Researchers: 'Food miles' too simplistic - 'green' needs 'red'

Earlier we reported about small farmers in the South who are getting confused about what they see as trendy but problematic concepts such as 'food miles', 'environmental footprints', and certified fair trade products. Consumers in the North need to take on a broader perspective on the world's food system. Buying local food may be beneficial from a local perspective, but new research indicates this may actually be bad for the planet's environment as a whole.

Organic not best for environment
Criticism on some of these ideas is increasingly coming from scientists in the wealthy countries themselves. First of all, organic fruit and vegetables may be healthier for the dinner table, but not necessarily for the environment, a new University of Alberta study shows.

The study, conducted by a team of student researchers in the Department of Rural Economy at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, showed that the greenhouse gas emitted when the produce is transported from great distances mitigates the environmental benefits of growing the food organically. “"f you’re buying ‘green’, you should consider the distance the food travels. If it’s travelling further, then some of the benefits of organic crops are cancelled out by extra environmental costs," said researcher Vicki Burtt.

Burtt and her fellow researchers compared the cost of ‘food miles’ between organic and conventionally grown produce, and found that there was little difference in the cost to the environment. This was already established by other scientists (earlier post).

Food miles simplistic
But the concept of 'food miles' itself is highly simplistic and should not be used alone to point consumers to green products. Food miles are defined as the distance that food travels from the field to the grocery store.

Consumers need more in-depth information about the environmental impact of food to make eco-friendly choices, according to researchers Dr Fairchild (University of Wales Institute in Cardiff) and colleague Andrea Collins at Cardiff University, who have carried out a detailed analysis of the ecological costs associated with food production. In their study published in the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, they argue that the focus on "food miles" is missing the bigger picture and may be counter-productive.

Some food stores in Europe have announced that they will label products that have been transported by air. But according to the researchers, only around 2% of the environmental impact of food comes from transporting it from farm to shop. The vast majority of its ecological footprint comes from food processing, storage, packaging and growing conditions. Food grown locally could have a considerably bigger footprint than food flown halfway around the world, according to the scientists. Consumers who make their choices on air miles alone may be doing more environmental harm, they think.

Putting the red in the green
"I'm a bit worried about the food miles [debate] because it is educating the consumer in the wrong way. It is such an insignificant point," says Ruth Fairchild at the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff.

A better system, she argues, would be one that considers all environmental impacts from farm to dinner plate. One option is ecological footprint analysis, which takes into account the amount of land needed to provide the resources to produce food, both directly on the farm and indirectly from the energy that goes into growing, harvesting, processing, packaging and transporting it. A food's impact is measured in "global hectares", the notional land area needed to produce it. But she thinks that consumers are not yet ready for ecological footprint labelling and the science behind it is not yet watertight.

But even the concept of ecological footprints is incomplete. The global food-system is an integrated system that links farmers from the South to those in the North. On a 'flat', globalised planet, trade distances are no longer important (transport literally constitutes only around 2% of the environmental footprint of food). What matters - for the environment too - is social equity:
bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: greenhouse gas emissions :: agriculture :: food :: ecological footprint :: carbon balance :: trade :: social equity :: social sustainability ::

In case European and American consumers were to analyse the environmental impact of the food they buy, they should include the potential social effects of their refusal to buy food grown in the South. Consumer action based on first-order environmental criteria (such as the ecological footprint), may result in negative second-order social effects for the millions of small farmers in developing countries who export to wealthy markets.

These negative social impacts are in themselves an environmental issue, because the risk of farmers falling back into poverty because of 'green' consumer behavior in the West would have disastrous effects on the ecosystems of the South. There, poverty is by far the single biggest factor driving such problems as deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil depletion and pressures on wildlife. Export earnings - from food flown to Europe and the US - allow farmers in the South to invest in more environmentally friendly agriculture.

In short, the consumer in the wealthy West needs a far more complex, integrated and global perspective on the food system which must include social sustainability factors. It is imperative to ensure that small farmers in the South can maintain a reasonable level of prosperity, so that they are not forced to fall back to environmentally destructive farming practises such as low yield slash and burn agriculture.

Green needs to be accompanied by some 'red'. But the question is whether consumerist cultures are ready to deal with complexity.

More information:
Collins, A. and Fairchild, R. (forthcoming): "Sustainable food consumption at a sub-national level: an ecological footprint, nutritional and economic analysis", Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, see Dr Andrea Collins' webpage at the Center for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society.

Eurekalert: Organic Food Miles take toll on environment - June 6, 2007.

The Guardian: The eco-diet ... and it's not just about food miles - June 4, 2007.

Biopact: Message to Euro-Americans: eat local food, buy global biofuels - February 22, 2007