Misunderstanding Food Miles
by Jenna Watson, Barcelona 
on 11.30.07
The average Australian basket of food has travelled over 70,000 kilometres from producer to consumer, suggests the first study of its kind presented at the Agri-Food XIV conference in Brisbane this week and reported on Australian ABC. But more importantly they point out that food miles are not the be all and end all when judging food impacts and can be misunderstood:
“…it's important to look at the whole life cycle of food to really understand its energy consumption. They say the energy that goes into producing the food in the first place can sometimes be far more significant in terms of global carbon emissions.
"In some cases transport is only 20% of the total energy budget of a food's production," says Associate Professor Hugh Campbell, a New Zealand researcher from the University of Otago in Dunedin. He says food miles are a useful first step but recent research shows it takes half the energy to get a New Zealand grown lamb compared to a UK-grown lamb onto a table in the UK. This is because UK farmers rely heavily on electricity sourced from non-renewable sources whereas New Zealand farmers rely on renewable hydroelectric power, says Campbell.
He says European animal welfare requirements also mean animals need to be housed over winter, which brings costs. This is less of an issue in the more temperate climate of New Zealand. Campbell says a life cycle analysis of kiwi fruit production shows it is also less energy demanding to ship New Zealand fruit to the UK than it is to truck fruit from Italy.”
So do not be fooled by the food miles (although they are certainly interesting and useful) and remember to keep the bigger life cycle picture in mind when choosing your food. Think about how much energy, the type of energy and whether what you're eating was grown in season. In my perfectly green world we would be provided with that life cycle information at the purchase point.
Please read the full article for yourself here from Australian ABC. More info on food miles here and here. Photo via the ABC article and iStockphotos.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Make Your Own Butterfingers
- Spring for Organic Dairy, Save Money Elsewhere
- Are We Eating Green Yet? How Many CSA's Are Out There?
- Mister Miyagi's Guide to Going Green: 5 Questions to Always Ask to Think Green and Be Green
And it's not just food. The wool from NZ sheep to UK is less energy intensive than local UK wool (I've read). But this seems like a snapshot of the present, and future efforts could flip this entirely (hopefully). But of course, supporting your local economy is also VERY important, in my opinion.
That darn New Zealand Sheep study rears its ugly head again. It completely misses the point of eating locally. If it takes more energy to get British sheep to British markets than Kiwi Sheep, maybe Brits shouldn't be eating sheep at all. The locavore movement is not just about reducing "food miles," it is about eating what can be grown and raised locally AND appropriately. I could set up a massive, energy intensive greenhouse down the block to raise bananas, but doing so would hardly be consistent with locavore philosophy.
Enough with the New Zealand Sheep example! Eating locally can dramatically reduce energy use, improve local economies and food security, increase local human interaction, and foster improved connection to the land. The frequency with which this one New Zealand-to-Britain Sheep example is cited speaks greatly to its exceptional nature.
Another fallacy in the food miles idea is that huge trucks are the main problem. Huge trucks are driven full, so the fuel consumption per pound of food isn't actually as bad as the noise from a truck engine makes you think. Whereas the food is makes the trip home from the supermarket in vehicles that are carrying less than 10% of their cargo capacity. If you really want to address transportation energy for food, consider bringing it home in a bike trailer.
You also need to consider the type of food. For example a locally-produced pork chop is likely more energy and land intensive than importing lentils. It takes a lot of land (and therefore energy) to grow the feed crops to fatten animals.
BTW. One problem with trucks is the space they take up on highways. Perhaps we would need less highways or narrower ones if everyone ate local.
ctrl+alt+del and Charlie have the right ideas and are even better if you mix them. How about locally grown lentils? Meat protein takes more energy to produce than vegetable protein. And if you buy the lentils dry, you won't be shipping cans or water. Dried beans don't need refrigeration, either.
People do eat locally. But I agree, a lot of people don't.
Unfortunately people are sucked into good advertising where the supermarket will tell you how fresh their produce is, relying on the fact that people are too lazy and can't be bothered making their own minds up about something. But they would also rather travel down the road in their car, than travel maybe a little further to the many farmers and growers markets that are popping up all over the place.
Not to mention the savings. My friend and I visit our local farmers market every Saturday morning at 8am. We ride our bicycles in.
Because it use to be held at a horse racing track, and thanks to the equine flu that's travelling around the mainland, the track closed down and we were without a market for a few weeks. The market has relocated and is back on again. But during that time of hiatus, we did a proper cost analysis where we bought the same fruit and veg, eggs, etc. all the same items in the same quantities. We spent $20 more at the local "supermarket". And the quality of the produce was dismal at best.
I think if people actually used those bins they provide for customers to place below average fruit into, the shelves would be pretty empty.
It's not always about what you eat, I think a lot has to do with the quality of the food too.
There are no cons by shopping at your local farmers market. You'll taste tomatoes that will bring back memories and make you say, "Wow, this is what they tasted like I was a child."
So, you get better quality food.
You get better health
You save money
You have fresh (picked the previous day) produce
It isn't "snap frozen" for freshness.
A tomato doesn't taste like a peach or a manderine.
You're supporting the local famer, not some other country's economy.
I'm sure there are lots more reasons others can think of.
And sure it might have cost more for the local guy to sell his produce, but I'd still rather have all of the above than some tasteless Apple that's been in cold storage for 6 months.
shelf life! shelf life!