The notion of food miles was introduced in a report, entitled ‘The Food Miles: The dangers of long-distance food transport.’ The report highlighted the potential impact that transporting food around the globe could have upon global warming.

The impact of food-miles on global warming was evaluated in a report produced by Weber and Scott (2008)

Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per weeks’ worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.

The key points from this extract are that 83% of carbon emissions relating to food production and distribution come from actual food production rather than transport. Less than 5% of emission come from wholesaling and retailing. Around 11% of carbon emissions can be attributed to transportation of food

In the developed world we have grown accustomed to eating fruits and vegetables from around the world. Our food gets shuttled from all corners of the globe – while malnutrition still plagues developing countries and millions struggle to meet even basic nutritional needs.

Ten million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases, according to the United Nations World Food Programme, and another 800 million are acutely hungry.

Many would argue that being able to eat what you want, where you want and in any season you want is a freedom of choice. Is it the right choice?

Transportation of these food around the world uses up scarce energy resources, such as oil, and gives a greater number of people access to food from ever-more-sensitive ecosystems, such as marine life.

rce: http://www.parkfieldict.co.uk/infant/environment/miles.html

In the United Kingdom alone, food transport accounts for 25 percent of all heavy goods vehicles km/miles. Air freight – which has a more negative environmental impact than other modes of transport – is increasingly used to ship food and flowers from overseas.

As resources are more and more exhausted, socially conscious eating still has not become mainstream thought in consumers’ minds. Our changing eating habits is one of the unfortunate consequences of globalization. Globalised food production has led to deforestation and intense farming techniques in developing countries which has led to soil erosion and pressure of water supplies. Small farmers in developing countries have come under increasing pressure from global agribusinesses

In the fruit aisles at your local super market you have the choice of local goods and other goods that may have travelled thousands of miles to reach your supermarket shelves. There is the choice of New Zealand apples and kiwis, or Hawaiian pineapples. On the fish counter we can choose fresh Tuna of Vietnamese Bassa, whilst at the meat counter we can choose British or Brazilian Beef. Our chicken may have come from South-East Asia.

An increased interest in health-promoting foods is only further straining these distribution networks. There is a growing demand for functional foods – ranging from acai from the Brazilian jungle, to the Tibetan goji berry, to Celtic sea salt, to fish oil from Latin America or the Indian Ocean. This demand is fuelling a growth in global trade and will further increase the number of food stuffs crossing the globe. This demand for exotic foods highlights inequality when many live on the bare minimum.

Is there a solution for the growing demand for the exotic and the unusual? Consumer education and awareness campaigns to eat more locally, as well as to not eat ingredients that are destroying ecosystems can help. We can ask retailers about where our food comes from. We can demand local alternatives. We can reflect whether the social cost outweighs personal benefit?

Shutting down the market for exotic and out of season foods is not the solution. There would be negative social costs if the markets for these goods were shut down. Workers would find themselves without work. Interventionism is a Pandora’s box of free market economics versus protectionism.