Is eating British food a 'better' choice than imported food?
Where does my food come from? It's a question many Druids think carefully about as part of how they craft an honourable relationship with land. In this debate we examine some of the issues involved in the British v Imported food debate, including oil useage, habitats, the impact of different crops and fairtrade.
To get involved email your ideas and opinions to the ethical pages coordinator.
Oil Usage
Louise : In support of imported food it's important to remember that oil in transport is not the biggest use of oil in producing food. Oil used to ship food is obviously a negative against it, but weight for weight it emits less carbon and uses less oil to ship food to the UK, than it does to drive food around within the UK! The oil (and energy) used to transport food is the aspect of producing food which uses least energy. The other inputs into producing food; transporting the staff who work on it, the chemical inputs onto the crops, the machinery used to plant, weed, harvest it and the packaging surrounding it, all use oil. Independent research (albeit published by the Fairtrade Foundation) has shown that less energy is used producing many crops overseas because they use manual labour, no machinery, no inputs onto the crops, no packaging etc. So a food imported from overseas may have a lower carbon footprint than UK produced food despite having travelled much further.
Susan : But in the same way that when 'independent' research comes out from a drug company or unilever, we would question that too...most research has an agenda, no?
Louise : Sure, some research is funded by a company wanting to prove something, but other research is funded by research councils hopefully to answer questions our society considerers relevant. I don't know how research councils are funded, I hope its independent, otherwise we cant trust any research! I don't think this research was funded by a research council, but I hope for everyone's sake that some research can be independent!
Louise : I think in terms of my lifestyle, I think I consume more oil in the travel involved in my job and getting to my job and in the rest of my lifestyle than I do in my diet. I can't cut plastic out of my life and everything I buy, everything I do, every service I use; from recycling to the internet, uses oil. I don't know how I can avoid or reduce this lifestyle consumption apart from the obvious reductions in consumption and using public transport, so it seems wrong to try to avoid using oil by not eating imported food because we assume it uses more energy because it has come further. Especially when some of the imported food I choose as significant benefits. Oil use in importing food is a bit like the obvious calories, but the hidden ingredients - the use of oil in food production (and the rest of my lifestyle) seems more significant.
Red : Regarding food miles and oil for shipping, I can understand that weight for weight and mile for mile it takes less oil to ship than to drive food, but surely the food has still come further, therefore using more? also if food has to be driven possibly hundreds of miles either side of the ports, this actually makes the consumption greater than if the food had just been driven. Slightly aside and in response to your point about what uses the greatest amount of oil in our daily lives, I have heard that driving a car actually makes up a surprisingly small fraction of our total footprint and it is infact the production and freighting of food, and the lighting and heating of our homes which make up the greater amount. We percieve that driving a car is higher because we see the fuel and the quantity when we physically fill the car.
Red : I can understand that weight for weight and mile for mile it takes less oil to ship than to drive food, but surely the food has still come further, therefore using more?
Louise : Yes, of course imported food is moved about within the UK by lorry not ship. My point was that total oil consumption is assumed to be higher for goods which come from abroad (because of the extra oil used in shipping it) than UK goods, when it often isn't because of the way things are produced overseas, (low inputs). The total oil used is often less than a similar UK product, despite fact they are both driven about in the UK and one has also been shipped.
Red : Ironically, by shipping food, the consumption of fossil fuels and the resultant climate change, are we not threatening the very habitats we are
trying to save by shipping and buying these foods in the first place?
Louise : I guess the argument that shipping food adds to climate change depends on whether or not you believe the shipped foods are worse or better in terms of total energy use than UK produced foods. If they were worse then they would certainly add to climate change, although the switch to forest based diets would encourage tree planting which would absorb more carbon which may balance it out, but these calculations are pretty much impossible for us to do with any accuracy!
Habitats
Louise : Also I think some imported foods have benefits in terms of the habitats they create. All tree crops produce amazing and often very important habitats. Cork forests are only managed to produce wine corks, but they are the last refuge of the lynx in Spain. Screw tops have led to some of these forests being felled to be used for other agriculture - this could be the end of the lynx in Spain. Brazil nuts only grow on wild forest trees, and only fruit when over (I think) 50yrs old. They have tried farming them and it fails, the trees don't fruit - it's the interrelationship with he rest of the forest, insects etc, which enables the tree to fruit. Fairtrade brazil nuts mean forest dependant peoples can make a living from forest without felling it. My MSc dissertation was all about how ethical trade in non-timber forest products can support forest conservation. It works - but it needs rich westerners to buy the products so folk across the world can sustainably maintain forests. Some rainforest conservation organisations promote a ‘rainforest diet'! Its focused on tree crops and they promote this diet because tree crops are sustainable, harvested by hand, planting trees has other environmental benefits and the forests are important habitats.
Red : In terms of the preservation of native habitats, there is so much that I agree with in what you say here and realise that I don't really know enough to make much comment. Of course preserving native habitiat is so crucially important particularly where industry threatens to destroy it. Yet there is also the same argument in Britain for preserving our lamb industry in that without it there would be no moorland habitat. Great! stop the meat industry and let our native wild wood claim it back. It would save us from having to constantly plant trees! Ironically, by shipping food, the consumption of fossil fuels and the resultant climate change, are we not threatening the very habitats we are trying to save by shipping and buying these foods in the first place? It seems to me that a habitat that relies on fossil fuels to be maintained has a limited existence. What will happen to the brazil forests when the brazils can no longer be shipped in such quantity? Hopefully the wild rainforest will reclaim altholugh tragically it will
probably be chopped down for timber in world where fuel is becoming scarce (not that this is justification for not preserving our rainforests now). I think that there is a wider issue here, that habitats are only being preserved when they are of benefit to us, even the brazil forests. Surely we should be preserving these habitats because they are neccessary to all life on earth and not just because they are of use to us humans?
Red : "You say Some rainforest conservation organisations promote a ‘rainforest diet..." this sounds a bit more like what I would hope would happen - that people in that area eat and become nourished by what they can grow - rather than just selling their products from rich westerns.
Louise : Although some agencies are encouraging people to plant crops that are more nourishing, and supporting these sustainable 'forest gardens', this diet was promoted to UK folks to get them buying tree crops.
Red : Preserving native habitiat is crucially important, particularly where industry threatens to destroy it. Yet there is also the same argument in Britain for preserving our lamb industry; in that without it, there would be no moorland habitat. Great! stop the meat industry and let our native wild wood claim it back.
Louise : I think the grazing argument is more about calcerous medows than moors, but conservation grazing could do as much good as meat animals grazing. I think moors would be better off without sheep! My post on the ethics debate about food was about exactly that, the way grazing animals take up space that ‘should' be wild and yes the moors are a manmade habitat.
Red : What will happen to the brazil forests when the brazils can no longer be shipped in such quantity?
Louise : You mention 'Brazil forests' they don't exist, the nuts don't come from plantations of brazils; the brazil nut trees are just a part of the secondary rainforest. Apparently the research doesn't think that primary rainforest can ever return or recover, even if secondary forest is left alone for long enough. It is an unbearable thought and I can only hope they are wrong.
Red : Surely we should be preserving these habitats because they are neccessary to all life on earth and not just because they are of use to us humans?
Louise : I completely agree that it is immoral to protect habitats just because they are useful to us. In conservation I am constantly struck by the grief that comes with trying to find economic arguments for maintaining all that naturally has a right to exist. I am no great lover of humans, I don't value wild spaces for their ability to provide us with something, I think they should just be. Sadly those in power do not agree with me. Species on the brink of extinction are those with no perceived value, plentiful species are those we decided we could use so bred and bred them, or those which can live in human environments. I would love to know how to change it, I always add the right to exist to every argument I make for a habitat and I never come from that perspective when justifying creating or protecting something. That's why I like working for a wildlife trust - it comes at conservation from the species point of view, not the humans.
Louise : I researched whether market forces could help protect forests in my MSc because of the tragic situation many forest people and rainforests are in; they are logged because in makes people rich. I would love governments to protect forest because it exists, but they don't, they sign treaties to allow companies in to take the most valuable timber, they throw indigenous people off there ancestors land because they stand in the way and protest the logging. People are frequently killed over logging rights and forests are being destroyed at a staggering rate. Sometimes the people who live on the land allow the loggers in, they profit from it, but with cycles of 50 to 80 years it's a once in a lifetime payment which leaves people with no other way of making money. The people living in forests are mostly not the native tribes folk (I would advocate leaving them alone and letting them live as they choose - not engaging them in trade.) they are the homeless folk from the cities, the ones who lived in shanty towns the government is cleaning up. They were granted land by the government, allowed to fell 10% of it but, in order to be given the land rights to it, the entire family has to live on it all year round. Quite simply they can't. We met families who had no source of water - they were catching rain, they couldn't grow enough food, there are no jobs in the forest. They sold fruits and resins and flowers whatever they could - in their local markets to buy food. Most forest people already trade with their local markets, they sell forest products and rely on the income they get not because we've set up trade in that country, but because they need money.
