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
Article continues
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
Article continues
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Scientists patent synthetic life - promise for 'endless' biofuels
Dr Craig Venter himself is not named in the patent, but he is the brain behind the synthetic form of life. The man who led the private sector effort to sequence the human genome, has been working in the field of synthetic biology for years to create a man-made organism. The J. Craig Venter Institute's U.S. patent application now claims exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic "free-living organism that can grow and replicate" made using those genes.
Interestingly, defending the patent application, Dr Venter immediately pointed out these artificial life forms could be designed to make 'endless' biofuels and absorb carbon dioxide to mitigate climate change. The effort could result in "designer microbes" that produce biofuels by converting biomass in a highly efficient way into ethanol, biogas and biohydrogen. They could also be engineered to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
'Microbesoft'
The publication of the patent application has angered some environmentalists. The Canada-based ETC group, which monitors developments in biotechnology, called on patent offices to reject applications on synthetic life forms. Its press release sounds alarmist, using terms like "Microbesoft," evoking Dolly the cloned sheep and naming the organism Synthia.
Jim Thomas, of ETC Group: "These monopoly claims signal the start of a high-stakes commercial race to synthesise and privatise synthetic life forms."
The J. Craig Venter Institute's has filed an international application at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which names more than 100 countries where the institute may seek monopoly patents.
Second life, Synthetic life
Dr Venter's team intends to construct an organism with a "minimal genome" that can then be inserted into the shell of a bacterium. By removing genes, one by one, from a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium they identified the minimum number of genes required for this particular organism to replicate, or reproduce, in its controlled environment.
They have been able to remove 101 of its 482 genes without killing the bacterium, meaning that 381 were required for replication. But generating a man-made living organism from the bottom up requires much more than just its minimal genome. For example, in order to get the genes to do something, there have to be chemicals to translate the genes into messenger RNA and proteins:
bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: biogas :: biohydrogen :: ethanol :: artificial life :: genetics :: genome :: bacteria :: synthetic biology ::
Scientists around the world have been wrestling with the task of generating a so-called free-living synthetic organism for years.
In order to push the effort forward, Dr Craig Venter founded Synthetic Genomics, Inc., a company developing the new scientific processes to enable industry to design and test desired genetic modifications. The synthetically produced organisms with reduced or reoriented metabolic needs under development will enable new, powerful, and more direct methods of bio-engineered industrial production - so Venter thinks.
But designing an entirely new synthetic organism aimed at performing specific tasks is something else. When asked whether the world's first synthetic bug was thriving in a test tube, Dr Venter said: "We are getting close."
Earlier this year, scientists from Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the University of Georgia announced they had successfully used techniques from synthetic biology to create a combination of 13 enzymes never found together in nature and that can completely convert polysaccharides (C6H10O5) and water into biohydrogen when and where that form of energy is needed (earlier post).
Image: M. genitalium, one of the bacteria used in Venter's "minimal genome" project.
More information:
United States Patent Application: 20070122826, Glass; John I. et al., "Minimal bacterial genome", May 31, 2007.
For an interesting view on 'minimal genomes', see the Genome News Network: Another Minimal Genome: Microbe Needs Just 271 Genes - April 18, 2003.
Wired: Scientists Apply for First Patent on Synthetic Life Form, June 7, 2007.
BBC: Patent sought on 'synthetic life' - June 8, 2007.
ETC Group: Patenting Pandora's Bug - Goodbye, Dolly...Hello, Synthia! J. Craig Venter Institute Seeks Monopoly Patents on the World's First-Ever Human-Made Life Form - June 7, 2007.
The Age: Designer bug holds key to endless fuel - June 10, 2007.
Biopact: Boost to biohydrogen: high yield production from starch by synthetic enzymes - May 23, 2007
Article continues
posted by Biopact team at 6:32 PM 0 comments links to this post