It seems to me that there are many, many people out there willing to do the most beneficial thing for the planet and those on it. We all need the correct information to do this, please help us with this Oxfam. Maybe a "correcting myths" collumn or like would help. Thanks.

Danielle Horne | October 4, 2008 10:38 PM

"You don't have to eat beans" !! How ignorant! Beans are delicious and make a fantastic portable lunch. I eat a lot of beans: - black-eye-bean salad with mint and garlic, lemon and oil; canellini bean salad with beetroot and apple and vinaigrette; carribean-fried-beans (aduki with carrots, coconut paste and thyme) is great for breakfast.

Nadia | October 1, 2008 12:03 PM

Oxfam you have really confused the issue now. I really think we need a more considered and informed and official Oxfam view. To me it is indefensible to fly a dozen french beans half way across the world - they were in my supermarket alongside beans grown 1 mile down the road! Of course we should buy fairtrade transported by boat. But flown with subsidised aviation fuel and CO2 pollution? No!

Dilys King | September 29, 2008 1:56 PM

Adopting a compassionate vegetarian lifestyle is clearly just one of many valid ways to help feed the world and save it from global warming. Even just cutting down on meat, as Oxfam suggests, is worth considering - I have been vegetarian for almost 20 years, but originally reduced my meat consumption gradually over the course of about a year. Then, over the years, the concern for others that set me off on that path has, as a result of allowing compassion to lead the way (most of the time! I'm only human!), grown slowly into other areas of my life and decision-making - and there is still much more I could do. Becoming vegetarian does not have to be all or nothing. Evolution is better than revolution - each small step in the right direction is, well, a step in the right direction. That's all that we can expect of ourselves. We are all good at heart, but none of us is a saint! So, for anyone who is interested in exploring going vegetarian, the Vegetarian Society has a very good website at www.vegsoc.org with advice and recipes and a detailed report on 'Why it's green to go veggie'. For anyone else, I wish you all the best in your own endeavours to save lives.

Andrew Smith | September 29, 2008 12:05 PM

Why hasn't anyone mentioned growing your own food?! A cool, fun activity which can be really relaxing and rewarding - granted it can also be hard work and frustrating, but things always taste better when you've made that extra effort to get them!

Meghan | September 29, 2008 3:53 AM

It is really good to debate these complex issues and rethink attitudes e.g. buying beans from Africa: I always thought this was a no-no. Thanks for opening up the debate in this way. Good to sense that a lot of youngsters are taking part. (I am a pensioner but lived six years in Africa so know how difficult daily life can be there.)

Jan Acres | September 28, 2008 10:15 AM

What about growing at least some of your own food. Stick to simple produce and grow it in pots, using your own compost. Cheap, no food miles and the flavour is out of this world.

Val | September 27, 2008 7:34 PM

I have heard a few times the opinion, that we should not support organic farming (hence not buy organic food), because its yields are smaller than those of conventional farming, and therefore it is less likely to be able to feed the whole world.

Personally, I don't believe this. I think that the yield of organic farming is not necessarily smaller (per unit of earth surface), but it is more labour-intensive, and therefore will give more people jobs. Besides, the nutritional value of oranic food is higher, so people may need less of it.

But these are just my own thoughts. Does anybody have some facts and figures about this issue? Can organic food feed the world?

Max vandeKamp | September 26, 2008 6:38 PM

On the meat eater versus Vegetarian issue, could we have some figures for poultry production and fish please? I think most of us know of the high methane production of cows, pigs and the like, but how many meat eaters seriously just eat red meat?

And yes I do realise there are issues like over fishing and battery hens, but there are alternative fish species to use that aren't threatened, and I only eat free range chickens and eggs.

Mike Smith | September 25, 2008 6:54 PM

Global greenhouse gas emissions from transport: 13%

Global greenhouse gas emissions from livestock: 18%

Source: the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7600005.stm
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

Charley | September 25, 2008 5:51 PM

One possible avenue of investigation with respect to carbon footprint of inorganically grown food concerns fixation of atmospheric nitrogen for fertiliser. I believe this may be a very significant source of carbon release but am unsure as to whether the energy required can be wholly attributed to use of fossil fuels. Perhaps you could investigate this line of enquiry further?

Graham Dadd | September 25, 2008 5:40 PM

Your comments about climate change under-estimate the problems. It isn't about changing a lightbulb OR not importing food from sub-Saraha Africa. What about doing both? And cutting down on meat, driving less, flying less etc too. I'm all for encouraging trade with Africa but we should be buying products which can be imported by ship (including coffee, wine, bananas, sugar, textiles etc) not products which have to be air-freighted. Sea freight is not perfect but we have a much better chance of making that environmentally acceptable than we do air transport. It isn't food miles which matter: food air miles are the key.

The fact that 60% of food miles for UK food is in the UK does not make it OK to add to those miles with air freight etc. Nor is it OK to add heating in this country simply to reduce the food miles.

We need to think in the round not just use the fact that an activity is only a small proportion of carbon production to excuse it as being OK. Down that road you'll soon be endorsing patio heaters - if they were made in Nigeria!

I hope that we will soon have the opportunity to buy added value products such as processed chocolate from Ghana rather than just the cocoa. More money for developing economies, no air freight.

Elizabeth | September 25, 2008 4:00 PM

That 4x4 vs. meat eater statistic: let's do the math.

That great environmental authority Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear claimed a cow produces as much emissions as a Range Rover doing 10,000 miles a year. I checked out the amount of methane a cow produces, and its relative potency as a greenhouse gas, and found this to be roughly true. Holstens produce an average of around 10000 and a max of 30000 litres of milk a year (http://www.holsteinusa.com/html/thecow1.html -- can that be right?) so drinking a pint a day is only 1-2% of a 4x4 worth.
However a typical beef heifer produces only around 250kg of meat, and also takes about a year to produce, so a quarter-pounder burger a day is going to put you on (does sums in head) about 16% of a 4x4 worth. Anyine who'se done this properly, please feel free to correct me! --Jal

Jal Frezie | September 25, 2008 10:10 AM

"a vegan driving a 4x4 is creates less emissions than a meat eater on a bicycle"

I would love to know where this stat comes from - it's amazing!

Abby | September 1, 2008 4:43 PM

I do not believe this

fornetti | August 31, 2008 6:37 PM

Sometimes I envy my mother - though when she did the shopping she had a tight budget and limited choice. Shopping now is a moral minefield. Trying to shop to a budget keeping in mind the nurtritional needs and desires of a family plus concern over additives, animal welfare, pesticide use, genetically modificed crops, trans fats, the environment, third country poverty and struggling local farmers is exhausting. Whatever I buy I feel I am doing a little bit of evil somewhere.

I am often stood confounded in the supermarket. I almost wish we could all live on a magic pill.

Manda Bates | August 31, 2008 12:01 PM

Thank you all for your comments. The difference you make comes in many shapes and sizes and climate change is a huge and moving beast! It will take personal and political action if we're going to see change happen. We need to ensure governments and business are building paths towards a clean future so that further impacts of climate change are prevented from continuing to hit the poorest people.

At the end of the day, what will make the most difference is demanding change from governments and business to make the massive shifts in policy and practise we need to see. The best way to do that is to lead by example. Demonstrate there is huge public appetite for emissions reductions and that rich countries like the UK need to be the first to take responsibility. The world's poorest people have some of the smallest carbon footprints and should not be penalised for the historic emissions from the developed world. We need to look to the energy we use, how we travel, what we waste, and what we buy. Over the next few weeks we will be providing tips, hints, and ideas via the blog about how you can live your life better so that we can all live better. But this is just a starting block for you to build and build on - it's up to you and me to share what we know and continue to question how things work.

Emily, Oxfam GB | August 29, 2008 4:14 PM

oh and i totally agree with helen, cutting out meat and dairy is one of the best things you can do for the environment and it's definitely way easier than i thought it'd be.
"a vegan driving a 4x4 is creates less emissions than a meat eater on a bicycle"

Anonymous | August 29, 2008 12:31 PM

the best thing you can do when buying veg in terms of C02 emissions is to buy local, organic, seasonal veg. that way no nasty chemicals would have been used to grow it, it wont have been transported by air and it's unlikely they'll have been heated in a greenhouse.

tom | August 29, 2008 12:27 PM

Ok, so I know that Oxfam is trying to stop climate change because it's the world's poorest countries that are most affected by it. I also get the idea that when it's a choice between USA produced food and, say, food from Zambia I should go for the latter because it will help a developing country. But then how DO we stop climate change? How can I change my day to day lifestyle (other then shopping locally - the seemingly easiest option) to reduce emissions? What's going to make a real difference?

Confused! | August 28, 2008 8:04 PM

I'm confused, too. Surely it's not just about carbon emissions; you also have to think about the use of other resources. For example, how much water do you need to produce green beans for export as opposed to, say, millet to eat, and where is it coming from? I thnk I read that water levels in Lake Victoria are falling and local farmers and fishermen are in difficultes because of the growth of veg for export. Then, what else would the land be used for if not growing veg for export? How do we know (and how likely is it) that the green beans in our supermarkets come from small farmers?

Helen | August 25, 2008 11:11 PM

Hi! it seems that i'm as confused as everyone else!!!

There isn't much local produce available where i live, but every once a month there is a farmers market. I know my parents are willing to pay extra for food that has been locally grown, especially if it is organic but there isn't much choice. We don't mind too much - as everyone has been going on about how locally sourced food is better for the environment than ethically sourced food.
However, now Oxfam is contradicting this theory.....

My thought is that it is mostly our fault that Third World countries are as they are today so its the least we can do to buy products that could mean the difference between life and death to them. On the other hand, with such severe starvation, maybe it would better for all food produced to stay in that country to share among themselves.....

Jess | August 24, 2008 8:53 PM

Robert - thought it was best to reply to your question too:

If the veggies grown in Zambia were not exported, they would not become spare food - they would simply not be grown at all because there would be no local or regional market for them (local people would not be able to afford them, and there is no cold storage infrastructure for exporting to other countries in the region). They are produced in greenhouses (heated by the sun, not electricity) right by the airport and are small to medium businesses set up especially to help Zambia benefit from the export market.

The people working in those greenhouses want the wages they get each week from exporting to countries like the UK so they can buy their preferred food for their own families.

Hope that helps...

Richard, Oxfam GB | August 22, 2008 6:52 PM

Hi all,

I think the questions you're asking highlight the whole reason that people need to talk about where our food comes from, and by the sounds of things you're already doing brilliantly by buying Fairtrade and by thinking about both local farmers and farmers in poor countries.

Buying (and growing) local food is great, and we don't think you should stop buying local. What we're not saying here is buy all your food from developing countries - just make sure that poor farmers in developing countries aren't penalised first for the huge problem of climate change. Over 1 million people in rural Africa rely on exports of fresh fruit and veg to the UK.

We also need to bear in mind that just because something has travelled less distance, doesn't always mean emissions are lower. It is estimated that not buying fresh produce air-freighted from Africa would cut the UK's carbon emissions by 0.1 per cent. These two pages are worth a read for more info:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/fp2p/hottopics05.html
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/blogs/pressoffice/?p=1061

If we're going to combat climate change we absolutely need to think about how we cut our own carbon footprint, and it?s brilliant you?re all already doing your bit. The 'food miles' debate often over simplifies the issue and makes people stop buying food that's imported from developing countries, which in-turn cuts the income of poor people. There are much more effective ways to reduce your emissions by starting at home, or how you travel, and we?ll be looking at other ways in the forthcoming blogs. Poor countries are the least responsible for causing climate change, and they should not be made to suffer because of our need to cut emissions.

It's your decision where you buy stuff from, and at the end of the day the most important person to listen to is yourself. But when it comes to products like rice or lentils - when you've got the decision to buy them from rich countries, such as the US, or poorer countries, like India - we think you should always go for ones from poor countries.

Keep the questions coming through, as we like to know what you think?

Emily, Oxfam GB | August 22, 2008 5:26 PM

Thank you Oxfam! The concept of food miles is absolutely ridiculous and I've been totally shocked as to how the 'buy local because it's better for the environment' argument has been taken seriously!

We're the ones responsible for all the emissions, not rural farmers in Africa who grow their produce under the sun (not in heated greenhouses like farmer Giles down the road). It's about time we stopped burdening other people with these problems (especially when their livelihoods depend on it) and start to look at our own lifestyles.

Here's an official figure for you: 60% of British emissions relating to food comes from transportation within the UK. Transportation of food from Africa - less than 1%. Mainly because they come in the bottom of passenger aircraft.

So maybe there's a few people who have already commented who might want to stop driving to the shops (in your posh car) and going on holiday to gorgeous resorts before you start being part of the engine that is driving poor people into deeper poverty.

Jo | August 22, 2008 4:23 PM

Come on then Oxfam, show us the working out.

I think we need to see some numbers, ?to start things off? why not tell us:

Of the total number of Oxfam?s activate supports, if those that are regular meat eaters, if all gave up just one portion of meat a week exactly how much C02 emission would avoided over a year? And, just out of interest, how much C02 would they generated on a return flight to Spain?

