Hubbry Logo
Food milesFood milesMain
Open search
Food miles
Community hub
Food miles
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Food miles
Food miles
Food miles
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A truck carrying produce
Share of food miles by transportation mode and it's environmental impact
Part of a series about
Environmental economics
Carbon price
Climate change
Concepts
Energy transition
Policies

Food miles is the distance food is transported from the time of its making until it reaches the consumer. Food miles are one factor used when testing the environmental impact of food, such as the carbon footprint of the food.[1]

The concept of food miles originated in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom. It was conceived by Professor Tim Lang[2] at the Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment (SAFE) Alliance[3] and first appeared in print in a report, "The Food Miles Report: The Dangers of Long-Distance Food Transport", researched and written by Angela Paxton.[4][5]

Some scholars believe that an increase in the distance food travels is due to the globalization of trade; the focus of food supply bases into fewer, larger districts; drastic changes in delivery patterns; the increase in processed and packaged foods; and making fewer trips to the supermarket. These make a small part of the greenhouse gas emissions created by food; 83% of overall emissions of CO2 are in production phases.[6]

Several studies compare emissions over the entire food cycle, including production, consumption, and transport.[7] These include estimates of food-related emissions of greenhouse gas 'up to the farm gate' versus 'beyond the farm gate'. In the UK, for example, agricultural-related emissions may account for approximately 40% of the overall food chain (including retail, packaging, fertilizer manufacture, and other factors), whereas greenhouse gases emitted in transport account for around 12% of overall food-chain emissions.[8]

A 2022 study suggests global food miles CO2 emissions are 3.5–7.5 times higher than previously estimated, with transport accounting for about 19% of total food-system emissions,[9][10] albeit shifting towards plant-based diets remains substantially more important.[11]

The concept of "food miles" has been criticised, and food miles are not always correlated with the actual environmental impact of food production. In comparison, the percentage of total energy used in home food preparation is 26% and in food processing is 29%, far greater than transportation.[12]

Overview

[edit]

The concept of food miles is part of the broader issue of sustainability which deals with a large range of environmental, social and economic issues, including local food. The term was coined by Tim Lang (now Professor of Food Policy, City University, London) who says: "The point was to highlight the hidden ecological, social and economic consequences of food production to consumers in a simple way, one which had objective reality but also connotations."[13] The increased distance traveled by food in developed countries was caused by the globalization of food trade, which increased by four times since 1961.[14] Food that is transported by road produces more carbon emissions than any other form of transported food. Road transport produces 60% of the world's food transport carbon emissions. Air transport produces 20% of the world's food transport carbon emissions. Rail and sea transport produce 10% each of the world's food transport carbon emissions.

Although it was never intended as a complete measure of environmental impact, it has come under attack as an ineffective means of finding the true environmental impact. For example, a DEFRA report in 2005 undertaken by researchers at AEA Technology Environment, entitled The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development, included findings that "the direct environmental, social and economic costs of food transport are over £9 billion each year, and are dominated by congestion."[15] The report also indicates that it is not only how far the food has travelled but the method of travel in all parts of the food chain that is important to consider. Many trips by personal cars to shopping centres would have a negative environmental impact compared to transporting a few truckloads to neighbourhood stores that can be easily reached by walking or cycling. More emissions are created by the drive to the supermarket to buy air freighted food than was created by the air freighting in the first place.[16] Also, the positive environmental effects of organic farming may be compromised by increased transportation, unless it is produced by local farms. The Carbon Trust notes that to understand the carbon emissions from food production, all the carbon-emitting processes that occur as a result of getting food from the field to our plates need to be considered, including production, origin, seasonality and home care.[17]

Food miles in business

[edit]

A recent study led by Professor Miguel Gomez (Applied Economics and Management), at Cornell University and supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future found that in many instances, the supermarket supply chain did much better in terms of food miles and fuel consumption for each pound compared to farmers markets. It suggests that selling local foods through supermarkets may be more economically viable and sustainable than through farmers markets.[18]

Calculating food miles

[edit]

With processed foods that are made of many different ingredients, it is very complicated, though not impossible, to calculate the CO2 emissions from transport by multiplying the distance travelled of each ingredient, by the carbon intensity of the mode of transport (air, road or rail). However, as both Tim Lang and the original Food Miles report noted, the resulting number, although interesting, cannot give the whole picture of how sustainable – or not – a food product is.[4]

Wal-Mart publicized a press releasing that stated food travelled 1,500 miles (2,400 km) before it reaches customers. The statistics aroused public concern about food miles. According to Jane Black, a food writer who covers food politics, the number was derived from a small database. The 22 terminal markets from which the data was collected handled 30% of the United States produce.[19]

Some iOS and Android apps allow consumers to get information about food products, including nutritional information, product origin, and the distance the product travelled from its production location to the consumer. Such apps include OpenLabel, Glow, and Open Food Facts.[20] These apps may rely on barcode scanning.[21] Also, smartphones can scan a product's QR code, after which the browser opens up showing the production location of the product (i.e. Farm to Fork project, ...).[22]

