EVERY TIME WE eat, we are all essentially 'eating oil'. Virtually all of the processes in the modern food system are dependent upon this finite resource. Moreover, at a time when we should be making massive cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases in order to reduce the threat posed by climate change, food supply chains are becoming more transport-intensive. This results in increasing emissions to the point at which the food system is a significant contributor to global warming.
One indicator of the unsustainability of the contemporary food system is the ratio of energy outputs - the energy content of a food product (calories) - to the energy inputs. The latter is all the energy consumed in producing, processing, packaging and distributing that product. The energy ratio (energy out/energy in) in agriculture has decreased from being close to 100 for traditional pre-industrial societies to less than 1 for most of the food products supplied to consumers in industrialised countries, as energy inputs, mainly in the form of fossil fuels, have gradually increased.
In modern high input fruit and vegetable cultivation, the output/ input ratio is between 2 and 0.1 (i.e. one calorie of food energy output requires up to ten calories of energy input). For intensive beef production the ratio is between 0.1 and 0.03, and may reach extreme values of 0.002 for winter greenhouse vegetables. All of these ratios refer to the energy consumed up to the farm gate and exclude processing, packaging and distribution.
However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if included in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further. For example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the uk from the usa by plane, 127 calories of energy (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of lettuce across the Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce cultivation, packaging, refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping by car were included, the energy needed would be even higher. Similarly, ninety-seven calories of transport energy are needed to import one calorie of asparagus by plane from Chile, and sixty-six units of energy are consumed when flying one unit of carrot energy from South Africa.
The energy inefficiency of the food system can be highlighted by 'unravelling' supply chains for everyday food products. For example, researchers at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology have analysed the processes involved in the manufacture of a bottle of tomato ketchup. The study considered the production of inputs to agriculture, tomato cultivation and conversion to tomato paste in Italy, the processing and packaging of the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden, and the retail and storage of the final product. All this involved more than fifty-two transport and process stages.
The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel barrels, then moved to Sweden. The five-layered red bottles were either produced in the uk or Sweden with materials from Japan, Italy, Belgium, the usa and Denmark. The screw-cap of the bottle and the plug were produced in Denmark and transported to Sweden. Cardboard boxes which were used to distribute the final product, and labels, glue and ink were not included in this analysis.
Other transport stages associated with the production and supply of fertilisers, pesticides, processing equipment, sugar, vinegar, spices and salt and farm machinery were also excluded. Many of these are probably imported and involve long-distance international transportation. Finally, the product is likely to be purchased during a shopping trip taken by car.
Trade-related transportation has been estimated to account for one eighth of world oil consumption and is expected to increase by 70% between 1992 and 2004, from 29 to 49 trillion tonne-kilometres. If this occurs, the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from international trade will increase from approximately 1.45 billion tonnes in 1992 to 2.45 billion tonnes in 2004. Transport associated with the food system is a significant part of this story. One study has estimated that uk imports of food products and animal feed involved transportation by sea, air and road amounting to over 83 billion tonne-kilometres. This required 1.6 billion litres of fuel and, based on a conservative figure of 50 grammes of carbon dioxide per tonne-kilometre, resulted in 4.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
Food miles within the uk are also increasing, and almost all foodstuffs are moved around the country by truck rather than by other, less environmentally damaging modes, such as rail or barge. The amount of food moved around the uk increased by 16% between 1978 and 1999, and the distance this food travelled rose by 50%. It has been estimated that the co2 emissions attributable to producing, processing, packaging and distributing the food consumed by a family of four are about eight tonnes a year.
It is not that this transportation is critical or necessary. In many cases countries import and export similar quantities of the same food products. For example, in 1997 126 million litres of liquid milk were imported into the uk and at the same time 270 million litres of milk were exported from the UK.
Is organic any different? The organic system is more energy-efficient to the farm gate. One of the benefits of organic production is that energy consumption and, therefore, fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, are less than that in conventional systems. The improved energy efficiency in organic systems is largely due to lower (or zero) fertiliser and pesticide inputs. In the case of milk production it has been found that organic systems are almost five times more energy-efficient on a per-animal basis and three and a half times more energy-efficient in terms of unit output (the energy required to produce a litre of milk).
So far, so good, but once past the farm gate things begin to go wrong. Britain imports over three-quarters of its organic produce, and despite consumer demand, only two per cent of its land is organically farmed. As the market has grown it has been met by imports.
THE CONTEMPORARY FOOD system is inherently unsustainable. Indicators of social, environmental and economic performance, such as food security, greenhouse-gas emissions, food miles, lower farm incomes and biodiversity loss highlight this fact.
This process could be reversed by re-establishing local and regional food supply and substituting 'near for far' in production and distribution systems. This would reduce both the demand for and the environmental burdens associated with transportation. The proximity principle is a straightforward concept in which products are sourced as near as possible to the consumer. When applied to food supply, local food systems in the form of home-delivery box schemes, farmers' markets and shops selling local produce would replace imported and centrally distributed foodstuffs.
Taking uk food supply and trade at present, there is great potential to apply the proximity principle. Apart from products such as bananas, coffee and tea, many of the foodstuffs that are imported at present could be produced in Britain. Many meat products, cereals, dairy products and cooking oils are, or could be, available here throughout the year. So could fruit and vegetables. The land currently used to produce food that is exported could be used to increase uk food self-sufficiency.
There is growing evidence of the potential of local food systems to reduce the transport-related environmental impacts associated with food supply. In the case of organic produce, a survey of retailers compared local and global sourcing of produce marketed in different outlets between June and August 2001. Products were chosen that were available in the uk during these months but are at present imported by the multiple retailers. These included spring onions imported by plane from Mexico, potatoes imported by road from Sicily, and onions imported by ship from New Zealand. It was found that local sourcing through a farmers' market, for example, would reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with distribution by a factor of 650 in the case of a farmers' market and more for box schemes and farm-shop sales.
