Category Archives: Green Food

Food Miles and Sustainability

Posted on by
1

The Australian Financial Review (AFR) carried yesterday an article by Scott Gallacher about Food Miles. It is a very balanced look at an idea which is gaining high recognition by consumers around the world; but especially in the UK and Europe.

(Unfortunately, I cannot link to the AFR article as the paper has decided to restrict its online content, even to its paper subscribers. For a paper subscirber like me; I need to pay additional monthly fees to access a online software version which cannot be linked. Think about the decision. Which publication in the world creates a online non-linkable, non Googlable edition in the year 2007. Considering the monopoly of the business paper in Australia it may last for a while but slowly its ability to influence matters will come down especially with similar coverage by its sister publications and increased online coverage by The Australian and other News limited papers.)

Coming back to Scott’s article.

Food Miles is the idea of calculating the distance travelled by a particular food item (fruit, veggies, meat, dairy products, wine) from farm/production to table. The contention is that; the greater the distance the higher the transport emissions and hence, less sustainable.

This perception of carbon content of food is very important for companies engaged in the export of food
products.

The Guardian article in 2003 suggets this:

our food is transported further than ever before, often by air. That makes it a major contributor to greenhouse emissions and climate change. It also means a heavy dependence on a resource that is not only finite but also highly politically-charged: oil. So our food supply is more vulnerable than before. By blockading a few depots during the fuel strike in the autum of 2000, protesters were able to bring the system perilously close to collapse.

Similar ideas in The Independent in May 2007.

When I pick up a carton of organic Chilean blueberries, Argentinian blackberries, or Zambian sugarsnap peas, all air-freighted from their countries of origin, my carefully constructed rationale for buying organic is shot full of holes. Only the most stubborn climate-change deniers still challenge the notion that air-freight, with all its CO2 emissions, is contributing to global warming and helping to heat up the planet towards the point of no return. Air freight emits more greenhouse gases per food mile than any other mode of transport. This is what I am aiding and abetting when I pick up any air-freighted product – whether or not it carries an organic stamp.

However, what is the truth? or should I say the ’whole truth’. Clearly transportation is not the only aspect of food production and distribution. Water, fertilizers, energy, production efficiencies and much more go into any food production.

Scott suggets two studies which have a different opinion.

The first study is by Defra, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, titled “The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development” conducted in 2005.

The study suggets that “a single indicator based on total food kilometers is an inadequate indicator of sustainability“. It provides data on the economic, social and environmental impact of food transport including pollution, congestion and noise. The interesting thing it finds is that most of the impact of transport is for food within UK (cars to supermarkets, trucks to distribute around the country etc) compared to international transport. In the international area, if transported by sea or rail it is much better than Air.

Coming to the life cycle of food Defra’s study suggets that “a case study showed that it can be more sustainable (at least in energy efficiency terms) to import tomatoes from Spain than to produce them in heated greenhouses in the UK outside the summer months. Another case study showed that it can be more sustainable to import organic food into the UK than to grow non-organic food in the UK.” Again this can change from case to case depending on the type of international transport used.

A second study by the New Zealand based Lincoln University (PDF) in 2006 shows that the carbon footprint of lamb, dairy products and apples are far less than that of their european equivalents even after the long journey from New Zealand to Europe. A simple reason is that NZ products are produced more efficiently than European ones.

They have undertaken a detailed anaylsis of a various inputs and outputs in farm in NZ and compared this to the ones in Europe and then arrived at this conclusion.

This entire exercise is important because from a business point of view if customers start buying their products based on “food miles” then; a large number of exports from countries like NZ and Australia and other places could be effected.

Considering that between the 2003 Guardian aricle and the 2007 Independent article, the above two studies have been published the explanation of Food Miles has not changed.  This is dangerous territory. Like the push against nuclear power; this suggets that there could be a strong idealogical notion around food miles.

A simpler explanation to all this is to look at the price of a product. If a product is cheaper; in general;
it means that it would consume lesser resources. The price of a product would encapsulate the energy, transportation, inputs, labour costs and other resources used in creating and distributing the product.