Criticism

[edit]

Fair trade

[edit]

According to Oxfam researchers, there are many other aspects of the agricultural processing and the food supply chain that also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions which are not taken into account by simple "food miles" measurements.[23][24] There are benefits to be gained by improving livelihoods in poor countries through agricultural development. Smallholder farmers in poor countries can often improve their income and standard of living if they can sell to distant export markets for higher value horticultural produce, moving away from the subsistence agriculture of producing staple crops for their own consumption or local markets.[25]

However, exports from poor countries do not always benefit poor people. Unless the product has a Fairtrade certification label, or a label from another robust and independent scheme, food exports might make a bad situation worse. Only a very small percentage of what importers pay will end up in the hands of plantation workers.[26] Wages are often very low and working conditions bad and sometimes dangerous. Sometimes the food grown for export takes up land that had been used to grow food for local consumption, so local people can go hungry.[27]

Energy used in production as well as transport

[edit]

Researchers say a more complete environmental assessment of food that consumers buy needs to take into account how the food has been produced and what energy is used in its production. A recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) case study indicated that tomatoes grown in Spain and transported to the United Kingdom may have a lower carbon footprint in terms of energy than heated greenhouses in the United Kingdom.[28]

According to German researchers, the food miles concept misleads consumers because the size of transportation and production units is not taken into account. Using the methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in accordance with ISO 14040, entire supply chains providing German consumers with food were investigated, comparing local food with food of European and global provenance. Large-scale agriculture reduces unit costs associated with food production and transportation, leading to increased efficiency and decreased energy use per kilogram of food by economies of scale. Research from the Justus Liebig University Giessen show that small food production operations may cause even more environmental impact than bigger operations in terms of energy use per kilogram, even though food miles are lower. Case studies of lamb, beef, wine, apples, fruit juices and pork show that the concept of food miles is too simple to account for all factors of food production.[29][30][31]

A 2006 research report from the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit at Lincoln University, New Zealand counters claims about food miles by comparing total energy used in food production in Europe and New Zealand, taking into account energy used to ship the food to Europe for consumers.[32][33] The report states, "New Zealand has greater production efficiency in many food commodities compared to the UK. For example New Zealand agriculture tends to apply fewer fertilizers (which require large amounts of energy to produce and cause significant CO2 emissions) and animals are able to graze year round outside eating grass instead of large quantities of brought-in feed such as concentrates. In the case of dairy and sheep meat production NZ is by far more energy efficient, even including the transport cost, than the UK, twice as efficient in the case of dairy, and four times as efficient in case of sheep meat.[16] In the case of apples, NZ is more energy-efficient even though the energy embodied in capital items and other inputs data was not available for the UK."

Other researchers have contested the claims from New Zealand. Professor Gareth Edwards-Jones has said that the arguments "in favour of New Zealand apples shipped to the UK is probably true only or about two months a year, during July and August, when the carbon footprint for locally grown fruit doubles because it comes out of cool stores."[34]

Studies by Dr. Christopher Weber et al. of the total carbon footprint of food production in the U.S. have shown transportation to be of minor importance, compared to the carbon emissions resulting from pesticide and fertilizer production, and the fuel required by farm and food processing equipment.[35]

Livestock production as a source of greenhouse gases

[edit]

Farm animals account for between 20% and 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[36][37][38] That figure includes the clearing of land to feed and graze the animals. Clearing land of trees, and cultivation, are the main drivers of farming emissions. Deforestation eliminates carbon sinks, accelerating the process of climate change. Cultivation, including the use of synthetic fertilisers, releases greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide. Nitrogen fertiliser is especially demanding of fossil fuels, as producing a tonne of it takes 1.5 tonnes of oil.[23]

Meanwhile, it is increasingly recognised that meat and dairy are the largest sources of food-related emissions. The UK's consumption of meat and dairy products (including imports) accounts for about 8% of national greenhouse gas emissions related to consumption.[23]

According to a study by engineers Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University, of all the greenhouse gases emitted by the food industry, only 4% comes from transporting the food from producers to retailers. The study also concluded that adopting a vegetarian diet, even if the vegetarian food is transported over very long distances, does far more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than does eating a locally grown diet.[39] They also concluded that "Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food." In other words, the amount of red meat consumption is much more important than food miles.

"Local" food miles

[edit]

A commonly ignored element is the last mile. For example, a gallon of gasoline could transport 5 kg of meat over 60,000 miles (97,000 km) by road (40 tonner at 8 mpg) in bulk transport, or it could transport a single consumer only 30 or 40 miles (64 km) to buy that meat. Thus foods from a distant farm that are transported in bulk to a nearby store consumer can have a lower footprint than foods a consumer picks up directly from a farm that is within driving distance but farther away than the store. This can mean that doorstep deliveries of food by companies can lead to lower carbon emissions or energy use than normal shopping practices.[40] Relative distances and mode of transportation make this calculation complicated. For example, consumers can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the last mile by walking, bicycling, or taking public transport. Another impact is that goods being transported by large ships very long distances can have lower associated carbon emissions or energy use than the same goods traveling by truck a much shorter distance.[41]

Lifecycle analysis, rather than food miles

[edit]
Transport (in red) is only a very small share in food GHG emissions.

