is a wider literature on policy development within the social sciences and this has had an
influence on food policy academics. Some, such as Smith (2013), have outlined the following
distinctions between different models of policymaking:

1 Knowledge-driven model, where research findings provide pressure or evidence for policy,
often in health research.
2 Problem-solving model, where a policy problem is identified and research is meant to
address the gap.
3 Political model, where selective research is often used to support predetermined policy, for
example, welfare reform.
4 Tactical model, research or lack of research is used to delay decision-making.
18 Food policy in the UK
5 Two community model policymakers and experts/academics, although more often lobby
and interest groups.
6 Interactive model, where research is but one component of a complex process.
7 Enlightenment model addresses over a period of time ideas about how policy should be
addressed.

There is a more cynical approach among policy influencers who talk about policy action being
more of the “whack-a-mole” approach. When a problem appears, devise a policy to solve it;
but this lacks a preventive approach. We see this with food scandals such as that related to BSE
(mad cow disease) and the scandal over horsemeat in the beef supply chain. There is also a feel-
ing that policymaking can occur in the absence of evidence and that evidence sometimes seeks
a policy home as well as policy makers seeking evidence.
Table 2.2 outlines some of the key theoretical models concerned with policymaking that food
policy analysts have adopted for their own use. The key references refer to those who have devel-
oped the models or theories and are followed by where they have been used for food policy analysis.
Many of the above models are used to frame research work and to help describe the find-
ings from food policy research. They are often used by food policy researchers to frame their
research agendas, often as the epistemological basis.

Upstream versus downstream approaches to food policy

Public health-based food policy has much to say about the level of intervention adopted.
Geoffrey Rose in his book The strategy of preventive medicine pointed out that we do not just
have “high risk people”, we also have “high risk populations” (Rose, Khaw & Marmot, 2008).
A population strategy is one that aims to change everybody’s behaviour. For example, raising
tax on cigarettes is a population strategy to cut down smoking benefiting both smokers and
nonsmokers the later from the effects of secondhand or passive smoking. This strategy can also
be used in the primary care arena of information and education. Those working in primary care
can provide a constant “feed” of information – about cutting down salt intake, cutting down on
cigarettes, taking more exercise – not just to people who are thought to be at high risk of heart
disease or cancer, but to everybody who comes to the surgery. A “fat tax” or a “food tax” could
be introduced to influence behaviour at a population level supported by work at the primary care
level to help people make healthier choices.
A high-risk strategy means intervening only with those who are seen to be at high risk. The
problem is that in order to identify those at high risk, it is necessary first to have some way of
either screening everyone or filtering out those not at risk. The current, most used measures
include high blood pressure, body mass index (BMI) and cholesterol screening.
Reviews of policy evidence show that upstream approaches based on regulation, manda-
tory reformulation and subsidies are more effective than those that rely on downstream inter-
ventions reliant on voluntary agreements, behaviour change and education (see Figure 2.2).
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but the upstream approaches are population-
based (these can be communities, groups or areas such as a city) as compared to downstream
approaches which tend to focus on individual behaviour change (Theis & White, 2021).
Labelling of takeaway and restaurant food is less effective than reformulation strategies
(Adams et al., 2016, Goodman et al., 2018). The focus of public health is prevention by reduc-
ing exposure to risk, not treatment or amelioration of existing conditions. This difference can
be illustrated by a poem from Joseph Malins, a temperance activist, from 1895 called the “The
Ambulance Down in the Valley”. This presented as an allegory a community debate whether
to build a fence at the top of a cliff to prevent people falling or to provide an ambulance at
Table 2.2 Models of policy development

Theory Strengths Limitations

Multiple Streams The emphasis is on the role of individual agency. Often does May not address collective action and coordination among
Theory. not account for institutional power. participants.
Provides simple and practical applications in how alternative Downplays the role of institutions in the policymaking process,
policies are selected and agendas are set. believes institutions make things possible, but people make
Fluid and flexible model. things happen.
Emphasises the importance of ideas in policy and how they Does not address or fully explain the independence of policy
emerge by their adoption and rejection by decision-makers. streams and tensions.
Likened to paradigm shifts in policy ideas/fashion. Often does not account for actors keeping streams apart as a
Can account for “fashions”, e.g. sugar, saturated fats, policy process – de facto a policy, albeit policy aversion.
trans-fats.
Based on the work of Kingdon (2010) can take a quantitative
form.
Key references
Zahariadis (2007), Kingdon (2010), Cullerton et al. (2016a).

Advocacy Coalition Can help clarify how interested actors/stakeholders interact to Provides a complex framework yet does not fully explain
Framework. influence public policy or policy change within a specific policy change, with little explanation on the required
policy subsystem over time. conditions for policy-oriented collective action to take place.
Highlights the role of scientific and technical information. Places an emphasis on external shocks as the main reason for
Explains why conflict is about value differences rather than policy change.
technical deficiencies. Neglects the role of individual choice. Assumes individuals do
not act of their own accord, only as part of a coalition.
Danger that intergovernmental relations are the only
institutional choices recognised, industry power is hidden.
Concept of power not operationalised.
Key references
Sabatier and Weible (2014), Zahariadis (2007), Page and Caraher (2020).

(Continued)
Food policy in the UK 19
Table 2.2 (Continued)

Theory Strengths Limitations

Punctuated Equilibrium This places dual emphasis on political institutions and A general, descriptive theory, in that it does not make specific
Theory. boundedly rational decision-making. predictions for particular policy issues.
The attention paid to the dynamics of problem definition, Focuses on bottom-up policymaking, neglecting how
policy images and venues of action is helpful for advocates. preferences can be shaped from above.
Ideas, individual actors and their interests are crucial. Limited explanation for change.
Incorporates the role of power. Assumes there are key points where policy has a greater
20 Food policy in the UK

Paradigm shifts in knowledge, fashion or concern are seen as chance of being implemented.
key to providing the fulcrums for policy change. Assumes a Kuhnian perspective on policy change, where a
paradigm shift in view or evidence contributes to policy
shifts (Kuhn, 1970).
Key references
True, Jones and Baumgartner (2007).

Public Policy. Often based on two community theses of actor networks Assumes interactions between the two policy communities are
located around researchers and policymakers. the key.
Now expanded to include civil society. Oversimplifies policy process.
Relies on evidence-based policy or the equivalent evidence- Limited explanation for change built on Caplan’s two
based medicine approach. communities model, now three communities to include civil
society (Caplan, 1979).
Key references
O’Connor and Netting (2011), Buse, Mays and Walt (2012), Cairney (2012).

Policy Network Analysis. Combines all of the above but assumes a rational basis for As above, under Public Policy.
policy decision-making.
Assumes interactions between actors.
Can account for policy champions and entrepreneurs.
Key references
Walt and Gilson (1994), Walt et al. (2008), Cullerton et al. (2016b), Caraher et al. (2013).

Food in all policies. Attempts to locate health in all policies. May become a tick box exercise for non-health departments
Often led by public health and nutrition concerns and and interests.
professionals. May fail to achieve coherence and coordination.
Food is clearly identified in policies.

(Continued)
Table 2.2 (Continued)

Theory Strengths Limitations

Key references
Kickbusch and Buckett (2010), Parsons and Hawkes (2019a, 2019b).

A food system approach. Looks at the food system in its entirety. Can assume an effectiveness and efficiency approach to the
dominant food system.
Key references
George (1990), Ingram (2011), Fanzo et al. (2020), Parsons, Hawkes and Wells (2019).

Equity and rights. What is the outcome of a policy decision, intervention, Sometimes difficult to operationalise in or for food policy.
Marmot and Wilkinson thesis.
Key references
Marmot (2020), Lindberg, Rose and Caraher (2016), Wilkinson and Pickett (2018)

Government versus Shift from government (public policy) to “governance”, Hard to define boundaries.
governance models. including or by the private sector.
Institutions, state and non-state.
How governance or non-governance occurs.
Key references
Keating and Davis (2000), Sabatier and Weible (2014), Rhodes (1997), Cairney (2012), Boswell, Cairney and St Denny (2019).

