Local food 'greener than organic'
March 2, 2005
Local food is usually more "green" than organic
food, according to a report published in the journal
Food Policy.
The authors say organic farming is also valuable, but
people can help the environment even more by buying
food from within a 20km (12-mile) radius.
The team calculated a shopping basket's hidden costs,
which mount up as produce is transported over big distances.
The study found "road miles" account for proportionately
more environmental damage than "air miles".
Therefore, the researchers' message to consumers is
this: it is not good enough to buy food from within
the UK - it is better if it comes from within your area,
too.
However, they admit that consumers are prevented from
"doing the right thing" because of inadequate
labelling.
"The most political act we do on a daily basis
is to eat, as our actions affect farms, landscapes and
food businesses," said co-author Professor Jules
Pretty, from the University of Essex, UK.
"Food miles are more significant than we previously
thought, and much now needs to be done to encourage
local production and consumption of food."
Clean-up costs
Professor Pretty and his colleague Tim Lang, from City
University, UK, painstakingly estimated the environmental
price tag on each stage of the food production process.
That price might reflect, for example, the clean-up
costs following pollution, or the loss of profits caused
by erosion damage.
"The price of food is disguising externalised
costs - damage to the environment, damage to climate,
damage to infrastructure and the cost of transporting
food on roads," Professor Lang told the BBC News
website.
The authors calculated that if all foods were sourced
from within 20km of where they were consumed, environmental
and congestion costs would fall from more than £2.3bn
to under £230m - an "environmental saving"
of £2.1bn annually.
They pointed out that organic methods can also make
an important contribution. If all farms in the UK were
to turn organic, then the country would save £1.1bn
of environmental costs each year.
Consumers can save a further £100m in environmental
costs, the authors claim, if they cycle, walk or catch
the bus to the shops rather than drive.
Each week, the average person clocks up 93p worth of
environmental costs, the report concludes.
These costs should be addressed by the government,
companies and consumers, the authors believe.
Sophisticated policy
"It is going to need some sophisticated policy
solutions," Professor Pretty said. "You could
say we should internalise those costs in prices, so
that it affects people's behaviour. That might be economically
efficient but it lacks on the social justice side because
it will affect rich people much less."
Instead, the authors are advocating a softer approach.
Consumers should make ethical choices about the food
that they buy, and supermarkets should be open with
customers about where their food is coming from.
At the moment, as every UK consumer will know, it is
impossible to tell whether your carrot has come from
Devon or Scotland.
"In the short term, our paper adds to consumer
frustration," Professor Lang concedes. "The
problem is we don't get the information. Food labels
don't tell you the sort of information you really need
to know if you want to do the right thing by the environment."
Since supermarkets do know exactly where their food
is coming from, Professor Lang believes they have a
duty to inform their customers.
Eventually, the authors hope, the food production infrastructure
within Britain will be transformed.
"We think farming methods will change - farming
will undergo a re-birth, if you like," said Professor
Lang.
"A big city like London could be provided with
a lot more seasonal vegetables from local farms - because
at the moment, the shape of the supply chain is all
wrong from the point of view of food, environment and
public health."
Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk
|