Lifecycle analysis, a technique that meshes together a wide range of different environmental criteria including emissions and waste, is a more holistic way of assessing the real environmental impact of the food we eat. The technique accounts for energy input and output involved in the production, processing, packaging and transport of food. It also factors in resource depletion, air pollution and water pollution and waste generation/municipal solid waste.[42]

A number of organisations are developing ways of calculating the carbon cost or lifecycle impact of food and agriculture.[43] Some are more robust than others but, at the moment, there is no easy way to tell which ones are thorough, independent and reliable, and which ones are just marketing hype.

Even a full lifecycle analysis accounts only for the environmental effects of food production and consumption. However, it is one of the widely agreed three pillars of sustainable development, namely environmental, social and economic.[44]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Food miles

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Food miles denote the aggregate distance traversed by food commodities from their origin in production or harvest to final consumption by the end user, a metric coined in the early 1990s by British researcher Andrea Paxton to underscore the greenhouse gas emissions linked to transportation within global supply chains. Proponents of the concept advocate reducing food miles through localized sourcing to curb carbon footprints, positing that shorter supply chains inherently yield lower emissions from freight. However, peer-reviewed assessments reveal that transport-related emissions constitute a minor fraction—often 5 to 11 percent—of total lifecycle greenhouse gas outputs for food systems, dwarfed by emissions from agricultural production stages such as fertilizer application, livestock enteric fermentation, and land-use changes. This disparity arises because production efficiencies, influenced by climate suitability and farming practices, frequently outweigh distance in determining overall environmental impact; for instance, importing out-of-season produce from efficient distant growers can emit less than producing it locally under suboptimal conditions. Critics contend that fixating on food miles oversimplifies causal pathways in food sustainability, potentially diverting attention from high-leverage interventions like yield improvements and dietary shifts, while recent estimates elevating transport's share to near 20 percent have faced scrutiny for methodological overreach in aggregating global trade data.

Definition and Origins

Conceptual Definition

Food miles represent the total distance traveled by food products from their origin—typically the farm, , or processing facility— to the point of final consumption by the end user. This metric, expressed in units such as miles or kilometers per of food, aims to capture the logistical footprint of supply chains, with a primary focus on estimating from transportation modes like trucks, ships, and . The concept posits that longer transport distances correlate with higher energy consumption and carbon dioxide equivalents released, assuming comparable efficiency across supply chains; for instance, a 2008 analysis estimated that food transport in the UK accounted for approximately 19 million tons of CO2 emissions annually, though this formed only about 25% of the sector's total freight emissions. Proponents view food miles as a straightforward proxy for encouraging localized production to mitigate climate impacts from fossil fuel-dependent logistics. Introduced in the early amid rising concerns over global food trade, the term was coined by Tim Lang, a of at City University , to spotlight the environmental externalities of extending supply chains beyond regional boundaries. While initially tied to advocacy in the , the idea gained traction as a consumer-facing label, though its validity as a standalone has been debated due to unaccounted factors like production-phase emissions, which often exceed transport contributions by factors of 4 to 5 in lifecycle assessments of common produce.

Historical Development

The term food miles was coined in the early 1990s by Tim Lang, a of , during his involvement with the Sustainable Agriculture, Food and Environment (SAFE) alliance in the . Lang intended the phrase to draw public attention to the ecological, social, and economic consequences of transporting food over long distances, emphasizing that such practices obscured the full costs of modern supply chains to consumers. The concept first gained formal expression in SAFE's 1994 report, The Food Miles Report: The Dangers of Long Distance Food Transport, which calculated that UK food transport accounted for approximately 19 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually and advocated for shorter supply chains to reduce these impacts. This publication marked an initial effort to quantify transport distances as a proxy for sustainability, building on broader 1990s concerns about globalization's effects on agriculture, including increased reliance on air and road freight for perishable goods. By the late , food miles had evolved into a broader tool, influencing early movements and retailer labeling initiatives in , though empirical studies soon began questioning its standalone validity by highlighting that production-phase emissions often dwarfed transport contributions. The metric's development reflected a shift toward life-cycle assessments in , with government inquiries in the early 2000s commissioning reviews to assess its role in carbon reduction strategies.