Policy as an idea/ Core issue is not about the effectiveness or otherwise of evidence Abstract and hard to operationalise research.
Narrative Policy on unhealthy foods but the war of ideas.
Frameworks. Compelling ideas are often based on notions of individual
freedom and the power of the “nanny state”.
Can account for paradigm shifts in policy ideas/fashion.
Places ideas within a network society model.
Key references
Smith (2013), Caraher and Perry (2017), McBeth, Jones and Shanahan (2014).
Source: Adapted from Parsons (2017) and Page (2020).
Food policy in the UK 21
22 Food policy in the UK
the bottom to treat the injuries resulting from falls. The call for an ambulance carried the day
as it was visible and offered theatre with its flashing lights and drama. Many current debates
over food policy reflect this debate, with the emphasis on picking people up after they have
fallen as opposed to ­stopping them falling in the first place. The argument is not an either/or
scenario but a reflection on structure versus behaviour and a potential cost argument. Although
prevention may be more cost-effective in the long run, it requires an upfront investment and
policymakers such as politicians are often reluctant to invest in actions from which they will
not see an immediate return. The modern equivalent of the ambulance with its flashing lights
is the opening of a new facility to treat those already ill or sick. The preventive fence might be
an increase in taxes on unhealthy food or investment in more preventive health services such as
community interventions, which are less popular and less visible (Acheson, 1998). The work
of Sir Michael Marmot is key in this area, with its focus on structural and commercial determi-
nants (Marmot, 2005, Marmot, 2015). Others have focused on commercial determinants or the
impact of the food industry on food policy (Clapp & Scrinis, 2017, Sacks et al., 2018, Lauber,
Rutter & Gilmore, 2021).
With its roots in public health and public health nutrition, food policy has a focus on preven-
tion at the primary and secondary levels and less so on tertiary or treatment levels. So, with
obesity, the focus on food policy is on food at the level of primary care and early prevention and
not on treatment or rehabilitation of those who are obese.

•Regulation.

•Mandatory reformulation.
Upstream •Subsidies and taxation.

•Direct provision of cash for food.

•Voluntary reformulation eg
public private partnerships.
•Nudging.
•Labelling.
•Media campaigns.
Downstream •Community and work
based dietary interventions.
•Clinical dietetics .

Figure 2.2 Public health levels of intervention.

Source: Adapted from and based on McLaren, McIntyre and Kirkpatrick (2010).
 Food policy in the UK 23
The Overton Window
The Overton Window, named after American political scientist Joseph Overton, can be used as
a way of locating policies within different epochs and explaining why at different times differ-
ent approaches to food policy are more or less acceptable (see Figure 2.3) (Szałek, 2013, Balaji,
Seeberger & Hennedige, 2018). Its benefits are that it allows us to see where policymakers and
politicians seek consensus over action. The influences can be formal evidence, costs of actions
versus cost of not taking action, opinion polls, focus groups or lobbying by vested food industry
groups. In past times, the latter might have been the influence of powerful figures such as politi-
cians, landowners or “captains of industry”. Smith calls this the “war of ideas” where compet-
ing narratives vie for policy space (Smith 2013, Caraher & Perry, 2017). A problem with public
health food narratives is they are often ­negative in orientation; so, messages are often focused
around don’t consume this, cut back, take more exercise and so on. Food industry narratives on
the other hand tend towards the positive, so indulge yourself, just have one more piece, doesn’t
it taste nice, this is value for money, you deserve it, our industry creates lots of jobs and so on.

POLICY EXAMPLE OF ACTION

UNTHINKABLE.
Ban the sale of certain foods.

Introduce legislation to regulate the food industry

or tax certain foods.
RADICAL.

ACCEPTABLE. Introduce legislation to require the reformulation of food.

SENSIBLE. Label the food.

POPULAR. Food education.

STATUS QUO. OVERTON WINDOW

POPULAR. Food education.

SENSIBLE.
Restrict advertising to key groups.

ACCEPTABLE. Enter into voluntary agreements with the

industry.

No laws or restrictions on the production or sale of foods,

Industry regulates itself.
RADICAL.
Do nothing.
UNTHINKABLE.

Figure 2.3 The Overton Window with an example of tackling obesity interventions.
24 Food policy in the UK
The usefulness of the Overton Window for food policy analysis is that it helps us understand
how policymakers come to a consensus and why policy can change in the light of public opin-
ion and vary in the light of social mores from era to era. With this in mind, the Window can be
used to contextualise the impacts of the various models, theories and approaches contained in
Table 2.2. We will see in Chapter 4 how this changes over time with respect to food poverty
while still maintaining a core view of poverty, its causes and responsibilities; an example is how
the concepts of the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor play out, although changing over time
to reflect social mores. The “Window” allows us to adopt an approach to policy, which argues
that at key points in time, there is a limited range of policy options that are acceptable and that
these parameters of acceptability change from time to time. This can be related to the changing
social mores and values such as the industry advertising to children.
The Overton Window is not itself a model for policy planning but one that allows us to
analyse policy acceptance retrospectively. Such acceptance is, of course, framed by circum-
stances and the prevailing social milieu; the modern connected world can be influenced by
media reporting or political scandal. Acceptance ranges through the following: unthinkable,
radical, acceptable, sensible, popular, radical and unthinkable, with the extremes of the vertical
axis being represented by more choice/more control to less control/less choice (see Figure 2.3).
With respect to the issues of choice, this can shift from period to period; so, during World War
II (WWII), controls of food supply and rationing were deemed acceptable, but in the post-war
period restrictions on choice were not popular. Rationing and control of food supply in WWII
was not devised as a health issue but was an unintended outcome. Hammond in his opus on
food control in WWII points out that the primary function of the Ministry of Food was to
ensure food supply, not to promote welfare and/or healthy eating policies. Rationing, he says,
was “in no way an instrument for promoting better feeding” and that “its motive force was not
philanthropy, but conservation; it owed its origin to the fear of isolation, blockade and industrial
unrest” (p. 140). He argues that where rationing and subsidies were used, they were deployed as
anti-inflationary measures, not to encourage healthy eating.
Such decisions, along vertical axis “unthinkable” to “unthinkable”, can be influenced by
pre-existing beliefs about the food system and food choices, tensions between health and trade,
opinion polls, focus groups or lobbying by vested food industry groups or public concern. Use
of the Overton Window does not suggest a reinterpretation of history, but merely provides a
context to help us understand why certain food policy decisions were made at key points in
time. It does not preclude the issue of alternative or countervailing views but that these did not
hold sway in the decision-making process. For instance, the example of obesity and restricting
advertising of foods to young people has changed over time. When this debate kicked off in the
1990s, the advertising industry saw it as a right to promote food products to young children on
the basis that this prepared them to be future consumers. The advertising industry argued that
education initiatives devised by them and taught in schools were sufficient to protect young
people (Caraher, Landon & Dalmeny, 2006). Over time, this stance has changed, and while the
food and advertising industries might still believe it is okay to promote foods to children, they
are less likely to use the same arguments or rhetoric openly. Of course, over time the science
of nutrition and food policy has improved, and we now know more. However, this additional
scientific knowledge does not always result in appropriate action. Additionally, the social con-
text has changed with the idea of protecting children from unwarranted advertising, now more
generally acceptable. This is where the Overton Window and concepts such as that espoused by
Smith (2013) about the war of ideas help us to contextualise food policymaking. If evidence was
the basis for food policy, we would have lots of food policies. The Overton Window provides a
backward look at how food policy has been implemented or avoided.
 Food policy in the UK 25
Historical influences of less eligibility and personal behaviours
To understand contemporary food policy, it helps to have some knowledge of the history of food
policy in the UK, the repetitions and changes in emphasis. Although Barack Obama is known
for the quote “the past is never dead”, he borrowed the quote from William Faulkner who said
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past”. The meaning of this is that the values from one era
often transfer to the next, often dressed in new words and social context but still carrying the
underlying beliefs of a time past (Faulkner, 2011, Seabrook, 2013). We will see more of this in
Chapters 3 and 4, where the ideas about food poverty are passed down from one era to another
while still holding the underpinning values of the deserving and undeserving poor, although the
language used to describe the situation may change.
For practitioners, policymakers and influencers, it is important to have some knowledge of past
failures and successes (Theis & White, 2021). Marx asserted in the last line of his “Theses on
Feuerbach” that “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, how-
ever, is to change it”. Despite the changing times, we can see the remnants of past beliefs and values
in the formation of food policy. Who is deserving of welfare and why should we feed those who
are not prepared to take care of themselves are questions that are continually asked of food policy.
One of the key arguments is that while the rhetoric, social influence and perceptions change
over time, there are some issues that remain constant as influences in the Overton Window and
its to food policy. So, two of these are the concepts of less eligibility and the focus on the indi-
vidual within a victim blaming framework (Caraher, 2018).

