Big Foot: the carbon footprint and barriers to trade

Here is an interesting read from the USDA FAS on the UK's unstoppable obsession with the carbon footprint and how it may affect trade.Carbon footprinting may soon become a requirement to supplying big business in the UK.


Driven by the Prime Minister’s aggressive Climate Change policy, the UK has decided that it cannot wait for a European or International Standard for calculating greenhouse gas emissions associated with manufactured products and has published Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050. Many blue chip companies have already adopted the methodology, including leading supermarket chains Tesco and Sainsbury’s. US companies may not be ready to meet the requests for data from their UK customers. Similarly problematic, the methodology that the US company might have used at home may not be compatible with the UK approach. Supplying data will involve added costs for the supply chain, and products may be de-listed if they do not have an acceptable carbon footprint


More...

There is a new phrase adopted by the retail industry in the UK, “Choice Editing”, and it has even been used in presentations by the government department Defra. It is expected that the UK's major supermarket chains will choose products with better environmental credentials making the switch to environmentally friendly products easier for the consumer. It is clear from the speed that this approach is being adopted by UK business, when there is no imperative to do it, that US businesses will have to provide carbon information and look to reduce the carbon footprint of a product or risk losing sales.

TK: Can a carbon footprint label system effectively discourage consumption? Given the fact that retailers are choosing to selectively highlight the carbon footprint score of environmentally friendly products, won't creeping consumer cynicism rapidly overrun this effort for all except the most sold out green consumers? This entire effort seems like a massive waste of resources to me, but I'm obviously out of touch on this issue....

Carbon sequestration and lawns

One of the message boards I belong to is a food and climate change group. Recently a discussion thread there addressed the issue of lawn care and carbon sequestration. It brought to mind the reality that perhaps 1% of our population is aware and concerned about problems the other 99% of us are either ignorant of or can't be bothered with. An essential question in all issues such as this; should public policy follow the lead of the 1% or wait for the other 99% to catch up? Obviously, the 1% would hope - perhaps vainly - that public policy would be that progressive. For the benefit of we 99%, I offer this from Lori of the climate change group:

The simplest effort that can reduce fossil fuel consumption associated with healthy lawn care is mowing with a sharp mower blade as it can reduces mower gas consumption by 25% or more: http://www.gardening.cornell.edu/news/mow_sharp.htm The next simplest task is raising the mower blade to it's highest setting (~3 in.) so you mow less often. Even the most avid lawn care enthusiast could live with the beautiful healthy lawn that can be achieved with these simple pesticide free steps. For those looking for more steps for educating the public about eco-lawn care this site has lots to offer: http://www.growinggreenlawns.org/publications/

Decline and fall of food labels

This USDA ERS report on consumer use of food nutrition label confirms something we instinctively know is true. We don't read nutrition labels - ever. At least I don't. Here is the quick and dirty summary, from the report "The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006":

Packaged and processed foods sold in the United States began carrying standardized nutrition labels in 1994 when the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) took effect. In addition to a standardized Nutrition Facts panel, the NLEA standardized serving sizes and placed limits on the content and format of health and nutrition claims on the front of packages. The major goal of the new labeling requirement was to increase access to nutrition information and improve consumers’ ability to make healthful food choices.


What Did the Study Find?
The study reveals that from 1995-96 to 2005-06, consumer use of nutrition labels when making food purchases declined. Consumer use decreased for most label components: it declined approximately 3 percentage points for the Nutrition Facts panel, 11 percentage points for the ingredient list, and 10 percentage points for the panel’s information about calories, fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Only the use of information about fiber and sugars did not decline over the 10-year period. Use of fi ber information increased by 2 percentage points, while that for sugars held steady.

The change in use of the Nutrition Facts panel varied by population groups over the 10-year period. The decrease in use was greatest for individuals 20-29 years old, those with no education beyond high school, and those who spoke primarily Spanish, a group that increased from 2 to 6 percent of the population over the 10-year period. Younger adults and new residents in the country were least likely to have benefi ted from the public awareness campaigns conducted just after the new labels were introduced, suggesting that decline in use by those cohorts could be due, in part, to a relative lack of knowledge or awareness. The decline in use observed among the rest of the population suggests some depreciation in the value of the information conveyed since the initial awareness campaigns occurred.
The 2-percentage point increase in use of information about dietary fiber was led by an increase among individuals over age 30. This increase in use may be the result of the increasing popularity of low-carb diets, interest in identifying whole grain foods, or an aging population that is more aware of dietary fiber's health benefits.