Measurement Methods

Calculation Approaches

Food miles are typically calculated as the total distance traveled by food from production to final consumption, often expressed in kilometers or miles per unit of food mass. Basic approaches employ simple averages of straight-line or road distances from primary production sites to retail or consumer points, but these overlook supply chain nuances such as multiple sourcing and processing. A prominent method is the Weighted Average Source (WASD), introduced by Annika Carlsson-Kanyama in 1997, which computes an average weighted by the mass of food from each origin: WASD = Σ (m_k × d_k) / Σ m_k, where m_k represents the mass sourced from location k and d_k the corresponding transport to the consumption point. This formula accommodates variability in sourcing by incorporating proportions from multiple regions; for instance, distances are derived from mapping tools like for road routes rather than Euclidean approximations. For multi-ingredient products, such as , the approach extends to intermediate processing steps: ingredient masses are adjusted for processing yields (e.g., sugar beet-to-sugar ratios), weighted by regional supply shares (e.g., 81.8% strawberries), and aggregated to yield a per-unit , as in a 2005 study calculating 277 miles for an 8-ounce container. Aggregate metrics like tonne-kilometers (tkm) scale miles by and —total tkm = Σ (tonnes transported × km traveled)—to quantify overall volume, facilitating comparisons across commodities or regions. This is commonly paired with vehicle-kilometers or direct CO2 emissions, using empirical data from surveys (e.g., Department for 's Continuing Survey of Goods ) and records for international flows; a 2002 analysis estimated 30 billion food vehicle-km and 19 million tonnes of CO2 via such tonne-km derivations with mode-specific emission factors (e.g., 1.2 MJ/tkm for versus 84 MJ/tkm for air freight). To incorporate environmental impacts, some approaches convert miles to emissions using mode-adjusted factors, such as the Weighted Average Emissions Ratio (WAER), which weights distances by CO2 intensity per transport type (e.g., higher for air than sea). Advanced network-based models, like a 2025 Texas simulation using production-consumption matrices for crops, livestock, and dairy, assign food flows across highway networks via traffic-inspired algorithms, yielding 2.72 billion tkm annually and 274 kt CO2—about 5.7% higher than traditional approximations—by capturing actual routing and load efficiencies absent in simpler methods. Global estimates often rely on origin-destination trade data, assuming dominant modes (e.g., sea for bulk, air for perishables <1% volume but disproportionate emissions), as in a 2023 framework attributing 19% of food-system CO2 to transport. These methods draw from sources like agricultural censuses, processor records, and emission inventories, though overseas data gaps (e.g., sea freight loads) necessitate proxies, prompting recommendations for multi-indicator suites over singular mile-based metrics to better reflect causal impacts like congestion or mode-specific pollution.

Data Limitations and Accuracy Issues

The measurement of food miles, typically expressed in tonne-kilometres (tkm), faces significant challenges due to incomplete data on transport modes for specific commodities, often requiring reliance on national aggregates or assumptions that introduce estimation errors. A 2022 analysis estimated global food-miles emissions at 3.5–5.4 Gt CO₂e annually but highlighted that discrepancies in mode-specific data (e.g., sea vs. air freight) can lead to underestimations by up to 20% in some models. Data scarcity is particularly acute for international and overseas road transport, where tracking precise origins, routes, and vehicle efficiencies is limited by inconsistent reporting standards across jurisdictions. The UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) noted in a 2005 assessment that such gaps result in poor-quality datasets for policy-relevant imports, with accuracy compromised by aggregated averages that overlook return trips and partial loads. Simplistic distance-based calculations fail to incorporate load factors, fuel efficiencies, or multimodal shifts, distorting environmental inferences; for instance, bulk sea shipping from distant producers can emit less per tonne-km than inefficient local trucking. Critiques emphasize that without lifecycle integration, food miles data overemphasizes transport (often <10% of total emissions) while masking production variances, leading to misleading policy signals.

Purported Environmental Impacts

Transport Emissions in Context

Transport emissions associated with food distribution form a subset of the broader agrifood system's greenhouse gas footprint, which accounts for approximately 26% of global anthropogenic emissions. Within this system, on-farm production processes—encompassing cultivation, livestock rearing, application, and land-use changes—dominate, contributing 70-86% of total emissions depending on the commodity and methodology. , by contrast, typically represents 5-10% of food system emissions for most products, with higher shares for air-freighted perishables that constitute less than 1% of total food miles. This disparity arises because production phases release potent gases like from ruminants and from soils, far exceeding the from fuel in . A 2022 peer-reviewed analysis in Nature Food, utilizing trade data and freight efficiency metrics, estimated global emissions at 3.5 GtCO₂eq annually—19% of total emissions and 6% of worldwide GHG output. This figure, higher than prior assessments of around 5%, incorporates both domestic and international freight for all commodities, revealing that and transport alone drives 36% of food-miles emissions due to reliance on faster, less efficient modes for perishables. Even at this elevated share, however, the study affirms production's primacy, as 's impact varies inversely with a food's inherent emissions intensity: staples like grains incur negligible transport fractions, while low-emission sees amplified relative contributions from distance. Empirical breakdowns underscore modal efficiencies: maritime shipping handles 90% of international food trade volumes with low emissions per ton-kilometer, dwarfing road or air alternatives, yet food-miles metrics often overlook these differences by weighting solely by distance. Post-production stages, including processing and retail, add another 10-20%, further contextualizing transport as non-dominant but modifiable through route optimization or modal shifts rather than origin restrictions.

