Isn't the best way of reducing the environmental impact of agriculture to industrialise food production more, not less?

Inefficient, local (organic) agriculture must be more energy intensive simply due to the lower yields and increased number of food journeys.

The paragon of 'ethical' living who only eats organic locally produced food, who goes to the farmers market to pick out a some choice organic produce before going to the baker and the greengrocer will have a far greater environmental impact than the person who goes to the biggest supermarket they can find and stocks up for two weeks on non-organic mass-produced food which is shipped from accross the world. Although the former will doubtless eat better.

If the environmental impact is key then the number of 'miles' travelled by your cut of lamb is entirely irrelevant - what's important is the emmissions per kilo. A huge container ship has so much produce on board that its emmissions per kilo of food or per calorie are miniscule (especially when compared with the farmers van taking a small amount of produce to the market to be bought by shoppers who mainly drive to the market).

Air-freighted vegetables and fruit are heavy on carbon use but I think its a small price to pay for much needed employment in Africa/ Latin America.

Even better if you can order the food online and have it delivered to your house by a big van (the bigger the better, providing deliveries are efficiently organised).

Ethical consumption seems to fail everywhere due to its unintended consequences: Organic production reduces yields and increases prices (even for non-organic produce). Fair trade distorts price signals and allows a few priviledged producers to benefit while the majority loose out (due to lower prices). Localism increases carbon emmissions.

Maybe we should ask our Governments to lead on these issues with an international carbon tax.