food miles essay

FOOD MILES TRADE-OFFS

By Margarita Alcoz Cases

Global Project- Professional Diploma in Global Trade and e-Business

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 5

CLIMATE CHANGE.............................................................................................. 6

FOOD MILES ........................................................................................................ 9

Food miles definition ...................................................................................... 9

Measurement of Food miles ......................................................................... 9

1. Modes of transport ........................................................................... 11

2. Transport efficiency .......................................................................... 13

3. Food production systems ................................................................. 14

Other impacts of food miles ....................................................................... 14

Methodology ................................................................................................ 15

Case Study: Tesco UK .................................................................................. 16

LOCAL FARMING IN THE UK ............................................................................ 18

AFRICAN EXPORTS TO THE UK ......................................................................... 21

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 23

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 25

3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this project is to analyse the different aspects that are being

discussed in the UK on the food miles debate. Food miles is a concept

that arises due to the alarming climate change and which is putting

pressure on the food industry. Food miles are the distance that food

travels from farm to plate. Its target is to identify the carbon footprint that

each unit carries to measure the impact on the environment. However,

the implications that food miles have go beyond the environment, as they

have important social an economic impacts.

A quality approach has been used to gather secondary data from online

articles and reports commissioned by state bodies and trade/professional

bodies. Many opinions and approaches have been written both boosting

the use of food miles and criticizing it. Through the collection of this data,

the projects aims to set some recommendations that may support ethical

shoppers that face a dilemma between being green and being fair.

Climate change has grabbed media attention in the past few months

and as it is already an alarming reality. Industrialised countries committed

in the Kyoto Protocol of 1992 to tackle the global warming by reducing

the dioxide of carbon (CO2) which are greatly harmful to the

environmental. However, this has been ignored and instead the emissions

will increase significantly.

The concept food miles come from the increasing concern on climate

change. However, it has been subject to self interested parties which their

only objective is to protect local farming and increase trade barriers to

countries exporting to the UK. These barriers reverse all principles of a

global economy that seeks comparative advantage to boost

international trade and competitiveness.

The case study of the new “eco-friendly” measures announced by Tesco

has been used as a case study in this project to show the scope of the

debate in the UK and its implications in the global economy. Tesco, the

4


main food retailer in the UK with 31% market share, targets to reduce the

import of airfreighted food and new carbon footprint labels will be placed

on over 70,000 lines.

The consumer awareness of the effects that food transport has on the

environment makes local shopping greener and may contribute in the

switch of buying habits. This fact may have devastating consequences for

those developing countries where are highly dependant on the exports to

the UK. Most of the fruit and vegetables available in the UK come from

sub-Saharan African countries. From this market alone, an estimated £200

million is injected into rural economies. Having said this, a cut down on

imports will reduce the total emissions in the UK only by 0.1%, but will effect

over a million African livelihoods removing their main source of income

and devastating many local communities.

A set of recommendations have been included at the end of the project,

in order to reduce the impact of food to the environment:

1. Review of the distribution strategies.

2. Promotion of rail transport.

3. Promote local food shopping.

4. Reduction of trade barriers.

5. Research of food production techniques.

6. Use of life-cycle assessment across all type of commodities.

7. Labeling of commodities with excess of energy consumption due

to any stage in the supply chain.

After analyzing the different perspective on the debate, the current

concept of food miles should be replace by a broader one that measures

the impact of food on the environment taking into account many other

factors and processes in the whole foodstuff lifetime, including food

transport. This way, a more accurate assessment will be gathered and

may not lead into a conflict between being green and being fair.

5


INTRODUCTION

Food miles in the concept used to identify the carbon footprint that food

has after travelling long distances from the farm until it reaches the

consumer plate. Most of the fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) available in

the UK are coming from further a field, providing additional carbon

dioxide emissions that contribute to the climate change.

However, the debate on food miles goes beyond the environmental

impact. This paper will give an overview of the economic and social

implications that food miles have in the international trade and how the

term has been subject to self interested parties involved in food

production and distribution industry. Even tough research has found that

producing certain FFV locally in heated greenhouse or organically may

have a bigger impact on the environment than producing them overseas

and shipping them to the UK, food miles have been used to promote local

food. Imports of FFV are seen as a threat to local farming and carbon

friendly measurements have been put in place to increase barriers in the

global economy. The attempt of reducing imports may also have

devastating consequences, especially for those developing countries,

where most of the production is exported to the UK. These exports support

domestic economies and may be one few means they have to

overcome poverty.