Empirical Evidence on Food Miles Contribution

A 2018 meta-analysis of over 38,000 farms and 1,600 processors worldwide found that accounts for a small share of lifecycle GHG emissions from , typically 1-5% for most products, with on-farm production dominating at 70-90% for staples like grains and ; in regional contexts like the , contributed only 4% to emissions, while in the it reached 11%. Earlier national studies align with this, such as a assessment showing responsible for 6% of emissions, contrasted against 83% from , , and eggs production. A 2009 analysis similarly estimated at 11% of emissions, emphasizing production as the larger factor. A 2022 global study, however, estimated food-miles emissions—encompassing all freight transport of food commodities—at 3 Gt CO₂eq annually, or nearly 19% of total food-system emissions (15.8 Gt CO₂eq, 30% of global GHGs), with domestic transport driving 62% of these due to volume and less efficient modes like trucks, while international shipping (71% of tonne-km) contributed 38% owing to its efficiency. Fruits and vegetables generated 36% of food-miles emissions, roughly double that of animal products, reflecting higher trade volumes and perishability. These higher figures from the 2022 analysis, 3.5-7.5 times prior estimates, stem from broader inclusion of domestic freight data previously underrepresented in lifecycle models focused on imports or specific chains. Yet, product-level lifecycle data consistently show transport shares below 20% for most s, with exceptions like air-freighted items (up to 50% of emissions but <1% of global food volume), underscoring production—especially from and land-use change—as the dominant 60-80% contributor across aggregates.

Applications in Practice

Business and Supply Chain Uses

Businesses incorporate the food miles metric into primarily to quantify and mitigate transportation-related , often as part of broader initiatives. By calculating the total distance food travels—typically measured in tonne-kilometers (tkm), representing one of goods moved one kilometer—companies assess efficiency and identify opportunities for route optimization or modal shifts, such as from trucks to rail, which can reduce emissions intensity. For instance, food service operators use food miles data to streamline , favoring suppliers with shorter transport distances to lower overall carbon footprints without compromising product . In practice, major firms have applied food miles reductions to enhance operational resilience and meet regulatory or consumer demands for transparency. The Azzurri Group, which operates restaurant chains like and , reduced over 140,000 food miles in 2023 by partnering with local distributors, thereby cutting GHG emissions intensity by 10% amid expansion. Similarly, Sodexo promotes local sourcing to shorten supply chains, yielding alongside improved freshness, reduced costs from fewer intermediaries, and strengthened ties, as evidenced in their 2021 of global operations. Vertical farming ventures like Eden Green leverage to minimize food miles entirely, producing goods near consumption points and integrating this metric into their ESG reporting to attract investors focused on low-emission supply chains. Food miles also serve procurement and functions, enabling certifications or labels that signal to stakeholders. Retailers and processors track cumulative miles across tiers—from to processor to retailer—to inform supplier selection, often prioritizing regional that balance scale with proximity, as outlined in agricultural guides. In , low food miles are highlighted to differentiate products, though empirical audits reveal that such claims must account for upstream to avoid overstatement, with companies like those in the ATTRA network using the metric for verifiable eco-labeling since the early 2000s. This application persists despite debates over its scope, as businesses increasingly integrate it with software for real-time visibility.

Policy and Regulatory Adoption

In the , the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) commissioned a 2005 report evaluating food miles as an indicator of , which concluded that distance traveled alone provides an incomplete and potentially misleading assessment of environmental impact, as production-phase emissions often dominate the total footprint. This analysis influenced policy restraint, leading to the development of food transport indicators—such as heavy goods vehicle food kilometres and air food kilometres—tracked annually since 2012 to monitor emissions rather than enforce distance-based mandates. No national regulations have imposed penalties or quotas specifically on food miles, reflecting empirical findings that transport accounts for only about 10-19% of emissions in the . The has similarly avoided standalone food miles regulations, integrating concerns into broader frameworks like the and the 2020 Farm to Fork Strategy, which prioritize reducing overall emissions through efficiency improvements rather than geographic restrictions. EU food hygiene and safety rules account for extended distances by mandating preservatives and , but these do not regulate miles directly and have been critiqued for enabling rather than curbing long-haul imports. Proposals for carbon border adjustments on food imports, as explored in studies on EU-UK trade post-Brexit, consider emissions from but emphasize lifecycle greenhouse gases over miles to avoid protectionist challenges under World Trade Organization rules. In , regulatory focus has centered on preventing unsubstantiated "low food miles" marketing claims under consumer protection laws enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, rather than adopting food miles as a prescriptive metric; such claims must demonstrate verifiable environmental benefits to avoid misleading consumers. Local government policies in some states promote sustainable food systems, including shorter supply chains, but these are voluntary and not miles-specific. Canada's approach includes provincial initiatives like Ontario's 2013 Local Food Act, which designates funds for programs increasing procurement in public institutions, indirectly incentivizing reduced miles but without mandatory distance thresholds or emissions penalties tied to transport alone. Federal policies emphasize and emissions reporting, yet empirical assessments, such as those on imported produce traveling over 1,500 km, have not translated into nationwide food miles regulations due to the metric's limitations in capturing production efficiencies. Across these jurisdictions, adoption remains limited, with governments favoring holistic tools like labeling over food miles to align with evidence that local sourcing can sometimes increase total emissions through less efficient farming practices.

Criticisms from Empirical and Economic Perspectives

Neglect of Production and Lifecycle Emissions

The food miles metric has drawn criticism for overlooking emissions arising from agricultural production and other lifecycle phases, such as processing, packaging, and retail, which empirical analyses indicate comprise the predominant share of a food product's total footprint. A of food consumption found that transportation accounts for only 11% of total emissions, with final delivery from producer to retailer contributing just 4%, while on-farm production and upstream activities dominate due to factors like use, from , and energy for cultivation. Similarly, a UK government-commissioned report evaluated food miles as an indicator of and determined it invalid as a standalone measure, as production efficiencies and methods often eclipse impacts, leading to scenarios where imported yield lower overall emissions than local alternatives. Specific case studies illustrate this discrepancy. For tomatoes, UK glasshouse production emits approximately 2,394 kg CO₂ equivalent per —primarily from heating—compared to 630 kg CO₂e per for field-grown Spanish tomatoes, with adding only an additional 111 kg CO₂e per for imports, resulting in net lower emissions for the longer-distance option. In the case of lamb, exports to the demonstrate superior efficiency: grass-fed production there requires about one-quarter the energy of lamb farming per , even after accounting for freight emissions, yielding a total roughly four times lower for the imported product due to 's favorable reducing feed imports and supplemental heating needs. These examples underscore how food miles, by fixating on distance, can incentivize environmentally inferior local production methods, such as energy-intensive heating or less efficient , without considering causal drivers like regional suitability or farming practices. The neglect extends to broader lifecycle elements, including soil carbon sequestration, water use in , and post-harvest losses, which vary more significantly by production system than by transport distance. For instance, air-freighted produce—though high per tonne-kilometer—represents a minor share of total food miles volume but amplifies criticism when production baselines are ignored; the same DEFRA noted air transport's 11% contribution to food-related CO₂ despite comprising just 1% of tonne-kilometers, yet emphasized that holistic assessments reveal production variances as the key determinant of . Critics argue this tunnel vision promotes misguided policies, as evidenced by the report's recommendation for multifaceted indicators incorporating CO₂ emissions and modal shifts over simplistic mileage tallies, to avoid unintended increases in net environmental harm. While recent estimates have revised transport's global share upward to around 19% by including more comprehensively, production and land-use changes still account for over 80% in most , reinforcing the critique that food miles inadequately captures causal emission drivers.

Inefficiencies of Localism

Proponents of reducing food miles often advocate for localism to minimize transport-related emissions, yet empirical analyses reveal that this approach can result in higher overall footprints when local production relies on energy-intensive practices unsuited to regional climates or lacks . In such cases, the emissions savings from shorter distances are outweighed by elevated production costs, including heating, , or inefficient small-scale farming that disrupts optimized supply chains. A prominent example involves lamb production: New Zealand lamb exported to the United Kingdom generates approximately 11.6 kg CO₂e per kg, lower than the 14.1 kg CO₂e per kg for domestically produced UK lamb, even accounting for transoceanic shipping. This disparity arises because New Zealand's temperate climate and natural grassland systems enable more efficient, lower-input grazing compared to the UK's reliance on supplemental feeds and housing, which demand four times more energy per unit of output before transport. Similar patterns occur with vegetables; UK winter lettuce grown in heated glasshouses emits more GHGs than Spanish field-grown lettuce transported by truck, as the energy for artificial lighting and heating exceeds road freight costs. Spanish tomatoes likewise show roughly half the global warming potential of UK greenhouse equivalents when lifecycle emissions are assessed. Localism also introduces distribution inefficiencies, as small-scale producers often use less fuel-efficient vehicles for fragmented deliveries, contrasting with the high of bulk industrial like rail (480 ton-miles per gallon) or semi-trucks (120 ton-miles per gallon). For instance, urban or may require multiple short-haul trips in or to reach consumers, amplifying per-unit fuel use beyond that of centralized long-haul systems. These factors underscore how localism, by prioritizing proximity over production , can inadvertently elevate total emissions, particularly for out-of-season or climatically mismatched crops where forcing growth via energy subsidies negates reductions.

Protectionist Implications

Advocacy for reducing food miles has been employed to justify policies that favor domestic producers over foreign competitors, often functioning as under the guise of . Campaigns emphasizing distance traveled can discourage imports, particularly from developing countries, by highlighting transport emissions while downplaying production efficiencies abroad, thereby protecting local markets in developed nations like the , , , and the . For instance, dairy company Dairy Crest launched a 2007 against New Zealand's Anchor butter, spotlighting its 18,000 km journey to underscore purported environmental harm and implicitly promote local alternatives. Specific policies illustrate this protectionist dynamic. In 2008, the UK's banned air-freighted organic produce unless it met stringent ethical trade standards, effectively limiting imports from producers in , , and , which supplied high-value exports to . This measure threatened £42 million in annual UK retail sales for Kenyan exports alone, potentially resulting in 350 direct job losses and affecting up to 2,800 dependents, while benefiting domestic growers despite evidence that imported goods often have lower overall emissions. Similarly, initiatives like Walmart's food miles calculator in the mid-2000s encouraged sourcing from nearby suppliers, reducing opportunities for efficient overseas producers and exacerbating revenue losses for developing economies reliant on horticultural exports. Such approaches distort global trade by penalizing imports based on a narrow metric that ignores comparative advantages, such as lower from production in suitable climates. Studies indicate that UK-produced lamb generates 2,849 kg CO2 per ton, compared to 688 kg for New Zealand imports, yet food miles rhetoric prioritizes distance over lifecycle efficiencies, shielding less competitive local industries. This selective focus fosters "buy local" sentiments that disadvantage Global South exporters, who face welfare losses from reduced in major importers like the and , potentially amounting to 0.3% of GDP for nations like if consumer shifts away from imports accelerate. From a legal standpoint, food miles-based measures risk violating rules, including the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (Article 2.1), which prohibits against imports absent legitimate distinctions, and GATT Article III:4, which bars less favorable treatment of like products based on origin. While Article XX exceptions might defend genuine environmental aims, arbitrary application—such as mandatory labeling for air-transported imports—could fail necessity tests if broader lifecycle assessments reveal minimal net benefits, ultimately enabling veiled that undermines principles.

Superior Alternatives

Lifecycle Analysis Frameworks

Life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks provide a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts of products across their entire , from agricultural production through processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management. Standardized by ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, LCA involves four main phases: goal and scope definition to establish system boundaries; life cycle inventory analysis to quantify inputs and outputs; life cycle to evaluate potential effects such as ; and interpretation to draw conclusions and recommend improvements. In food systems, these frameworks attribute impacts to specific stages, revealing that on-farm production—particularly and emissions from and fertilizers—often accounts for the majority of , dwarfing contributions from transportation. Applied to food supply chains, LCA distinguishes between attributional approaches, which use average data to describe existing systems, and consequential approaches, which model changes in consumption or production to predict marginal impacts. For instance, studies using LCA on global food commodities show that transport-related emissions constitute only about 6% of total lifecycle greenhouse gases, while animal-based products contribute up to 83% due to feed production and . This granularity enables identification of hotspots, such as inefficient local farming versus efficient distant imports; a seminal analysis found lamb exported to the had lower emissions than domestically produced lamb owing to pasture-based systems versus intensive feedlot methods. Frameworks like those from the (FAO) integrate LCA for sustainable diets, emphasizing dietary shifts over geographic sourcing. LCA's superiority over food miles metrics lies in its causal accounting of all emissions drivers, avoiding distortions from isolating alone, which ignores effects like increased local production emissions. Recent advancements include hybrid LCA models combining data with economic input-output analysis for broader coverage, as seen in tools assessing household-scale food impacts. Empirical applications in confirm phases dominate, with farm-stage emissions ranging 7.7–30% but scalable by yield , underscoring the need for and practice improvements over mere localization. By prioritizing verifiable data and , LCA frameworks foster , such as carbon labeling that reflects full impacts rather than distance proxies.

Prioritizing Dietary and Production Factors

Empirical analyses consistently demonstrate that greenhouse gas emissions from food production and dietary composition exert a substantially greater influence on total environmental impact than transportation distances associated with food miles. In lifecycle assessments of food systems, the production phase—including on-farm activities such as fertilizer use, enteric fermentation in livestock, and land-use changes—accounts for the majority of emissions, often exceeding 70-80% of the total, while transport contributes only 6-19% depending on the scope and methodology employed. For instance, a 2008 study of U.S. household food consumption found that supply-chain emissions dominated at 83% for animal products, with transportation comprising just 11% overall. Dietary factors, particularly the consumption of animal versus plant-based foods, amplify this disparity, as meat and dairy production generate 14.5 times more emissions per calorie than vegetables and 6 times more than cereals. Reducing intake of high-emission foods like and lamb—responsible for half of food-related emissions despite comprising 15% of caloric intake—yields reductions far surpassing those from sourcing local equivalents. A shift toward plant-rich diets could cut food system emissions by up to 70%, according to global modeling, compared to marginal gains from localism, which might reduce transport-related emissions by only 0.4-4% in typical scenarios. Production methods further underscore the priority, as emissions vary more by farming efficiency and regional suitability than by proximity to consumers. Grass-fed New Zealand lamb, for example, emits less per kilogram than intensively produced British lamb due to superior pasture productivity and lower input requirements, rendering long-haul import preferable on emissions grounds despite added food miles. Similarly, off-season vegetable production in heated greenhouses locally can exceed emissions from efficient, sun-grown imports from milder climates. These findings highlight that optimizing yield per unit of land and minimizing resource-intensive practices—such as reducing fertilizer overuse or improving feed conversion in livestock—offers verifiable pathways to emission cuts, independent of geographic sourcing.