The example of less eligibility

Those who experienced the stigma of the old and new poor law systems2 and the workhouses
came away stigmatised and determined to escape such institutions. Tressell’s novel The Ragged-
Trousered Philanthropists, published in 1914, captures these times through his description of
the lives of working-class painters (Tressell, 2018). The novel’s protagonists mainly eat bread
and margarine, wear cast-off shoes, pawn their possessions, take in lodgers or take cheaper
lodgings to save themselves from destitution. They die young from accidents in the workplace
or exhaustion in the workhouse exacerbated by poor diets.
The various poor law acts of the 1840s and the Public Health Act of 1848 reflected concerns
with the differences between the deserving and undeserving poor and the principle of “less eli-
gibility”, borrowing from their predecessor Elizabethan laws. The standard used for food relief
was based on the principle that relief was set below minimum wage and the then known and
understood nutritional levels – “less eligibility”. The principle underpinning all of this was the
prevention of pauperism and people presenting themselves to the workhouse for relief. Food
provision in the workhouse was designed to act as a deterrent; the food given to a recipient
of charity or welfare was calculated to be inferior to that provided to a member of the lowest
significant equivalent social class in that society. This is a concept that can still be found in the
operation and delivery of modern-day food policies (Seabrook, 2013). This principle still forms
the basis of much policy formation, the mix of science and moral stances over standards related
to food. The emerging science of nutrition in the mid-1800s was used to set ceiling standards
above which the poor could not rise, as opposed to floor standards below which they should not
fall. Those involved in setting standards for food poverty often feel compelled to set minimum
standards under pressure from politicians alive to the prospect of the unwaged and those in
receipt of food relief (many of whom were seen as the undeserving poor) being better off than
the working or deserving poor.
26 Food policy in the UK
Through the ages there were, of course, dissenting voices. The Quaker response to the Irish
famine, An Gortá Mór, recognised the limits of charity relief in the face of an overwhelm-
ing ­crisis (Woodham-Smith, 1962, Kinealy, 2002). Another example of dissention was “The
Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress”. This
influenced a generation of academics and thinkers, even if it did not immediately bring about
changes in food policy. It did however set the tone for the Beveridge Report of 1942, which is
a landmark in policy for the development of the post-WWII British state and welfare systems
(Beveridge, 1942, Robson, 1963). The principle of “less eligibility” remained an underpinning
principle of many food-related reforms and remained so until 1948 with the establishment of the
Welfare state (Timmins, 2017). We will see examples of this in Chapters 3 and 4.
Vernon commenting on the 1942 Beveridge Report which was a key influence on the forma-
tion of the welfare state says that:

Yet Beveridge’s foundational text remained caught between the conception of welfare as a
necessary social right and the conception of welfare as a form of disciplinary care: the for-
mer protecting the innocent from systemic failures beyond their control, the latter disci-
plining those who had failed to protect themselves from these misfortunes. In many ways
it was absolutely ‘the last and most glorious flowering of late Victorian philanthropy’.
(Vernon, 2007, p. 256)

And Veit-Wilson in an analysis of the working documents of the same committee says that its
proposals for benefit levels were inadequate as it knowingly:

implemented the principles of minimum subsistence and less-eligibility in the face of

inadequate wages, the proposed scales were arguably more austere even than Rowntree’s
‘primary poverty’ standard which both he and Beveridge acknowledged was not sufficient
to meet human social needs.
(Veit-Wilson, 1992, p. 269)

The formation of modern food poverty standards still continues to be informed by the principles
of the past and the deserving/undeserving poor dichotomy. Welfare relief is constituted so that it
does not offer an advantage to those in receipt of welfare over and above those of an equivalent
class in work. In 1979, a proponent of the New Right, politician Keith Joseph, suggested that:

An absolute standard means one defined by reference to the actual needs of the poor and
not by reference to the expenditure of those who are not poor. A family is poor if it cannot
afford to eat. It is not poor if it cannot afford endless smokes and it does not become poor
by the mere fact that other people can afford them.
(Veit-Wilson, 1986)

In saying this, he launched a debate on the issue of the cycle of deprivation and how deprivation
is transmitted, which continues to the present day.
Leather in 1992 pointed out that “modern malnutrition” had a new face and had not gone
away but largely been hidden from view and went on to say that “there was profound resist-
ance to the concept of food poverty (and poverty in general) at official levels” (p. 32) and
that civil servants avoided use of the term along with redefining health inequalities as “health
variations”. We also contend that some of the early beliefs which underpinned initiatives in the
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
present Lords Willoughby d’Eresby, and eventually acquired very
large possessions in these parts, much of which they still retain.
We find, however, at different periods, various other parties holding
lands in, or connected with, Hareby.
In a Revesby Charter (No. 28, collection of the late Right Hon. E.
Stanhope), conveying the right of lands in East Kirkby to Revesby
Abbey (temp. Henry II. or Richard I.) the first witness is Alan, Dean
of Hareby, others being, Aschetill, priest of Keal, Alan, priest of
Asgarby, &c.
By another Charter (No. 53 temp. Richard I. or John), Henry
Smerehorn of East Kirkby, gives his home-born (“nativum”) servant,
Robert, son of Colvan, with all his chattells to Revesby Abbey, and
receives in return “one silver mark from Peter, the monk of Hareby.”
This monk of Hareby would therefore seem to be a nominee of the
Abbot of Revesby.
And this connection is confirmed by another charter (No. 92, temp.
Henry III.), by which the Abbot and monks of Revesby lease certain
lands in Stickney to Bricius, son of Roger, clerk of Stickney, to which
deed the witnesses are Walter of Hareby, at that time Prior of
Revesby; Reginald the cellarer, John of Moorby, Alan of Horncastle,
&c., so that it would seem the former priest, or dean, of Hareby, was
promoted to the Priorate of Revesby.
By another charter (No. 129, temp. Ed. I.), Alan son of Richard atte
Grene (or, as we should now say, Richard Green) gives certain lands
in East Kirkby to the Abbey, the monks paying in return, “one
farthing a year” to Alan, son of William, son of Roger Palmer, of
Hareby, and his heirs, at the feast of St. Botolph, for all claims on
the land.
By another charter (150 B.), lands in Hareby, Bolingbroke, West
Keale, &c., formerly belonging to Revesby Abbey, are conveyed by
Henry VIII., on the dissolution of the monasteries, to Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.
Another name, once well-known in the neighbourhood, is found
connected with Hareby, in the 15th century. In a Chancery
Inquisition, 32 Henry VI., 1453, taken at Horncastle, the witnesses
on oath are Walter Tailbois, Esq., William Dalison, of Hareby, and
others. The Dalisons (doubtless originally d’Alencon), were a very
old Lincolnshire family, seated at Laughton, probably of Norman
extraction. In the 16th century Sir Francis Ayscoughe a member of
another very old county family [90a] married, as his 2nd wife,
Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Dighton, Esq., of Stourton, and widow
of Sir William Dalyson.
In 1635 Robert Bryan died, at Bolingbroke (March 7th) seized of
lands in Bolingbroke and Hareby, which he held of the Crown, a
captain Bryan being governor of the Castle in the time of the
Commonwealth, and a few years later, (1663), a grant of leases in
reversion of demesne land was made in favour of the widow of
Thomas Blagge, groom of the bedchamber [90b] (“Architect. S.
Journal,” 1865, p. 57).
We have mentioned this manor as formerly being the property of the
Plantagenets. Of this there exists a curious piece of evidence. One
Alan de Cuppledyke, [90c] was appointed by Edward II. governor of
Bolingbroke castle, and his steward’s accounts still exist. In one
passage he says that “the open woods of Hundleby, Kirkby and
Hareby Thorns cannot be agisted (modern Linc. ‘gisted,’ i.e., let to
be stocked with cattle), on account of the new coppice, planted by
the late Earl,” i.e., Thomas Plantagenet, the recent owner, the King’s
cousin, but who had forfeited his property, by stirring up a rebellion.
This probably may be said to be the only wood in England which can
be proved to have been planted by a Plantagenet (“Arch. S. Journ.”
1865, p. 43).
The Littleburies, whose chief residence in this neighbourhood was
Stainsby House, in the parish of Ashby Puerorum, formerly owned
land in Hareby. Humphrey Littlebury, of East Kirkby, in his will,
dated 1 Sep., 1568, among other property mentions land in Hareby.
[91]
Another old family connected with Hareby was that of the Skynners.
Henry Skynner of Bolingbroke, by his will of date 29 May, 1612,
leaves to his daughter Judith, all his copyholds in Harebie, and £100
when she is married, or 21 years of age; to his brother, Sir Vincent
Skynner, knight, and his heirs, he bequeaths certain lands in
Harebie, and other places, with the advowson of the parsonage of
Harebie, “all of which I lately purchased of him, on condition that he
pay to my executor the sum of £60, within six months of my
decease, which sum I have already paid for my said brother, unto
Margery Neale of Horncastle, deceased, or else this gift is utterly
void, and I give it to my daughters . . . I have made surrender of all
my customary messuages, lands, &c., in Bullenbroke and Harebie,
into his Majestie’s hands by Vincent, in the name of one Grave, in
the presence of Richard Smyth, gent., and others.” This testator was
the son of John Skynner, and brother of Sir Vincent Skinner, of
Thornton Curtis.
Mention has been made of Robert Bryan as owning land in Hareby,
in 1635. Members of the same family would seem to have had
property there nearly a century later, as John Bryan was patron of
the benefice in 1754, and united it to that of Bolingbroke. In 1555
King Philip and Queen Mary presented Gilbert Skroweston to Hareby;
but in 1779 the patronage of the united benefice had passed to
Matthew Wildbore, Esq. In 1834 the patron was Earl Brownlow; in
1836, C. Bosanquet, Esq.; and in 1863, Sir John W. Smith, Bart.;
after him the trustees of the late G. Bainbridge, Esq., held the
patronage, which now has passed to C. S. Dickinson, Esq. The
owners of the estate are now Messrs. Ramden and Taylor, and it is
managed for them by their relative, G. Mariner, Esq.
The church, dedicated to St. Peter and St. Paul, was rebuilt in 1857–
8, at a cost of about £450. It consists of nave and chancel, with
belfry, having one bell, the fabric being constructed of brick. Sir J.
W. Smith, the then patron, built the nave, and the chancel was built
by the then Rector, the Rev. E. Stanley Bosanquet. The east widow,
of coloured glass, with the crucifixion, was erected in memory of
William Bernard Wingate, a late owner, by members of his family.
There is another coloured window in the south wall of the chancel,
without inscription, but probably erected by the Wingate family; and
there is a marble tablet in the north wall of the nave, in memory of
the late owner of the estate, Frederick Tooth, Esq., of Sevenoaks,
Kent. The register dates from 1567.
Hareby Manor House is a handsome, substantial structure, standing
on a slope, looking towards Old Bolingbroke, and surrounded by
extensive gardens and good farm buildings.

