Organic food

[LondonMix]

My point is that very simple and thus appealing idea that buying local in and of itself will result in a lower carbon footprint for your food is not correct. Its too simplistic a way to analyse food options. Under certain circumstances that might be the case and under others it won't be the case. Often, the true complexity behind the carbon footprint of imported vs. locally produced food is too much for us to understand without a host of other facts of which we are usually ignorant.

I have nothing against locally grown food (I think it tastes better if nothing else) and there are other factors that might make it an appropriate choice for each of us.

Your other points don't have any specific bearing on the local vs. imported choice. Cultivating meat and diary produce more emissions than vegetables and grain. That is well proven and giving up meat even one day a week will do more for greenhouse emissions and water use than most other dietary changes one can make. Promoting less polluting transport systems is certainly a good thing as well. I am in no way against trying to make things better. However, I just think its important that people understand the real facts behind the positions they are taking, particularly on complex issues. Local does not equal less carbon emissions.

[fl0wer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hs8zp

[fl0wer]

I think the above link only shows you a clip, if you have an hour please watch the whole film here http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/farm-for-the-future/

[Alec John Moore]

In any complex system there will be variations of outcome when you single out a particular aspect - levels of carbon produced as a result of consuming produce from the system. I think that's why some producers and distributors of local food try to consider as many relevant aspects as possible in their systems. For me that should, and often does, include the social/human rights/ education related aspects.

Put simply, LM, we agree that local food is generally good for us and the planet but there may be exceptions. In these cases with a bit of information, consumers can make an informed choice on where and how to buy their food.

[LondonMix]

Yes, I agree. There are many other factors that for many would justify the consumption of locally produced food-- food security (as highlighted in flower's link) being one of them.

My posts really weren?t trying to say don?t eat organic or don?t eat local. Just that if you are doing so because of concerns about energy consumption, then you are mistaken.

Really, I would like to conversation to be more nuanced. Most academics studying these issues recognize that the best farm management practices (from an energy perspective when yield is taken into account, how the animals are treated and biodiversity supported on the farms) aren?t captured fully by either concept and often the very opposite of what the average man on the street might expect is the case.

[Huguenot]

Surely the fairly obvious point is that you can't feed a conurbation of 25m people from a pocket farm on the Surrey borders delivering boxes of endives.

New agrarianism is a middle class conceit.

I don't know about nuance, but any conversation about agriculture needs to start with bulk!

[LondonMix]

Yes, yield is extremely important and often ignored. Farm management that increases yield is key to many food and energy issues.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely the fairly obvious point is that you can't

> feed a conurbation of 25m people from a pocket

> farm on the Surrey borders delivering boxes of

> endives.

>

> New agrarianism is a middle class conceit.

>

> I don't know about nuance, but any conversation

> about agriculture needs to start with bulk!

[Alec John Moore]

Surely, H, it's fairly obvious that there are many who see that bulk/yield is not the point. Or not the only point. I half heard another news report this morning saying that up to half of the food produced for human consumption globally is wasted. It's all about food security really and that is complex. I like Professor Tim Lang's thinking on this. I found a great quote from him from a BBC article entitled "A future when London can feed itself":

'Referring to an edible garden in Brighton, Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at London's City University, said "growing food like this is piddling and useless in terms of food production, but it's important culturally and should be done."'

He goes on to cite the importance of planning in sustainability. My view is that the fundamental importance of food in our lives means that food consumers - i.e. all of us - need to be better informed about the complex issues around consumption and production. When we are there will be more potential to influence policy makers towards establishing sustainable development plans. These should include measures that address the apparent class divide when it comes to concerns about food. I think there's a lot more can be done within the education system to address this so that children grow up knowing where their breakfast cereal comes from and that there are alternatives to the processed carbohydrate confection they pour their milk over.

[LondonMix]

Yield has more implications than just the quantity of food produced. If one farm uses the same resources as another farm but can only produce half the amount of crops, that farm is wasting limited resources (energy, water, land). Yield is linked with conservation of resources not just increasing the food supply.

[Alec John Moore]

Not sure I'm getting your point, LM. Surely you can't simply compare the quantitative output of organic production methods with methods that use chemical pesticides etc. I think we might be agreeing somewhere here but I'm not sure where.

[LondonMix]

There are many factors on which you can assess farm management. Health and welfare of the animals, safety of the cultivated products, and resource consumption among them. There are ways to increase yields and thus reduce resource consumption that don't necessarily conflict with organic farming methods.

