While this is hardly the last word on local vs from anywhere else food
purchases, it offers much to think about as we consider our food choices.
Tony Del Plato
Ithaca NY

Focus on 'food miles' is too narrow, say researchers
'Only 2%' of impact due to transport from farm to shop

The Guardian
June 4, 2007

Consumers need more information about the environmental impact of the
food in their shopping basket if they are to make eco-friendly choices,
according to researchers who have carried out a detailed analysis of the
ecological costs associated with food.

They argue that the focus on "food miles" is missing the bigger picture
and may be counter-productive.

Food stores such as Tesco and Marks & Spencer have said that they will
label products that have been transported by air. But according to the
researchers, only around 2 percent 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.

So food grown locally could have a considerably bigger footprint than
food flown halfway around the world, and consumers who make their
choices on air miles alone may be doing more environmental harm,
according to the scientists.

"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," said
Ruth Fairchild at the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff. "Those
[foods] could have been produced using pesticides that have traveled all
the way around the world. If you just take food miles, it is the tiny
bit on the end."

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 labeling and the science behind it is not yet
watertight.

To help confused consumers, Dr Fairchild and colleague Andrea Collins at
Cardiff University have used the ecological footprint concept to develop
a set of eco-diets designed to minimize the impact of food consumption
on the planet.

Sticking to the diets does not mean eating lentils all day, but the most
eco-friendly diet excludes wine, spirits, chocolate, ice cream and most
meat. The study is published in the journal Sustainable Food
Consumption.

The diets are based on an analysis of the ecological footprint
associated with the food consumed by the average Cardiff resident in a
week.

The three diets are progressively more austere in their ecological
footprint, with the most ascetic allowing only foods with a footprint of
less than 0.002 global hectares per kilogram. This meant replacing
around one in six food items with less eco-profligate fare, which had a
similar nutritional makeup. This diet has a 40 percent lower ecological
footprint than the typical Cardiff diet.

Most meat is pushed out of the super-eco-diet because feeding livestock
is energy intensive. Cheese is also out because of the large amounts of
energy that go into processing it and refrigerating it in storage.

The footprint for wine is just too high, while sprits and chocolate have
a per kilogram footprint which is around double the cut-off point.
Bread, vegetables, cakes, biscuits, eggs, pork, ham, bacon and milk are
all acceptable.



<blocked::http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/foodfears_06
-01.html>



"Eaters must understand that eating takes place inescapably in the
world, that it is inescapably an agricultural act, and that how we eat
determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used."  Wendell
Berry
_______________________________________________
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org

Reply via email to