TK: I guess fresh produce is not missing out by commonly not having nutrition fact labels displayed in the produce department. The question is: how can the government get people to care? Bingo or lotto numbers hidden somewhere on the label - some kind of sudoku puzzle, perhaps? And now we want to put on carbon footprint labels - another piece of information consumers won't care about?

What is sustainable agriculture? - The dialogue begins with the Standards Committee

Ryan Kane here in the office just forwarded me this very important news release. Big questions remain about the inclusivness of the group, though a committee of 58 should bring a broad spectrum of views to the table. From the release:

(August 14, 2008) Emeryville, CA — The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) process to develop a national standard for sustainable agriculture will take another important step forward this September as the newly formed Standards Committee meets to establish its work plan and form the Subcommittees that will negotiate the contents of the final standard.

The 58 individuals on the Standards Committee will take the reins of the standard-setting process at the first Standards Committee meeting, to be held in Madison, Wisconsin next month. The Standards Committee includes farmers, both large and small, representing conventional, organic and other alternative agriculture perspectives, as well as wholesalers and retailers. Also represented on the committee are major industry associations, as well as academic researchers, regulators, and environmental and labor representatives.

“This is an exciting moment, as it sets the stage for the first national discussion about sustainable agriculture, and the many important issues encompassed by this concept,” said Michael Arny, president of Leonardo Academy, the ANSI-accredited standards development organization charged with shepherding the process forward. “There are still ample opportunities for additional stakeholders to participate by applying to work on the various Subcommittees, and later during the public review and comment process. The ANSI process is an open process that welcomes everyone.”

Sustainability is widely understood to encompass environmental, social, and economic parameters, dating back to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. For agricultural products, safety and quality parameters are also a key part of the sustainability discussion. SCS-001, the draft standard that will serve as the starting point for discussions, also addresses the impacts of product packaging, the responsibilities of the supply chain, and agricultural practices that can minimize greenhouse gases.

“We would like to congratulate Leonardo Academy on the incredible job they’ve done in selecting a balanced, multi-stakeholder task group to serve on the Standards Committee,” said Linda Brown, executive vice president of Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). “The commitment of so many talented individuals to participate in a constructive, forward-looking sustainability dialogue bodes well for a process that will help guide sustainability practices for years to come. We look forward to taking our seat at this table among these exceptional individuals.”

According to Arny, the Leonardo Academy’s aims is to guide a process that supports continuous improvement over time in a measurable and transparent manner, with sufficient flexibility to take into account the changes that inevitably occur in ecosystems, and the production variables associated with different agricultural regions.

“This standard could serve many beneficial uses,” said Arny. “It could stimulate better understanding of sustainability dynamics, provide a roadmap for practical improvement, and establish a credible infrastructure and procedures for meaningful verification of claims.”

Remote access to meetings for participants at both the Standards Committee and Subcommittee levels will remove barriers to participation for members who are not able to travel to meetings. This will also help reduce the energy burden and lower the carbon footprint of the standard setting process itself.

“The challenges ahead are significant, including regional variables, important product sector distinctions, concerns that the interests of small and mid-scale farmers be protected, and awareness that standards must remain flexible enough to encourage continuing innovation,” Brown observed. “Likewise, there is a growing recognition that sustainability is itself a journey, one that ultimately involves relationships along the entire value chain, from grower to consumer. And there are still many unknowns, because our understanding of sustainability evolves along with our increasing knowledge about the risks to the environment. But it is these very challenges that provide the most compelling reasons for stakeholders to join in this national sustainability dialogue.”

Tuesday headline roundup - Top headlines

Here are a few headlines of note for Aug. 12...