The paper will begin by introducing the scope of climate change, the

concept of food miles and the controversy surrounding its measurement.

It will also analyse other negative impacts in addition to the direct ones.

Finally it will seek to put all the explored points together and set some

recommendations for those ethical consumers that might face a dilemma

between being green and being fair.

6


CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change1 is already an alarming reality and a threat that is racing

up the global political agendas.

Many factors contribute to the climate change, but transport is one of the

causes with a greater impact since it is the fastest growing sector in OECD

countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).

Transport consumes 31% of energy in the EU and it is responsible of 14% of

global greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to road and air transport

[Hm Treasury, 07].

In the Kyoto Protocol of 1992 (commitment made by the industrial

countries to address the climate change issue by reducing their level of

pollution), the industrial countries agreed in reducing the dioxide of

carbon (CO2) emissions by 5.2% and six greenhouse gases by 8% of the

1990 level by 2008-2012 [European Commission, 07a]. However, this has

been completely ignored. Instead, Europe will increase these emissions by

40% compared to the levels of 1990, mainly because of road traffic.

Moreover, according to a report launched by Tyndall Centre from

Climate Change Research, “the UK has reached a “tipping point” and

needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent below 1990

levels by 2050 to make sure that world temperatures do not rise 2 degrees

centigrade above pre-industrial levels” [Tyndall Centre for Climate

Change, 06a] [Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. 06b].

The main impact that food transport has on the environment is the

following:

• Emissions of greenhouse gases (including water vapor, carbon

dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone) contributing to climate

change of the planet with global and long term consequences.

1 Climate change is the variation of the atmosphere state due to processes internal to the Earth, external

causes and human activities.

7


• Emissions of compounds that weaken the ozone layer and therefore

the protection of the Earth against ultraviolet radiations.

• Emission of CO2 that contributes to the air pollution.

• Noise pollution.

• Other externalities such as water contamination due to ship’s spills.

Other stages in the food chain also have a great impact on the

environment. The contribution of these factors to climate change has

increased dramatically over the past few years due to changes on the

food consumption patterns. Some of the factors that have most

influenced these new patterns are:

• Globalisation of the industry that now imports fresh fruits and

vegetables from further a field to offer and extended range of food

at any time of the year.

• Sales have moved from frequent shopping on foot in small shops to

weekly shopping by car in massive supermarkets placed on the

suburbs of towns and cities.

• Increased use of HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicles) trucks in the food

distribution strategies that operate from regional distribution

centres. As shown in Figure 1, there is an increasing trend in the

HGV use, contributing to the emission of greenhouse gases. Since

1978 the annual amount of food transported by HGVs in the UK has

grown by 23% and the average distance by 50% [AEA Technology,

05].

8


Figure 1: Trends in food trade and HGV food transport in the UK, 1991-2002 [AEA

Technology, 05]

However, even though many other stages in the supply chain contribute

significantly to climate change, such as production of pesticides, fertilizer

packaging and machinery which is especially harmful to the environment

[Edwards-Jones, 06], the debate in the UK is only focused on the impact

that transport has.

9


FOOD MILES

Food miles definition

The terms food miles as the distance (miles) that food stuffs have travelled

from the farms to the consumer’s plate was first coined by SAFE Alliance

almost ten years ago when the first concerns about the impact of food

transport were arising [AEA Technology, 05]. However, it has only been

recently when the term has grabbed the media attention.

The aim of food miles is to identify the carbon footprint that each product

has to make the consumer aware of his/her social responsibilities when

shopping food. Even though only one third of the British consumers are

aware of the meaning of food miles [James MacGregor et al, 06], the

concept is becoming very popular and it is already changing their buying

habits.

According to the report commissioned by DEFRA (Department for

Environment food and Rural Affairs), food miles are subject to 1.8% of the

total carbon dioxide emissions per annum in the UK [AEA Technology, 05]

Measurement of Food miles

Food miles are normally measured based on the distance travelled (miles

or Km) multiplied by the unit weight (tonnes). However, in order to know

the environmental impact of each unit, the measurement has to be

converted into vehicle kilometre which is the result of the “sum of the

distances travelled by each vehicle carrying food” [AEA Technology, 05].