Good Crops - Bad Crops?
Louise : Another issue for the British v Imported food debate is that some crops have negative impacts. Sadly oilseed rape is a crop that is new to these islands and so supports few inspects and birds. It's considered a poor habitat and its replacing many beneficial habitats. For this reason some Wildlife Trusts are advising farmers not to grow oilseed rape! It's harvested by machine on a large scale (hedgerows are removed = more habitat loss). Its more and more popular, so is replacing more traditional crops such as sugar beet. Oilseed rape likes dry well drained soils, so more wet pasture is drained, sugar beet thrives in damp conditions and grows low to the ground, and is sown in ploughed fields so its one of the most important British crops for lapwings. The move away from these types of crops is having a negative impact on the birds which come here to overwinter as less and less food and land is available to them.
Red : I know so little about the negative impact of certain crops, it feels naive to comment as your arguments bring up even more questions for me. I would so much rather be using flax seed oil than rape certainly, I would love to find a British source although so far I have only found American or canadian. I have heard in the past that rape is not a great crop in terms of bio-diversity, although the fact that it is not native would not be a reason in itself for me not to buy it, after all potatoes are not native and are a monoculture crop and in many cases may not do an awful lot for biodiversity when intensivly farmed. I wonder how potatoes changed our environment when they were introduced and began to be farmed, I guess alot of woodland was cleared then too?
Red : I wonder how potatoes changed our environment when they were introduced and began to be farmed, I guess a lot of woodland was cleared then too?
Louise : I don't know, I imagine lots of woodland had already been cleared by then, but they probably added to it. I'd love to know what we ate here before potatoes. One of my projects is working with arable farmers along rivers. Mostly they are potato farmers, suds are a bad crop in lots of ways, huge amounts of silt run off because of the furrows, additional fertiliser etc, and along the Tame there are often no buffer strips. Since my move away from monoculture grains I've been keen to try to produce all my own spuds. I think the most ethical way to eat is to grow much of your own, I've got some going this year but I need to make this much more of a focus. But my organic box wont let you drop potatoes, and for a while we wont have any home grown ones. So like BC says I'm trying to minimise harm. I don't feel like I know enough about it to be sure my choice is valid, but the song of the monoculture wheats etc feel wrong to me at the moment.
Red :Are the negative effects of rape because of the way it is grown or the nature of the crop itself? I ask because I feel that rape is certainly a crop that is here to stay in the uk, it has become as prevalent as our grain cops. Im not sure that buoycotting it will make it go away. Would it be better instead to demand high quality rape seed oil, grown organically and with conservation and biodiversity in mind? Again I don't know, just exploring the issues.
Louise : I think its both, the crop itself is not much good for insects which wouldn't change if it was organic but organic is better for soil and water, and often the organic farms are in stewardship so have habitat creation targets. The other issue is the scale of production, i.e. machinery and hedgerows. The scale may be smaller with organic, and often they will put in woodland or hedges elsewhere on the farm if the field boundaries are removed.
Red : Would it be better instead to demand high quality rape seed oil, grown organically and with conservation and biodiversity in mind?
Louise : Perhaps, but in terms of my relationship with native wildlife I'm not happy to buy it. I'd rather buy organic sunflower oil which is great for wildlife in terms of insects on flowers, but still a large scale monoculture crop.
Fairtrade
Louise : What about Fairtrade? I feel really strongly about fairtrade, probably because I've had first hand experience of fairtrade projects in Ghana, Thailand and Brazil. It is genuine, it works and seeing it has made me very committed to supporting it. I've seen the environmental and social benefits fairtrade brings. I also think it honours trade as deity to ensure the exchange is honourable and beneficial to all involved. I'm researching an article on chocolate at the moment and I'm angered by what I'm finding. Plenty of companies are describing themselves as making ‘ethical chocolate' but looking into what they actually do to earn that label is grim. Fairtrade is the only independent label which provides consumers with the reassurance of knowing its not the marketing executives who decide to call a product ethical, its independent people who arrive unannounced on plantations, examine what goes on, look into supply chains, talk to staff, look at the environmental impact and then decide if its worthy of being called ‘fair'. I wouldn't stop buying fairtrade because its imported, because often the environmental impact is less than UK produced goods, and so much of my lifestyle uses oil, that to not support fairtrade because it uses oil to import goods, despite the environmental and social benefits of fairtrade, seems to me to do more harm than good.
