Today [Tuesday, 17 July], over 100 delegates will attend the Soil Association's air freight summit, to discuss possible ways of reducing or eliminating the environmental impact of organic air freight. Fresh food growers and producers from developing countries, organic businesses in the UK and abroad, development charities, environmentalists, organic consumers and other stakeholders will present their opinion.
The issue of air freighting organic food is complex and the summit is expected to involve in-depth discussions on the issues of climate change, ethical trade, global justice and international development.
Anna Bradley, chair of the Soil Association standards board, said, "That over 100 people are participating in the air freight summit shows the importance of launching this wide and inclusive debate. Organic food production is much less damaging to the environment, so much so that it is environmentally preferable to non-organic UK production, even when the impact of road or sea freight is taken into account. But air freight changes the equation and this is one of the reasons we have chosen to put the spotlight on it. Key to our interest are public expectations of good quality organic food. The public concern most frequently raised with us is the perceived inappropriateness of air freighting organic food. This is a concern shared by many organic businesses."
Air freight emits far more greenhouse gases per 'food mile' than any other form of transport.[2] The ability to air freight food thousands of miles around the world in a matter of hours has put a wider variety of products on our shelves all year round. It also enables producers in developing countries to supply the UK with premium organic products, creating jobs and opportunities.
The proportion of organic food imported into the UK has been falling steadily. A UK government report found that organic and non-organic air freight accounts for less than 1 per cent of all imported food. The Soil Association calculated that the movement of organic products represents a small fraction of this. Despite this, consumers have expressed concern over the cost this has to the environment. Environmentalists also highlight the projected growth of aviation as a serious flaw in the UK's strategy for tackling climate change.
The Soil Association Standards Board is considering five possible options (though other options will of course be considered). These include Option 1: 'Take no action'; Option 2: 'A general ban'; Option 3: 'A selective ban'; Option 4: 'Labelling air freight' or Option 5: 'Carbon offsetting'.[3] The deadline for the consultation is 28 September 2007.[4]
Emily Armisted, senior campaigner for Greenpeace, responded, "As climate scientists warn us that we have just ten years to stabalise global emissions it seems ridiculous to be flying food half-way round the world. Aviation is one of the fastest growing sources of emissions and limiting its growth is crucial to dealing with the very serious threat climate change poses. Any sensible and sustainable approach to food production and distribution would see air-freight phased out."
Alexander Kasterine, senior market development advisor, International Trade Centre, said, "Food miles is a misleading and simplistic concept and not a reliable indicator of the environmental impact of a product. We need to consider the energy used across the whole supply chain from farm to fork. The fresh fruit and vegetable industry is a great success story of African agriculture, generating income for the rural poor who now have better access to health care and education for their children. The Soil Association is threatening many thousands of poor people's livelihoods in Africa and elsewhere with a proposal that has no scientific basis."
Paul Moore, marketing manager for organic food company Crazy Jack Organic, said, "Air freight may be necessary when demanded by the market in order to retain contracts with the multiple retailers. For this reason I would prefer the option of labelling air freighted produce."
Bill Vorley, senior researcher at the International Institute for the Environment and Development, commented on the consultation, "I hope the Soil Association air freight standards will provide a permanent exemption for the least developed countries."
Anthony Pile, founder of Blue Skies, organic food importers, said, "We would see any change to the rules as unfair to us and unfair to Africa. The carbon emissions for air freighted food is something like 1 per cent of the total emissions. Why hit farmers who have a tiny carbon footprint and often live without electricity?"
John Stewart, campaigner for Airport Watch, said, "The Government needs to make changes to reduce the amount of air freight flown into the UK. Air freighting is too cheap and this encourages producers from developing countries to export food rather than look for local markets."
Reneé Elliot, founding director, Planet Organic foodstore, said, "We haven't taken a corporate decision on this issue. Banning air freight would be easy for Planet Organic because our focus is seasonal and local, but this is only a tiny part of the world's carbon footprint and should not be looked at in isolation. We support a selective ban, with an exemption for the least developed countries and I don't agree with the option of food labelling because it would be too complicated."
Keith Abel, founder and director of Abel & Cole organic home delivery service, said, "We banned air freight from the very start. We feel air freighting food is an absolute catastrophe and the reason people buy organic food is because they want food that is seasonal, local and sustainable both for themselves, for their own health and for the planet. Organic should be a by-word for sustainable agriculture. We should remember that western companies, not third world growers and farmers, own many of the businesses that will be affected. Also, to say we must sustain these livelihoods is like saying we should sustain the livelihoods of Easyjet pilots and take £15 flights to Barcelona every Friday."
