The crisis in food sustainability won't go away if we bury our heads in the sand. Options for change are there, and must be acted upon

Food and water were heavily discussed at the Davos World Economic Forum this year. No surprise to this column's readers! Business leaders - not just in food - are rapidly realising that the model of progress they, we, all of us, have been driven by is totally reliant on an environmental infrastructure which is fragile. We cannot continue squeezing the Earth as though its resources are unlimited. This is simple to say but devastating in its implications for the food system, not least for retailers.

One reason big business is beginning to engage is the impending water crisis. There was more discussion at Davos about water than even about food. Brains whirring. Which matters most: climate change, water or oil? The truth is - all of them. And they are linked, of course. Forget any illusions you have about independence. The food system is the ultimate dependency culture.

Lots of clever people in the food sector now realise that the shift to a more sustainable food system is not so far off. Policy choices are emerging.

Option one is to continue in the current direction, make minor adjustments and hedge bets about key factors later. This is risky. If capacities are low, we'll have to take drastic action when faced by the structural crises when they come, as most analyses suggest they will.

Option two is to develop a clear direction of travel for what a sustainable food system would look like. And then go for it. At three seminars in Whitehall and elsewhere last week, I got a sense for the first time that option two just may be gathering support. One sign is the special pleading - we'd do more with the right fiscal measures.

Option three is what the Chatham House food supply project briefing paper published last week has memorably called 'blip' theory. Don't worry; the current troubles are temporary; things will return to normal soon. No need to change much.

Blip theory is the riskiest. It may be plausible if only one fundamental factor was destabilising at present. Alas there are seven: water, oil, climate change, land shortage, labour, demographics, and rising incomes in the BRICs - Brazil, Russia, India, China. So don't hold your breathe for blip theory.

That's why political discourse is rapidly becoming a tussle between options one and two. To state that the outcome of this debate matters is an understatement.n

Tim Lang,

professor of food policy,

City University