The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
[...] Think globally, act locally? Buying direct means producers get a fair price, with no middlemen adding big margins along the distribution chain. Nor has local food been shipped in from the other side of the country or the other side of the world, so the smaller number of "food miles" makes local food greener, too. Local food thus appeals in different ways to environmentalists, national farm lobbies and anti-corporate activists, as well as consumers who want to know more about where their food comes from. Obviously it makes sense to choose a product that has been grown locally over an identical product shipped in from afar. But such direct comparisons are rare. And it turns out that the apparently straightforward approach of minimising the "food miles" associated with your weekly groceries does not, in fact, always result in the smallest possible environmental impact. The term "food mile" is itself misleading, as a report published by DEFRA, Britain's environment and farming ministry, pointed out last year. A mile travelled by a large truck full of groceries is not the same as a mile travelled by a sport-utility vehicle carrying a bag of salad. Instead, says Paul Watkiss, one of the authors of the DEFRA report, it is more helpful to think about food-vehicle miles (ie, the number of miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) and food-tonne miles (which take the tonnage being carried into account). The DEFRA report, which analysed the supply of food in Britain, contained several counterintuitive findings. It turns out to be better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain. And it transpires that half the food-vehicle miles associated with British food are travelled by cars driving to and from the shops. Each trip is short, but there are millions of them every day. Another surprising finding was that a shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system, with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles. Research carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand found that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in that country and shipping them to Britain used less energy overall than producing them in Britain. (Farming and processing in New Zealand is much less energy intensive.) And even if flying food in from the developing world produces more emissions, that needs to be weighed against the boost to trade and development. [...]
Buying direct means producers get a fair price, with no middlemen adding big margins along the distribution chain. Nor has local food been shipped in from the other side of the country or the other side of the world, so the smaller number of "food miles" makes local food greener, too. Local food thus appeals in different ways to environmentalists, national farm lobbies and anti-corporate activists, as well as consumers who want to know more about where their food comes from.
Obviously it makes sense to choose a product that has been grown locally over an identical product shipped in from afar. But such direct comparisons are rare. And it turns out that the apparently straightforward approach of minimising the "food miles" associated with your weekly groceries does not, in fact, always result in the smallest possible environmental impact.
The term "food mile" is itself misleading, as a report published by DEFRA, Britain's environment and farming ministry, pointed out last year. A mile travelled by a large truck full of groceries is not the same as a mile travelled by a sport-utility vehicle carrying a bag of salad. Instead, says Paul Watkiss, one of the authors of the DEFRA report, it is more helpful to think about food-vehicle miles (ie, the number of miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) and food-tonne miles (which take the tonnage being carried into account).
The DEFRA report, which analysed the supply of food in Britain, contained several counterintuitive findings. It turns out to be better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain. And it transpires that half the food-vehicle miles associated with British food are travelled by cars driving to and from the shops. Each trip is short, but there are millions of them every day. Another surprising finding was that a shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system, with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles.
Research carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand found that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in that country and shipping them to Britain used less energy overall than producing them in Britain. (Farming and processing in New Zealand is much less energy intensive.) And even if flying food in from the developing world produces more emissions, that needs to be weighed against the boost to trade and development. [...]
It turns out to be better for the environment to truck in tomatoes from Spain during the winter, for example, than to grow them in heated greenhouses in Britain.
Any winter tomatoes are grown in greenhouses, even in Spain. OK, not heated as British greenhouses would be. But is this a real choice? Are there British greenhouse tomatoes on the market in any great quantity? What's better for the environment, anyway, is not only to consume local spacewise, but also timewise, in other words eat fruit and veg in season. Winter greenhouse tomatoes are rubbish. Why buy them? (Unless occasionally if you must).
it transpires that half the food-vehicle miles associated with British food are travelled by cars driving to and from the shops. Each trip is short, but there are millions of them every day.
Why, sure. So let's truck and fly food in, and people will stop driving to and from the supermarkets?
The whole point made about cars (an SUV with one salad aboard, or people driving around buying stuff from farms, etc) ignores of course that people who choose to buy local tend to be aware of these problems. One trip to farmers' market is better than several to local producers.
Research carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand found that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in that country and shipping them to Britain used less energy overall than producing them in Britain.
It would, wouldn't it? I have my doubts.
even if flying food in from the developing world produces more emissions, that needs to be weighed against the boost to trade and development.
Righty-ho. This is where we know we're reading The Economist.
As for food transportation, it looks to me that orgnized home delivery tours (may be internet purchases) have the potential to be more transporation efficient than everyone round-trip'ing to the supermarket (unless it is on work-home path).
If you go to google Defra and "food mile" you'll find a recent report showing that "food miles" are an inadequate indicator.
It's obvious that food miles is not the right unit since you need to take transporation mode and production inputs into account.
NZ study of the topic (PDF), seems to conclude that for some products it's vastly more energy-efficient to ship them to UK from NZ than to produce them in the UK.
Bliss!!
Now, I like this report, but would there be any interest here to do an audit of these findings? Are there elements missing, can we extend the given framework for other products?
Conscious man, conscious!
In the kiwi-case, I was thinking of an alternative kiwi produced somewhere closer to the Netherlands than NZ (which is probably Everywhere Else). That would make the description perhaps: less un-sustainable.
it's about having a sense of proportion, isn't it? 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Too bad that they didn't take kiwis as example...
But I like the set-up, very bookkeepish. It looks superior to considering just foodmiles as metric.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 14 41 comments
by gmoke - Jan 22
by Oui - Jan 10 58 comments
by Oui - Jan 21 6 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jan 15 20 comments
by Oui - Jan 20 31 comments
by Oui - Jan 20 4 comments
by Oui - Jan 16 8 comments
by Oui - Jan 216 comments
by Oui - Jan 2031 comments
by Oui - Jan 204 comments
by Oui - Jan 172 comments
by Oui - Jan 168 comments
by gmoke - Jan 16
by IdiotSavant - Jan 1520 comments
by Oui - Jan 1432 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1441 comments
by Oui - Jan 1389 comments
by Oui - Jan 1177 comments
by Oui - Jan 1058 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 877 comments
by Oui - Jan 772 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 710 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 668 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 611 comments
by Oui - Jan 659 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 230 comments