Based on this measurement, the true cost of foodstuff imported to the UK

is shown on the Table 1.

PRODUCT TYPICAL

EXPORTER

FOOD MILES

TO UK

CO2

By sea By air

Apples US 3,700 0.06 kg/pack of

four

1.68 kg/pack of

four

10


Beef Argentina 6,900 0.22 kg/kg 6.33 kg/kg

Pineapple Ghana 3,100 0.22

kg/pineapple

6.26

kg/pineapple

Tomatoes Saudi Arabia 3,100 0.04 kg/pack of

six

1.2 kg/pack of

six

Spring onions Thailand 5,900 0.04 kg/pack 1.28 kg/pack

Potatoes Israel 2,200 0.07 kg/kg 2.0 kg/kg

Asparagus Peru 6,300 0.05 kg/pack 1.44 kg/pack

Broccoli Spain 780 0.01 kg/broccoli 0.22kg/broccoli

King prawns Indonesia 7,300 0.03kg/pack 0.84 kg/pack

Bananas India 5,106 0.16 kg/kg 4.67 kg/kg

Sugarsnap

peas Guatemala 5,450 0.04 kg/pack 1.0 kg/pack

Grapes Egypt 2,200 0.04 kg/pack 1.0 kg/pack

Strawberries Spain 780 0.01 kg/pack 0.19 kg/pack

Carrots South Africa 6,000 0.19 kg/kg 5.5 kg/kg

Avocados Mexico 5,500 0.03 kg/

avocado

0.89 kg/

Avocado

Pears Argentina 6,900 0.22 kg/kg 6.3 kg/kg

Blueberries South Africa 5,600 0.03 kg/pack 0.77 kg/pack

Green beans Zambia 4,900 0.03 kg/pack 0.9 kg/pack

Baby

sweetcorn Thailand 5,900 0.04 kg/pack 1.03 kg/pack

Sweet

potatoes China 5,000 0.16 kg/kg 0.92 kg/kg

Lamb New Zealand 11,700 0.38 kg/kg 10.7 kg/kg

Canned tuna Thailand 5,900 0.04 kg/pack 1.0 kg/pack

Table 1: The true cost of importing food to the UK. Source: [Joanna Blythman, 07]

It is obvious that the transport of food has an environmental and socio-

economic impact. However, one of the key findings of the report

commissioned by DEFRA, states that there is a very weak relationship

between the food transport and the external impacts of such. For

instance, 65% of food is transported by sea, whereas its impact when it

11


comes to congestion, accidents, carbon and other emissions, only

accounts for 12% [Defra, 07].

There are more factors to take into account when designing and

indicator to measure food miles. These factors are as follows:

1. Modes of transport

There are four main modes of transport: road, air, sea and rail. Only the

first three are commonly used for the transport of food. All of them have

an impact to the environment but at different levels.

* Road Transport

Road transport is responsible of the 84% of the CO2 emissions produced by

the transport sector [Euroactiv, 07] with a 32% of energy consumption and

28% of the CO2 emissions in the EU [European Commission, 07a].

In regards to food miles, road transport has an important impact on the

environment due to the transport from the farm to the supermarket, but

also the transport used by consumers for their weekly shopping.

*Air Transport

It is quite commonly used for the transport of perishable products across

long distances because of their short shelf life. It has a great impact in

regards to noise pollution. This mean of transport has been under intense

heat in the UK since it is used for the transportation of FFV from afar. But

international freight only counts for 5% of the air transport emissions,

whereas 90% of them are due to passenger flights in the UK.

From all the FFV imported by the UK, only 1.5% reaches the UK by air, but it

contributes to 50% of the total emissions caused by the transport of FFV

[James MacGregor et al, 06].

*Sea Transport

It is the main source of atmospheric pollution in terms of nitrogen oxides

(NO2) and sulphur oxides (SOx). It also contributes to acidification, ground-

level ozone, eutrophication, health, climate change and ozone depletion

12


[European Commission, 07]. Moreover, ships have a great impact on the

environment in terms of spills from heavy tankers to the sea.

*Rail Transport

It is a declining mode of transport even though it is the most

environmentally friendly mode of freight transportation for its low level of

air pollutants.

The following ranking evaluates the different pollutants emissions per each

mode of transport.

