Food miles not organic!

[peter]

Todays Daily Mail carries a small article on page 19.

"Flown-in food 'should not be organic'
Food which is imported to the UK by air may be denied the 'organic' label under proposals put forward today.
The Soil Association, the country's main organic certification body, has expressed concern about greenhouse gas emissions from flights carrying food products around the world.
It launched a one-year consultation at its annual conference in Cardiff yesterday on a proposal to ban air-freighting for organic food producers, in the hope of cutting the carbon dioxide levels blamed for global warming.
Soil Association director Patrick Holden told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme ; 'There is a growing demand to reduce the carbon footprint of food distribution. Overall the carbon footprint of air-freighting is greater to such a large degree that we think there is a pretty strong case for looking at a ban'"

What do you think to that then folks?

[Jenny Green]

I voted yes because I couldn't understand the difference between the last two choices. I completely agree that food bought from abroad shouldn't be classed as organic, not only because of the food miles but also because organic regulations vary from country to country anyway.
There should also be an end to the ridiculous journeys food takes across our country as it goes to packer, distributer and finally to the shop.

[Mole]

I've voted yes. This should have been addressed years ago.

I don't understand the meaning of the fourth choice at all Peter, could you clarify please.

[peter]

Distance travelled from field to sale point is the milage the item(s) have covered since being harvested. i.e. Farm to wholesaler, wholesaler to supermarket warehouse-1, warehouse-2, supermarket. etc.
Last option is straight line measurement from field to point of sale.

[richard p]

ive voted no, to me organic means no pesticide residues and no artificial growth promoters. the carbon used to transport the stuff is another issue, why not look at the carbon used to produce the stuff, apparently tomatoes grown in a heated english greenhouse use more fuel than canarian tomatoes air freighted over.

[Alison]

I agree with Richard. Organic means "grown organically" it doesn't mean "low carbon footprint" which is quite a different concept. I think it would be a big mistake to muddle up the two. It could even lead to less credibility being given for an Organic label if it was extended to cover something quite different.
I think we should have 2 different labels: one for Sustainability (Carbon Footprint) which could be applied to all sorts of things, not just food, such as organic cotton T-shirts and biros, and keep the different label for Organically Grown. Then English organic tomatoes might have, say, 3 Carbon points for winter heating, while Israeli ones might have 2 Carbon points for coming by ship, and we could choose. It could also point up the difference between a factory running on solar power in a southern country, with its products arriving by ship, and a factory in the next county which uses coal, say. Also, a separate Carbon points labelling system would make it more obvious when foods were transported miles e.g. when Scottish chickens are driven to Cornwall by Tescos to be butchered and then driven back to Scotland to be sold! It would make the advantages of locally-grown food far more obvious, and then we would have to choose between non-organic vegs grown next-door and organic vegs which have travelled 100 miles. But at least that's a choice we would be able to make knowingly.
Alison.

[Chris]

I've voted "no" - reluctantly because the question doen't make much sense to me and was a wee bit biased by giving us 3 "yes" options and only one "no" option.

The definition of "organic" remains a problem and there doesn't seem to be agreement across the EU. But even if the definition was clear it must refer to how crops are grown and not how they are transported. To further confuse the very vague concept of "organic" with ideas about what are good and bad systems of distribution renders the term as meaningless as "the environment". It's just another example of the sloppy thinking that goes on under the organic banner.

I would like to know where my food comes from. I would also like to know how it was grown - and not just what type of fertiliser was used but how the growers are treated so that we can assess the real costs of our cheap food.

I'm futher confused by Jenny's dogmatic statement that food from "abroad" should not be classed as organic. Does this mean Scotland, Jersey, Ireland or what? No chance on choosing organic free trade bananas then unless it comes on a boat?

Look forward to the rest of the postings

[peter]

I could not think of any other negative options, sorry.

[Tigger]

I'm with Jenny and co. There's no point in it being chemcal free if it attracts lots of other 'baddies'>

[Chris]

Peter

There could have been 2 "no" options qualified by "but information should be provided on distance travelled to sale point grsdings" and "whether it is fair trade" I would like to know how it was grown, how it was distributed and how well the growers are treated. To lump all this under "organic" would not be very informative.

I guess I'm agreeing with Alison with the additional (and for me most important) bit about how people are treated at every stage in the whole process.

Chris

[Jenny Green]

My understanding of the central philosophy behind the organic movement is to cause as little harm to the environment as possible in growing our food. Avoiding pesticide residue on the food we eat is a happy result of this. This certainly seems to be where the Soil Association is coming from in this suggestion. And I agree with them.
Yes, tomatoes grown locally in February may well create more carbon emissions that ones flown in from Israel, but growing tomatoes in February is also subverting central organic ideals. If the Soil Association is trying to do something to address the exploitation of organic status in this country then good luck to them.

[Jenny Green]

I'm futher confused by Jenny's dogmatic statement that food from "abroad" should not be classed as organic. Does this mean Scotland, Jersey, Ireland or what? No chance on choosing organic free trade bananas then unless it comes on a boat?

Look forward to the rest of the postings

Less dogmatic and more simplistic due to lack of time to expand! I mean food that could be grown here in season and is flown in from abroad to meet the whims of shoppers. Organic strawberries from Egypt in December is missing the point by a mile.
The problem is also that organically grown here is different to organically grown elsewhere, so at the moment the labelling is misleading. For example, (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), but organically reared pork in Britain is organic from birth, whereas in Germany the weaners don't have to be organic, they only have to be then reared in organic conditions.
I'd happily buy bananas that were free trade (though that's a whole other can of worms!) and marked as 'grown without pesticides or weedkillers'. That tells me basically what I want to know - it doesn't need the organic label.

[Allan]

Carry on with your discussion, it's quite entertaining but it just shows what happens when you try to be over-simplistic. You are trying too hard to use the buzz-word Organic to mean too many things in one. If you just bought the most reputable food by brand name or better still someone you know and trust personally whenever possible and stuck to it all this sort of argument would not be necessary.
I would make one special category, that is seasonal, if that means no 'fresh' tomatoes in winter then so be it, ewe eat homegrown frozen tomatoes the rest of the year but there are other sources of vitamin C in the winter.

[alan refail]

I fear that Organic is a term that has been taken up big-time by the multinationals and big business in general. I'm really sorry it has become devalued by its association with other buzz terms aimed at maximising sales to the "concerned" customer. Here are a few, in no particular order - perhaps you can add more:

Ethical
Lo-fat
Non GM
Healthy (as in Healthy Option)
Carbon-neutral
Recycled

Believe me I am 100% in favour of all of the above. I'm just a bit wary of the way they are used.
This seems to me to be the main problem with "Organic" as a label. If "x food-miles were added to the label, or y kg of CO2 emissions, it might sound a bit less positive.

Alan

[richard p]

lo fat is another good example of a missused term. the marketing people are using it to sell "healthy " products. in fact in the case of milk products without the natural fat content the human body cannot utilise the calcium content. which is why so many elderly people using "healthy" skimmed milk get osteoperosis, leading to broken bones.