Hatton.
Hatton lies about 7½ miles from Horncastle, to the north-west, and
about 4 miles south-east of Wragby; being about ½ a mile eastward
of the high road between those two places. Letters, via Wragby, the
nearest money order and telegraph office, arrive at 10 a.m. The
register dates from 1552. There are also entries relating to this
parish, from 1695 to 1799, in the Baumber register. The name
Hatton, as a parallel to Hatcliffe, Hatfield, Hatfield Chase, &c.,
doubtless means a “ton,” i.e., “town,” or protected enclosure, on an
open “heath”: pointing to a time when the neighbourhood was more
or less a wild tract; and when the neighbouring Wragby (from Vargr,
a wolf, or outlaw), was the haunt of wild beasts, or the no less
dangerous human robber.
The Church, dedicated to St. Stephen, described by Weir in his
“History of Lincolnshire” (vol. i. p. 296, Ed. 1828), as a small
building, possessing no claim to attention, and by Saunders (vol. ii.
p. 71, Ed. 1834) in nearly the same terms, was at that time in the
gift of the well-known, somewhat eccentric, but popular member for
Lincoln, Colonel Sibthorpe; the Rev. H. W. Sibthorpe being Rector. In
1863 it was in the gift of G. W. Sibthorpe, Esq., and in 1869 in that
of Coningsby C. Sibthorpe, Esq., being then held by the Rev. C. E.
Jarvis. The latter resigned in 1891, since which time it has been
held by the Rev. W. T. Beaty-Pownall, who has a good rectory house,
built in 1871, at a cost of £1,300 the late Mr. James Fowler being the
Architect. It does not appear to have been long in the patronage of
the Sibthorpe family, as in 1711 the patrons were Sir Richard Wynch,
Bart., and Rebecca Wynch, widow; while in 1750, and again 1780 Sir
Robert Lawley, Bart, presented. The trustees of W. H. Sibthorpe,
Esq., are first-named as patrons in 1824. In the calendar (No. 1), of
Institutions to Benefices, from 1540 to 1570 preserved in the
Alnwick Tower, Old Palace, Lincoln (“Architect. Soc. Journal,” 1897)
fol. 22b. 176, we find “William Mershall, clerk, pres. by W. Dighton of
the City of Lincoln, gent., to the church of Hattone, vac. by the
resignation of Sir William Smith; inst. Vicar, A.D. 1550.” [93] The
Dightons were originally a mercantile family, of Lincoln, who filled
the offices of Mayor and Sheriff, and amassed fortunes. One of
them, Robert, became owner of Old Stourton Magna Hall, the
moated remains of which can still be traced in a field about a mile to
the west beyond the Stourton Parva plantations. A daughter of
Thomas Dighton of that place, married Edward Clinton of Baumber,
who afterwards became Earl of Lincoln. In the parish Register of
Stourton Magna is the entry “Alice ye wife of Rob Diton was buried
ye 14 Jany. 1688,” and as there are no later entries of the name, this
Robert was probably the last to reside there. There were other
Dightons at Waddingworth and Horkstow. We find, however, earlier
notices of Dightons residing in Hatton. In 1544 by his will, dated 1
May, “John Dighton of Hatton” requests to be “buried in the
churchyard of St. Elwold in Hatton.” He leaves a bequest for his
brother, “Robert Dighton, parson of Haltham,” and the residue to his
wife, Agnes, his executrix; his two fathers-in-law, Thomas Dighton
and William Chatterton, being “supervisors.” He evidently died early
in life. As to the expression “the churchyard of St. Elwold,” there
seems to be no explanation forthcoming. Possibly there was a
chapelry in the parish, with separate burial grounds. In 1606 we
find another John Dighton, residing at Minting, who, by his will,
dated 28 Dec. of that year, leaves 40s. to the poor of Baumber,
Minting, and Hatton. Other names in connection with this parish are
as follows:—Among Lincoln Wills is one made by “Roger Holmes, of
Hatton, gent.” dated 15 May, 1611, in which he makes various
bequests of no particular interest. In 1613 John Wharfe of
Wickenby, by will dated 18 Sept., leaves to his sons lands in Hatton,
which he had on a mortgage, from his father-in-law Smythe. And in
1616, by will dated 12 November, “Heneage Smith of Hatton,” leaves
“lands in Hatton for a schoolmaster.” He says that he received
nothing from his son-in-law, J. Wharfe, for the mortgage, but that,
nevertheless, he leaves certain moneys for his (J. Wharfe’s) sons,
because they are his grandsons.
(N.B.—These notices are from “Lincolnshire Wills,” by Canon
Maddison.)
The Church of Hatton was re-built in 1871; entirely of brick, except
the stone facings. It consists of a nave, chancel, and small spire on
the south side of the chancel, containing one bell. Its chief features
are as follows:—the east window, of coloured glass, has three
separate trefoiled lights, in memory of Waldo Sibthorpe, Rector, who
died, 14 Nov. 1865, the subjects are, in the centre, the Crucifixion;
in the northern light, the Agony in the Garden; in the south light, the
Resurrection, “Noli me tangere.” In the north chancel wall are two
brass tablets, one recording that £100 was left by Mary Esther Waldo
Sibthorpe in trust to the Rector, for the poor of the parish; the other,
that £100 was given by Charles Edward Jarvis, in trust to the Rector,
for the benefit of the parish. In the north wall is one two-light Early
English window, and one single-light window in the same style. In
the south wall is one single-light window, the vestry door, and organ
chamber, over which stands the tower and spire. In the north wall
also is a credence table of stone, with trefoiled arch. The east end is
in the form of an apse. The chancel arch, and that of the organ
chamber, terminate in elaborately foliated finials. In the nave, the
pulpit is of Caen stone, a device in one panel being a cross within a
quatrefoil, surrounded by a circular moulding. In the nave north
wall, near the pulpit are a pair of two-light windows, with trefoils
above; and westward is a three-light window with quatrefoil above.
In the south wall of the nave is one two-light window, with two
trefoils, and a circle above; and one three-light window
corresponding to that in the north wall. The lectern is of oak. The
font is of Caen stone, with fluted bowl in eight partitions, and
supported by eight round columns. The sittings, for fifty, and the
roof throughout, are of pitch-pine.
The Rectory, close by, is a commodious and substantial residence in
good grounds. In a field to the south of the gardens are remains of
former stews, or fishponds, and two rather large boulders, [95] which
have evidently been ice-borne, and like many others in the
neighbourhood, are of carboniferous “Spilsby” sandstone of the
Neocomian period. The soil of the parish generally, is a heavy clay;
and in a brickyard adjoining the Horncastle and Wragby road, are
numerous ammonites and other fossils.
There is a yearly rent charge of £6 left by Heneage Smith, in 1616,
for the education of poor children, which is paid out of the estate of
Coningsby C. Sibthorpe, Esq.; 14s. 2d. was left by William Marshall,
in 1557, for poor parishioners, to be paid out of land at Minting, but
this has fallen into abeyance. Edmund Turnor, Esq., is lord of the
manor but C. C. Sibthorpe, Esq., owns the greater part of the soil.
“Midge Inn,” which has the reputation of formerly being the haunt of
the highwayman, who lightened the pocket of many a traveller on
the King’s highway, is on the Horncastle and Wragby road in this
parish, which is in the soke of Wragby.

