Balanced diet includes local and imported food, say IIED, Oxfam
Western consumer concern over climate change can do more harm than good if it cuts demand for food produced in developing nations.
Western consumer concern over climate change can do more harm than good if it cuts demand for food produced in developing nations, warns a new book by Oxfam and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
The authors call for a new balanced diet consisting of locally produced food in season and imported food out of season. This will ensure the lowest emissions of greenhouse gases, and consumers will help support the livelihoods of farmers local to themselves and poor farmers in developing nations.
The book will be launched on 11 December at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. It has been produced to ensure that consumers in developed nations do not turn away from buying imported produce from developing nations in the belief this is a positive choice for sustainable development.
"Climate change will hit poorer rural people in developing nations first, fastest and hardest," says James MacGregor of IIED. "High-value trade with such nations is critical to build rural economies that are resilient to climate change. The trade in fresh produce is one part of a global solution to this challenge."
The book shows that even when food travels a long distance by plane it can result in lower overall emissions than food that travels shorter distances, because of other sources of emissions.
Studies show that transport accounts for just 10% of the total emissions in the food chain in the United Kingdom and United States, with the rest coming from food production, processing, distribution and storage.
Produce grown in Africa under the sun and flown to Europe can produce lower emissions than produce grown in Europe in heated glasshouses and transported by train or boat.
"When consumers focus on 'food miles' they are ignoring the other social and environmental issues embedded in their shopping decisions," says James MacGregor of IIED. "More than one million livelihoods in rural Africa are supported in part by UK consumption of imported fresh produce. We urge consumers to avoid knee-jerk reactions and think instead of 'fair miles' and recognise that there are also social and ethical aspects to choices about where food comes from."
MacGregor says Western consumption of fruit and vegetables grown in developing nations is critical for some of the world’s poorest farmers and their communities
"It enables them to pay for housing, food, healthcare and their children's education," he says. "Consumers who avoid food simply because it has travelled a long distance are denying development opportunities for the people who need it most."
The researchers are not saying locally grown food is a poor choice. "Eating local food when it is in season is a critical element of a balanced diet, and is complementary to eating development-friendly foods out-of-season," says MacGregor.
The book argues that as farmers in developing nations contribute so little to climate change, they shouldn’t be penalised because we emit more in the West. It says consumers serious about changing their behaviour in order to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions should be cycling or walking to their supermarket.
"The average Briton's emissions are 35 times higher than those of the average Kenyan," says Richard King of Oxfam. "It is unfair to penalise these low-emitters and limit their rights to develop by refusing to eat the food they want to sell. Instead Western consumers could do more to limit their own environmental impacts by flying and driving less and by using energy more efficiently."