Junk bond defaults rise as economy slows From Investors Business Daily:

U.S. corporate bond defaults are already on the rise. Moody's on Aug. 7 reported a sharp rise in July defaults and now expects the global default rate to climb over 6% over the next year. That's up from less than 1% in late 2007.
Standard & Poor's predicts that 4.9% of all speculative grade borrowers will default over the next 12 months. And there is a chance — estimated at 20% — that things could get much worse, with over 8% defaulting. Default, of course, sets the stage for bankruptcy court. "Default typically precedes Chapter 11," said Diane Vazza, head of global fixed income at Standard & Poor's.

Critics blast Wal-Mart for lobbying against carbon offset guidelines From U.S. News

Wal-Mart is one of the largest consumers of electricity in the United States and presides over one of the largest truck fleets in the world. And for these reasons, even the little steps the company takes to go greener—such as selling sustainable products or local produce—make a big difference, and the company has been commended for them.
Despite this, critics from Wal-Mart Watch, a group that tracks the company's growth and influence, re
port that the company is lobbying against defining and standardizing carbon offsets for proposed cap-and-trade programs—a move some deem hypocritical in light of the company's public campaign to cut its footprint.


U.S. may not be in recession, but 170 metro areas could be From The Modesto Bee;


Using June data, Moody's estimates that 170 metro areas are in recession. Together they make up about 43 percent of metropolitan employment nationwide. That's up from 142 metropolitan areas in May.
Moody's research suggests that 116 metro areas are at risk of recession, about 25 percent of metropolitan employment nationwide. That leaves roughly 32 percent of the nation's biggest metro areas, 94 of them, with expanding economies. In May, 106 metropolitan communities were expanding.
The biggest losers include industrial Midwestern states such as Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin. Deep problems in auto manufacturing, exacerbated by bad bets on SUV production as gasoline prices rose, have hurt those states. The housing crunch has made a bad situation worse.
"Michigan is either the weakest or second weakest economy, mostly due to the misfortunes of the auto industry," said Mark Vitner, senior economist for Wachovia, the big national bank based in Charlotte, N.C. "Aside from Michigan, the rest of the Midwest is generally struggling with weakness in the auto sector and other consumer durable goods."
Other obvious losers include Florida, Nevada and Arizona, states that are experiencing the biggest collapse in home prices after the biggest run-up in prices during the boom of 2001 to 2005. Their turnarounds will depend largely on when the housing freefall bottoms out.

GOP hits Dems on access to power

Obesity may be contagious

Nebraska group aims for immigration policy

Wal-Mart, retailers may gain on reports

The Demise of the 'Freshman 15'?

Given the fact that my two daughters are four grades apart in school, I thought that when I helped the first one with her college search, my errors in judgment at that time would be rectified when the younger daughter stepped up to the plate.

Not so fast. With daughter #2 there's a completely different academic skillset, and mindset to boot. No sorority this time. A quiet dorm, among other wants. But most important to her, access to healthy & lowfat food has to prevail. Initially, the wife & I were quick to dismiss this desire as low on the overall priority list, but now I'm not so sure. A healthy student is a happy student, and she wants to continue the success she's had on Weight Watchers over the last year. Who am I to argue with that logic?

So now we're looking at these schools from a somewhat different angle, having completed the majority of the dog-and-pony campus visits. And you'd be surprised at the food availability variance from one college to another. In a Tom Karst post today, there's a link to an interesting article from the Grand Rapids (MI) Press where Aquinas College is attempting to focus on locally-grown produce. On the cutting edge is a school like University of Wisconsin--Madison, where every single item or dish sold by their restaurants or foodservice has its nutritional values & breakdown posted on the campus website. Impressive.

But for every college or university thinking 'green' and healthy, there are just as many that don't appear to be putting forth the effort. We visited a handful of campuses whose tours included a dorm cafeteria lunch. Granted, they've come a long, long way from the 'mystery meat' hash-slinging days of the 1960's-70's, but in my view the present-day cafeterias, while attractive in their Las Vegas-style food station setup, still include way too many overly-processed entrees and starch-laden side dishes. But I guess that's what most of the students want, and maybe there's a wee bit of envy from here that they can jam 50 tater tots down their gullets & then go for a run, while I can just smell these morsels & have to add a notch to the belt, after taking a Pepcid.

I had a conversation Friday with a western Michigan produce veteran who supplies universities in the area & remarked, cynically I hope, that I'm hopelessly out of the foodservice lingo loop because I was not aware of my 'carbon footprint'. That's their buzzphrase these days, although we'll see eventually whether there's a real desire to improve the environment or it's just their profit-driven cause du jour. Guess it's true--I ain't 'green' enough...

Later,

Jay

Your carbon footprint

A presentation by Paul Hepperla, director of Supply Side Energy, Verisae, Inc., presented this powerpoint on June 17 at the FMI Sustainability Summit.

Food choice more important than food miles

Get used to hearing more and more about the "carbon footprint" of consumer products in coming years. Much of the focus will be toward elevating locally grown food as a way to reduce environmental impacts, but a recent study indicates that consumer choice of food types- whether plant-based, dairy or meat - has a much greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions than factors such as "food miles." The implications are obviously positive for commercial fruit and vegetable marketers. Here is an abstract for the research called "Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States", by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews.



Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO₂e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.


TK: Check out this thoughtful post at the Ethicurean blog for more analysis and reaction from local food fans.

Sustainability - what's the meaning of this

Lots of take home from the FMI Sustainability Summit:
Some themes to explore: greenwashing, FTC regulation of sustainability claims, carbon footprint, the rise of water as the new environmental issue, getting sustainability into the corner office, trustology (the relative merits of certifying agencies), the rise and fall of plastic bags, why consumers don't remember to use their reusable grocery bags, what will be the sustainability standard for fresh produce growers (a start toward a new standard is afoot), the surprising carbon footprint implications of refrigerants at supermarkets, possible cap and trade legislation for carbon credits...

Obviously, much to explore. Some of it will make it into The Packer coverage this week, and other story lines will be developed on the blog. I have a ton of powerpoint presentations from the Summit; I expect I'll embed at least a couple in the blog later this week.

The triple bottom line

The FMI Sustainability Summit here in Minneapolis is well attended (over 300 registered) and the event has started off with two workshops on Monday. For some in the audience, the discussions were not necessarily plowing new ground, but many big picture topics were taken up today, including global warming, the looming water crisis, limits to growth, consumer attitudes (greenwashing, or how "green" is that chain saw?).

Carter Roberts of the World Wildlife Fund delivered the keynote address, answering the question why sustainability is an imperative for retailers. His sober message; resource scarcity and climate change are two of the most important issues of our lifetime and the food chain must be able to do more with less.

The first workshop looked at consumer attitudes and values in the market place, and the second workshop reviewed the experience of three sustainability "pioneers." A highlight of that workshop was the presentation by Gene Kahn, former organic potato grower and now global sustainability officer with General Mills, Inc. who embraced the need and the value of conventional agriculture in helping to feed the world.


Of course, the starting point for FMI is the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit. FMI's definition of sustainability is "business practices that promote the long term well being of the environment, society and the bottom line.


FMI recently approved a policy on plastic bags that includes provisions to maximize use of reusable bags and promote comprehensive recycling of plastic bags.


It sounds as if FMI will consider resources needed to develop a "carbon footprint plan" for the retail trade, in addition to other work with the supply chain on sustainability standards.

It's not easy being green but people are up to it

This press release has all kinds of interesting data from a survey of organic/green shoppers querying their buying habits in view of the slumping economy. One in six consumers reported buying fewer natural and organic foods because of economic pressures. From the news release on PR Newswire:

Consumer interest in buying green environmentally friendly products and healthy organic food remains high despite the tough economy and rising food and energy prices. A recent market research survey released by Mambo Sprouts Marketing showed that consumers are placing a priority on buying green and 2 in 3 or more are using coupons, stocking up on sales and cooking meals at home to stretch their grocery dollars.

Even with the faltering economy and rising food and energy prices, about 9 in 10 (88%) consumers reported buying the same (52%) or more (36%) green environmentally friendly products vs. 6 months ago. About 7 in 10 consumers are still willing to spend up to 20% more for "green" sustainable products. Only 1 in 6 (17%) respondents reported buying fewer natural and organic foods, as individual comments suggested that short-term savings would have long-term costs to their family's health and the environment.

Results showed fuel prices are driving dual aspects of consumer behavior. Respondents are shopping closer to home and combining trips to reduce gas expense as well as buying more local and seasonal produce for lower prices and to reduce food miles and their carbon footprint.

Natural and organic consumers are using a variety of money saving strategies to offset higher food and energy prices, including: 1) increased reliance on coupons and sales; 2) preparing more meals at home; 3) wasting less of their purchases; 4) preparing more meatless, vegetarian meals; and 5) buying less bottled water -- using filtered and tap instead.

Money saving topics of interest to 2 in 3 consumers included: finding healthy coupons and offers online (77%), saving money on organics (74%) and healthy kid's meals and snacks (65% of families). According to Mambo Sprouts, consumer commitment to green and organic products reflects the increased media attention and awareness of the health and environmental benefits of buying organic, locally-produced, sustainable food.

The Mambo Sprouts survey focused on interest in shopping for green and organic products in tough economic times. The survey was issued in April 2008 and completed by over 1,000 natural and organic consumers. The survey was fielded by Mambo Sprouts Marketing, a leader in natural and organic product marketing and promotions (http://www.mambosprouts.com).

Website: http://www.mambosprouts.com//

Pro green and carbon neutral

We may not understand what "carbon sequestration" is, but we know it is good. From the Dole Food Company:

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dole Food Company, Inc. announced today that its operating division in Costa Rica, Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica S.A., will purchase carbon offsets from the Costa Rican Government’s program in amounts equal to the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the inland transport of Dole produced bananas and pineapples.

This ground-breaking announcement marks the first time that a private company has committed to offset its emissions from the transport of its finished products within Costa Rica. The announcement is part of a broader agreement Dole signed last August with the Government of Costa Rica’s Ministry of the Environment and Energy and the National Strategy for Climate Change to produce a carbon neutral supply chain for bananas and pineapples. Costa Rica is seeking to become carbon neutral by 2021.

“Dole is determined to take the lead in environmentally friendly production and distribution methods,” said David A. DeLorenzo, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dole Food Company, Inc. “We are committed to helping the Government of Costa Rica achieve their sustainability ambitions.”

Dr. Roberto Dobles, Minister of the Environment and Energy of Costa Rica stated: “This agreement that Dole signed today is an important first step within a global vision. It is a first step toward a great contribution by Dole for the consolidation of the country strategy to be climate neutral for our bicentennial.”

Under the accord, the National Forestry Financing Fund (“Fonafifo”) will offer Dole carbon credits from government-certified forestry projects that will annually sequester an equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere as that emitted by fossil fuel use in road and rail transportation. In essence, the Dole products will be “carbon neutral” with regards to transportation from company-owned packing plants to the ports of export in Costa Rica.

The carbon credit approach is one of many strategies that Dole is employing to neutralize the carbon footprint resulting from the growing, harvesting, packaging and distribution of the company’s bananas and pineapples in Costa Rica. Reforestation programs are occurring and thousands of trees are being planted on Dole plantations in Costa Rica, including local farms and neighboring communities.

Danilo Roman, General Manager of Dole Standard Fruit de Costa Rica S.A., commented: “Among the many steps we have taken to reduce emissions at source is optimization of fertilizers to deliver nutrients more effectively. In this way, we can directly reduce the emission of nitrous-oxide, a potent green-house gas. We expect that this program will decrease emissions by over 12% or nearly 9,000 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.”

Renieri Nuñez, Pineapple Operations Manager, added: “The Company has always been a pioneer in environmental good practices. We are now looking at everything from ways to improve the efficiency of tractors, to employee training to operate machinery in a more fuel efficient manner, to lowering the carbon footprint of our agricultural operations. We hope to work together with our supply chain partners in furthering climate change mitigation practices.”

Dole Food Company, Inc., with 2007 revenues of $6.9 billion, is the world's largest producer and marketer of high-quality fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and fresh-cut flowers. Dole markets a growing line of packaged and frozen foods and is a produce industry leader in nutrition education and research.

Owning Earth Day

This just slid across my inbox, a news release touting Fresh & Easy's Earth Day initiatives. From the release:

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market today announced a series of initiatives in celebration of Earth Day. On Tuesday, the company plans to give away reusable “bags for life” at all Fresh & Easy stores and unveil a dedicated green building Web page. The company also announced it recently joined a national greenhouse gas disclosure group, The Climate Registry, as a “founding reporter.”

Bag for Life. In celebration of Earth Day, Fresh & Easy will bag customers’ groceries in reusable “bags for life” for free on Tuesday. The “bag for life” is larger and more durable than a standard grocery bag and, if damaged, the company will replace the bag for free, forever. These bags are made with recycled material and are 100% recyclable. Fresh & Easy offers its customers two different types of reusable bags, including a $2.50 canvas bag and the plastic “bag for life,” which retails for $.20.

Green Building Web Page. On Tuesday, Fresh & Easy will also launch a Web page dedicated to the company’s green building initiatives. The site will highlight Fresh & Easy’s green building practices and incorporate a real time green energy meter from its 500,000 sq. ft. solar panel on its Riverside, CA distribution center. The installation was built by Solar Integrated, a Los Angeles company, and is one of the largest of its kind in the world. The solar panels power about 30% of the energy used at the entire facility. www.freshandeasy.com/greenbuilding

The Climate Registry. Fresh & Easy has joined The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that builds and expands the greenhouse gas measurement and accounting work of the California Climate Action Registry, a California-based voluntary greenhouse gas reporting organization of which Fresh & Easy is already a member. TCR extends a common carbon footprint reporting standard across North America. For more information on TCR, please visit www.theclimateregistry.org.

“We all have a responsibility to put thought into our impact on the environment,” said CEO Tim Mason. “At Fresh & Easy, we take this responsibility seriously, and strive to be good stewards of the environment. Collectively, we all can make a big difference.”

Fresh & Easy is also partnering with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) to demonstrate its commitment to build energy efficient and sustainable buildings. www.usgbc.org\LEED

More information on Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market can be found at www.freshandeasy.com.

Cool site of the day

Posting again from St. Petersburg, I'm online and reviewing the Cool Site of the Day Web site. Vance Publishing's own www.fruitandveggieguru.com found its day in the sun Feb. 7 as the anointed "Cool site" and actually scored quite well among readers.

Other cool sites I noticed on the Cool Site Web site archive:

Carbon footprint calculator - From BP?

Old fun games - DK, Pac Man and more

Space time arcade - For the youngster

U.S. Census Bureau - it's got a population "clock"

Costly travel mistakes - Come to think of it, a helpful site right now

Budget edge - another one that looks good, personal finance related

Word spy - Luis first mentioned this site in the Discussion Group

Tangerine tango

Read this blog post about the Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth responding to a question about global warming, food miles ..and tangerines.

From Ben Smith:


The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.
"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.
"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.
Edwards had talked about "sacrifice," at the meeting, but Elizabeth's suggestion illustrated just how difficult it is to sell the specifics of sacrifice.
Asked about her comment immediately after the event, John Edwards avoided the question twice, then said he isn't sure.
"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that."
UPDATE: Just to be clear, he's not talking about a food tax. The basic point is that any plan that imposes new costs on carbon emissions is going to make anything that's transported long distances with fossil fuels cost more. It is, in a way, a moment of clarity in this debate.

TK: Preposterous. There is no way the majority of consumers, including myself, want tangerines from Chile, California or Spain to cost 10 cents more per pound because of some global warming tax, or some other scheme to impose new costs based on "a carbon footprint." Again, perhaps a moment of needed clarity to see where the fuzzy talk of global warming is leading us.

Going the extra food mile

The carbon footprint and food miles associated with individual products are hot topics for exporters of fresh vegetables from Kenya, and this report reveals some of their worries.
From The Africa Channel

UK retail giant Marks & Spencer (M&S) has reassured Kenyan agricultural exporters that it will not cut imports of fresh produce . In an e-mail briefing, the retailer’s chief executive officer, Stuart Rose, said uninterrupted trade with Kenyan horticulture industry is part of its success, and said recent moves to alert customers to the environmental impact of air-freight should not worry the country’s producers.


TK: What strikes me in this conversation is the length and assumed expense to which retailers will go to measure and label something so complex as the carbon footprint. In the story, Tesco said it is committed to develop a more in-depth labelling system to show the total amount of carbon emissions caused by every product. Retailers will do all of this voluntarily, but compelling U.S . retailers to display country of origin labeling is a deal-breaker? I wonder about that.

Time for a Change?

You need to read Time magazine’s treatment of local and organic produce, which is found in a March 2 piece called “Eating better than organic.” The cover story brings interesting insights into the consumer consciousness of an Eastern elite, full of musings about the dangers of conventional fruit, half convictions and self-important moral choices.
If nothing else, Time’s coverage confirmed to me that the local food trend is already established as the top social responsibility trend of the year.
We have been reading about variations on this theme in the European press, particularly in the U.K. There, chains are talking about the “carbon footprint” of foods, going so far as to label air-freighted foods with an “aeroplane” symbol. Kenya vegetable exporters have objected to the badge of shame, noting that agricultural production practices in Africa account for much less energy use than those in England.
The Time piece is not really a news piece as it is a “point of view” narrative. How is one man struggling with the issue of local versus organic food?
Here is how it started:

Not long ago I had an apple problem. Wavering in the produce section of a Manhattan grocery store, I was unable to decide between an organic apple and a nonorganic apple (which was labeled conventional, since that sounds better than "sprayed with pesticides that might kill you"). It shouldn't have been a tough choice--who wants to eat pesticide residue?--but the organic apples had been grown in California. The conventional ones were from right here in New York State.

The author sets up a choice between the California farmer who “rejected pesticides” to the New York growers who in some romantic sense was “a neighbor.”
I’m not saying that buying local is silly, or that consumers who choose local produce over organic produce grown thousands of miles away are ill-advised.
Far from it. I’m just saying it is above me to wrangle with the question of whether to buy a local apple – defined loosely as grown within the range of a leisurely day trip - or a California organic apple.
As for me, I might look for the conventional 5-pound bag of apples on sale, no matter the origin.
Perhaps if you sit me down and make me watch Al Gore’s film, “An inconvenient truth,” I will be changed. I don’t think so, though. I just can’t see myself internally calculating the “carbon footprint” of Southern Hemisphere fruit and recoiling in disgust.
While this social responsibility trend is beyond me, it does relate back to an issue that I feel strongly about.
I do think consumers should know if produce is grown in the U.S. or not. Just this week I was visiting with a California source who said one grower in the Stockton Delta region is taking out 600 acres of asparagus this year. Competition from Mexico and Peru has taken out a lot of production, and some growers are bitter.
Retailers who ask Stockton Delta producers what can they do for them at Easter might be asked in return: what have retailers done for them before Easter?
Consumers obviously have an interest in where their foods come from, starting with country of origin information and now encompassing the social phenomena of “local” food.
More power to them.

Back to the Time piece.
How did the author, Ben Stechschulte, resolve the dilemma?
He bought both apples.

War of Words

There continues to be a battle for the hearts. minds but especially the pocketbooks of consumers in the U.K. over the issue of food miles and "carbon footprint." In this article, Kenyan vegetable exporters accuse some U.K. consumers of backstabbing them over the issue.
From The Nation:

Customers of Tesco and Marks & Spencer who pick up a pack of fresh, green, healthy looking beans (most of which is grown in Kenya) will soon be faced with an aeroplane symbol, telling them that the vegetable has been transported by air to the supermarket.
Ambitious strategies unveiled in January by Tesco, the biggest British retailer, and Marks & Spencer both promise to ramp up locally sourced food and cut down on imports, as one of a packet of measures to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
Neither firm has offered much detail on when or how they will switch from imports to locally produced food. But their goals will support the growing trend for counting "food miles", a somewhat misleading indicator of pollution that could do significant harm to Kenyan horticultural exports.
First coined in the early 1990s, food miles is narrowly defined as the distance travelled by a food product from its source to the consumer's plate. The longer the distance, the more pollution caused by the food while in transit - a combination of the fuel emissions, and packaging and technology required to keep the food fresh.
Professor Gareth Edward Jones from the University of Wales who is leading a government-funded study into the advantages and disadvantages of consuming locally produced vegetables compared with vegetables from overseas, says transport is only a small part of food's total carbon budget. Where and how vegetables are grown also counts.
"Making fertiliser is a hugely intensive process. Africa doesn't use much fertiliser compared to Europe as it typically uses organic sources," he points out.
Some studies suggest that growing vegetables in a greenhouse could be more harmful than the gases emitted by transport to and from Africa. But the real problem area is much closer to home, says Professor Edwards-Jones.
"Food use in the home - how you cook it, and store it (in a fridge or freezer) - is a much more important share of the energy consumed," he says. "But when we tell this to people in Britain they get very upset. And for the media, conveying the message to get a more efficient cooker or fridge is a boring one."
"Buy local", on the other hand, carries much more sway in a country that has seen income and jobs in its agricultural sector in steady decline.
Professor Edwards-Jones is convinced that recent calls for local sourcing and support for local fresh produce is more about backing the nation's farmers than any environmental concerns.
Professor Edwards-Jones puts it differently: "About 10 per cent of consumers are what I call 'food agitators', or those that are consistently concerned about ethics. They will put pressure on retailers to improve their carbon footprint. The retailers follow these agitators, not the 90 per cent who don't care."
"Food miles is such an emotive issue and unfortunately I think food miles will come out on top, even though it is based on misleading information."

TK: I think Professor Jones makes some good points. How consumers use electricity in their home - note Al Gore's $1,200 monthly electric bill - may have a greater "carbon footprint" effect than food miles. And I do see how that food miles can be seen as a non-tariff trade barrier by exporters in Kenya, New Zealand, Chile and everywhere else where exports are important.

Carbon footprint backlash

It's a strange term and a weird expression - a carbon footprint backlash - but of course we know exactly what it means. People that ship fresh produce from afar to distant markets - such as Africa to the U.K. - are worried. Here is a report from the BBC about how Kenyan vegetable exporters are puzzled about why they are the bad guys in the environmental campaign against food miles.

Rutgers professor William Hallman said yesterday that E. coli tainted spinach and lettuce becomes the point of reference in every foodborne illness story, and I see that truth everyday in various stories. Here is a column from a West Virginia paper about peanut butter that makes the obligatory reference.
From the column:

Now, it seems folks are getting sick — including a few locally — after eating peanut butter possibly linked to a national salmonella scare. This comes on the heels of the spinach, green onion and lettuce scares last year.


Here is another story from The Salt Lake Tribune about E. coli and lettuce, quoting sources from Natural Selections and Fresh Express.


TK: It should be noted that peanut butter, chicken breasts and pasta sauces had foodborne illness outbreaks linked to those products this week. But, for now, at least, it all ties back to fresh produce.

From NZ with love

Tesco's apparent plan of labeling produce that has been air shipped to England is discussed in this piece from New Zealand.
From the story:

Major British retailer Tesco will soon label all produce airfreighted to Britain to inform environment-conscious customers of the energy costs of getting such products to market.
Concern has been raised that this may be linked to the food-miles concept, a flawed methodology that could have the potential to harm New Zealand's multimillion-dollar export trade to Britain.
In practice, the Tesco labelling will have a limited impact on New Zealand producers because 99.75 per cent of produce exported from New Zealand to Britain goes by ship, the most environmentally sound method by which it can be sent there.
Freight that can be shipped adds little more in energy consumption than the energy cost of taking the goods home from the supermarket by car. However, a much wider-ranging and ambitious undertaking by Tesco and other British retailers has been foreshadowed - to label goods according to their total energy costs and carbon emissions.
Unlike food-miles, which measure only transport costs, this new plan may actually help sell New Zealand produce. The labels would reveal to British consumers that New Zealand food producers use some of the most energy-effective practices in the world.
Tesco's aim is to develop a carbon-footprint labelling measure for all products it sells. These new "green" labels are intended to allow customers to compare and shop for the most energy-efficient items.


TK: I have to wonder how much an impact these "green" labels will have on purchasing decisions, and whether the labels could end up hurting the most economically vulnerable exporters in Africa.