My point is, resource consumption per unit of output should be a greater focus within the broader discussion of food and farming and it is often forgotten outside of academic circles (where it is a huge focus). Most organic produce require significantly more energy for their cultivation because yields are so low. This is something that can and should be addressed through better farm management practices as it doesn't have to be this way.

[Alec John Moore]

Thanks, that's clearer. I'm not sure I agree that "resource consumption per unit of output" is forgotten outside of academic circles. I suspect that those who discuss food security in the wider society think it is less important than other considerations such as food waste. Speaking of which, any views on the IMechE report making the news today? It's contentious and challenged by many but there's a balanced and informative report from the BBC here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20968076

[DaveR]

"I'm not sure I agree that "resource consumption per unit of output" is forgotten outside of academic circles. I suspect that those who discuss food security in the wider society think it is less important than other considerations such as food waste."

The issue is not really what is important, but what is achievable. As matter stand, if more farmland was given over to organic farming, the yield from that land would fall, and we would either need to get by with less, or find more land. Practical suggestions (as opposed to exhortations) as to how we get by with less are welcome, because I'm sure most campaigners for organic food don't want to see the woods chopped down and turned into fields.

[nashoi]

"we would either need to get by with less, or find more land"

Would we though? Consider the above mentioned report on waste, in the developing world most waste is before the point of sale and is down to poor roads/refrigeration etc, in the developed world it's post sale. Both can cut by changes in the market, a natural consequence of economic development in countries like India or price changes here.

Secondly the difference in yield is slight depending on what you grow and where. A small drop in yield would easily be countered by reduced waste. As usually seems to be the case, a combination of approaches is likely to be necessary, a bit of Tom and Barbara and a bit of Thanet Earth. I really don't see a long term problem though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html

http://www.thanetearth.com/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/choosing-organic-milk-could-offset-detrimental-effects-of-climate-change#.UO9SKUfJd3U

[LondonMix]

People are starting to confuse two different yet important issues. Post cultivation waste is bad and ways to reduce this should be explored. Resource intensive cultivation is also problematic. Addressing one issue doesn't justify allowing the other to persist.

The average difference in yield across all organic products is circa 30percent which is signifant. For certain specific items its much less and for others its much more. Yield / resource intensive production is an issue that needs to be addressed.

[DaveR]

"Would we though? Consider the above mentioned report on waste, in the developing world most waste is before the point of sale and is down to poor roads/refrigeration etc, in the developed world it's post sale. Both can cut by changes in the market, a natural consequence of economic development in countries like India or price changes here."

"get by with less" was a slightly lazy way of saying "less production", the point being that less production either means less consumption, or less waste. Either way, however, it requires a mass change in behaviour/systems, hence my comment that you can't really consider yield issues to be "less important" than waste.

I guess my overall point is that it's easy to say that more farming should be organic, less easy to deal with the consequences, where simply saying "there should be less waste" doesn't take us any closer to achieving less waste.

[Huguenot]

If the developed world wastage is down to aesthetics, won't economics put paid to that without any other factor being necessary? The waste is just down to comparatively low pricing - people will start eating scruffy tomatoes if the alternative is ?1 a pop.

[Ukjoncollins]

The whole waste thing has been blown out of proportion. Read here: http://brianwernham.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/potato-logic-news-media-repeat-zombie-statistics-on-food-wastage-4/

It is an issue but not as much as you'd think.

I'd also highly recommend reading this Q & A on a scientific approach to organic farming: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/environmental-impact-of-conventional-and-organic-farming-on-the-land-used.html. In the grand scheme of things the strain on the environment to produce the extra yield is relatively low compared to other human activities on the planet.

I'd also like to point out that buying organic does not necessarily mean higher welfare. For example, Farmers will tend to avoid treating ill or lame animals on an organic farm where as a non organic farm can use antibiotics to treat sick animals.

[LondonMix]

That's for the great link at Sense about Science.

[Alec John Moore]

I wondered if Brian Wernham's blog about the food waste report would come up. Have a look at this, sensible, take on the question from Michael White.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/jan/10/food-waste?CMP=twt_gu

And this from the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20968076

[civilservant]

I've stayed out of this as I didn't want to duplicate LM's posts.

I'd add intensive cultivation and mono-cultures, whether organic, GM, or resource intensive to the list of problems. Super-efficient cultivation methods are a key contributor to wast, simply by guaranteeing a surplus year after year. And the costs of generating the surplus are externalised, so there is no incentive to manufacturers to rein back on production so that it just meets demand

[horaizon10]

hahahahah lol