Red : Fairtrade ethics, this is so difficult and so sensitive, I wrestle with it so much! My immediate response to this is that of course we should support fairtrade projects. I would always ensure that any chocolate, coffee, tea etc that we buy is certified fairtrade. But I question how sustainable this type of trade is. My gut feeling is that native people do not/should not NEED the help of rich western society in creating sustainable futures for themselves and their children. This is bult upon the capitalist belief in money, markets and civillisation. Further I might even add that it is western imperialistic society, our greed and need for the luxury products that these people produce that has placed them in poverty and perpetual slavery to our consumerism in the first place. Had we not demanded that our stomachs were filled with sweetness and caffiene these peoples lands could be used to nourish and support them as it did their ancestors. So long as we continue to demand these products in such quantity and at such cheap prices, (even fairtrade prices are disgustingly cheap) these people will never have the freedom of self determination. It is we who are responsible for the destruction of indigenous peoples and lands. Again, what happens when shipping and trade on such a scale is no longer sustainable? These people will be left to clean up our mess. I might argue (albeit controversially) that fairtrade is simpy helping to soothe the wounds that we have created. But it does not solve the problems it may even perpetuate them, just more gently. I am not arguing that we should all sit in our lands like little boxes, never ineracting or trading with the rest of the world, just that in order for trade to be truly fair it should be the farmers growers and workers who independantly fix the prices themselves, not the companies or "fairtrade co-operatives" . Even if that means paying £10 for a bar of chocolate which is probably nearer the right price. Advantageously, our nation would probably be less obese!
Red : Are we helping other countries to actually become more sustainable and independent as a culture (and not dependant on us) or just propping them up, until the oil runs out and the imported foods are outside the rich western's ability to afford? Is this just a short term fix that will crumble? Or is Fair Trade doing anything to ensure folk in these countries are not so dependant upon the west?
Louise : That is what I think is most important about fairtrade. It does invest in communities as a whole to make them less dependant. The premium paid to the whole community (to build or buy whatever the whole community votes as most important) helps their development, be that building a school, a clinic, paying for nurses and teachers, buying bikes for people, wells etc. By funding education and healthcare, fairtrade does make people less dependant on us. If the trade vanishes the assets, health, education will have benefited the community. The annual premiums ensure that although its only the local farmers who are trading, the whole community benefits from getting something they decided was important to them every year.
Red : I question how sustainable this type of trade is. My gut feeling is that native people do not/should not NEED the help of rich western society in creating sustainable futures for themselves and their children.
Louise : I think trade is a sustainable thing, its so ancient, our tribes always traded. We traded long before oil, we sailed the world in wooden hulled crafts with oars long before the famous clippers with their beautiful sails brought us spices and tea. Often trade overseas is a better option than trade into a local market. In Ghana the women wanted to trade their shea butter with the UK because their local market paid them so little for it. It was the same in Thailand, the handicrafts the women made were worth nothing locally, but fairtrade shops would pay decent money for them. The women earning this cash had a better rank in their families, more control over their own lives, they were respected for their work, seen as useful and family decisions were no longer just up to the husband. They had control over the money they earned, they sent their kids to school instead of their husbands deciding the girls didn't need school, spending his money on booze and the wife having no say on how money was spent. Of course not every family was like that but I met a lot of people for whom trade was empowering and positive. Without the trade they worked in the fields and sold the crops locally, they stayed poor and worked hard for very little. What can be grown locally was - so what came to market was all the same and available at the same time of year - so prices were very low. When not trading with overseas countries they were still engaged in local trade. Its not much different for our farmers but they have government subsidies to help them. The children I spoke to wanted to be nurses, with both parents working in the fields they couldn't even afford to go to school (its not free in most countries), but earning money from locally managed, fair, foreign trade gave them the families enough money to send them to school. I hope one day they will fulfil their ambitions and have choices like we do.
Red : Fair trade is bult upon the capitalist belief in money, markets and civillisation. Further I might even add that it is western imperialistic society, our greed and need for the luxury products that these people produce that has placed them in poverty and perpetual slavery to our consumerism in the first place. Had we not demanded that our stomachs were filled with sweetness and caffiene these peoples lands could be used to nourish and support them as it did their ancestors. So long as we continue to demand these products in such quantity and at such cheap prices, (even fairtrade prices are disgustingly cheap) these people will never have the freedom of self determination. It is we who are responsible for the destruction of indigenous peoples and lands. Again, what happens when shipping and trade on such a scale is no longer sustainable? These people will be left to clean up our mess.