Hemingby.
This parish lies 4 miles north by west from Horncastle, on the river
Bain. Letters, via Horncastle, which is the nearest money order
office, arrive at 9.30. The Incumbent is the Rev. E. S. Bengough,
who has a commodious Rectory. The register dates from 1579.
The Church is dedicated to St. Margaret. A previous structure,
erected in nondescript, “Grecian,” style, in 1771 (a period when so
many of the churches in the neighbourhood were re-modelled in the
worst taste), consisting of nave, chancel, and low tower, with three
bells, was re-seated in 1856, when additional accommodation was
provided. A west door, made of bog oak, from a large tree dug up,
when the railway line was made between Boston and Lincoln, was
presented by the Rev. E. Walter, Rector of Langton. The entire fabric
was restored in 1896, at a cost of £1450, and re-opened in January
of that year, through the liberality and exertions of the Rector, Rev.
E. S. Bengough, aided by handsome donations from Earl Manvers,
the family of the late Rector, Rev. G. Thackeray, and others. The
tower was entirely re-built and the chancel enlarged. A relic of a
former medieval church was found in the pavement of the nave,
consisting of a slab, carved with two quatrefoils, with shields in the
centre of each. This was placed in the wall of the chancel, above
the east window. The pulpit, of carved oak, was the gift of the
family of the Rev. G. Thackeray, the late Rector. The architect was
Mr. W. Scorer, of Lincoln. The bells, of the 18th century, bear the
names of the founders, Mears and Stainbanks, of London.
At the date of Domesday Book, the great Norman Baron, Ivo
Taylebois, owned land in this parish, as Earl Harold had done before
him. Baldric, one of the Earl’s vassals, had there one carucate, and
two villeins, and two bordars, and seven sokemen, who had two
carucates, and half a mill, worth 7s. yearly, and 30 acres of
meadow. There were three carucates, rateable to gelt. The manor,
held by Edric, had six oxgangs, also rateable to gelt. Its value,
temp. Edwd. the Confessor, was 60s., in Domesday 100s.
Among the gentry of Lincolnshire, enrolled in the List made by the
King’s Heralds, at their visitation in 1634, was Ambrose Shepard of
this parish (Everard Green, F.S.A., “Lincs. N. & Q.,” p. 105).
In Liber Regis, the living was valued at £17 8s. 6½d., now at £500;
423 acres being allotted at the enclosure in lieu of tithes and the old
glebe. In 1722 the benefice was in the gift of the Rev. Mr. Carr of
Newcastle-on-Tyne; after that the patronage was vested in King’s
College, Cambridge.
There is an endowed School, for master and mistress, founded by
Jane Dymoke, widow of the champion, in 1727, and endowed by her
in 1736, for teaching the children of the poor of the parish, “to read,
write, spin, and card wool.” Commodious schoolrooms for boys and
girls have been erected in late years. Lands in Woodhall yield an
income of about £110 a year. There is a rent charge of £5 on a farm
in Asterby, and £568 in consols. The whole yearly income is about
£130, besides residence and 20 acres of land for the master. Four
almswomen receive 2s. 3d. weekly, with an allowance of fuel. Four
apprentices are provided for with a premium of £10, and £3 a year
for clothing, during the 7 years of their service. The late Mrs. Baker,
in 1848, also left the interest of £500 to be distributed in coals
among the poor of the parish. The living is now in the gift of King’s
College, Cambridge; but by an Inquisition held at Boston, 12 Henry
VII. (A.D. 1497) it was found that Sir John Ratclyff, knight, besides
considerable other property in the county, was seised of the
advowson of Hemingby, and alternate advowson of Skyrbeck, but he
being attainted, in the 11th year of that King, his property passed to
Andrew Dymmock, as the Kings “Solidat” (soldier). (“Linc. N. & Q.,”
iv., p. 11.) In 1711 Leonard Smelt, Esq., presented to this benefice;
in 1722 the Rev. Mr. Carr, of Newcastle, gent.; and King’s College for
the first time in 1768.