A much better explanation of this comes from the economic concept of Comparitive Advantage; which was first suggested by David Ricardo.

Lauren Lansberg explains:

Someone who is the best at doing something is said to have an absolute advantage. Lance Armstrong has an absolute advantage at cycling. For all I know, Lance Armstrong may also be the fastest typist in the world, giving him an absolute advantage at typing, too. Since he’s better at typing than you, can’t he type more cheaply than you? That is, if someone has an absolute advantage in something, doesn’t he automatically have a comparative advantage in it?

The answer is no! If Lance takes time out from cycling to do all his own typing, he sacrifices the large income he earns from entertaining fans of the Tour de France. If, instead, his secretary does the typing, the secretary gives up an alternative secretarial job—or perhaps a much lower salary as a cyclist. That is, the secretary is the lower-cost typist. The secretary, not Lance Armstrong, has the comparative advantage at typing! The trick to understanding comparative advantage is in the phrase “lower cost.” What it costs someone to produce something is the opportunity cost—the value of what is given up. Someone may have an absolute advantage at producing every single thing, but he has a comparative advantage at many fewer things, and probably only one or two things. (In Lance’s case, both cycling and also as the entrepreneur behind the yellow LiveStrong wristband.)

[...]

The moral is this: To find people’s comparative advantages, do not compare their absolute advantages. Compare their opportunity costs.

The point is simple. If NZ has a comparitive advantage in producing lamb meat; then it provides UK the opportunity to spealize and create another product at a lower cost. The result from a carbon point of view is that it will decrease the carbon footprint of both the products.

This case underscores the point that it is important to question the agreed upon wisdom of the experts and be open minded in our thinking.

The Personal Sustainability Project

Posted on by
1

What if the employees of an organization start making sustainability personal? What if the organization can help employees in making this happen? What could be it mean for the employees and the employer? These are some of the questions that I am grappling with daily in my job.

One main issue we were struggling with was to create a compelling sustainability theme which should resonate with all our employees and make them change their behaviours at work. What we hit upon was providing them with a “sustainability lifestyle at work” or “sustainable work practices” program. The best part of this program – it will provide the employee with ideas and solutions to become environmentally friendly at their home and save some money!

Our’s is a state government organization with 7000+ employees spread over 300 offices and other buildings all over the state. Add to this the diversity of the workforce and the reluctance to change and we have a big job at hand.

Sarah Rich at World Changing writes about the “personal sustainability project”. Here, she connects sustainable workplace practices with the example of the personal sustainability project of Walmart. This is exactly what we are planning to do at the Department of Families and Communities in South Australia.

Sarah provides evidence about how “energy -efficient” work practices have increased the productivity of employees at various organizations. According to the Cool Companies report for United States Post Office branch in Reno, Nevada, when the management renovated the lighting system for greater energy-efficiency it has resulted in multiple benefits.

Energy savings projected for the whole building come to about $22,400 a year. The new ceiling also saved $30,000 a year in maintenance costs. Combined energy and maintenance savings came to $50,000 a year, a six-year payback. But the productivity gains were worth $400,000 to $500,000 annually – paying for the renovation in less than 12 months.

The inspiring example to me is however, Wal-Mart.

According to the NyTimes:

In the last year, Wal-Mart has quietly introduced an ambitious program in the United States — in equal parts self-help class, corporate retreat and tent revival — that tries to turn its 1.3 million workers into a model for its 200 million customers on issues ranging from personal health to the environment.

In extensive workshops held nationwide, the company is teaching its employees the benefits of carpooling to work with three colleagues (for a savings of $400 a year on gas), quitting cigarette smoking ($1,500 a year) and turning off a television ($40 a year in electricity, plus more time to spend with family).

The program, called the personal sustainability project, is voluntary, but it is proving popular, with roughly 50 percent of employees in a dozen states signing up so far. The company may eventually extend the program to its workers around the world.

