With all due respect for the Professors that wrote this piece, it is rare to see such a mish-mash of semi-random data (IMHO very badly) assembled together, from

With all due respect for the Professors that wrote this piece, it is rare to see such a mish-mash of semi-random data (IMHO very badly) assembled together, from the beginning: So the percentage of total household expenditure used for food has decreased, actually halved in the last 60 years, fine. Sixty years ago, that is the '50's, the UK (like a number of other Eu countries) were just after World War II and in the linked article, there is already an explanation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42735294 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42735294 >People's resources were more meagre and essentials such as food and clothing took a bigger share of the budget. and: >A typical household had a third less to spend per week: £381 in today's money, compared with £554 at the moment. 8% of £554 is 44.32 and 44.32 is almost 12% of 381, so that already justifies a lot of the decrease, but something is way off. The present article affirms that: >Britons spend an average of 8% of their total household expenditure on food to eat at home. The linked to article affirms that: >What we are allocating to food has more than halved. It was a third of spending, at 33%, and now only 16%. So it is either 8% or 16% and it was in 1957 either 16% or 33%. to the end: > In January 2017, cold weather in Italy and heavy rainfall in Spain caused a "perfect storm" for courgette importers, pushing up prices at a time of year when Western consumers demand healthier food. And how this exceptional weather in 2017 will possibly affect 2018/2019 prices is left to the imagination of the reader.