Louise : Capitalism isn't a western phenomenon, when we arrived on African shores and we traded with the chiefs for gold etc, they understood the concept of trade because they'd been doing it themselves for generations. Societies where people don't trade and live in a sustainable local paradise where they produce what they need themselves and don't need or want outside influence exist only in our minds. I also wish people overseas didn't need to trade with us, that they had sustainable local economies, that villages produced their own foods and they choose to trade with other villages for the fashionable extras they wanted. But that not the reality. Most overseas countries are indebted because of our historical imperialism, made worse recently by badly advised borrowing, widespread corruption, bad governance and trade negotiations which rich nations like ours are forcing countries into. I think all people should be able to choose what they do for living whether its farming, conservation, midwifery or become an astronaut. Everyone should have dignity and self determination. To get to a point where they can choose, people need education and choices. To get that they need to get out of poverty. I think all debt should be cancelled, the slate wiped clean, and trade rules need to equitable - I'm not talking about fairtrade now - but the way in which world trade operates, the taxes and tariffs on imports and the open or protected markets. That would be a good first step out of any kind of dependency. I hope that when shipping on current scales in unfeasible, that all countries who currently reply on trade are able to feed themselves. I don't think any country produces enough food for its own people. It seems such a basic first step for us all yet nowhere does it. Another sad and stupid effect of cultures based on a capitalist economy.
Red : I might argue (albeit controversially) that fairtrade is simpy helping to soothe the wounds that we have created. But it does not solve the problems it may even perpetuate them, just more gently.
Louise : Its true fairtrade is soothing wounds our imperialist history created, its also acting as a balance to the trade systems we currently perpetuate. If our government succeeds in pushing through EPAs the tiny impact of the fairtrade system will vanish and unfair trade will be the only legal option. I disagree that fairtrade perpetuates the problems, that view point is only possible if you say all trade perpetuates the problem of interdependence (which could also be called relationship). I don't think we've ever had a society which doesn't trade or have relationships with others they trade with. Inland tribes were dependant on costal tribes for salt, who were in turn dependant on the inland tribes for furs etc. Trade can balance, it can be an honourable relationship and I think fairtrade is different because it doesn't operate on capitalist principals, but still operates within a markets. I think it has the potential to make all trade relationships fair, be they with local farmers or overseas ones.
Red : In order for trade to be truly fair it should be the farmers growers and workers who independently fix the prices themselves, not the companies or 'fairtrade co-operatives'.
Louise : That's the point of cooperatives! By working together and ensuring good communication between farmers, the cooperatives ensure that the price the farmers ask for their product is the same as their neighbours, so buyers cant bargain with them or use local competition to drive the price down. The world market price will affect what the farmers can ask for their product though. Surplus makes things cheap by creating competition (that's why diamond sellers are so clever). Fairtrade attempts to compensate for the variability of the world market price by offering farmers above that price and agreeing the price in advance so even if the world price falls the farmers don't get less - but the agreement to always be a certain percentage above the world market price means the farmers can't loose out if the world market price rises. In global trading systems the world market price can't be avoided because what farmers ask for in different countries varies because the economies of each country and the currency are all different. But if all products were sold according to fairtrade principals, (and the farmers could agree a global fairtrade price for that season), there wouldn't be a world a market price, there would be a price each farming cooperative agreed which covered all their costs, their chosen profit margin and the premium paid into their community.
All farmers are working to produce goods, and overseas the world bank often encourages them to produce goods for export to pay off debts. That's why fairtrade sets up industries so countries don't have to export raw materials, instead they can export goods and demand more money for them. The horrific part of it is that the UK government is currently negotiating EPAs which will mean countries have to open their markets or not sell into ours. If you want to join the campaign to stop EPAS check out the fairtrade website
(http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/get_involved_trade_justice_movement.htm)
Louise : The more I think about food, the more issues there are and the more I realise I need to know more. I've always felt happy purchasing organic & British or fairtrade but now I think we need more information than these labels supply us with! Knowledge, being awake to song and being flexible in our responses probably means there is no right and wrong, no definitive course of action in every situation, which choice is 'best' will depend on the situation and your personal criteria for an ethical choice!