The value of UK food, feed and drink imports in 1999 was over £17 billion. A reduction in food imports would not only be of benefit to the UK economy as a whole but could also be a major driver in rural regeneration as farm incomes would increase substantially.
There are essentially three mechanisms through which the food system could relocalise. These are:
a) Voluntary approaches by farmers, the food industry and consumers: Although many retailers now have a local sourcing policy and targets for the percentage of food products sourced within the locality or region, the targets that have been set are low. Asda, for example, aims to source two per cent of food products locally. Even when supermarkets promote produce as being local or regional, the food will probably have been transported a considerable distance as a result of using regional distribution centres and centralised processing. The economies of scale and centralised distribution systems of the multiple retailers are not easily suited to dealing with small-scale producers and direct deliveries to stores by local farmers and processors. More can be done, especially if the economic framework changes and there is more pressure from consumers. However, many concerned consumers do not have the information with which they could make an informed choice. Information could be improved through some form of label that indicated the distance accumulated and the transport-related environmental impact. Colour coding could also be applied. The organic certifier Bio-Swiss already distinguishes between imported and national produce on its labels.
Farm assurance schemes and organic certification bodies could introduce the proximity principle into certification. The options for reducing post-farm-gate transport by providing incentives through reduced certification costs should now be considered.
Many restaurants, hotels and public houses now source ingredients locally. This is often seen as a direct way to support local farmers and also indicates the freshness and seasonality of the food on the menu. The National Trust now has a policy of supplying its restaurants with local food. This is a welcome move that could become more widespread.
b) Increases in environmental taxes: Another way to reduce the damaging effects of food miles is to increase the costs of transportation so that the environmental damage (such as air pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions) is accounted for. In Switzerland, a Heavy Vehicle Fee (HVF) was introduced in January 2001. The HVF charges heavy goods vehicles (over 3.5 tonnes) based on their gross weight, kilometres driven and emissions.
In 1994, in the UK, The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended that fuel duty be increased every year so as to double the price of fuel, relative to the prices of other goods, by 2005, which would require a 9% annual increase in fuel duty. Successive UK governments adopted increases in fuel duty until the fuel protests in 2000, following which the fuel duty escalator was dropped.
It is assumed that increases in the costs of road transport will encourage a shift to more environmentally benign modes of transport such as rail freight, and public transport and home delivery in the case of shopping trips that are currently made by car. In theory, if transport costs continue to increase there will be a point at which existing distribution systems become uneconomic and alternative distribution systems that are more localised become a viable alternative. The most obvious gap in the economic framework is the failure to tax aviation fuel.
At present most of these taxation measures are seen as being politically unacceptable. Yet the introduction of some kind of fiscal or taxation policy is likely to be required if sustainable food supply is to become a reality. However, local food schemes will need to be developed at the same time, or preferably beforehand, in order to provide an attractive and viable alternative to transport-intensive food supply chains.
c) Policy and fiscal support for local foods: Developing a sustainable food system should be a key policy objective for central government, local government and regional development agencies. For instance, the initiative recently announced to provide "one piece of fruit per schoolchild" offers an ideal opportunity for the government to show its commitment to the development of a local food system. Ambitious targets could be set to meet this increased demand in fresh fruit locally.
Funds available at local, regional, national and European level should be directed to support the development of sustainable local and regional food-distribution systems. Specifically, there should be an increase in siphoning off cap (Common Agricultural Policy) production subsidies into support for sustainable farming and regional food economies. Regional Development Agencies could also play an important role in developing regional food systems through grant allocation, technical support and marketing advice. All regional development plans should include local food economy targets.
Direct support for the expansion of local food systems could come in the form of targets set for the procurement of local food by schools, hospitals and publicly-run catering facilities. The targets could be modest to begin with, which would allow local food producers to adapt to the new circumstances. Another mechanism that could be used is inducement through the tax system, so that the rates paid by businesses such as hotels, restaurants and caterers would be reduced if a certain percentage of their food were supplied locally or regionally. The introduction of practical and classroom-based education about food, farming and sustainable development in the National Curriculum would also help to raise awareness and understanding.
A FOOD SYSTEM is not sustainable if it relies almost completely on one finite energy source - namely fossil fuel - that causes enormous levels of pollution during its production, distribution and use. Although food supplies in wealthy countries such as the UK appear to be secure, and choice, in terms of thousands of food products being available at supermarkets, seems limitless, this is an illusion.
The vulnerability of our food system to sudden changes was demonstrated during the fuel protests in 2000. A sharp increase in the price of oil or a disruption in oil supplies would present a far more serious threat to food security. Food production and distribution, as they are organised today, would not be able to function. Considering the situation in the Middle East, where most oil originates and reserves lie, governments cannot continue to ignore the dangers associated with our addiction to crude oil. To live in a sustainable and secure world this dependency must end.
The food system is now a significant contributor to climate change. Reducing the carbon dioxide emissions from food production, processing and distribution by minimising the distance between producer and consumer should be a critical part of any strategy to mitigate global warming.
The priority must be the development of local and regional food systems, preferably organically based, in which a large percentage of demand is met within the locality or region. This approach, combined with fair trade, will ensure secure food supplies, minimise fossil fuel consumption and reduce the vulnerability associated with a dependency on food exports and imports. Policies must now be implemented to achieve this goal even if previous agreements have to be rewritten. o
Extracts from a report, Eating Oil: Food Supply in a Changing Climate, priced £12 from Elm Farm Research Centre on 01488 658298. vanessa.g@efrc.com
Andy Jones worked at Sustain in 2001 as project officer on the Food and Fuel project. He is now based at the Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York.