The campaign to reduce the carbon footprint of food began with promise. The idea that food shipped or flown from overseas produced greater emissions of carbon dioxide than food produced locally appeared on the face of the argument to make sense.
But there is little doubt the shine on the environment lobby's campaign is beginning now to fade.
The concept of ''food miles'', or taking transport and fuel emissions into account when choosing food, has been rubbished by a new report from the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics.
What are 'Food Miles'
'Food miles supporters' say it is a measure of how far food travels – from paddock to plate – and is an indication of how environmentally-friendly it is.
Food freight – especially by air and road – consumes fuel and energy, and releases greenhouse pollution, affecting the global climate.
Generally speaking, the lower the food miles the better choice the product is for the environment.
But how far imported food has travelled before it reaches a supermarket has little to do with its carbon footprint, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics says.
How 'Food Miles' was born
The concept of food miles originated in 1990 in the United Kingdom. It was conceived by Andrea Paxton, who wrote a research paper that used the term to describe the distance that food travels from the farm where it is produced on to the kitchen in which it is consumed.
On average, food travels between 1,500 to 2,500 miles (4,000 km) every time that it is delivered to the consumer. The distance products travel from farms to end consumers is 25% farther in 2007 than it was in 1980.
Some scholars believe that the increase is due to the globalisation of trade; drastic changes in delivery patterns; the increase in processed and packaged foods; and making fewer trips to the supermarket.
Arguments in favour of 'Food Miles'
1. Reduces carbon dioxide emissions of food's freight.
2. Strengthens local economies by protecting small farms, local jobs and local shops.
3. Increases national food security.
Arguments Against 'Food Miles'
1. Measuring the carbon dioxide emissions of food's freight ignores the total environmental impact of food production and consumption.
2. Local food costs more and often makes fresh fruit and vegetables prohibitive for some.
3. Ignores the environmental benefits of free trade
4. Local food restricts eating choices to in-season fruits and vegetables.
5. Damages third world economies which rely on food exports.
6. A ruse to justify protectionism.
"Food Miles-Believers"
Supporters of food miles use examples like these ones published on the Australian Conservation Foundation website to support their case.
The energy consumed in food freight often outweighs the nutritional energy in the food itself. For instance, it takes around 1,000 kilojoules of energy to ship 170kJ worth of strawberries from Chile to the United States.
A recent German study found that a 240ml cup of yoghurt in a supermarket shelf in Berlin entails over 9,000km of transportation. (Germans eat three billion cups a year.)
In the United States, the food for a typical meal has travelled nearly 2,100km, but if that meal contains off-season fruits or vegetables the total distance is many times higher. Even imported organic food can have a tremendous impact.
A single Briton's shopping basket of 26 imported organic products could have travelled 241,000km and released as much CO2 into the atmosphere as an average four bedroom household does through cooking meals over eight months.
Criticism
"Empirical evidence indicates that food miles is an unreliable indicator of carbon emissions in the food supply chain," ABARE said.
"For example, in 2006 a major study on the validity of food miles found that New Zealand is substantially more energy efficient and less carbon intensive, than UK producers in producing and delivering lamb and dairy products to the UK market."
"Importantly, the food miles concept results in less informed consumption choices and does not reflect the carbon emissions embodied in many products, " the the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics says.
Food miles is a misleading indicator of the carbon footprint of food products that, if widely used, would distort international agricultural markets and possibly increase global carbon emissions,"ABARE said.
Joe Lederman, Managing Principal of FoodLegal and Adjunct Professor of Food Law at Deakin University pointed to a recent US university study, which showed that 83 per cent of emissions came from the growth and production of food itself, while 11 per cent came from transportation, with only four per cent coming from transport from paddock to point-of-sale, to highlight flaws in the notion.
Andrea Berteit, the CEO of the Food Industry Association of WA, said she and her members agreed that the concept of "food miles" was misleading and unhelpful.
"In a State the size of WA, where food sources are so far flung and generally distant from the metropolitan market, 'food miles' makes absolutely no sense," she said.
"In addition, much of our food production has to be exported since our domestic market is relatively small."
Australian ministers says 'Food Miles' a furphy
Countries such as Sweden, the UK and Canada have created labelling that are draws people's attention to food miles.
But Australian Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister Tony Burke said the "food miles" campaign is nothing more than protectionism.
And said the Australian economy would suffer if consumers and governments around the world supported the "food miles" campaign.
'Carbon labels an alternative to food miles'
Now researchers say a more complete environmental assessment of food that consumers buy needs to take into account how the food has been produced and what energy is used in its production.
“Carbon labels are a potential alternative to food miles, but it is important to ensure that carbon labelling, where implemented, represents a cost effective contribution to the climate change response on the part of consumers.”
