In 2007 Tesco, the UK's biggest supermarket chain said that they would be starting a program to label "varieties of orange juice, potatoes, energy-efficient light bulbs and washing detergent, stating the quantity in grammes of CO2 equivalent put into the atmosphere by their manufacture and distribution." In 2008 Japan announced a similar program modeled after Tesco's scheme. In September of 2009 Sweden announced new rules for listing of carbon emissions on all food labels. While well intended, the labeling could cause more confusion when considered alongside healthy eating advice being given by nutrition experts.
In the Swedish model, consumers are encouraged to eat carrots instead of cucumbers or tomatoes mainly because in the Swedish climate, tomatoes and cucumbers must be cultivated in a greenhouse using extra power that the carrots do not require. The labeling even recommends beans and chicken as a preferred protein over beef based on the greenhouse gasses generated by raising cattle. That cows produce more greenhouse gas than most farm animals is not new news, but for those of us used to filling up on cucumbers and tomatoes during the summer months, the new labeling makes a once healthy activity as guilt filled as eating an entire wedge of cheese in one sitting.
The Tesco program in the UK appears to have the goal of educating the consumer, which makes more sense to me. The company started to label items in categories that most people buy and have communicated that a lower footprint is better along the way. This creates less guilt about certain items and more information about lowering the overall footprint. Finally, they have continued to layer on new categories as the company and consumer could absorb it, which allows everyone to absorb things at an even pace.
I believe that we should consider the impact of our food choices on a more holistic level. Knowing where our food comes from is the first step, but understanding the impact of our choices by knowing what the carbon footprint is gives us a level of detail that we really need to help us understand the resources used to grow and harvest, transport from farm to processor, and final transport from the processor to the final point of sale. Looking at labels on a can of tomato sauce in the supermarket these days in order to pick the one that has traveled the least based on the company's address is one way to accomplish this, but in the end who knows where the tomatoes came from and where they were processed before they ended up on the shelf at the supermarket?
Lower carbon footprints are not always the result of locally grown foods. While reading an article in the Guardian last spring I was again reminded that some areas require additional resources to sustain livestock or grow crops. In these cases, it might be more 'green' to bring in the food grown or produced in other areas of the country or even world. As with most things, there needs to be a balance between the 'eat local' and the 'eat anything anytime' crowds. Carbon footprint labeling would help to guide all of our choices. Perhaps in the end by eating a combination of locally grown, in season foods and foods that have a low carbon footprint and sprinkling in a few very special out of area items we can help reduce emissions caused by food transport.
In the Swedish model, consumers are encouraged to eat carrots instead of cucumbers or tomatoes mainly because in the Swedish climate, tomatoes and cucumbers must be cultivated in a greenhouse using extra power that the carrots do not require. The labeling even recommends beans and chicken as a preferred protein over beef based on the greenhouse gasses generated by raising cattle. That cows produce more greenhouse gas than most farm animals is not new news, but for those of us used to filling up on cucumbers and tomatoes during the summer months, the new labeling makes a once healthy activity as guilt filled as eating an entire wedge of cheese in one sitting.
The Tesco program in the UK appears to have the goal of educating the consumer, which makes more sense to me. The company started to label items in categories that most people buy and have communicated that a lower footprint is better along the way. This creates less guilt about certain items and more information about lowering the overall footprint. Finally, they have continued to layer on new categories as the company and consumer could absorb it, which allows everyone to absorb things at an even pace.
I believe that we should consider the impact of our food choices on a more holistic level. Knowing where our food comes from is the first step, but understanding the impact of our choices by knowing what the carbon footprint is gives us a level of detail that we really need to help us understand the resources used to grow and harvest, transport from farm to processor, and final transport from the processor to the final point of sale. Looking at labels on a can of tomato sauce in the supermarket these days in order to pick the one that has traveled the least based on the company's address is one way to accomplish this, but in the end who knows where the tomatoes came from and where they were processed before they ended up on the shelf at the supermarket?
Lower carbon footprints are not always the result of locally grown foods. While reading an article in the Guardian last spring I was again reminded that some areas require additional resources to sustain livestock or grow crops. In these cases, it might be more 'green' to bring in the food grown or produced in other areas of the country or even world. As with most things, there needs to be a balance between the 'eat local' and the 'eat anything anytime' crowds. Carbon footprint labeling would help to guide all of our choices. Perhaps in the end by eating a combination of locally grown, in season foods and foods that have a low carbon footprint and sprinkling in a few very special out of area items we can help reduce emissions caused by food transport.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment