Food miles and food exporting

Global trade means that more and more food products are travelling increasing distances from production to final consumption. Trade liberalisation has enabled a large number of countries to become involved in world markets, with the consequence that more food products are being traded and transported. This increase in food travel distances is obvious when you consider that in the 30 years between 1968 and 1998, world food production increased by 84% while, in the same interval, trade in food increased 184%. At the same time, consumer concerns about sustainability and climate change are increasing, especially in the Western world.

In the UK, the US and Europe, the concept of 'food miles' is being presented as a convenient measure that allows consumers to predict the environmental cost of the food they are consuming. The term food miles was coined by Tim Lang (now Professor of Food Policy, City University, London) who said: "The point was to highlight the hidden ecological, social and economic consequences of food production to consumers in a simple way, one which had objective reality but also connotations."

Emissions from transport of goods to overseas consumer markets is claimed to be a direct and indisputable contribution of world trade to environmental degradation and climate change. A 1997 OECD report estimated that global transport (rail, road, air, maritime) contributed about 20-25% of the carbon emissions from energy use. However, emissions from international freight have been excluded from Kyoto Protocol negotiations and no emission reduction targets are set for international air and sea transport.

The intrinsic dependence of food production and supply on fossil fuels is highlighted in numerous studies. There seems to be consensus about the link between distance travelled and the degree of food processing — the longer the distance, the higher the level of food processing required — implying that long-distance transport of food is responsible for additional emissions due to increased food processing and packaging. Proponents of low food miles advocate that sourcing food locally or regionally will bring environmental benefits such as emissions reduction, and will also help local producers and strengthen local economies.

In Europe and North America, campaigns for buying local food have singled out products from New Zealand, Australia and South Africa as high in food miles. The UK Organic Action Plan stipulates that 70% of in-season organic food should be sourced from within the UK by 2010; the Italian government has passed legislation for local authorities to include organic and local food in school catering; and funding from the European Union has been used to support local food initiatives to develop farmers' markets and local food brands.

Critics of food miles point out that transport is only one component of the total environmental impact of food production and consumption. In fact, any environmental assessment of the food that consumers purchase needs to take into account how the food has been produced and what energy is used in its production.

Large retailers and manufacturers argue that long supply chains have high levels of energy efficiency in their distribution systems that local supply chains cannot always achieve. They also meet consumer demands for year-round availability of food products and low prices.

Consolidation of food supply chains and concentration of sales in supermarkets are primary drivers for food miles. The USA giant supermarket Wal-Mart has 2% of the global food market, five supermarket groups now control 28.3% of the European food market and 85% of the UK food market is shared among the five top retailers. There is increasing evidence that many large food retailers and supermarkets consider sustainability as a standard performance issue, and adaptation to climate change is part of their long-term strategic planning.

One must consider all the arguments surrounding food miles and examine trade-offs before deciding which measures increase overall sustainability of the food system and reduce its energy intensity.

The Center for Sustainable Systems in Michigan estimates that 10% of total energy use in the US goes into food production and distribution, where transport of food is responsible for about 14% of that energy use. High dependence on fossil fuels, increasing conversion of agricultural land, reduced income from farming, and increased consolidation of the food industry are all indicators that reflect the lack of sustainability in the US food system. Researchers have called for a life cycle approach to evaluating the food system to reconnect consumption behaviour to production practices, food transport and distribution.

Recent findings indicate that it is not only how far the food has travelled but how it has travelled that is important to consider. The positive environmental effects of specialist organic farming may be offset by increased transportation, unless it is produced by local farms. But even then the logistics and effects on other local traffic may play a big role. Also, many trips by personal cars to external shopping centres would have a negative environmental impact compared to a few truck loads to neighbourhood stores that can be easily accessed by walking.

A 2006 research report from New Zealand's Lincoln University counters claims about food miles by comparing total energy used in food production in Europe and New Zealand, taking into account energy used to ship the food to Europe for consumers.

The report states, "New Zealand has greater production efficiency in many food commodities compared to the UK. For example, New Zealand agriculture tends to apply less fertilisers (which require large amounts of energy to produce and cause significant CO2 emissions) and animals are able to graze year round outside eating grass instead of large quantities of brought-in feed such as concentrates. In the case of dairy and sheepmeat production NZ is by far more energy efficient, even including the transport cost, than the UK, twice as efficient in the case of dairy, and four times as efficient in the case of sheepmeat. In the case of apples NZ is more energy efficient even though the energy embodied in capital items and other inputs data was not available for the UK."

There is a compelling business case for the food industry as a whole to improve energy efficiency and reduce dependence on fossil fuel and its corresponding emissions. However if Australia and New Zealand want to continue to export their fresh and processed food products to Europe and North America they will need to be able to present compelling figures to overcome consumers' gut responses to food miles. Food exporters should probably continue to look to the more local and less environmentally conscious consumers in the Asia-Pacific region for future market growth