The Locavore s Exclusion: Protecting the Environment and Acknowledging the World Through More than Food Miles

Transcription

1 Amy Kuhlman Dr. Gibson ENGW March 2012 The Locavore s Exclusion: Protecting the Environment and Acknowledging the World Through More than Food Miles In order to help care for the environment, many American consumers have turned to buying locally grown foods (Stable Context). It is thought by many that consuming foods only grown in close proximity to the consumer prevents the harmful carbon emissions related to transportation and therefore helps the environment at large (Status Quo). However, according to Erika Engelhaupt of the American Chemical Society, transportation is only responsible for 11% of greenhouse gas emissions released by food production (3482) (Destabilizing Condition). If Americans continue to live and buy under the assumption that they can reduce their carbon footprint by simply buying locally, they are mistaken. This apathy deters consumers from really caring for the environment and, in fact, hurts the global economy at large. According to Engelhaupt, Food accounts for one third of global emissions (3482). Consumers need to fix the greater problem: the 89% of emissions that do not come from food transportation. If this problem is not addressed, the environment will continue to pay for the apathy of its residents (Consequences). In this essay, I assert that consumers who are committed to preserving the environment and world society and should select products based upon the sustenance of an economically healthy world and the magnitude of all food related emissions rather than only those produced by transportation (Claim). Food miles are deceiving because transportation is not the primary cause of environmental damage in the food industry. According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, a major study in 2006 found that New Zealand s

2 Kuhlman 2 carbon footprint is much smaller than the United Kingdom s when it comes to providing food for the United Kingdom market, despite New Zealand s need to ship the food to consumers (Australia 2). While transportation certainly creates carbon emissions that are harmful to the environment, many aspects of production do the same in far greater capacities. In this case, New Zealand was clearly dedicated to reducing carbon emissions during production, as their need to transport their products was unavoidable. The United Kingdom, however, produces food far less efficiently. According to a study done by Saunders and Hayes highlighted by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, it is important to consider the lifetime carbon emissions of a product rather than just transportation. In many cases where air transportation is involved the emissions derived from the transport tend to be low compared to the amount of carbon emissions in that product s lifetime (qtd. in Australia 15). Transportation is often only a small percentage of the amount of energy expended for the production of a food. To focus on such a small aspect of the product does not fix any of the problems that food miles try to combat. Oftentimes, methods of production that are used in an attempt to reduce food miles actually expend more emissions than if it were simply transported in the first place. For instance, according to Els Wynen, director of Eco Landuse Systems, and David Vanzetti of the Australian National University, crops grown in a greenhouse in a cool climate and transported small distances use more energy in their lifetime than crops grown in their natural warm climate and shipped long distances (4). In an attempt to reduce the distance foods need to travel and therefore reduce carbon emissions, more emissions are created. Why go through so much trouble to grow food where it is not meant to be grown? According to Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie

3 Kuhlman 3 Mellon Univerisity, 83% of carbon emissions from food are derived from production (3508). Only 11% is from transportation (Weber 3508). The food miles movement is only responding to 11% of the problem. More attention should be paid to changing food production methods. Food miles are only a small percentage of the greater problem surrounding carbon emissions from food. Consumers can reduce their carbon footprint by choosing foods that are energy efficient in production and also travel in energy efficient ways rather than foods that simply travel a short distance. According to Holly Hill of the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, air transportation is the least energy efficient mode of transportation by far (4). However, food miles are noted in the same way regardless of how the food has been transported. If a certain food traveled 1000 miles by train, the impact is far different than if a food traveled that same distance by plane. However, according to Weber and Matthews, trucking is responsible for most of the conventional food miles for transporting foods to their retail locations (3511). Trucks do create a great deal of carbon emissions, however, they are not the top culprit amongst the many modes of transportation used to move foods. Many consumers may pay attention to how far a food has traveled, but they have no knowledge of how that food traveled. For instance, according to Weber and Matthews, boating is by far the most energy efficient way to transport goods (3509). A product driven 2000 miles across the country in a truck is far less energy efficient than a product sent 2000 miles across the ocean in a barge. The food miles initiative often does not take modes of transportation into account. According to Weber and Matthews, the transport and production of red meat creates more greenhouse gas emissions than any other type of food (3510). If American consumers want to help the environment and reduce their carbon footprint, simply counting food

4 Kuhlman 4 miles will not make a substantial difference. It is important to note what mode of transportation is transporting food over those miles. It is just as important to note what kinds of foods consumers are buying. If a consumer wants to reduce their carbon footprint, it is much wiser to find alternatives to red meats or other products that create a large amount of emissions in production, rather than count the miles of those red meats or other products. Red meat almost inevitably emits a great deal of green house gasses throughout production. If Americans are truly committed to reducing their emissions, eating raw foods is a viable option, as even something as simple as cooking food uses energy. All of these things need to be taken into consideration, rather than only taking heed of food miles in the selection process. Supporting food grown a long distance away, specifically in Africa, can help the global economy while still being safe for the environment. According to James MacGregor and Bill Vorley of the International Institute for Environment and Development, while it is expensive to ship flowers and produce from Africa, their inclusion in international trade is a huge boost to their unstable economy (1). While it is important to pay attention to carbon emissions, it is a relatively small price to pay for this major source of income for sub-saharan African communities. The social and economic benefits for Africa through this system vastly outweigh the relatively small amount of carbon emissions that are a result of this product. Although it may seem unnecessary to get flowers and fruits all the way from Africa, this transaction changes lives. According to MacGregor and Vorley, the air freight used to export goods from Africa to the United Kingdom is only 0.1% of the nation s food related emissions (2). This trade partnership benefits approximately million Africans who are connected in some way to this enterprise (MacGregor 2). Although air freight is by far the least energy efficient way to transport goods, these products traveling a copious amount of

