When Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, tried to order an organic chicken from Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, the man refused. He didn’t want his carefully raised products to be shipped to New York. It was against his beliefs to farm without chemicals, only to put his food on the back of a truck spewing other chemicals.
Britain is looking at a similar paradigm, as the organization that certifies most of the country’s organic produce considers a ban on organic produce flown in from other countries. These organic imports are said to be responsible for 11 percent of the carbon emissions produced by the transport of British food, coming as they do from Thailand (5,900 miles), Zambia (4,900 miles), and Egypt (2,200 miles).
According to an article in the Telegraph, “Some experts believe it is wrong for food to be labelled organic when it has been flown thousands of miles to Britain and could be several weeks old by the time it reaches shops.”
British food retailers are considering how to deal with the issue. Grocery store chain Tesco recently introduced “By Air” stickers for products that have been shipped into Britain. “Everyone seems to have turned their back on the good veg we can grow here,” says Sid Haselton, a produce wholesaler with 40 years in the business. Though grocery giant Sainsbury’s protests, “Where we can source British, we do.”
Of course, the bigger question with food miles is whether or not British (and North American) consumers are willing to give up their raspberries in January, asparagus in February, and tropical fruit that isn’t locally in season … ever.
I don’t think this is the question. The issue is one of informing consumer. While there is a point to saying that importing goods from thousand of kilometers is not environmentally friendly and cancels the environmental benefits of them being grown without pesticides, it remains true, as you point out, that they are supposed to be pesticide-free (an assumption that proved to be often challenged if not untrue in facts, though).
It seems to me that the whole idea of “organic” meaning “morally superior” is a bad idea. “Organic” is already differrnt from “Fair trade”. It could also be different from “environmentally friendly”. Those who want to have strawberries for christmas may still be reminded of the environmental costs.
Of couse, more customer information means a more complex buying process for responsible consumers, so I would argue that the real question is: will consumers give up buying without thinking about it?
Also, the issue of tariffs would deserve to be raised: one problem with Christmas strawberries is often that their price does not reflect their actual environmental cost.
The UK has taken food production and food
labeling to ridiculous extremes. Arguing whether or not organic beans that are airlifted from Africa are truly organic is the latest stretch of bad road that will need to be paved and oiled with someone else’s money.
The term organic is being created as we go. Farming is not natural to and horribly disrupts the environment.
Europe is a joke. It has a dense population living in a mild to cold climate completely dependant on industrial food production. It has ridiculous farm subsidies that harm developing countries whose economies rely on agriculture.
And, to top it off, it has the incredible arrogance to attempt to dictate food policy to the rest of the world.
Is food flown in from thousands of miles organic? Yes, Prince Charles, if you say it is.