Kirkby-on-Bain.
Kirkby-on-Bain is a village larger than most of those in the
immediate neighbourhood, situated on the river Bain, between 4 and
5 miles from Horncastle, in a southerly direction, about 4 miles
north-east of Tattershall, and rather less south-east of Woodhall Spa,
where are the nearest railway station, money order, and telegraph
office, there being a post office in the village.
It was a saying of one of our chief archæologists, that “anciently
every local name had its meaning”; and we may extract more than
conjectural history from the name, Kirkby-on-Bain. The first syllable
carries us back into a distant past, earlier than the date of most of
our written records. As a rule, when the word “Kirk” forms part of a
place-name, it implies, not only the former existence of a church in
the locality (the name in Domesday is “Chirchebi,”) but also of a still
earlier, and probably Druid, temple. The syllable “Kir,” or “Ker,” [98a]
with its plural Kerrog, Kerig, or Curig (hence “Church”) means a
sacred circle, which was the form of the ancient British, or Druid,
place of worship, such as are still to be seen, on a large scale, in the
megalithic remains of Stonehenge near Salisbury, and at Avebury
near Marlborough, in Wiltshire; and, on a smaller scale, in many a
lonely spot among the hills in Wales and Scotland, and on the
continent, as far Palestine. These remarks apply to many places in
our own neighbourhood, as Kirkstead, Kirkby Green, beyond the
once sacred stream of the Druids, the Witham, or Rhe, East Kirkby
beyond Revesby, &c. We have 5 Kirkbys, and 2 Kirtons (Kirk-ton), in
the county. Thus we get a British origin for this parish; while the
name of the river, on which it is situate, is also British; the word
“Ban,” meaning “bright,” or “clear,” is found not only in the river Bain,
but in several other streams. [98b]
The second syllable of the name Kirkby yields further information.
While the two contiguous parishes of Kirk-stead and Kirk-by have the
first syllable in common, in their suffix, they differ, since “stead,”
connected with our word “steady,” is Saxon, meaning a settled
domicile; and “by,” is an old Danish word, (still surviving in Scotland
as “byre”) meaning the same. [99a]
The Britons, therefore, have left their mark in the first half of both
these names, but from the second halves we gather that the Saxons
made their permanent residence in Kirkstead, whereas in Kirkby,
although they doubtless there also succeeded the Britons, they
were, in turn, supplanted by the Danes, who made this place their
“byre,” or “by,” with three “by-roads,” or village roads, branching
from it.
In this connection we may also note, that “Toft,” which is a farm
name in the parish, is also a Danish word, and this is another of
their “footprints on the sands of time”; while further we may
observe, that those roving invaders were called “Vikings,” because
they first frequented our “viks,” “wicks,” or creeks; and there are
geological indications, in the beds of sand and gravel, in this parish,
that the river Bain was, at one time, much wider and deeper than it
is in the present day [99b]; and so, we may well suppose, that, up this
“ancient river,” the river Bain, those Danish marauders steered their
way, from its mouth at “Dog-dyke,” originally Dock-dyke, because
there was a Dock, or Haven, for shipping there (as the present
Langrick was a long-creek of the sea, a few miles beyond; the sea
then coming up from Waynfleet); and made their settlement here,
from which they ousted the Saxons, whose presence is implied in
the name of the hamlet Tumby, originally Tunne-by, which is, in part,
a Saxon appellation.
Thus, by the analysis of a name we are brought down from those
far-off, dark ages to within the range of historic times. Kirkby is
stated to be in “the soke of Horncastle,” in a document of date
1327–8 (“Lincolnshire N & Q.” vol. v., No. 44., p. 248), but the local
historian, Mr. Weir (“Hist. Horncastle,” p. 310, Ed. 1828) says, that it
had a jurisdiction of its own, including Kirkstead, and even more
distant parishes, as Wispington, and Waddingworth. [100a]
The Domesday survey of this county, made in 1089, by order of
William the Conqueror, and so named by the Saxons, because it
recorded the doom of many a Saxon Thane, ejected from his
possessions by Norman warriors, contains several notices of this
parish; and although at first sight they appear somewhat conflicting,
yet a careful study of them enables us to put together something
like a connected account of some of its former proprietors.
First we may mention the Saxon owners, who were dispossessed of
their lands by the Normans.
One of these was Ulmar, who had 150 acres, charged with the land
tax, called “gelt,” which was about 2s. to the carucate (or 120
acres); besides which he had 1½ carucates (180 acres), sub-let to
smaller bond tenants, making in all 330 acres. He had also in the
adjoining parish of Tattershall Thorpe, 240 acres, “in demesne,” i.e.,
in his own occupation, as Lord of the Manor, besides 360 acres sub-
let to dependents. Ulmar was therefore what we should call, “well
to do,” a Saxon yeoman of substance.
There were also two other Saxon owners in the parish, who would
seem, to some extent, to have been partners. Godwin and
Gonewate had between them 60 acres in Kirkby, charged with the
aforesaid payment of “gelt,” and 75 acres exempt from it. They had
also 360 acres in Tattershall Thorpe; and separately, or together,
they had lands in several other parishes. Especially in Tumby, they
owned 300 acres rateable to “gelt,” and 360 acres more sub-let to
dependents.
Another part of this parish would seem to have been a separate
demesne, Fulsby, probably a contraction of Fugels-by, or the
homestead of Fugel. [100b] Here, at a later period, there was a large
residence, named “Fulsby Hall” of which possibly there may be still
some traces in ponds and mounds, in a field in the middle of what is
still called “Fulsby Wood.”
Toft Grange also would seem to have been another distinct property;
and was at a later date (as will be shown hereafter), owned or
occupied by a Dymoke. The term “Grange” would imply that it was
an appendage of some Religious House; and an old charter of
Richard I., now in the Library of Revesby Abbey, shows that that
Sovereign granted to the Monks of St. Lawrence at Revesby, the
Grange of Toft, [101a] with its appurtenances, a mill at Fulsby, with
lands in Tumby, Coningsby, &c.
The greater part of Tumby was, as it is still, woodland, and formed
“Tumby Forest,” or “Tumby Chase,” of which old maps still show the
trees. [101b]
In a Close Roll, 5 Ed. IV. (1466), there is a reference to the great
wood, called “Tumbi Wode,” or “Tumbi Chase” (“Ibiden,” p. 131).
We have, thus far, three Saxon proprietors in this parish, who were,
in their day, men of substance; but the incoming of the Norman was
the Saxon’s doom; and while Domesday Book says, with pregnant
brevity, that Ulmar, Godwin, and Gonewate “had,” i.e. formerly
owned, such and such lands, it names the Normans alone as present
proprietors.
In the case of Kirkby the accounts also of these Norman Lords might
seem, at first sight, somewhat conflicting. For instance, Domesday
Book gives Odo, Bishop of Baieux as owner of this parish, or a large
portion of it; but we turn over only a few pages, and find it referred
to as among the possessions of William de Karilepho, Bishop of
Durham. But “hereby hangs a tale.” Odo of Baieux was half brother
of William the Conqueror; being the son of Arlette, the concubine of
his father, Robert, Duke of Normandy, by a Norman Noble, Herluin
de Contaville. Odo’s brother was created Earl of Moretaine, his sister
was the Countess d’ Aumale (which in later times became
Albemarle), and he was given by the Duke, in 1049, the high
position of Bishop of Baieux, in the now department of Calvados, in
Lower Normandy. [102a] On coming to England in the train of the
Conqueror, he was created Earl of Kent, Count Palatine, and
“Justiciarius Angliœ,” and no less than 439 manors were bestowed
upon him, 76 of these being in Lincolnshire. He was thus among the
most powerful of the Normans in this country; he was styled “Vice-
Lord of the whole of England,” and was said to be “second only to
the King.” But his greatness was his ruin. Elated by his vast wealth,
he aspired to the Papacy, and collecting a great amount of treasure,
he was about to set sail for Rome, when William seized him and his
treasure, and sent him to prison in Normandy, confiscating his
estate. [102b] Thus Odo’s tenure of his lands in Kirkby and elsewhere,
was only brief; and there were other grasping Norman followers of
the Conqueror ready to step into his shoes. One of these was the
aforenamed William de Karilepho, Bishop of Durham; who had been
Abbot of St. Karilepho in Normandy, but, coming over to England,
was consecrated to that Palatine See in 1082. Thus Kirkby again
became the property of a scarcely less powerful prelate than Odo;
for the Bishops of Durham have ranked high in the episcopate down
to quite recent times; but in early days they were not only bishops,
but princely nobles, whose influence almost rivalled that of the
Sovereign; and this prelate again was Chief Justice of England. An
indirect evidence of the Bishop of Durham’s influence in Kirkby is
seen in the following circumstance. Both Ecton’s “Thesaurus,” and
“Liber Regis,” state that the benefice of Kirkby formerly paid a
“pension of 40s. to the Priory of St. Leonard at Stamford.” This
would appear to have come about in the following manner. Oswy,
the Saxon King of Northumbria, in the middle of the 7th century of
the Christian era, having conquered the pagan King of Mercia, of
which Lincolnshire formed a part, as a thank-offering to God, gave to
Wilfred, the friend and instructor of his son Alchfrid, certain lands in
Stamford, for the maintenance of 100 Monks. Accordingly Wilfred,
who afterwards became Bishop of York, founded the Priory of St.
Leonard at Stamford; and, having received his own education at the
Monastery of Lindisfarne, in Holy Island, he gave the Priory to that
Religious House. At the time of the Conquest, the Monks of
Lindisfarne, were attached to the See of Durham, and thus their
dependency at Stamford came under the cognizance of William de
Karilepho; and as Lord of the Manor of Kirkby, he charged this
benefice with this contribution to the Priory. Had the Monks of
Lindisfarne not been plundered by the Danes, and so driven to
Durham, Kirkby would not have had this payment to make; “40s”
was, in those days a considerable sum, the whole tithes of the
benefice being only £1 7s. 4¼d. The buildings of the Priory at
Stamford, were plundered by the Danish rovers, but were rebuilt by
William de Karilepho, partly doubtless with money from Kirkby, about
the year 1082. On the dissolution of the Monasteries, in the reign of
Henry VIII. that King, who was generally in need of cash,
appropriated the temporalities of the benefice of Kirkby, and so
became patron of the living, which is still in the gift of the Sovereign.
We now get another name of rank among the Normans connected
with Kirkby. Domesday Book says, “Ilbert has here 1 caracate (120
acres), with 10 villeins (the lowest class of bondmen), and 4 bordars
(the higher class of bondmen), who hold under him another
carucate; also the site of a mill (a valuable possession in those
times), 12 acres of meadow (probably rich grass land watered by the
Bain), and 160 acres of woodland interspersed with pasture,” where
the serfs would tend the lord’s herds of swine, which fattened on the
acorns in their season, and where he would harbour his deer, and
other animals of the chase.
In those times even a powerful noble did not disdain to be the vassal
of such a princely prelate as the great Bishop of Durham, at the
head of one of the three palatine counties in England; and such was
this Ilbert, or, as he was otherwise called, Hildebert de Lacy.
Coming to England with the Conqueror, he was granted by William
the manor of Pontefract, and 150 other lordships in Yorkshire, 10 in
Nottinghamshire, and 4 in Lincolnshire. In several other parishes,
[104a]
Kirkby being among them, he also held lands, not absolutely “in
demesne,” as his own, but under the absentee Bishop of Durham as
lord paramount, to whom he paid a small yearly rent, which was
exacted from his Saxon dependents. This Ilbert, or Hildebert, built
the castle of Pontefract, [104b] and was one of the most powerful
nobles in Yorkshire. Another of his family, also Ilbert, was a witness
to the Charter of King Stephen, which secured the ecclesiastical
liberties of England; and another, John de Lacy, became Earl of
Lincoln, by marrying Margaret, daughter of Hawise de Quincy, sister
of Ranulph, Earl of Lincoln and Chester (A.D. 1232). Their son, Henry
de Lacy, held the same honours in the reigns of Henry III. and Ed. I.
[104c]
A John de Lacy was among the signatories of the Magna
Charta, and we may add that it is not a little remarkable that, in this
20th century, the name of Ilbert is yet to the fore, Sir Courtenay
Peregrine Ilbert, K.C.S.I., C.I.E., &c., being now Clerk of the House
of Commons, and a distinguished lawyer and scholar.
By a curious coincidence, Pontefract was in Saxon times known by
the name of Kirkby, and this name continued even in later times; a
charter of Ilbert’s son, Robert, conveying lands to the Priory of St.
John at Pontefract, mentions them as being “de dominio de Kirkby,”
while another charter gives them as “de Pontefract” (Camden’s
“Britannia,” p. 729.) Thus Ilbert, Lord of Kirkby-on-Bain, held two
lordships in different counties, of the same name.
We have yet another landowner named as connected with this
parish, of scarcely less note than Ilbert de Lacy.
As we have observed in our “Records” of other parishes, Eudo, son
of Spirewic, and Pinso, were two Norman sworn brothers in arms,
who came over with the Conqueror, and did him such good service
that William granted them “the manor of Tattershall with the hamlet
of Thorpe and the towne of Kirkeby,” beside some 24 other
lordships; Eudo to have tenure directly from the King, and Pinso
under St. Cuthbert of Durham. They subsequently divided these
possessions between them, Pinso taking those further away, while
Eudo seated himself at Tattershall. On his death there, he was
succeeded by his son, Hugh Fitz Eudo, commonly called “Brito,” or
“The Breton,” who founded the neighbouring abbey of Kirkstead, A.D.
1139. He had in Kirkby 1 carucate (120 acres) of land “in demesne,”
with 8 acres of meadow and 80 acres of woodland interspersed with
pasture, very much as “Kirkby Moor” is still. He had also in Tumby
another carucate, in his own occupation, with villeins and bordars,
and two soc-men, i.e., free tenants, on 75 acres; also 20 acres of
meadow, one fishery and a half, two mills, and 370 acres of
woodland, forming the “Tumby chase.” He had also lands in
Waddingworth and Wispington, which were within the jurisdiction of
Kirkby; in the latter two parishes he halved the land with the Bishop
of Durham, who also (as we have seen) had a slice of Kirkby.
With these several important personages connected with this parish,
it naturally also acquired a more important position than the villages
around, justifying the term “town of Kirkby,” given to it in old records
(Dugdale’s “Baronage” vol. i., p. 439).
Of subsequent owners of Kirkby, and its appurtenances, Tumby,
Fulsby, and Toft, we are not able to give a connected series, but
there is evidence enough to enable us to form fairly safe
conjectures, concerning several of them.
The ownership of the de Lacys continued, with one brief
interruption, for some generations. Hildebert was succeeded by his
son Robert Henry, but he, as Camden relates (“Britannia,” p. 712),
taking part in the battle of Tinchebray, Sep. 28, 1106, against Henry
I., in favour of Robert, Duke of Normandy, on the victory of Henry,
was deprived of his possessions, which were given to another
Norman, Henry Travers (Dugdale’s “Baronage” vol. i. p. 99), and
afterwards to Wido de Laval, who held them till the reign of
Stephen; when that King restored to the said Henry his possessions
once more. His two sons Henry and Ilbert dying without issue, the
estates in 1193 passed to their half sister, on the mother’s side,
Albreda de Lisours. She married Richard Fitzeustache, Constable of
Chester; which family subsequently took the name of de Lacy, and
(as has been already stated) became Earls of Lincoln. The estates
continued in this line till 1310; when Henry de Lacy, having no male
issue, left his property to his daughter Alice, who married Thomas,
Earl of Lancaster. He joined a conspiracy against Edward II., and
being defeated in the battle of Boroughbridge, in the West Riding of
Yorkshire (March 16, 1322), was beheaded on a hill near his Castle
of Pontefract [106]; being, it is said, led out to the spot, by way of
disgrace, “on a lean horse,” by an official, named Gasgoyne; which
name also, somewhat curiously (as will be seen hereafter), is
connected with Kirkby. A change in ownership now appears; in the
family of Bec, or Beke. In the 13th century one of them Walter Bec
was Constable of Lincoln Castle, under Henry de Lacy, Earl of
Lincoln, A.D., 1275 (“Hundred Rolls,” vol. i. p. 312). But 80 years
before this, a Final Concord, of 27 Nov. 1197, gives the following
agreement, “on the 2nd day after the feast of St. Katharine”
between Walter, son of Walter Bec, plaintiff, and Richard, Abbot of
Kirkstead, as to a wood called Langhace, and other land “in the field
of Kirkebi which is upon Bayne,” within the Court of the said Abbot,
whereby Walter “quitclaims all his rights to the Abbot and Convent”
for which they give him 4 marks (£21 13s. 4d).
By another Concord, on the octave of St. Michael (Oct. 6, 1226),
between William Bec, plaintiff, and Henry, Abbot of Kirkstead, tenant
of certain lands, in Kirkby, the Abbot acknowledges the lands to be
“of the right of the said William, which his father also had, to have
and to hold (them) to him and his heirs for ever, of the Abbot, and
his successors, rendering to them 6d. by the year, for all service”;
and for this William quitclaims all his rights to the Abbot, and his
successors.
Another Concord (p. 220), shows that in 1227, Walter Bec had lands
in Kirkeby, Tattershale, and Thorpe, which he granted to Robert de
Tateshale; for which the latter was to “render £20 13s. 4d. yearly, at
Kirkby upon Bayne, and to do the service of one knight” (“Architect
S. Journal” xxiv. p. 34).
By another deed, in the same year, 1227, “three weeks from Easter
day” (May 1st), between Walter Bec, plaintiff, and Robert de
Tateshale, touching right of warren on the lands of the said Walter,
in Kirkby, Tateshale, and Thorpe, concerning which Walter
complained, that Robert unjustly, and without warrant, caused
warren in the said lands, which rightly are of the fee of the Bishop of
Durham, an agreement is made that Robert shall give an exchange
of lands: whereupon Walter grants to Robert “all his lands in Kirkeby,