Ranking of the transportation modes-emission of air pollutants, EEA-25, 2001.

RANKING CO NOX NMVOC SO2

BEST

1 RAIL RAIL RAIL RAIL

2 AIR AIR AIR AIR

3 SHIP ROAD SHIP ROAD

4 ROAD SHIP ROAD SHIP

WORST

Table 2: Ranking of the transportation modes-emission of air pollutants, EEA-25, 2001.

Source: [European Environmental Agency, 03a]

Taking the total quantity in Ktonnes of the emissions of air pollutants into

consideration, rail transport is the mode with less impact on the

environmental while road and marine transport are the ones with a

greater impact.

In 2002, the transport of food generated 30 billion vehicle kilometres, 82%

of which were generated in the UK. What is more, 19 million tonnes of CO2

were emitted in 2002, 10 million of which were emitted in the UK, mainly

due to road transport. Air transport is the mode with the highest relative

CO2 emission (11%) and even though it is not largely used for freight

transport, except for FFV, it is the fastest growing mode [AEA Technology,

05 ].

13


Figure 2: UK food vehicle-kilometres by transport mode (2002). Source [AEA Technology,

05].

Figure 3: CO2 emissions associated with UK food transport (2002). Source [AEA

Technology, 05]

2. Transport efficiency

The current supply chain model used in the UK, involves centralised

distribution centres where large HGVs travel long distances until they

reach the shops across the country. These large trucks have a

14


considerable impact on the environment compared to smaller ones.

Nevertheless, they are extremely efficient when it comes to loading,

reducing the impact per tonne of food.

3. Food production systems

Certain food can be more efficiently produced or grown naturally in some

countries from further a field than doing so artificially in local farms.

Therefore even if the overseas food has to travel long distances, the

overall impact can be less than those foodstuffs produced locally. For

instance, growing tomatoes in a heated greenhouse in the UK during the

winter can have a more negative effect than growing them naturally in

Spain, even though they will have to be shipped across longer distances.

Like the case of the Spanish tomatoes, according to Lincoln University in

New Zealand, producing dairy products, lamb, onions and apples and

shipping them to the UK has less harm to the environment than actually

producing them locally, since New Zealand farming and processing

consumes less energy [The Economist, 06].

Therefore the straightforward approach of calculating food miles by

identifying the distance that food has traveled before reaching the

consumer’s plate, is over simplistic since the factors mentioned above

should be also be taken into account. Instead, a life cycle assessment

(LCA) should be used to assess the total energy spent in all the important

processes during the product’s lifetime.

Other impacts of food miles

The transport of any freight has an impact on the environment and

contributes to the alarming global warming. However, only the transport

of food, especially fresh fruit and vegetables, has captured attention

within the FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) sector. This is partly due

15


to the many self interested parties that are involved in the debate which

will be mentioned below.

But the debate of food miles have some collateral consequences that

have to be taken into account since they may do more harm than good

and they could prove disastrous. Some of them are:

• Congestion costs (42% of the total congestion costs in the UK is due

to food transportation), infrastructure costs (20% of the total due to

food transportation) and accidents (19% of which are related to the

food industry) [Defra, 07].

• They create trade barriers which are anti-competitive and raise

prices in the market place. It is against the principles of international

trade.

• The protectionism of the farming communities in the UK by lobbies

against import of food have a significant effect in the rural

economies in developing countries that depend on the exports to

Europe [The Economist, 06].

• The interest of northern countries to localise African exports reverses

the principles of comparative advantage on which the global

economy seeks specialisation in what a country can do best to

boost international trade and competitiveness. The main

comparative advantage of African countries is agriculture.

Methodology

Food miles is a topical issue that is being currently discussed world-wide.

Information can be largely found in articles, reports and opinions that

have been used as secondary data for this paper’s bibliography. A

qualitative approach has been used since it is generally the most efficient

method to gather information on consumer’s behaviours and trends.

What is more, the food miles controversy is relatively new, so large

statistical information is not available or easily accessible. The data has

been gathered from online articles and reports commissioned by State

16


bodies and trade/professional bodies. On the other hand, many opinions

have arisen from the debate, putting into perspective the different

aspects of food miles which has facilitated the focus of this project.

