FARMING was at a crossroads , a tenant farmer from Cornwall told a conference on the future of food.

Michael Hart produces beef and lamb, but he also chairs the Small and Family Farms Alliance and, in that role, has wide knowledge of the global situation.

He spoke at the event organised by the Royal Society of Arts and the National Council of Women in Darlington.

He said the first path involved having fewer and fewer farmers farming ever-bigger farms, being efficient by using technology such as genetic modification. It would involve producing large quantities of raw materials with a small profit margin per unit, whether that was a lamb, a cabbage or a pint of milk.

"If you produce enough, you will generate some profit and, of course, earn extra income by diversifying. And don't expect to be subsidised by the taxpayer in the long term," said Mr Hart.

"This is the path of large mono-culture agriculture, treating food production as an industrial process. This path, we are told, will provide us with low cost, world market price food for consumers; fit in with free trade and the WTO, and produce enough food to feed an increasing world population.

"I have heard this plan put forward in the USA, in the EU, Poland and even India, along with many other countries, and I have read it in the farming policies of a dozen more."

The second path was that of the environmentalists, the animal welfare lobby and, to a large extent, was the one consumers would like to see farming follow.

"The word sustainable is used a lot, although I have to say without most of the time defining exactly what they mean."

It was the way of high standards of environmental care, with less or no pesticide and fertiliser; of high animal welfare, with no intensive livestock farming and with organic farming seen as the ideal, along with local food and farmers' markets.

It was accompanied by side issues such as the demise of the supermarket and the return of the town centre; the end of agricultural subsidies and free access to EU markets for farmers from developing countries; better food in schools and hospitals and health issues such as less fat and salt and more fruit and vegetables in our diets.

The first route was a one-size fits all policy for world agriculture, which would lead to a migration of production to wherever production costs were lowest for that type of food.

It would cause environmental problems and increased danger of crop failures, owing to concentration in specific areas.

The same applied to animal health, with ever larger numbers on one site. "Just look at the level of antibiotic use in USA beef production with their large beef fattening lots with thousands of cattle in a small area," Mr Hart pointed out.

It would lead to gluts and shortages of food across the world as farmers moved in and out of production according to profit margins.

"And just how big do you have to get in order to make it work?" he asked. "The UK's largest farmer, Farmcare, has given up pig and milk production as unprofitable and has made big losses, despite getting a large subsidy cheque - and it farms 84,500 acres."

The second path was better, but not without its problems. Higher standards would mean higher production costs, which would have be reflected in a higher farmgate price and farmers would need protection from cheap imported food.

"But are consumers willing to pay that extra and is the Government willing to stop imports produced to lower standards? I suspect the answer to both is 'no' based on past experience!"

The local food infrastructure had largely disappeared; there were very few small local abattoirs left, hardly any independent butchers and greengrocers, and he questioned the level of demand for organic food.

It was, therefore, unlikely that more than a small percentage of farmers would follow that path.

He asked what farmers themselves thought the future would bring believed 20-25pc were becoming bigger and aiming to compete on world markets, with 5-10pc following the local food route.

The rest were either unable to expand or did not want to; or could not or did not want to follow the food route. "This group is sitting there not knowing which way to go and, to a large extent, hoping something will happen to enable them to survive.

"We have got to rethink our policy on food and farming. Just reforming the CAP won't solve the problems. It is accepted the CAP is a mess and, according to many, has failed."

Mr Hart believed a completely new policy should be written, starting with the expectations of consumers and how they wanted their food produced. Farms would have to adapt to fulfil those needs.

"Looking back, the family farm has not done such a bad job in meeting our expectations," he said. "It has responded to the demands that agricultural policy has asked of them and can do so again but, under the current mess, family farms are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate, so we need to act soon.

"We are at a point when there are options for us to take on a long-term sustainable food and farming future, if we are willing to do so."