For Wal-Mart, the payoff could be significant: if it succeeds, the initiative could improve employee morale, and therefore productivity; reduce health care spending on a work force with higher rates of heart disease and diabetes than the general public; and improve Wal-Mart’s reputation with the image-conscious consumers it is courting with costlier merchandise.

The main difference in our program is to change the behaviour of people at home and work both. One should follow the other. By doing it right at home and saving money they can bring the same behaviour to work (hopefully!). As the numbers and ideas in the Walmart example show, the experience can create a huge diffrence to the employees. In the end, this should translate into better performance for the organization.

Health programs were not in my agenda but I guess it is an idea which I can incorporate. The sell to the management has been hard but we have won them over. Now, we are building the resources (website, presentations, brochures, ideas, frameworks) needed to make this happen.

We will not have the massive budget of Wal-Mart however, one way of achieving the goal is to partner with voluntary networks inside the organization working on similar stuff.

I am exploring ideas on “social psychology” and “social marketing” to sell this concept to the employees and the office managers at various offices across the state.

Reading this article has provided me with further evidence that we may be on the right track.

Eco labels for confused customers

Posted on by
1

In marketing especially, high-tech marketing it is important to understand the ‘learning curve’ needed by customers to buy or use a product or service. The steeper the learning curve the tougher the sell.

In sustainability it is the same. Lets take the example of the food sector. If customers need to understand the vast amount of information and knowledge required to understand the life-cycle of the food they eat and then compare the various food products on their own it will be a nightmare.

Expecting customers to do the research for ethical and environmental reasons is right in moral terms however, in the harsh reality of the practical world, it is not possible for customers to do this.

In the world of marketing for example Brands provide a easy to understand message. In a similar sense, the CD and MP3 player markets have followed the button design of the cassette player. Why? To make it easy for the customer.

One such product or idea in the Eco world is labelling. A standard label provides information to a customer in terms which is easy to understand and consistent on all products.

David Miliband, the environment secretary in the UK, is suggesting a eco-label scheme for the UK food products and clearly he understands the challenges.

This kind of “carbon labelling” would help both consumers who often felt “confused and powerless” and producers who felt their environmental efforts were going unrecognised and unrewarded, he said.

Tesco, which said in January that it planned to introduce new labels on the 70,000 products it sells to allow shoppers to compare carbon impacts.

It is currently investigating how to develop a “universally accepted and commonly understood” measuring system and has not said when labelled products will be in its stores.

“This is not an easy piece of work and will take time, particularly if this includes the whole life-cycle impact of food from production to distribution,” he said.

“In the shorter term, we want to develop environmental standards specifically for food production. This could cover a range of factors including energy inputs, fertiliser use, soil management, waste management and water pollution.”

The idea to provide a ‘eco label’ similar in design to a nutritional one is a good idea as it means a lesser learning curve for the customer.

The goal should be to create a label which is consistent, adheres to the highest standards and encompasses the entire life cycle and not just the ‘carbon’ cycle of a product.

Additional Resources:

Livestock endangered

Posted on by
Reply

The AFP reports that 20% of livestock are in danger of extinction.

Some 20 percent of the world’s livestock species — cattle, pigs and poultry — are threatened with extinction, with one breed disappearing each month, the Food and Agriculture Organization warned.

Over the past five years alone, some 60 breeds of cattle, goats, pigs, horses and poultry have become extinct, the Rome-based UN agency said in a draft document, blaming globalization as the “biggest single factor” in the erosion of livestock biodiversity.

“Maintaining animal genetic diversity will allow future generations to select stocks or develop new breeds to cope with emerging issues, such as climate change, diseases and changing socio-economic factors,” said Jose Esquinas-Alcazar, secretary of the FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Rearing livestock contributes to the livelihoods of one billion people in the world, the FAO says.

Livestock are the mainstay of human species. Reading livestock is one of the most important aspects of survival and growth in the world for man. Biodiversity is important in generally for a variety of reasons and in this case of global diseases it is far more important.

Business need to understand that like diverse portfolio investments in various financial assets, it is important to have a wide variety of species for overall benefit.