Many articles have recently been written after Tesco’s announcement of

its new “eco friendly” measures to be put in place across its stores in the

UK in the next few months. This fact has been used below as a case study

to show how the food miles debate is increasing among Britons and it is

putting pressure in the industry to shift buying habits. Tesco, as a market

leader in the retail market of UK, will be followed by the other multiples

competing in the market-place, such as Marks &Spencer and Asda.

Tesco’s latest target to bring the green movement into the mass market

by boosting the term food miles will have great implications in the global

economy. The concept of food miles as it is being used by media, implies

that local food is greener than food produced in further a field and

shipped into the UK. These implications, which are now being promoted

by retailers, increase the protectionism of local farming and rise new trade

barriers that lead to less suppliers competing in the market-place and

therefore higher prices.

Case Study: Tesco UK

The threat of climate change and the concern of food miles have also

had an impact on the food retailers in the UK. The main players have spot

that the green approach in their business strategies, not only makes sense

but makes money too.

Tesco, the main player in the UK food retailer market in the UK with 31%

market share and 1,900 stores nation wide, has been the first multiple in

becoming more eco friendly. Tesco produces 2m tonnes of carbon a year

in the UK due to its stores and distributions centres and it aims to bring

down such emissions by 50% by 2020 [Julia Finch et al, 07].

The multiple plans to reduce its air import from the current 2%-3% to less

than 1%. Moreover, it will place new carbon footprint labels on over

17


70,000 lines available in Tesco’s stores [Julia Finch et al, 07]. However, this

plan will not be put in place immediately due to the food miles

measurement controversy. Meanwhile, an airplane symbol will be added

to the labels of all food products that have been airfreighted into the UK.

This way, Tesco will enable consumers to express their views through their

choices, instead of imposing boycotts as it has been done in the past.

They will be able to compare carbon costs like they compare their

nutritional values in order to make sustainable choices.

Nonetheless, what it may look like a green approach to combat climate

change can be also seen as a marketing strategy to differentiate Tesco

from its competitors. Unlike Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco’s chief executive, stated

to the Guardian [Julia Finch et al, 07], its ultimate target may go beyond

the concern for global warming; it may aim to attract prospective

customers that are seeking to feel socially responsible when shopping

food. Tesco’s green approach may be just a profit-maximizing strategy

that provides an added value to their customers.

18


LOCAL FARMING IN THE UK

The consumer awareness of the effects that food transport has on the

environment makes local shopping greener and an ecological necessity.

National farm lobbies and anti-corporate activists are putting pressure on

the industry, stressing the impact of food shipped in from afar. For

instance, according to the Farmers Weekly [Farmers Weekly, 07], food

miles:

• Are harmful for the environment. As explained above, the longer

the distance a foodstuff has to travel to reach the consumers plate,

the more additional carbon dioxide is emitted.

• Reduce freshness as foodstuffs have to travel long distances.

• In non steady international environment, importing food from

overseas will never be secure, as trade may be affected at any

moment.

• Make consumer lose their sense of seasonality as any fruits and

vegetables are available in the market place all year round.

• Make it harder to monitor the producer performance and

standards as most of them are on the other side of the globe.

• Increment the transport costs because of the increased distance

that foodstuffs have to travel.

However, targeting food miles does not necessary mean that the

greenhouses emissions will be reduced, as there are many other stages

within the food supply chain where these gases are also emitted.

Especially in western-style farming methods which are energy intensive,

adding significant emissions, compared to other methods used in

developing countries which are labour intensive instead.

Even if it was the case that local food is less harmful that the overseas

food and consumers were willing to switch their buying habits, the offer of

fresh fruit and vegetables will be dramatically reduced in both variety and

availability. In the figure below, it is shown the seasonality of some of the

19


most common commodities available in the UK and the months of the

year on which they would be available if no food were imported from

abroad.

Figure 4: Local food seasons. Source: [Joanna Blythman, 07]

On the other hand, it has to be stressed that if farmers were seriously

about combating the climate change and real green measures were to

be taken, both imports and exports should be largely cut down. And even

though imports are larger than exports in the UK, 27% of imports versus 15%

of exports [AEA Technology, 05], the supposed “buy local” but also “sell

local” would have substantial economic impacts.

Mackerel

Welsh Lamb

Watercress

Strawberries

Asparagus Typical origin: nationwide

Typical origin: Hereford

Typical origin: Hampshire, Dorset

Typical origin: South Wales

Typical origin: Scotland

Ma

y

Ja

nu

ary

Fe

bru

ary

Ma

rch

Ap

ril

Ju

ne

July

Au

gu

st

Se

pte

mb

er

Oc

tob

er

No

ve

mb

er

De

ce

mb

er

20


Figure 5: UK Food Balance in 2000 (by weight), [AEA Technology, 05].

21


AFRICAN EXPORTS TO THE UK

In today’s global economy, barriers are decreasing in imports and exports

of goods and services across the globe. However, in the agricultural

industry there are many bilateral trade pressures, self interested parties,

protectionism by governments and lobbies that difficult the international

trade of foodstuffs. This fact, is worsened when the food miles terms is put

into the equation. What it may seem as a sensitive action that aims to

reduce the environmental impact of food transport, also has important

social and economic consequences when other countries are taken into

account. The green attitude that Northern countries have recently

adopted it is seen by others as a form of “environmental colonialism” that

plans to protect the local agriculture and increase import barriers.

Increased sales on locally produced foods result in a decrease in the

exports of overseas farmers which may have devastating consequences.

Most of the fruit and vegetables available in the UK come from sub-

Saharan African countries (except for South Africa). According to the

International Institute for Environment and Development, over £1 million is

spent in fresh fruits and vegetables originated in this region every day in

the UK [James MacGregor et al, 06].

Exports to the UK are the main income and one of the few supports of

sub-Saharan African countries (SSA) domestic industries. From the UK

market alone, an estimated £200 million is injected into rural economies

and it supports 1-1.5 million of African livelihoods [James MacGregor et al,

06].

But now the shopping habits are already changing in some northern

countries towards the locally produced food since it is believed that food

miles are harmful for the environment. However, it has been found by

DEFRA that not only 3.1% of food miles are due to imports from developing

countries and but air-freighted fruit and vegetables from SSA accounts for

22


less than 0.1% of the total carbon dioxide emissions in the UK [James

MacGregor et al, 06].

The debate can be also analysed from the “ecological space”

perspective which plays a role in the global warming debate. “Ecological

space” is the right to natural resources that each individual has. Some of

the most common natural resource will be water, food, land and energy.

The current ecological space or the right to emit carbon dioxide per

capita is very uneven across the globe. The average global ecological

space is 3.6 tonnes, whereas UK counts for 9.2 tonnes and Africa only 1

tonne. For instance, according to World Bank figures, a Briton emits 30

times more carbon dioxide in average than a Kenyan [Aidan Hartley, 07].

This means that if the emissions of carbon dioxide have to reduced,

industrialised countries such as the UK will have to reduce them

dramatically, whereas African countries could remain steady since they

are by far below the average. Not only the contribution of Africans to

climate change is not significant enough to reduce the consumption of

food coming from these countries, but the excess of ecological space

could be used to reduce poverty by continued exports of food to the UK.

From the global perspective, food miles are being used by developed

countries to protect local markets, making the rich people richer and the

poor people, more miserable and angry.

And even if countries such as Kenya have been lobbying retailers in the

UK to label properly the FFV to protect their market share [Zeddy Sambu,

07], developing countries are already suffering the consequences of the

climate change caused by developed countries.

23


CONCLUSION

The concept of Food miles as the additional carbon dioxide emitted by

food transported from countries afar to the UK is an over-simplistic view.

Greenhouse gases which are one of the main external costs contributing

to climate change are emitted along the whole supply chain, i.e.

packaging, storage and distribution centres across the UK. However, sights

are only set on the fresh food and vegetables transportation costs.

Other environmental (i.e. energy inputs of agricultural practises), social

and economics aspects have also to be taken into account, as a shift in

the buying habits of the Britons can do more harm than good in the

bigger picture.

In western countries, many self interested parties are pressuring the

industry to promote locally produced food. Even though their interests

may go beyond the combat of global warming, they might mislead the

consumers to cut down food imports and increase barriers in the

international trade.

“Carbon friendly” measures such as the carbon footprint labels on

products, will promote local fresh fruits and vegetables against those

coming from developing countries, i.e. sub-Saharan countries, where

exports to the UK is the main support to their regional economies. A cut

down on imports will reduce the total emissions in the UK only by 0.1%, but

will effect over a million of African livelihoods, removing their main source

of income and devastating many local communities.