Ends
For more information, case studies, or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Soil Association press office - 0117 914 2448 / press@soilassociation.org
Anna Bradley, Chair of Soil Association Standards Board - 07817 514 008.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director - 07740 951 066
Kenneth Hayes, Soil Association researcher - 0117 314 5000
Jo Collins, Soil Association policy manager - 07920 231 281
Robin Maynard, Soil Association communications director - 07932 040 452
Notes to Editors:
[1] MEDIA SPOKESPEOPLE
These individuals are happy to discuss their opinions on the Soil Association's air freight consultation with you:
Keith Abel, founder and director of Abel & Cole, organic home delivery service
(m) 07714 068 240
Emily Armistead, senior transport campaigner, Greenpeace UK
(w) 020 7865 8267 / (m) 07801 212 994
Reneé Elliot, founding director, Planet Organic, organic foodstore
(m) 07774 232 943
Alexander Kasterine, senior market development adviser, International Trade Centre
(w) +0041 22 730 0292
Paul Moore, marketing manager for Crazy Jack Organic, organic food company
(w) 020 8208 8824 / (m) 07766 825 828
Anthony Pile, director of Blue Skies
(m) 07802 860 066 / 01604 881 230 or anthonypile@blueskiesproducts.co.uk
Jenny Pile, Blue Skies producer
(w) 01604 881 230 or jenny@blueskiesproducts.co.uk
Blue Skies, based in Nsawam, Ghana, specialises in the export of pre-cut, ready-to-eat fruit and the entire business is totally dependent on air freight. They employ over 1500 people in Ghana and, through salaries alone, contribute around £2 million to the local economy. In the Central Region of Ghana, where unemployment is currently 70%, they have created vital jobs for farmers. Blue Skies' achievements are seen as a model for development.
John Stewart, campaigner for Airport Watch
(w) 020 7737 6641 or (m) 07957 385 650
Bill Vorley, senior researcher, International Institute for the Environment and Development
(w) 020 738 82117 or (h) 01732 505 747
Adam Wakeley, managing director of Organic Farm Foods
(w) 01386 848 509 / (m) 07971 568 633
Based in the UK, Organic Farm Foods imports large quantities of organic fruit and vegetables. They are proactively looking for sea freight alternatives for the produce they air freight and have been successful in reducing the quantities of grapes, limes and avocados coming to the UK by air.
Guy Watson, director of Riverford Organic Vegetables, organic box scheme
(w) 01803 762 720 / (m) 07966 481 892
Riverford Organic Vegetables and its sister companies at Rivers Swale and Nene have a policy of never air freighting produce, simply because with a box scheme they have always felt it is unnecessary. They aim to provide their customers with a good mix of seasonal fruit and vegetables sourcing from local producers, other UK growers, imported produce from Europe (mostly by road and some by ship), imports from the rest of the world (sea freight only).
[2] Defra (2005) The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development.Produced by AEA technology for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
[3] SOIL ASSOCIATION AIR FREIGHT CONSULTATION
Soil Association Standards Board options to tackle the environmental impact of air freight:
Option 1: Take no action
The Soil Association would continue campaigning for local, seasonal and organic food but the Standards Board would not develop standards limiting or prohibiting air freight.
RISK: This option poses significant risk to the integrity of organic food. Air freight's contribution to climate change is clearly at odds with the Soil Association's environmental principles and the expectations of consumers who buy organic for environmental reasons. Indications are that businesses relying on air freight are environmentally and economically unsustainable, therefore allowing continued growth could be irresponsible.
BENEFIT: International trade in organic food has helped the UK's organic market grow and can be a catalyst for organic movements elsewhere in the world. Certain organic products will be on the shelves all year round, competing with their non-organic counterpart. In addition, air freight enables producers in developing countries to access high value export markets, providing vitally needed jobs and opportunities to add value.
Option 2: A general ban (introduced over a number of years)
RISK: A general ban could potentially inhibit growth of the organic market and attract criticism from the countries affected and from development organisations. Focusing on air freight could be considered disproportionate and unfair when the majority of the CO2 emissions from UK food transport occurs on UK roads.
BENEFIT: The projected growth of the aviation industry is a threat to efforts to mitigate climate change. To tackle climate change effectively we need to urgently reduce emissions from all sectors. Banning air freight would send a clear message that transporting food by air is unsustainable. This could be part of a strategy for encouraging developing countries to establish patterns of sustainable agriculture. This approach could be more in line with the expectations consumers have of organic food.
Option 3: A selective ban (i.e. with exemptions, introduced over a number of years)
RISK: We would need to communicate clearly when and why we are allowing air freight to ensure we are not considered to be acting inequitably. The practicalities of implementing a selective ban could be considerable involving social or political judgements that are extremely difficult for an organic certification body to make.
BENEFIT: Whilst recognising air freight contributes to climate change we would have the flexibility to allow air freight in justifiable situations. For example these could be for guaranteeing all year round supply or where there are development benefits in the producing country.
Option 4: Labelling air freight
Tesco and Marks & Spencer have been quick to label produce in response to consumer concerns.
RISK: A label does not distinguish between air freight in different situations. Successfully altering consumer habits by labelling is highly dependent on informing consumers of the complexities of the debate.
BENEFIT: Labelling products could give people in the UK the choice to eat out-of-season produce whilst bringing to their attention the environmental impact of doing so.
Option 5: Carbon offsetting
RISK: Carbon offsetting is criticised for detracting from the pressing need to reduce emissions. The ability of some carbon offset schemes to actually bring about a net reduction in green house gases in the atmosphere has been questioned. No national standard for offsetting yet exists, although Defra is currently considering regulations for carbon offset schemes.
BENEFIT: A government approved carbon offset scheme might be a useful tool for mitigating the environmental impact of aircraft. This option could be more effective if complementary to measures aimed at reducing air freight.
[4] Key dates: The deadline for the consultation is 28 September 2007. In early 2008 a second public consultation will take place. Following this, a final decision will be made.
[5] The Soil Association Air Freight consultation paper and press releases can be found on our website: www.soilassociation.org/airfreight
top
More links
Search library with term press releases 2007
Search rest of website with term press releases 2007
top
Library documents in Press Releases 2007 category
( : archived document) |