FOOD, GLORIOUS FOOD - A CASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDIGESTION ? By Peter Jones, Ecolateral
In terms of mass, global warming potential (GWP) and ethical issues, the food supply chain impacts on our species’ lives as much as it did 4000 years ago but, in today’s world, the economic impact, in terms of financial and time cost, have been subjugated to the benefits of scale economies and scientific approaches to yield improvement. With a global population three times the level it was at the time when today’s retirees were born, mass of demand is once more becoming an issue -not due to Malthusian fears on the supply side but, rather, due to demands for improved supply and output side resource efficiency, not least in terms of global warming potential.
In the UK, the demand for variety, freshness, quality and nutritional value unconstrained by the vagaries of the seasons creates the need to pioneer innovative approaches in terms of material flow mapping, carbon equivalence policy development, technologically led process change upstream as well as downstream coupled to a reappraisal of attitudinal issues of consumer behavior. This discussion document explores some of those possibilities.
What are the non-financial impacts of food? UK consumers purchase 60 to 65 million tonnes of “stuff” from retail outlets every year. This mass includes 1 million tonnes of floor coverings, 0.8 million tonnes of nappies, 0.9 million tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment, 2.2 million tonnes of cars, and one million tonnes of clothes and footwear. Against this somewhat arcane list. FOOD is definitely king at around 30 million tonnes. Of course it would be, you chortle ……it is so generic. The subset tonnages are equally intriguing: 4.4 million tonnes of meat, 1 million tonnes of fats and oils, 4.3 million tonnes of fruit and veg , 0.6 million tonnes of fish, 9.6 million tonnes of dairy products, all conveyed in around 2.7 million tonnes of packaging.
These are, however, output values. Looking at chickens
(an unblinking activity if you have tried it !) around 0.7 million tonnes of meat needed 1 million tonnes of corn to emerge. Adding in water, embedded energy in heat, fertiliser, refrigeration, logistics etc, the ratio of inputs to outputs goes to 1 to 10 in the case of beef products. (ii, iii). In fairness the history of resource efficiency improvements, in terms of stock birthrate, survival levels, food conversion rates, disease control and prices, have all been moving in the right directions.
Overall, as we sit on the brink of an integrated Carbon Reduction Commitment (which bites this year and is likely to see a significant reduction in market liquidity in 2013), one can but marvel that we still do not possess an agreed overview of the total carbon footprint of the whole landscape. Blue Chip companies in the supply chain for meat, confectionery, bread, alcohol and fish struggle toward consensus on single measures of GWP assessment at a time when individual product labelling is out of the bag. This is a reflection of “bottom up” thinking somewhat like educating consumers by showing them an exhaust pipe to provide an insight into the intricacies of public transportation needs.David Mackay provides an insight into overall efficiency when he points out that the average UK person needs/ gets 73 Mega joules (Mj) weekly from food against 372 Mj consumed to produce, process, move and sell the food– of which packaging is around 9%. Food represents an estimated 16% of total global energy loading (e3) , so rising population and the shift to carbon intensive meat bodes ill as we stretch our biosphere to its limits.
…….and the Financial Dimension? Food processing is equally a financial giant and lies at the heart of much British manufacturing innovation – accounting for £75 billion in sales, £20 billion of Gross Value Added, 12% of manufacturing employment and 8,000 vibrant businesses. In terms of sales value per tonne at the supermarket that converts to around £115 Billion (8% of GDP) or £3,500 per tonne - £4500 per
ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE |43|
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152