5 Kuhlman 5 miles do a great deal of good and do not even begin to make a dent in the bulk of the UK s carbon emissions as a whole. The social and economic benefits far outweigh the environmental costs of transporting these goods in the long run, especially when compared to the vast amounts of energy expended elsewhere in these nations. Air transportation is certainly not the UK s biggest carbon emissions issue. Also, according to specialists from the International Institute for Environment and Development states, African farmers use production methods that create far fewer carbon emissions than the UK in order to make up for air transport (Chi 30). These farmers often use animals and human labor in order to plow and process their crops rather than machinery, and they also apply fewer pesticides and herbicides (Chi 30). Also, Africans generally are responsible for far less carbon emissions in their lifetimes than residents of European and North American countries (Chi 30). While the air transport required for these exports to the United Kingdom and the United States does create harmful carbon emissions, the people of Africa are far kinder to the environment in the way that they live their everyday lives than many in other countries. The carbon footprints of more industrialized countries massively dwarf Africa s, air transport and all. What right to more industrialized and economically secure nations have to criticize the way that countries in Africa need to do business when they are so much more environmentally responsible than many countries in the world? However, there are many critics of the benefit of long-distance exports to the poor farmers of the world who grow them. According to Brian Halweil, senior fellow at the Worldwatch Institute, "The economic benefits of food trade are a myth. The big winners are agribusiness monopolies that ship, trade, and process food. Agricultural policies, including the new [Bush administration backed] farm bill, tend to favor factory farms, giant supermarkets, and long distance trade, and cheap, subsidized fossil fuels encourage long distance shipping. The big

6 Kuhlman 6 losers are the world's poor (qtd. in Lazaroff ). Halweil also asserts that many farmers and their families go hungry while giving all of their resources away for trade (qtd. in Lazaroff). While many big businesses do benefit greatly from the present system of agricultural commerce, the system is structured to respond to the present population size. Although the African farmers may not reap as many of the benefits of their labor as they may deserve, the system is still an integral part of the African economy as a whole. According to the International Institute for Environment and Development, For a small farmer in Africa, profits from exports can pay for housing and food, as well as medical care and education, for the entire family (Chi 9). While the benefits to individual farmers may not be as fair as deserved, international trade is still a way of life for these families, without which the economical health of both Africa as a nation and the Africans as individuals would suffer. Many supporters of the local food movement assert that food grown locally is fresher and therefore healthier than food from afar. According to Holly Hill of the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, many types of produce are designed to be shipped long distances and consumed long after they are picked, and therefore lose vital freshness, taste, and nutrients in the process (2). While this is a true issue, and foods are best consumed fresh, the local foods movement is not necessarily the best way to eat a healthy diet. While eating a food soon after it is picked is ideal, most areas of the world do not have local access to all of the nutrients necessary for an entirely healthy diet. According to Moore, Roux, Nettleton, and Jacobs, of the University of Michigan School of Public Health, participants living in areas with the worst food environments (least amounts of supermarkets or access to healthy fresh foods) were 22-35% less likely to have a healthful diet compared to participants living in areas rich in these resources (917). Because of the local environments of some people, it is impossible to get

7 Kuhlman 7 on imports and foods grown elsewhere in the country. While many may enjoy eating extremely fresh foods, many others do not have access to these foods. For many, it is a struggle to find foods to fulfill basic nutritional requirements, let alone products that are fresh and grown locally. If a consumer is committed to helping to preserve the environment through the products they select, paying attention to the mere miles foods travel does not even begin to solve the problems surrounding the industry. The most responsible way to consume is to pay attention to all emissions produced throughout the life cycle of a product as well as the global implications of supporting exports. If consumers were to work to reduce their carbon footprint by paying attention to lifetime emissions by products, the environment would have a far more sustainable future. While food miles do contribute to the deadly emissions in the atmosphere, they are just a small percentage of the greater problem. The world depends on food production. The global economy as it stands is built around food imports and exports. However, this does not mean that there is no room to change it for the better. It is still important to reduce carbon emissions in our everyday lives and everyday food consumption. Food miles are only a small part of this. Choose your foods wisely with the health of the whole world in mind instead of only the miles the food has traveled.

8 Kuhlman 8 Works Cited Australia. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Issues in Food Miles and Carbon Labelling. By Lindsay Hogan and Sally Thorpe. 18th ed. Vol. 9. Canberra, Print. ABARE Research Report. Chi, Kelly R., James MacGregor, and Richard King. Fair Miles: Recharting the Food Miles Map. Booklet. International Institute for Environment and Development. Web. Engelhaupt, Erika. Do food miles matter? Environmental Science & Technology (10), Hill, Holly. Food Miles: Background and Marketing. Rep. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Web. 10 Mar Lazaroff, Cat. "Food Travels Far to Reach Your Table." Environment New Service. Web. < MacGregor, James, and Bill Vorley. Fair Miles? The Concept of "food Miles" through a Sustainable Development Lens. Issue brief. International Institute for Environment and Development, Web. 10 Mar Moore, Latetia V., Ana V. Diez Roux, Jennifer A. Nettleton, and David R. Jacobs, Jr. "Associations of the Local Food Environment with Diet Quality A Comparison of Assessments Based on Surveys and Geographic Information Systems." American Journal for Epidemiology (2008): Web. Weber, C.L, and H.S Matthews. "Food-miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States." Environmental Science and Technology (2008): Print. Wynen, E. and D. Vanzetti No Through Road: The Limitations of Food Miles. ADBI. Working Paper 118. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.