Milling & Baking News - November 16, 2010 - 40

Regulatory Affairs 

Carbon footprints and food security
BY ROBBIN JOHNSON

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that agricultural activities directly account for
about one-seventh of greenhouse gas
(G.H.G.) emissions. If indirect effects
from land conversion are added in, the
contribution approaches one-third.
Yet, people need to eat, and national
governments - especially in developing countries - understandably place
food security ahead of climate change
concerns. The result has been a tension between food security and climate
change advocates that often appears to
reflect deep-seated value differences.
Wealthier, more well-fed countries
and consumers increasingly are stressing the need to protect the planet and
to conserve resources. At the extreme,
this view argues for producing and
consuming less, but even supporters
of continued economic growth want
to "put a price" on carbon as a means
of attacking emissions.
Leaders in developing countries
may acknowledge the importance of
dealing with G.H.G. emissions, but
their priorities are elsewhere. One billion people are hungry, hundreds of
millions more are malnourished and
the majority of the world's people -
those living on incomes below $3,000
per person per year - are extremely
sensitive to food price increases. Both
periodic food price spikes and any reversal of the long-term trend of declining real food prices are problematic.
This tension may be easing as the
terms of the debate change. New tools
and new understanding may help
bring food security and agricultural
sustainability closer together.
Eat local to save on food miles
Early on, agriculture's G.H.G. emissions and their potential effects on
climate produced a call to "eat local"
in order to save on "food miles." Locavores (and some agricultural protectionists) seized on this notion to urge
consumers to buy locally produced
foods rather than imports.
Soon, the idea of doing a "life cycle analysis" of a product's G.H.G.
emissions exposed some of the fallacies in such thinking. "Food miles"
ignore the form of transport, which
has a larger effect on G.H.G. emissions than distance: bulk shipment
by rail or ocean vessel emits much
less G.H.G.s per calorie than hauling
goods to market in the back of a pickup truck. It also ignores production
40 / November 16, 2010 Milling & Baking News

emissions: growing food in climatically-favored regions causes fewer
emissions than production in less
favored regions, even after transport
emissions are included.
Supply chain carbon footprints
"Food miles" arguments have given way to a more sophisticated examination of G.H.G. emissions "from
farm to fork." Life cycle analyses of
food-product supply chains is a much
more comprehensive and useful idea.
It also is a challenging and still developing methodology for defining the
"carbon footprint" of a food product.
There are many interpolations that

Bulk shipment by rail or
ocean vessel emits much
less G.H.G.s per calorie
than hauling goods to
maket in the back of a
pickup truck.

have to be made in carbon footprinting: different input configurations
yield disparate emissions profiles;
calculating the "CO2 equivalent" of
non-carbon emissions like methane
and nitrous oxide requires sensitive adjustments for their different
periods of persistence in the atmosphere; dealing with potential indirect emissions from land-use changes involves controversial judgments
about causes of such shifts; and accommodating technological innovation as producers attempt to reduce
their carbon footprints requires regular revisions of the calculations. As
well, there are other environmental
issues affecting sustainability that
are not necessarily well-captured by
a carbon focus, such as erosion or
water usage.
As a result, the idea of a product's
carbon footprint is a useful one, but
it also is less precise than its quantitative representation might suggest. It is an indicative measure that
helps producers, processors and handlers identify processes that may be
improved from a carbon-emissions
standpoint. But it is not a definitive
gauge of sustainability.
Nevertheless, carbon footprints
have entered every day language.
Food manufacturers and retailers
are measuring them, and some are

putting the data on posters or packages to help inform consumer choices.
Sustainability as efficiency
What may be emerging now is a
growing recognition of a closer alignment between efficiency and sustainability than previously acknowledged. The basic idea is that more
efficient use of land, water and purchased inputs contributes to reduced
G.H.G. emissions and a more sustainable food system in a variety of ways.
It lowers the energy intensity of
producing each calorie. It captures the
intrinsic emissions savings of trade,
revealing an environmental comparative advantage embedded within the
traditional idea of economic comparative advantage. And it highlights the
G.H.G. emissions advantages of intensifying production on good lands versus either inefficient use of marginal
lands or, worst of all, conversion of
natural habitat to food production.
Similarly, it helps direct research and
innovation in animal husbandry. Variations in genetics, feeds and management practices may signal pathways
toward lower G.H.G. emissions. Breeding, formulating feeds and managing
animals against such goals also may
lead to lower costs or better yields.
Aligning efficiency with emissionreduction strategies may prove helpful
in resolving another tension around
sustainability. Mandating sustainable
practices to "save the planet" may
push up costs for all and be trumped
by overriding food security concerns.
Letting consumers choose more sustainably-produced foods implicitly
suggests that such choices are likely
to be more costly, raising the risk that
consumers may not choose that option. Pursuing emissions reductions as
an efficiency- or productivity-enhancing strategy helps direct technological
innovations toward a truly sweet spot
- lower emissions and lower costs.
Of course, not every productivity
gain is an emissions reduction, nor
do emissions reductions always lead
to lower costs. The alignment is not
perfect, but it is closer than sometimes
thought. Focusing on such alignments
points the way to feeding more people
better ... and more sustainably. MBN

Robbin S. Johnson, a fellow
with the Hubert H. Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs,
is a contributing editor at
Sosland Publishing Co.
bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com

http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com

Milling & Baking News - November 16, 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - November 16, 2010