 |
FOOD DISTRIBUTION
/ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS
source: http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/
wp-content/uploads/file/Stopping%20the%20great
%20food%20swap.pdf
www.newmediaexplorer.org
/sepp/2005/07/07/agribusiness_
farming_subsidies_destroy_food_
security.htm
|
|
The distribution of food in cars and lorries (or, even worst, by air) adds to pollution, congestion and climate change… - the external environmental costs of food distribution (transportation) include air pollution, the loss of biodiversity and amenities through road construction and the environmental impacts associated with the extraction and use of crude oil and other resources required for air, sea, rail and road transport fuel, vehicle construction and transport infrastructure. Similarly, intensive agriculture and food processing systems consume resources and produce solid and liquid wastes and air pollution, which can result in negative ecological and human health impacts;
- climate change, which is perhaps the greatest threat to sustainable development, is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels.
- flying commodites by air, which uses nearly 40 times the amount of fuel that sea transport uses, is now a regular feature of world trade. But cheap fuel can also be used to undercut local suppliers by bringing in commodities from further afield. Take apples. Britain now consumes more French apples than British ones. Britons have grubbed up over half of their orchards since the 1950s and now bring in apples from Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, Chile and the USA.
- Comparing CO2 emissions for one product alone is revealing – the distribution of 1 kg of apples from New Zealand to the UK consumer, for example, results in 1kg of CO2 emissions whereas the distribution of a kilogram of locally sourced apples through a home-delivery fruit and vegetable box scheme results is less than 50g CO2.
Among the external environmental costs of food distribution, it has to be taken into account the easiness in transmitting diseases…- the Food and Mouth Disease epidemic paralysed in 2001-2 the UK and some parts of the European countryside. There were few regions of the country without the disease. This serves to show how transporting animals (often as a result of lost abattoirs and supermarkets demands) around one country can cause immense problems. France tried to control the disease that was spreading throughout Europe asking an unprecedented freeze on all farm animal movements. There can be little doubt that international trade in meat and livestock could spread diseases further. Some countries such as the US managed to control and regulate imports to stay Foot and Mouth free;
- the UK earns £630 million (about US$760 million) a year from meat and dairy exports. Yet some estimates of the cost of the Foot and Mouth epidemic in terms of lost tourism, government compensation were in the order of £9 billion (about US$10.8 billion).
Food demand in industrialised countries provokes overspecialization in feedstock and horticulture production in developing countries …- the EU imports large quantities of cattle feed. It is estimated that for every acre farmed in the UK, two more are farmed overseas in order to meet the feed requirements of intensively farmed livestock, including dairy cattle. Imported feed, such as cassava, soya beans and soya cake, makes up about 30% of all European animal feed. An estimated 5.6 million acres in Brazil are devoted to soya bean production, as are around 1.2 million acres in Argentina, and 560,000 acres in Paraguay. There are obvious implications related with the threats to biodiversity at local level;
- Soya: in Brazil alone, an area of 13 million hectares is devoted to growing soya. This large scale, highly mechanised production replaces both small-scale production and rainforest areas and displaces thousands of rural communities. The UK imports 7,000 tonnes of soya every day and over half of this is fed to animals;
- Livestock: 37% of India’s arable land has now been diverted to grow crops to feed animals (beef, veal and buffalo) for the export trade, leading to massive top soil erosion, fuel use and animal welfare problems. India consumes 25% of the meat it produces;
- Horticulture: an estimated one million people in ACP countries (African, Caribbean and Pacific) depend on peas and bean exports to the EU for their livelihoods, but this market is a fickle one and they could lose it overnight. It also involves considerable use of scarce land and water resources and the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers;
- research in Holland found that sourcing fresh peas locally required 9 mega joules/kg, whereas when imported the energy consumption is 25 kg/kg. The energy consumed when carrots are imported from Italy to Sweden could be halved if substituted by domestic carrots. Kiwi fruit transported by freight carrier plane from New Zealand to Europe results in 5kg of CO2 emissions per kilogram of fruit carried. To import 1kg of asparagus from California to Europe requires 4 litres of fuel. A switch to domestic produce would require 900-times less fuel;
- in most northern European countries self-sufficiency in fruit is extremely low. Over 60% of United Kingdom apple orchards have been lost since 1970. Imports account for 95% of fruit and half of all vegetables consumed in the UK;
- in the United States, between 1950 and 1999, the number of farms decreased by 64% to less than two million, and farm population has declined to less than 2%: 90% of agricultural output is produced by only 522,000 farms. Canadian statistics similarly reveal that farm numbers have decreased by 10% between the 1996 census and 2001; there were less than 247 000 farms in the country in 2001.
|
