Food miles or fair miles?

A mounting campaign in the North is urging consumers to shun imported products because of their food miles. Critics of the movement, which threatens the livelihoods of millions of ACP producers, have condemned it as 'green protectionism'.

In the UK, a new label is appearing on shelves in the leading Tesco and Marks & Spencer supermarkets. Alongside information about calorie or salt content, an aircraft sticker alerts shoppers that products have been flown in by plane. Elsewhere in Europe, other major retailers are following suit as a campaign gains momentum to limit consumption of products that require long-haul transport, especially those brought in by air. The key concept in this growing movement is 'food miles' - a measure of the distance a food product travels from field to plate. Led by the UK, Northern suppliers and shoppers are backing a move to favour food sourced as close as possible to the point of consumption. The trend is fuelled by a desire to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But it poses a dilemma for consumers who want to make ethical choices. Should they use their purchasing power to protect the environment at the expense of poor farmers who depend on exports for their livelihoods?

A study by the UK-based Food Climate Research Network encapsulates the conundrum. It states that Kenyan green beans are "20 to 26 times more GHG intensive than seasonal UK beans." But it also acknowledges that "1 to 1.5 million people are dependent on export horticulture in sub-Saharan Africa." The mounting food miles debate is partly inspired by a backlash against modern food retail patterns which see even locally produced food trucked or flown long distances for processing, packaging and distribution by supermarket chains. Caught in the crossfire are producers supplying off-season products such as green beans from Kenya, Gambia and Zambia, fresh asparagus and grapes from South Africa, pineapples from Côte d'Ivoire and limes from the Dominican Republic.

Green protectionism

Growing demand for year-round fresh produce has seen the volume of fresh fruit and vegetables flown into the UK more than double in 15 years. The figures are similar for many other EU countries, as well as for Japan and USA. According to the UK Soil Association (SA), air freight generates 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping. In 2007, this organisation ratcheted up the food miles debate by threatening to refuse certification for air-freighted produce. In October, the SA decided to stop short of an outright ban. But it ruled that organic food could only be air freighted if it delivers "genuine benefits for farmers in developing countries" and said producers will be required to develop plans for reducing dependence on air freight. The SA is responsible for certifying more than 70% of UK organic produce, and its decision is expected to send a strong message to the rest of Europe.

Critics argue that the food miles campaign is ushering in a new round of protectionism and claim that it makes a mockery of the notion of trade liberalisation. Some say that fair miles, not food miles, should be the criterion by which consumers judge the contents of their shopping trolleys. "Many products which come to us from Africa are giving some of the poorest people in some of the poorest countries in the world a chance to earn a decent living," said Harriet Lamb of the Fairtrade Foundation. There are also accusations of double standards. The average Briton emits 30 times more carbon than a Kenyan, according to World Bank figures.

Calculating carbon footprints

To date, there is little sign of any adverse impact on horticultural exports from ACP countries. Tesco says there has been no drop in sales of imported goods. But organisations including the UN's International Trade Centre (ITC) have warned of devastating consequences for small-scale producers if the food miles campaign gains further momentum. "Exporters are tearing their hair out," said ITC spokesman Alexander Kasterine.

The food miles debate deepens the scepticism that many ACP producers already have towards Western rhetoric about ending poverty. "Whatever emissions we cause by the airfreight of our produce is far less than the pollution and damage caused by lifestyles in rich countries. It is not fair to punish us," said Russell N'gan'ga, Chairman of the Nandarasi Gate Self-help Group of 200 Kenyan farmers growing sugar snap peas for the UK. The August 2007 issue of the Caribbean agricultural e-newsletter CaRAPNotes warned that the food miles campaign "will have devastating effects for Caribbean organic producers." Some ACP producers have been quick to react to what they see as a distorted information campaign. In late 2007, Kenyan producers launched 'Grown Under the Sun', a counteroffensive designed to inform consumers about the development benefits associated with sourcing fresh produce from Kenya.

Growing evidence in any case suggests that there is a strong danger of over-simplification when it comes to calculating food miles. Experts point out that it is important to look at the carbon footprint across a whole food supply chain. Researchers recently showed that, taking into account other energy-consuming aspects of production, including water use, fertiliser and packaging, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy grass-fed lamb imported from New Zealand than lamb from a UK producer. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit. A study by UK's Cranfield University showed that emissions produced by air-freighting roses grown in Kenya to the UK are less than one-fifth of those for flowers grown in greenhouses in the Netherlands. According to findings by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), boycotting produce air-freighted from Africa would reduce UK total emissions by less than 0.1%.

Developing local markets

Among solutions put forward is equitable offsetting - using public funds to offset emissions generated by air freighting fruit and vegetables from poor countries. Some experts argue that the future lies in producers from the South doing more to exploit local markets, including the burgeoning organic one. In May 2007, the East Africa Organic Standard was launched to promote the regional trade of organic products. Organic producers in Kenya now supply restaurants, hotels and the country's two largest supermarket chains. In Uganda, sales through the Nogamu outlet, supplied by groups of small farmers, have increased steadily since 2002.

There are also calls for more help for producers in the South to improve access to refrigerated shipping and to help them grow produce of equal social benefit which can be transported by sea. "Several businesses have shown that by improving efficiency, developing the right infrastructure and being innovative with modern packaging and storage techniques, it is possible to transport by ship some highly perishable products," said Ken Hayes, the SA's standards research officer. One such exporter is Organic Farm Foods, which ships grapes from South Africa and limes from Central America. "We also want to help develop local and domestic markets which will promote future sustainable trade," said Hayes. Neil Sorensen of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) agrees that developing local markets is important. But he adds: "You can't begrudge them when they are offered way more money to export their product to Europe. To deprive them of that development is not appropriate."