Gary Shearin | August 22, 2008 3:17 PM

Fair trade is fair enough, and too be honest if we didn't have local farmers in the West subsidised then we really wouldn't be in this whole mess, also bearing in mind that developing countries governance can also do with major improvement (reduction in corruption to start off with) so that there is an appropriate social services framework for building roads, schools, and accessing basic human rights. So what was the question? fair trade is right for the moment, but there is a bigger picture which needs addressing!

Kami Pandhi | August 22, 2008 2:06 PM

Yea right! Why should the third world export their produce to the neighbouring countries when in actual fact they are in the same boat so to speak. When they export abroad they get that little bit more for their hard work and get recognisation from that country as a producer of such and such product from africa.

Miss B Wiliki | August 22, 2008 12:28 PM

Its ok to have greenhouse and the rest of it but you cannot compare it to the real thing from abroad which is natural with no additives except for the cheating of Fair Trade between the west and the third world. When will there be a change Mr G Brown for suffering third world growers and traders for little or no less than the effort they put to make a living?

Miss B Wiliki | August 22, 2008 12:22 PM

I'm glad to see that others are as confused as I am about Oxfam's advice. I am surprised at Oxfam's comments on the matter of buying fair trade over locally sourced goods.
Im all for buying fair trade products, but I think it is important to support our local farmers as well. I would buy fair trade if a locally sourced alternative is not available.

Carrie Flint | August 22, 2008 9:59 AM

You can't justify buying food that has travelled hundreds of miles, producing huge quantities of CO2 with it being fairtrade. It's pointless to make hypothetical suggestions, such as using more energy saving lightbulbs, in an attemp to justify spreading more CO2 than is neccessary.

Sarah Wilson | August 21, 2008 7:16 PM

Meat - don't just replace one of your meat portions a week with veg - that's neither healthy nor attractive! No-one wants a plate of boiled carrots and cabbage!
Instead, get yourself some good veggie recipes and make a proper balenced veggie meal instead (make your spaghetti bolognese with red lentils instead of beef, put chickpeas in your curry instead of chicken...), you'll need some tasty, filling protein in addition to that veg, and an interesting sauce to make something more inspiring than boiled vegetables! Veggie food is still suitable and healthy for meat-eaters, and done properly is in no way inferior or less tasty.
And why not try going back to traditional ways of eating meat - rather than buying a separate piece of meat (or several!) per person per day, get a big joint and make a traditional roast at the start of the week, and use the leftovers to make several extra dishes for the rest of the week (such as ones involving mince or chopped meat)- therefore buying only one piece of meat for the week and making it go further.
:)
PS:You cut about 10% of your carbon footprint by cutting meat and dairy from your diet alltogether, and its easier than it sounds too...

Helen | August 21, 2008 5:28 PM

hello, just a quick thought... what if the food produced in zambia, stayed in zambia to help with all the famine happening, or maybe export some to neighboring countries, i'm sure that any spare food would go down very well in malawi, namibia or mozambique!

anyway, thats just my view. i've spent a lot of time backpacking through sub saharan africa.

cheers

Robert Clifford | August 21, 2008 5:17 PM

Help, I'm confused. This has not made it any clearer to me. I'm trying to avoid filling by basket with veg from abroad. Now you are telling me I should.

Peter Blach | August 21, 2008 4:43 PM

Like the other comment I am really confused now! I am a big advocate for Fair Trade (I sell fairly traded clothes and gifts!) but when I do my shopping I would always buy local veg (going along the lines of food miles and eating in season) I will buy fairly traded fruit and veg but everything needs to be UK or at the very worse European. please can we have some proper guidance over this please....?

Sal Greenwood | August 21, 2008 4:20 PM

How can we be sure that the cost of the heat in greenhouses to grow veg and fruits in the UK is going to be more than the cost of the transport of the same things from abroad?
When shopping in any supermarket we find that greenbeans often come from Kenya. When contemplating buying those, we are faced with 2 principle thoughts : Is it not better to buy localy? Does the people who grow these greenbeans are small producers who will benefit from our buy, or because they are not fairtrade does it mean exploitation?
I thought I did the best by buying localy and only buying products which can't grow in our countries, like bananas or citrus fruits for example, and chosing these only if they were faitrade.
Now I am wondering what we people here do really know about all of that, as we hear completely contradictory facts from one person/organisation to another.

So who should we listen to?

Geraldine and Kerry Swatridge | August 21, 2008 1:05 AM