Written evidence submitted by the Fresh
Produce Consortium (FPC)
1. The Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC) is
the trade association for the fresh produce industry in the UK.
We represent importers, food service companies, wholesalers, packers
and processors, retailers, exporting third countries and many
more organisations that have an involvement with the industry.
We welcome the opportunity to provide evidence to the Select Committee's
debate.
2. Carbon footprints of and carbon emissions
associated with the production, trade and distribution of fresh
produce are issues which the industry takes extremely seriously
and the FPC is actively engaging with the Carbon Trust and other
bodies to look at ways in which this sector can identify sources
of emissions and reduce the carbon footprint of companies and
products.
3. We believe that focusing solely on the
method of transport of imported food as a basis for determining
whether it is "good" or "bad" from an environmental
perspective is short-sighted and misleading to consumers. Transport
accounts for only one element of the carbon emissions of a particular
product and therefore looking at the carbon footprint of the whole
product supply chain—through the use of life cycle assessment—would
be a far better way of determining its environmental impact.
4. Air freighted imports of fruit and vegetables
account for 0.2% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions and air
freighted food is responsible for 11% of all UK food-chain greenhouse
gases. Sixty percent of air freighted fresh produce is brought
to the UK in the bellyhold of passenger aircraft and there is
no evidence to suggest that fewer planes would fly if less imported
fruit and vegetables were eaten. Air freighted fresh produce on
dedicated cargo planes accounts for 0.12% of total UK greenhouse
gas emissions.
5. There is growing evidence that in some
circumstances importing outdoor-grown produce may produce less
greenhouse gases than growing the same commodity in UK greenhouses
heated by fossil fuels. On the other hand, in some cases and for
social and economic reasons, buying local may be more advantageous.
However, Manchester Business School, in their 2006 report to Defra,
concluded that "evidence for a lower environmental impact
of local preference in food supply and consumption when all food
types are taken into consideration is weak|. So, while there are
no grounds from the available data to argue `local good—global
bad' as a general statement, this could be true for certain foods,
as could the reverse."
6. Furthermore, the idea of food miles looks
simply at the distance the item of food has travelled from farm
to retail outlet and there are clearly many other factors relating
to fossil fuel use and emissions along the food chain which must
also be taken into account.
7. Indeed, Defra's 2005 Food Miles report
concluded that "a single indicator based on total food kilometres
is an inadequate indicator of sustainability". The FPC believes
that not only would the use of food miles-based labelling or trade
restrictions lead to unconstructive discrimination, it would also
lead to consumers developing a false sense of "eco-security"
in the belief that foods with low food miles are always good,
and foods with high food miles are bad.
8. The Food Ethics Council's report "Flying
food: Responsible retail in the face of uncertainty" states
that: "air freighted food makes a much smaller contribution
to total UK emissions than other aspects of farming and food.
Compared with the 0.3% of total UK emissions associated with food
air freight, fresh fruit and vegetables in total account for 2.5%,
refrigeration for 3.5 %, alcoholic drinks for 1.5%, and meat and
dairy for 8%."
9. Much of the world's economy is built
on trade and reducing barriers to trade in a considered and proportionate
way can often have significant benefits both to the suppliers
and consumers of commodities traded on world markets. Trade is
a valuable tool that is recognised by the European Commission
for its role in aiding development. According to the Commission,
trade policies can provide opportunities for promoting economic
development and tackling poverty (EU DG Trade 2005).
10. The International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED) claims that the inclusion of sub-Saharan
African (SSA) nations in the high value horticulture and flower
markets has been a success story for those countries (MacGregor
2007). According to the IIED, the UK imported over £200 million
of fresh fruit and vegetables from SSA in 2005, and the quantity
of exports from this region continues to grow. These exports are
worth £100 million to Kenya alone, and this trade provides
employment for about 135,000 people directly. One million people
also benefit indirectly through support and employment in ancillary
industries. Forty per cent of all air freighted FFV comes from
SSA and the vast majority of this (32,500 tonnes) comes from Kenya,
with the next biggest source of fresh fruit and vegetable exports
by air being Ghana, with 8,000 tonnes. Kenya is the single biggest
airfreight exporter in SSA, exporting 91% of all their fresh fruit
and vegetable exports to the UK by air.
11. The Department for International Development
(DFID) is responsible for a vast amount of work in the developing
world which is helping to alleviate poverty and stimulate sustainable
development. When the Soil Association's proposals to remove accreditation
from air freighted organic produce were first publicised in October
2007 the DFID responded by saying: "We are worried about
the livelihoods of the African farmers who don't meet these extra
standards and we're worried about the costs of additional certification
for the farmers that do meet the standards. We know from our support
to the Fairtrade Foundation that certifying new products can take
from six months to several years and costs between tens and hundreds
of thousands of Euros.
12. Oxfam also commented: "If UK consumers
are genuinely concerned about lowering emissions to combat climate
change, they should look closer to home. Food miles associated
with the export of fresh fruit and vegetables from sub-Saharan
Africa equate to only 0.1% of the UK's entire carbon emissions.
Switching to low-energy light bulbs can reduce more emissions
than rejecting fresh fruit and vegetables from Africa—and
doesn't affect the 1.5 million people in Africa who depend on
agricultural exports to the UK for a living".
13. While the quantity and economic value
of organic fresh produce imports arriving in the UK are small
they nonetheless represent increasingly valuable income streams
to those involved and placing restrictions on such trade could
have serious consequences for rural economies in developing countries.
More importantly, however, the impact of Soil Association policy
on other elements of the industry and on consumers' consciousness
should also be considered. Moves by the Soil Association to restrict
air freighted organic imports could set a dangerous precedent
for other food and fresh produce sectors which would have a far
larger impact on developing countries.
14. The UK's Department for International
Development (DFID) acknowledges that robust action is necessary
in order to begin to tackle climate change, but the Department
believes that restricting airfreight in order to try to reduce
GHG emissions will have negative economic impacts on the least
developed countries which do export horticultural produce to the
UK. DFID argues that policies aimed at reducing emissions should
also acknowledge that:
— Agricultural growth is essential
to economic development;
— Increased productivity means cheaper
food, more jobs and higher incomes;
— Agriculture is the most likely source
of growth in Africa—70% of the poor work on the land.
| 
