Food Flight! The Argument Over Flying Organic Food
by George Spyros, New York City, USA on 09.23.07
The Soil Association, the UK’s leading organic certification body, has proposed withdrawing the 'organic' label from produce flown into the UK from abroad. So the question emerges, should the practice of air-freighting organic food be stopped? The Guardian provides two opposing answers to the question. The NO comes from Claire Melamed, head of trade and corporate policy at charity Action Aid:
The trade of fruit and vegetables from Africa to the UK accounts for only 0.1% of all the UK's emissions. Therefore, banning organic green beans from Kenya or mange tout from Zambia, say, is not going to make much difference to the UK's overall carbon footprint...No one denies that we should all be thinking about the effects on the planet of the emissions caused by aviation, but we shouldn't be looking to the poorest people in the world to save us from climate change.
More on this perspective at SciDev.net. The YES comes by way of Jon Stewart, campaigner for Airport Watch:
The contribution of aviation to global warming is the most alarming. The figure that is often quoted is that it accounts for 2% of emissions worldwide. That figure seems quite low, but because it is a worldwide average and people in poor countries hardly fly, it essentially means the developed world's aviation emissions are proportionately very high.
Stewart thinks farmers in the developing world may be getting a sense of false security because the poorest will ultimately feel the effects of climate change most immediately and most acutely. Also, he belongs to the camp facing the conclusion that air-freighting will soon become economically unsustainable as the demand for oil starts to outstrip supply. We at TreeHugger would hope that viable alternative jet fuels or solar powered planes or those using zero-emission fuel cell technology would come into play before it comes to that. Stewart suggests that instead of a ban on organic air freight overnight, there should be a plan over the next 10 to 20 years where developing economies become less dependent on air freight and create more local opportunities. And as we always say around here, it wouldn't hurt if the so-called developed economies created more local opportunities for themselves.
via ::The Guardian
Dale Vince to Release Domestic Wind Turbine and an Electric Car?
|
Two Years Ago in TreeHugger: New Prefabs
|
This seems like it should be fairly clear-cut. What is the definition of the "Organic" label?
While I obviously support reducing emissions, and I would be all for having, say, a carbon footprint sticker on foods or something of that sort, that's not what "organic" means, is it? I mean, it's probably true that a lot of people who like to buy organic are also very interested in the environment. That wouldn't surprise me. But it was my impression that "Organic" was about certifying that you weren't putting harmful chemicals and additives into your body. And I certainly think that many people depend upon the label on that basis only.
This sounds a lot like a group of concerned Muslims suggesting that meat flown in from abroad not be declared Halal.
Keep clinging to hope of a solar-powered plane as you eat that New Zealand apple.
Our air freight will help us cross climate tipping points from which there will be no return. Climate will become less stable. Who will be most screwed? The farmers who don't have big rich countries to bail them out with relocation loans and emergency farm aid. The farmers who don't have big agri-technology like irrigation pumps to throw at the problems caused by instability.
If the farmers in poor countries can't make a little more money by going organic, they will revert to using toxic chemicals and the like, harming themselves and the land. Farming organic gives them the option to live somewhat more safely, AND earn slightly more off their land.
Perhaps a separate label is needed? Perhaps an airplane with a "no" sign around it (like with no smoking), that would designate the goods had not been shipped via air.
It would make more sense to have a "local" tag in addition to organic, so that things could be labeled both "local" and "organic" or one or the other.
What about people like me who eat organic for health purposes, and would rather have an organic apple from 500 miles away than a pesticide ladened one from 200 miles away?
The is a larger question I was thinking of raising in the forum related to this based on BEING GREEN ISN'T ENOUGH.
The West has made use/still using the resources of the developing world including people. It also used the atmosphere as a free dump to get to the point where we can now enjoy our 1st world living standard including now wanting to have a sustainable/green lifestyle but often keeping our 1st would benefits .
BTW we also often used protectionist trade policies to ensure our home markets and industry was given a nurturing environment to get us where we are today.
It is now morally incumbent if we are to continue to enjoy the fruits of this exploitation that we share the wealth and ensure that the developing nations are allowed to develop to a similar sustainable living standard that want to enjoy. As far as climate change the West should now pay the developing nations for having used their portion of the pollution that we are now saying they cannot use.
Therefore if we are to prohibit air freighted organic produce from developing nations a way must be found to offset the loss of income to developing nations. A blanket ban without this is simply immoral.
Simply put being green isn't enough if you don't share the wealth and expertise. You could live a completely sustainable lifestyle, but unless you incorporate ways to assist the developing world to achieve the same I would still consider this immoral. In fact if you look at the way sustainability is developing in the UK it is no longer considered just a green/sustainability issue but is now an ethical issue.
While the recent claim you cannot be green without being vegan needs further thought I think it is a pretty open and closed case that a sustainable lifestyle isn't enough.
This incorporates Peter Singers argument based around a drowning child, in that if at no great cost or risk to yourself you still walk by that child it would be seen as a immoral act.
Now given in a globalized world where millions die from preventable diseases and live in real poverty not helping them especially at a level that isn't a great cost to oneself is morally equivalent to walking past the drowning child and doing nothing.
Part of the point is being missed here - they're not taking the organic label away from imported foods, just those freighted in by air. Food that is imported via ship would still be given the organic label.
Goods transported large distances could be subjected to a levy based on distance flown/shipped. The levy would be transparent and included on the label. The consumer would pay the environmental cost, which would then be put back into ethical / sustainable projects.
We are still living in a fools paradise when it comes to the prices we pay for imported goods, especially food.