The threat of climate change it is already a reality and it is racing up the

global political agenda. Hopefully the pressure for reducing food miles will

be replaced by pressures to reduce emissions in the food life cycle as a

whole, especially in developed countries.

24


RECOMMENDATIONS

There are recommendations that can contribute to reduce the impact

that the food industry has on global warming, without necessarily focusing

exclusively on food miles:

1. Review of the distribution strategies used in the food supply

chain.

2. Promotion of rail transport for freight where possible as it is the

mean with less impact on the environment.

3. Promote food shopping into areas with public transport access,

so consumers do not have to use the car.

4. Reduction of trade barriers to decrease energy intensive

farming.

5. Support in research of effective and environmentally friendly

food production techniques.

6. Use of life-cycle assessment to measure the total impact that

foodstuff has in all important process it its lifetime.

7. Use of life-cycle assessment across all type of commodities, as

environmental impact is not only due to FFV.

8. Labeling of commodities with excess of energy consumption

due to any stage in the supply chain.

The target to be achieved is to replace the concept of food miles that is

blind to many environmental, social and economic implications, by a

broader concept that does not lead to a conflict between being green

and being fair.

25


BIBLIOGRAPHY

[The Economist, 06] “Voting with your trolley”. Retrieved on 1st of February

2007, from:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id

=8380592

[AEA Technology, 05] “The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of

Sustainable Development: Final report”, July 2005. Retrived on 1st of

February 2007, from:

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/execsumm.pdf

[James MacGregor et al, 06]”Fair Miles? The concept of “food

miles”through a sustainable development lens”, International Institute for

Environment and Development, 2006. Retrieved on 3rd of February 2007,

from: http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/11064IIED.pdf

[Zeddy Sambu, 07] “Farmers wage war on food mile campaign” , Business

Daily Africa, 11th July 2007. Retrieved on 16th of July 2007 from:

http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id

=1880&Itemid=5822

[Joanna Blythman, 07] “Food miles: The true cost of putting imported food

on your plate”, Independent, 31st of May 2007. Retrieved on the 16th of

June 2007 from:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2600309.ece

[Defra, 07] “Report of the Food Industry Sustainability Strategy Champions'

Group on Food Transport”, Defra (Department for Environment Food and

Rural Afairs), May 2007. Retrieved on 1st of July 2007, from:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/fiss/pdf/report-food-

transport-may2007.pdf

[Julia Finch et al, 07] “You’ve checked the price and the calorie count,

now here’s the carbon cost”, Guardian 19th of January 2007. Retried on

26


14th April 2007 from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1994034,00.html

[European Commission, 07a] “ Sustainable surface transport”. Retrieved

21st of December 2006, from

http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/index_en.html

[Hm Treasury, 07] “Emissions from the transport sector”. Retrieved on 2nd of

January 2007, from

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3DD/5D/Transport_annex.pdf

[Euroactiv, 07] “Sustainable Transport”. Retrieved on 2nd of January 2007,

from http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/sustainable-transport/article-

117545

[European Commission, 07] “Transport and environment”. Retrieved 21st

od December 2006, from

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport.htm#1

[European Environmental Agency, 03a] “Transport emissions of air

pollutants”. Retrieved 6th of January 2007, from

http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/transport/indicators/

consequences/TERM03%2C2003.09/TERM2003_03_EEA31_Transport_emissio

ns_of_air_pollutants_by_mode_final.pdf

[Kelland et al, 07] “Food Miles May Be Green, but Are They Fair”,

Environmental news Network. Retrieved 9th of March 2007, from

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12175

[Farmers Weekly, 07] “Food miles facts”. Retrieved 16th of July 2007, from

http://www.fwi.co.uk/gr/foodmiles/facts.html

[Edwards-Jones, 06] “Food miles don't go the distance”, BBC News.

Retrieved 9th of March 2007, from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4807026.stm

[Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, 06a] “The Future Starts Here: The

route to a low carbon economy”. Retrieved on 15th of March 2007, from:

http://www.foe.org.uk/resource/reports/low_carbon_economy.pdf

27


[Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. 06b] “Living with a Carbon Budget”.

Retrieved on 15th of March 2007, from:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/living_carbon_budget.pdf

[Aidan Hartley, 07] “Kenyan fury at threat to organic trade”, The

Guardian. Retrieved 17th of July 2007, from:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126614,00.html

food miles essay

Documents