Tateshale, and Thorpe, in demesnes, homages, rents, an services of
free men, within the said manor, rendering £21 13s. 4d., by the year,
at Kirkeby on Bayne, and the service of one knight’s fee”; and for
this Robert gives him 10 marks (£6 13s. 4d.) The head quarters of
the Becs were at Lusby; Henry Bec, of Lusby, being father of the
Walter Bec, already named as Constable of Lincoln Castle. They
were strong in church influence; Thomas Bec, son of the said Walter
Bec, being Bishop of Lincoln, 1342–1346; while another Thomas
Bec, a cousin, had been Bishop of St. David’s, 1280–1293; and
another cousin, Anthony Bec, was Bishop of Durham, and so
connected with Kirkby, as Lord Superior, 1283–1310.
In a Harleyan charter (45 H. 12) in the British Museum we find the
following, “To all sons of Holy Church, Walter Bec, son of Henry Bec,
greeting. Know that I have granted and quitclaimed to the monks of
Kirkstead, the manure of their 300 sheep of their fold of Kirkby. Also
I quitclaimed to the same the toll of my corn, which now they are
accustomed to grind, according to the tenor of their charter &c.”
Witnesses, Richard, Dean of Horncastr, Henry de Langton, Nicholas
Bec, Henry Bec, and others.
Another name now appears among owners of Kirkby. The
Willoughbys and the Becs inter-married, and by a Feet of Fines
(Lincoln file 68, 32; 30 Ed. I.) Robert de Wilgeby grants to John
Bec, for life only, certain lands in “Kirkeby next Bayne,” and 37 other
parishes, with mills, advowson of benefices, 9 fees of knights, &c.;
after his decease the said properties to revert to the said Robert and
his heirs, quit of the heirs of the said John.
By an inquisition ad quod damnum (17 Ed. II., 1323), it was shewn
that this manor was charged with a payment of £21 13s. 4d. to John
son and heir of this Robert de Wilgeby (Willoughby).
Some of the Lords of Kirkby and Tumby seem to have treated the
Abbots of Kirkstead with considerable liberality; for which, doubtless,
they would receive an equivalent in prayers, if not “indulgences,”
granted in their favour. In a cartulary of the Abbey (Vespasian, E.,
xviii.), now in the British Museum, is a charter running as follows:
—“I, Robert, son of Simon de Tumby, have granted to the Church of
St. Mary of Kirkstead half the fishery of Troholm, and 5 acres of land
in the field of Tumby, and common pasture through all the fields and
territory within the bounds of Tumby.” This was early in the 12th
century. The witnesses to this deed, it is to be noticed, are his
nephew Richard, and Gilbert, “clerk,” i.e., parson, “of Driebe”; hence
we should infer that the “de Tumby” and “de Driby” families were
one and the same; and this is proved to have been the case by a
Final Concord of 12 John (A.D. 1211), which mentions the above
grant of “5 acres in Tumby” to Simon de Driby and his heirs. [108]
The grant to the Abbots of Kirkstead was confirmed, some years
later, by Robert, son of Hugh de Tateshale, who “put his hand to the
altar” in testimony of the same (charter of same cartulary, quoted
“Architect. Journ.,” xxiii., p. 107).
By a Chancery Inquisition p.m., 8 Ed. III. (1335), and by a similar
document, 41 Ed. III., it is shown that John de Kirketon (Kirton) held
for life the manor of Tumby, with that of Tateshale. The Kirktons of
Kirton, near Boston, were probably kinsmen of the Dribys, as this
transfer was made by John de Driby, and the Driby armorial bearings
were formerly in the windows of Kirton Church, along with those of
the Earls of Lincoln (connected, as we have seen, with Kirkby) and
others (“Lincolnshire Churches,” by Stephen Lewin). This local
connection may, in aftertimes, have led to the marriage alliance of
the D’Eyncourts, who held the manor of Kirton, with the next family
whom we shall mention, the Cromwells. [109a] The above Robert, son
of Simon de Driby (or de Tumby), had to wife Joan, co-heiress of the
Barons of Tattershall; and somehow that connection seems to have
brought the Cromwells into possession of the manor of Kirkby. In an
Inquisition p.m., 22 Rich. II. (1399), Ralph de Cromwell is described
as owning the manor of Kirkby, with that of Tattershall, through his
wife Matilda, or Maud de Bernak, sister and sole heir of William de
Bernak, Lord of Tattershall. He had lands in 14 parishes in this
county, 1 in Derbyshire, and 6 in Notts. [109b] His grandson, Ralph,
married Margaret, sister and co-heir of the 5th and last Baron
D’Eyncourt. His granddaughter, Maud, married Sir Richard
Stanhope, of Rampton, knight. Their daughter, Maud, married Sir
Gervase Clifton, of Clifton, knight, “The gentle Sir Gervase,” who was
killed at the battle of Tewkesbury, May 4, 1471; and afterwards
married Sir Thomas Neville, and then the 6th Baron Willoughby d’
Eresby. Thus we have a number of important alliances of this family
of Kirkby proprietors (“Architect. S. Journal,” 1858, p. 228).
At the time when Gervase Holles, in 1630, made his peregrinations
round this county, he says that there were in the windows of the
rectory house, of Kirkby, the armorial bearings, in coloured glass, of
some 20 leading county families, including—Becs, Willoughbys,
Percys, Tyrwhitts, Tailbois, Dymokes, &c. These had probably been
originally in the windows of the church, and, on the decay of the
edifice, had been transferred to the house. Representations of these
are given in the Harleyan MS. (6829), now in the British Museum,
together with a description of monuments formerly in the church,
but now lost. These arms enable us to form an idea of the great
families who were connected with this parish. The association with
the place of the Tailbois is not quite clear; but Gilbert Tailbois was
summoned to Parliament, as Baron Tailbois, in the reign of Henry
VIII., when he showed that he was descended from Sir Edward
Dymoke, who married Anne Tailbois. This Gilbert was also
descended from Henry Tailbois, who married Eleanor Burdon,
daughter of Gilbert Burdon, by Elizabeth de Umfraville, sister and
heiress of the Earl of Angus (“Dugdale’s Baronage,” vol. i.); who
again was related to the de Kymes, kinsmen of the Dymokes; the
Kymes also being connected with the old and distinguished county
family of the Ayscoughs.
The connection of the Dymokes with Kirkby is seen in the following
bequest of “Arthur Dymmocke of Toft Grange, in the p’she of
Kyrkebye,” of date May 27, A.D., 1558. “I geve and bequeathe to the
Church of the said Kyrkebye one satteyn gown, to make a coope or
a vestment. I will that there shall be distributed among the poore
people at my buriall xiiili. xiis. viii. I give to the poore people of the
towneshipp of Kirkebye vili., to the poore of Tunbye xls.” There are
also bequests to “Marum, Willesby, Screuelby, Roughton,
Connyngesbye, Tattershall, Haltam,” &c. He adds, “I will that myne
executour shall geve to the marriages of poore maydens, at their
discretions, xxvjli. I geve to the repayring of fowle and noysome hie
wayes xxvjli. I geve to my brother Sir Edwarde Dymmocke, Knight,
tenne pound, and my best gelding, with the best jewell he will chuse
among all my jewells. I geve to my sister his wif one gold ring wt a
turkey (turquoise). I geve to Sir [111] Thomas Olive, p’sonne of
Kirkebye one gold ring enamelled.” These, and many more bequests
to poor people in the county of Middlesex, &c., &c., show that Arthur
Dymoke of Toft Grange, was a man of substance, as well as of
generous mind. (“Linc. N. & Q.” July 1897, vol. v., No. 39).
We now get another family resident in this parish, of some
importance. We have mentioned Fulsby Hall, of which nothing
certain now remains. This demesne would seem to have belonged
to the Nelthorpes of Scawby, N. Lincolnshire, but it was occupied by
a family named Cressy. The Cressy pedigree is given in a MS. book
of “Lincolnshire Gentry,” written by Thomas Beckwith, F.S.A., 1768,
and preserved in the Library of Revesby Abbey (“Linc. N. & Q.” vol.
ii., p. 166). As far back as A.D., 1216, we find a William de Cressy
named, along with Ralph de Haya (an old Norman family), as being
“sureties for the faithful service” of Simon de Driby, already named.
(Hardy’s “Rolls de oblatis et finibus,” p. 575.) Whether he was of the
same family we cannot say, but it is some hundreds of years before
the name occurs again.
Also a charter of Hamelin, Count de Warren, and his Countess
Isabella, about A.D., 1074, mentions a Roger de Cressy, with whom
they unite in granting a wood, and other properties, “to God and the
Church of St. Victor, and the Monks thereof,” in Normandy. The
same charter also names 3 houses given by Ranulph de Cressy, “for
the soul of his brother Hugh,” (“Archæological Journal,” No. 9,
1846.) Thomas Cressy, of Fulsby, is named among the Gentry of
Lincolnshire in the “Herald’s Visitation” of 1634, preserved in the
Library of the Herald’s College. Canon Maddison in a note to his
“Lincolnshire Wills” (p. 141) says that Nicholas Cressy married
Frances, daughter of Sir Henry Ayscough, Knight of Blyborough, and
left Blyborough for Kirkby-on-Bain, i.e., for Toft Grange. The
daughter, Faith, of this Nicholas Cressy, married George Tyrwhitt, a
cadet of the Kettleby family of Tyrwhitts; and we have already seen
that the Tyrwhitt arms were among those formerly in the Rectory
windows. Her sister Jane married Sir Edward Dymoke, Knight, of
Scrivelsby. Her eldest brother was named Brandon, from the
connection of the Ayscoughs, with Charles Brandon, Duke of
Suffolk. This Faith had a daughter named “Douglas”; the Tyrwhitts
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com