Food miles. The phrase that captured the imagination of the nation. Or so the media thought, as thousands of column inches were devoted to Kenyan beans, New Zealand wine, Fiji water, and other new no-nos.
But food miles, it emerged from our Green Issues conference this week, are a red herring.
That's the view of the public: 43% are worried about climate change according to Nielsen research, but only 2% are concerned about food miles. That's lower than the number who don't give a stuff about anything. And The Carbon Trust is also downplaying the importance of food miles: in its analysis of a packet of Walkers crisps, it found, to its surprise, that the cost of distributing the potatoes to the factory accounted for 1% of the CO2 emissions. The greatest impact was from the fertiliser: a whopping 15%.
The relatively minor part distribution, or food miles, plays in the food energy chain is supported by analysis of other products: only 7% of the environmental impact from a bottle of Boots shampoo comes from the entire manufacturing, shipping and retailing cycle; the remaining 93% comes from the hot water that the consumer uses to wash their hair.
This hasn't stopped Boots, and indeed all retailers and manufacturers, from looking at their carbon footprint, as we report in this week's Green Special Issue, and the most positive impact is that in most cases it's a win-win. But not always: with packaging emerging as a bigger issue than food miles, whether measured by consumer opinion or CO2 emissions, the example of the cabbage wrapped in plastic needs challenging. Yes: it lasts longer, which is good for the retailer and the consumer, but if the cabbage goes off, at least it's biodegradable.
No comments yet