Transporting Food can Gost the Earth

STATI

Matters

David Suzuki,

David Suzuki

Foundation

 

When it comes to food, buying local has
been the mantra of environmental groups
for years. After all, it’s pretty easy to con-
clude that transporting fruits and
vegetables from one side of the globe to
the other isn’t very good for the planet.

Now, a comprehensive new analysis of
the true costs of the way we produce, pur-
chase, and consume food has found that
while international transport of food does
have an impact, when it comes to enviton-
mental damage, the big culprit is domestic
transportation.

Researchers in the United Kingdom
used data from previous studies to esti-
mate the hidden costs of conventional
agriculture in that country. These costs
include things like government subsidies;
exhaust pollution from transport trucks,
railroads, and car travel; heat-trapping
emissions that cause global warming; and
infrastructure, such as roads.

10 | www.theotherpress.ca

 

Their results, published in the journal
Food Policy, show that international ship
and air travel currently contribute a rela-
tively miniscule amount to the overall
hidden costs of our food. By far, domes-
tic transportation from the farm to the
retailer and then from the shop to the
consumer’s home has the greatest
impact—accounting for nearly half of the
hidden costs.

Raw distance, it turns out, is not
always the deciding factor in determining
the adverse effects of transportation.
Shipping by water, researchers note, has
lower impact than shipping by road.
Transport by air, on the other hand, has
the greatest impact of all. Right now, hid-
den costs for the international transport
of food are relatively low because much
of this food is shipped by boat, or in the
catgo holds of passenger planes. If we
start to ship food by air more often, these
costs could increase dramatically.

But if domestic transportation costs in
a country as small as the UK are high,
then the hidden costs of food transporta-
tion in Canada may be much higher.
Consider a box of cereal, for example,
which may start with wheat from the
Prairies, transported to Ontario for pro-
cessing with other ingredients from all
over the country, put into a box made in
Quebec, and then transported to British
Columbia for retail sales, where it will be
picked up by a consumer driving an SUV.

Because of our reliance on fossil fuels
for transportation needs, each of these
stages has hidden costs. In fact, even if we

 

 

|Get Behind the Headlines|

Complete Your Education
| Bachelor of Journalism Degree

Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC

 

 

 

http://www.tru.ca/ae/bjour
School of Journalism (250) 371-5580
admissions @cariboo.bc.ca
TRU Registrar's Office (250) 828-5093
Third-year entry. Application deadline April 15, 2005

 

buy local food, but all of us drive to the
store to pick it up, there are increased hid-
den costs. So, does this mean big-box
chains that sell in huge quantities may
unintentionally help the environment by
reducing the number of trips taken to
purchase groceries? According to the
research, that doesn’t appear to be the
case. Consumers in the UK are actually
making more grocery shopping trips and
driving greater distances to make them
than they were 20 years ago—before the
rise of the megamart.

Another hidden cost of our food is
taxpayer-funded government subsidies
that prop up unsustainable agricultural
practices. Switching to organic agriculture,
the researchers conclude, would lead to
big benefits in terms of overall costs to
society. Of course, the benefits of organ-
ic agriculture in terms of environmental
impact ate greatly reduced if the food has

to travel by road a great distance to reach
the consumer.

So what food-shopping patterns will
yield the most benefit to the environment
and society? Looking at the data, walking,
biking, or taking public transit to buy
organic, locally grown (within 20km) food
would be the best choice. Grocery deliv-
ery services also help a great deal by
reducing the overall number of vehicle
trips. Even choosing a fuel-efficient vehi-
cle and reducing the number of trips
helps.

Unfortunately, suburban sprawl is rap-
idly eating up some of Canada’s best
farmland—which also happens to be
located near urban centres. For our food
to be sustainable, governments at all levels
must work to curb sprawl and support
local food systems.

Take the Nature Challenge and learn

more at www.davidsuzuki.org

March 23/2005