Implications and Conclusions

The generally-accepted concept of food miles, while simple to grasp, is flawed because it focuses primarily or exclusively on distance traveled. Even the more sophisticated version, which takes into account energy use and harmful emissions produced during transport, is misleading because reductions in these two factors may be offset by increased energy use and emissions in local production. A lifecycle analysis may address this problem, but still does not incorporate primary inputs such as labor, capital, and other intermediate inputs such as fuel and fertilizer with their polluting effects. Rather than restricting travel, a better approach would be to price all environmentally damaging inputs appropriately.

Where airfreight is concerned, the evidence suggests that air freighted goods may indeed use more energy in production and distribution, although this was not found to be the case with luxury items such as cut flowers (William 2007). However, in other forms of transport (such as shipping), energy use for imports is not necessarily higher than for locally produced goods.

In addition, there is no sound rationale for banning the movement of goods on the basis of energy costs alone—including for environmental damage. Consumers are willing to pay the costs of imported goods because the transport costs are a relatively small share of the total costs. By banning imports (e.g., by denying organic certification to all air-freighted produce) or by espousing consumption of local goods, not only are importing countries reducing the options available to domestic consumers and hurting foreign producers to benefit local producers, but this practice may actually increase pollution. Furthermore, they may effectively be importing pollution that could be better assimilated in less populated regions.

Download this Paper [ PDF 128KB| 16 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.