Food Miles – Consciousness is Growing
June 4, 2007
Barely a week passes without a new campaign in the UK around the issue of food miles and NZ produce. Though this has been thoroughly debunked by the report from Lincoln University the story continues to rumble along.
This is just the beginning of a more serious debate on the issue of environmental costs otherwise known as externalities. Food miles is just a simple way of engaging the public and media just as the phrase “think global, buy local” has always done.
We all like to support our local farmers whether in NZ, UK, France, Japan or the US. However we all like to sell as much as our produce into markets where we can achieve a better price (even after taking account of transport costs). NZ is heavily geared towards exporting and with a large productive base and small local market it is more exposed than many other larger countries.
Stepping away from the hype and hysteria we can see that the Food Miles debate is both important and necessary. Consumers should be paying the full price for the goods they buy and that includes the basic inputs of energy and matter as well as ecosystem goods and services.
Whilst food miles comes across as a marketing ploy and is somewhat simplistic in its formulation, it can be seen as the start of a serious attempt to bring Trucost pricing into the mainstream economic system. Of course it makes sense to buy your veggies from the farmer down the road but the supermarket system is all pervasive and has driven costs down so far that they have been able to get away with an international supply chain as well as shipping domestic produce many miles further than necessary.
Pricing ecosystem services in at the primary level would see a vastly different pricing mechanism: one which included the price of nutrient and effluent run off, mining run off, soil depletion, air quality processing, clean water provision and the numerous other services which have enormous economic value.
If this happens then maybe we can relax a bit as the produce in our supermarkets and farmers markets will be priced on the same basis.
Only then will we really know which is really cheaper.
Entry Filed under: carbon, carbon emissions, climate change, economics, ecosystem, environment, externalities, farming, food, food miles, greenhouse gas emissions, new zealand, policy ideas, sustainability, trucost. .
4 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Dave Bath | June 5, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I argue for Virtual water and carbon labelling of products here, probably on food initially (already used to content labelling) but ultimately on a wider variety of goods. This approach would keep the free-marketeers happy as they believe in consumer choice from perfect knowledge. Do you agree/disagree? Any pitfalls?
2.
sustento | June 5, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I prefer a more whole system approach than breaking it down into carbon or water content. What i mean by this is that its so complex to actually work it out. I would like to see the Trucost method used whereby ecosystem good and services were priced at the primary level (and this would include water) and then the adjusted price would flow through the supply chain mechanism.
I think this is one approach. The other is to actually set limits or quotas for use of ecosystem goods and services. If you put the two together and use DTQs (domestic tradeable quotas) with an adjusted price mechanism at the primary level then i think we will have an economic system with better signals.
3.
potato | June 26, 2007 at 9:10 pm
It does make sense that large retailers are in the position to lead and create changes regarding the food miles debate.
My concern is the system also means that retailers must maintain a full portfolio of products and choices at all times to satisfy a differentiated consumer tastes. Is that feasible in reality? Would this increase the food cost again? Also, will this generate pressure from eating certain type of food, for example: organic food? Sure the consciousness of food mile is growing, but are they just a privilege for the Middle Class
4.
sustento | June 26, 2007 at 10:34 pm
That’s a good point. Organics and green stuff has been co-opted by the middle classes and in a way commoditised in that process thus undermining the real values and principles that brought it about in the first place.
This is why i argue for the Trucost approach because price is the major determinant for most people. Price insensitive consumers will always buy the best quality available and that includes a premium for craftsmanship.
That’s a long way from the “hippy” version of organics.
It’s all part of the evolutionary process and we just need to keep the conversation going.
Thanks for the comment.