Register to receive updates when we add new features, get your own username and avatar, and enter our competitions.
With the country currently celebrating Fairtrade Fortnight, Oxfam is taking the opportunity to warn that boycotting imported food can make life worse for poor farmers around the world.
"Buying green is rightly at the forefront of consumers' minds but rejecting foods on the grounds of how far they have travelled oversimplifies the issue, unfairly punishes farmers from poor countries, and may even lead to higher emissions," says Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam.
Of course, this isn't always true. Very often, locally grown food is better for the environment, but there are unusual exceptions. For example, growing roses in Holland and transporting them to the UK produces almost six times more carbon emissions than growing them in Kenya and flying them in, mostly because heaters aren't required in an African climate.
Oxfam's argument is that the concept of 'food miles' is too simple, because it doesn't take into account the amount of carbon generated during its production.
"Oversimplified concepts about how to tackle climate change are not only failing to give consumers the whole picture, but jeopardising the livelihoods of people who are already facing terrific challenges due to climate change. They are the least responsible for climate change and should not have to pay the highest price," says Green.
"The food miles debate needs to be looked at again to ensure consumers have the information they need to buy green without undermining the, often fragile, livelihoods of poor farmers around the world."
According to Oxfam, there are an estimated 1.5m people in Africa who depend on agricultural exports to the UK to make their living. Fresh fresh fruit and vegetables imported from sub-Saharan Africa, they add, makes up 0.1 per cent of the UK's carbon emissions.
Photo: Fairtrade Foundation
27 February 2008 12:52pm
I've often pondered the tension between third-world development and carbon emission. It's good to get more information on this delicate subject.
27 February 2008 04:01pm
Have Africa's shackles really been removed???? High Trade tariffs, EU farming subsidies, selling of fishing rights, Blood diamonds, HIV , Famine ,War and now Global warming and Carbon emissions! How many people are aware of the 5.4million people that have died in the Congo? Africa needs all the help it can get, and buying locally is having a serious effect on the lives of these people. As an African I ask you to please buy locally on one occasion and Fairtrade on the next.
? For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others' Nelson Mandela.
27 February 2008 06:08pm
The food miles 'measure' unfortunately managed to muddy the already confusing waters. It's not a terrible guideline without anything else to go on, but we can't completely ignore one ethical factor for the sake of another! Consumers really need a clear clear indicator on which to base their decision, because confused consumers simply give up trying.
27 February 2008 11:23pm
Since when were roses classed as food? We can easily do without roses in winter, so there's no justification for flying them from Kenya or growing them in heated glasshouses in The Netherlands. Food, on the other hand, is often hard to get locally sourced, and the argument given for roses in the article applies to out-of-season fruit and vegetables as well.
But remember that the people who are set to suffer most from the effects of climate change, indeed already are suffering the effects, are people in the developing world.
04 March 2008 02:02am
I'm not even sure why this is an issue (apart form the obvious media milage it generates). Most of the Fairtrade products available for sale in the UK are items that cannot (easily at least) be grown here. Thus buying them from an ethical supplier abroad who needs our custom shouldn't be a problem.
IMHO Food miles and ethical considerations (as a conflicting issue) need only come into play when items are readily available locally or when producers abroad are receiving government subsidies (eg US cotton) at huge cost to poorer producers of the same product elsewhere.
10 March 2008 11:15pm
I agree that it is better to support developing countries but supermarkets should try and get our own vegetables. Potatoes for instance taste much better from the midlands and we never see them in London, and I'm sure local farmers could do with the money too.
Please note: Your email address must be entered but will not be displayed
Please note: All submitted content becomes the sole property of CNET Networks UK and may be used, edited or rejected at CNET Networks UK's sole discretion. You acknowledge that you, not CNET Networks UK, are responsible for the contents of your submission.
Register to receive updates when we add new features, get your own username and avatar, and enter our competitions.
