The "food miles" theory says that the further food has to travel to reach its destination - such as food imported to Europe from New Zealand - the worse it is for the environment because of the greater quantity of pollutants emitted during transport. Researchers in New Zealand, where farmers and ranchers had a good deal of revenue at stake due to their remote location, put the theory to the test and came up with some interesting results.
Their overall conclusion was that the number of miles a food had traveled was not a reliable indicator of its environmental impact. Many forms of produce, as well as dairy and sheep meat, were found to be more energy efficient even when travel to Europe was taken into account. A similar study in the UK produced the same results.
This does not mean that buying goods from far away is necessarily "better" than buying local goods. It simply means that the method of production is what counts, not overall distance traveled, if environmental factors are a primary consideration when purchasing food. Locally produced food may be better in some cases, but it might not be if it is not responsibly produced in the first place. Buying local is a great way of supporting the local economy and keeping revenue within the community and for consumers who make that a priority, local still might be a better choice.
May is National BBQ Month and National Hamburger Month
Cupcakes, not for dessert (unless beef is your idea of a treat)
Because eating French Fries in the car is so tough
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-15-2006 @ 8:12AM
Alex said...
From reading the executive summary (link provided in main article) I'd say there's quite a leap between the report's findings and being able to title an article 'Food Miles Theory Debunked'.
What this study has ACTUALLY concluded is really only relevant for UK consumers comparing UK and NZ dairy, apples, lamb and onions (yes, these four are the 'many forms of produce').
Dairy, apples, lamb - so much less energy is used in production of these consumables in NZ that, even after transport to the UK, they are more energy efficient.
Onions - energy used in production is actually higher in NZ, although once storage in Britain is taken into account, NZ onions are also more efficient.
As a caveat, the study's authors note that 'data on production systems and energy use was much more comprehensive for New Zealand' - thus, while the data is more inclusive, it is also more accurate - which allows for error (in both directions) in the estimates of UK energy use.
This study does highlight that production and storage systems use energy and can impact a product's environmental credentials. It also suggests (to me, at least) that the UK should look at improving the energy efficiency of its production methods.
However, I can't see anything that suggests that the food miles theory is debunked.
Reply
9-16-2006 @ 7:54PM
Bret B said...
Peter Singer attacks this thought in his book, "The Way We Eat: Why our food choices matter". However, his book specifically speaks to Americans. He makes several points along the lines of this article, but gives quite a bit more details. For example, Singer calculates the energy it takes to grow and ship rice from China to the US versus the energy it takes to grow and ship rice grown in California to destinations within the country.
However, he goes further to make the ethical case that sometimes it's better to purchase foods grown elsewhere. It's a very good book and covers quite a bit more than just 'Is Local Food Better?'.
Reply