Climate change and poverty
The Rights and Wrongs of Food Miles
4 December 2007
![]() |
Duncan Green, Head of Research, Oxfam |
In October, the Soil Association responded to concerns about food miles by saying it would only certify airfreighted products as organic if they also carried the fairtrade mark. Good for fairtrade, which we should all support, but wrong in terms of development, both on the grounds of equity and proportionality.
First equity: African farmers are amongst those least responsible for climate change, and yet they are being hit first and hardest by its effects - where's the justice in making them pay first to correct the results of our own carbon profligacy?
Second proportionality: While we acknowledge the impact that a growth in airfreight will have on carbon emissions, it's important to keep things in perspective. If everyone in the UK switched one 100W light bulb to a low energy equivalent it would, over a year, reduce CO2 emissions by five times the amount that would result from not purchasing fresh fruit and vegetables from sub-Saharan Africa. We should (literally) put our own house in order before boycotting African produce in the name of climate change.
Duncan Green, Oxfam's Head of Research


Comments
Simon Youell | March 5, 2008 1:56 PM
I am delighted and gratified that someone is at last standing up to the 'food mile fascists'. I believe in supporting third world countries to trade their way out of poverty and I happily buy food from them - fairtrade when available.
I deplore the hypocrisy of bodies such as the Soil Association. When their carbon footprint is as low as the African and other third world farmers who produce these goods, it will be time for them to speak - but for now they should shut up.