||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FOOD MILES NOT AS IMPORTANT A FACTOR AS SOME THINK
JAMES RANDERSON, GUARDIAN - Consumers need more information about the
environmental impact of the food in their shopping basket if they are to
make eco-friendly choices, according to researchers who have carried out
a detailed analysis of the ecological costs associated with food. They
argue that the focus on "food miles" is missing the bigger picture and
may be counter-productive.
Food stores such as Tesco and Marks & Spencer have said that they will
label products that have been transported by air. But according to the
researchers, only around 2% of the environmental impact of food comes
from transporting it from farm to shop. The vast majority of its
ecological footprint comes from food processing, storage, packaging and
growing conditions. So food grown locally could have a considerably
bigger footprint than food flown halfway around the world, and consumers
who make their choices on air miles alone may be doing more
environmental harm, according to the scientists.
Article continues "I'm a bit worried about the food miles [debate]
because it is educating the consumer in the wrong way. It is such an
insignificant point," said Ruth Fairchild at the University of Wales
Institute in Cardiff. "Those [foods] could have been produced using
pesticides that have traveled all the way around the world. If you just
take food miles, it is the tiny bit on the end."
A better system, she argues, would be one that considers all
environmental impacts from farm to dinner plate. One option is
ecological footprint analysis, which takes into account the amount of
land needed to provide the resources to produce food, both directly on
the farm and indirectly from the energy that goes into growing,
harvesting, processing, packaging and transporting it. A food's impact
is measured in "global hectares", the notional land area needed to
produce it. But she thinks that consumers are not yet ready for
ecological footprint labeling and the science behind it is not yet
watertight.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2094795,00.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FOOD MILES NOT AS IMPORTANT A FACTOR AS SOME THINK
JAMES RANDERSON, GUARDIAN - Consumers need more information about the
environmental impact of the food in their shopping basket if they are to
make eco-friendly choices, according to researchers who have carried out
a detailed analysis of the ecological costs associated with food. They
argue that the focus on "food miles" is missing the bigger picture and
may be counter-productive.
Food stores such as Tesco and Marks & Spencer have said that they will
label products that have been transported by air. But according to the
researchers, only around 2% of the environmental impact of food comes
from transporting it from farm to shop. The vast majority of its
ecological footprint comes from food processing, storage, packaging and
growing conditions. So food grown locally could have a considerably
bigger footprint than food flown halfway around the world, and consumers
who make their choices on air miles alone may be doing more
environmental harm, according to the scientists.
Article continues "I'm a bit worried about the food miles [debate]
because it is educating the consumer in the wrong way. It is such an
insignificant point," said Ruth Fairchild at the University of Wales
Institute in Cardiff. "Those [foods] could have been produced using
pesticides that have traveled all the way around the world. If you just
take food miles, it is the tiny bit on the end."
A better system, she argues, would be one that considers all
environmental impacts from farm to dinner plate. One option is
ecological footprint analysis, which takes into account the amount of
land needed to provide the resources to produce food, both directly on
the farm and indirectly from the energy that goes into growing,
harvesting, processing, packaging and transporting it. A food's impact
is measured in "global hectares", the notional land area needed to
produce it. But she thinks that consumers are not yet ready for
ecological footprint labeling and the science behind it is not yet
watertight.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2094795,00.html
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment