Food Miles Mistake?

Have you noticed that diesel prices have dipped below year-ago levels for the first time since Fresh Talk began tracking the fuel's price trends? This type of price movement could not have predicted in early June, but the historic deflationary pressures on commodity prices and the global economy have been prime contributors to the collapse.

I noticed an interesting article about food miles and research from Reasononline, called "The Food Miles Mistake"
While everyone in the U.S. produce world expects the local food movement to only increase in the years ahead. two researchers take aim at one of its chief underpinnings - the concept of food miles.



From the piece:

But for some activists, eating local foods is no longer just a pleasure—it is a moral obligation. Why? Because locally produced foods are supposed to be better for the planet than foods shipped thousands of miles across oceans and continents. According to these activists, shipping foods over long distances results in the unnecessary emission of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. This concern has given rise to the concept of "food miles," that is, the distance food travels from farm to plate. Activists particularly dislike air freighting foods because it uses relatively more energy than other forms of transportation. Food miles are supposed to be a simple way to gauge food's impact on climate change. In their recent policy primer for the Mercatus Center at George University, however, economic geographer Pierre Desrochers and economic consultant Hiroko Shimizu challenge the notion that food miles are a good sustainability indicator.


Here is the link to the policy primer for the Mercatus Center. From that report's executive summary:

This Policy Primer examines the origins and validity of the food miles concept. The evidence presented suggests that food miles are, at best, a marketing fad that frequently and severely distorts the environmental impacts of agricultural production. At worst, food miles constitute a dangerous distraction from the very real and serious issues that affect energy consumption and the environmental impact of modern food production and the affordability of food. The course of the debate over food miles is nonetheless instructive for policy makers. It highlights the need to remain focused on the issues that are important—in this case, the greenhouse gas emissions of highly subsidized first-world agriculture, the trade imbalances that prevent both developed and developing countries from realizing the mutual benefits of freer trade, biofuel subsidies, and thirdworld poverty. With the 0opulation of the planet growing rapidly, numerous food-policy issues other than food miles should preoccupy policy makers.


Later...


Food-mile activists sometimes promote the economic benefits of local purchases, at least inasmuch as they imply higher incomes for local producers. Missing from this perspective, of course, is the fact that, if forced by political intervention, farmers’ gains can only come at the expense of consumers who will be forced to pay higher prices for similar food items, or similar prices for lesser quality food items, than would otherwise be the case (if not, there would be no need to adopt coercive policies to penalize agricultural items produced in more distant political jurisdictions). Restrictive “local food” policies would imply, even in the world’s currently most productive agricultural areas, a drastic reduction in the quantity and diversity of foods available to consumers. Smaller supplies of meat, soybeans, cereals, fresh fruits and vegetables—even if somewhat compensated by increased local production of a few
items (say, potatoes, beets, and onions)—would result in lower amounts of calories available per individual and reduced vitamin, protein and mineral intakes


From the UK: The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development