Recent Research and Debates

Key Studies Post-2010

A 2022 study published in Nature Food by Li et al. analyzed global from 2004–2019, estimating that food-miles—defined as emissions from transporting from production to retail—account for approximately 19% of total food-system , or 2.8–3.1 gigatonnes of CO₂ equivalent annually. This figure, derived from comprehensive modeling of international shipping, , and /, was 3.5–7.5 times higher than prior estimates, which often focused narrowly on domestic or regional distances and omitted long-haul international components. The authors attributed the discrepancy to undercounting embodied transport emissions in global supply chains, particularly for perishables like fruits and , though they emphasized that production-phase emissions still comprise the majority (around 81%) of the food system's total footprint. In contrast, a 2018 meta-analysis by Poore and Nemecek in Science, drawing on data from over 38,000 commercial farms and 1,600 processors across 119 countries, quantified lifecycle emissions for 40+ food categories and found transportation contributing only 0.6–6% of total on average, depending on the product and mode (e.g., lower for bulk sea freight, higher for air-shipped ). The study highlighted that inefficiencies in farming practices, such as use and production, drive 80–90% of impacts, rendering distance-based metrics like food-miles insufficient for guiding reductions; instead, it advocated yield improvements and dietary shifts yielding 20–70% emission cuts regardless of sourcing locality. A 2013 critique in Applied Geography by Garnett argued that food-miles oversimplify environmental assessment by conflating transport volume with impact, ignoring modal efficiencies (e.g., efficient ships vs. inefficient local trucks) and effects like increased to access "low-mile" foods. Drawing on case studies, including comparisons of Spanish vs. British tomatoes, the demonstrated that imported produce grown in heated greenhouses can have lower total emissions than local open-field equivalents due to superior yields and energy sources, concluding that prioritizing miles risks promoting domestically inefficient production without net environmental gains. These studies collectively underscore a post-2010 shift toward integrated lifecycle assessments, revealing food-miles as a measurable but secondary factor—typically 5–20% of emissions—subordinate to on-farm variables like from and from soils, with methodological debates centering on data granularity for trade flows.

Unresolved Questions and Future Directions

One persistent challenge lies in reconciling discrepancies between studies estimating the share of food-system attributable to , with earlier lifecycle analyses suggesting 11% or less globally, while a 2022 global modeling study revised this upward to nearly 20%, primarily due to undercounted domestic freight and overlooked complexities. These variances stem from methodological differences—bottom-up product-specific assessments versus top-down trade-flow models—raising questions about whether 's role is systematically minimized in policy discussions favoring production-phase interventions. Empirical resolution requires hybrid approaches that integrate granular supply-chain data, including mode-specific emissions (e.g., sea freight's dominance at low per-kilogram impact versus rare air ), to clarify if food miles warrant standalone metrics or subordination to full lifecycle accounting. Another unresolved issue concerns the environmental trade-offs in "localism," where reducing miles may inadvertently increase emissions through less efficient, small-scale production methods, as observed in cases like heated greenhouses for local off-season vegetables versus efficient field-grown imports from milder climates. Causal analysis reveals that scale economies in global often yield lower per-unit emissions despite longer , yet quantifying thresholds—e.g., or yield differences—beyond which localization dominates remains empirically sparse, particularly for perishables like fruits and comprising the bulk of mile-intensive . This challenges assumptions in advocacy, demanding region-specific studies to delineate when proximity aligns with causal emission reductions versus protectionist distortions. Future directions emphasize advancing data infrastructure for real-time tracking of supply chains via or monitoring to enable dynamic food-mile assessments integrated with broader indicators like water use and . Research should prioritize causal modeling of technological interventions, such as low-emission electric trucking or , to test scalability against global trade efficiencies, while experiments could evaluate labeling schemes focused on verified carbon footprints rather than miles alone, avoiding metric distortions that overlook production variances. Peer-reviewed longitudinal studies post-2025, incorporating climate-adaptive cropping shifts, will be essential to refine these frameworks amid evolving trade patterns.

References

  1. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/food-miles-myth-or-fact/h5hgolifu
  2. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-sustainability-a-comprehensive-foundation/chapter/food-miles/
  3. https://attra.ncat.org/publication/food-miles-background-and-marketing/
  4. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es702969f
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235272001_Food_miles_Time_for_a_re-think
  7. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/food-miles
  8. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04984/SN04984.pdf
  9. https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/food_miles_articles.pdf
  10. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/01/28/food-miles-fair-miles/
  11. https://www.citystgeorges.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/167893/Slow-Food-fd-miles-final-16-02-06.pdf
  12. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/393/
  13. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/mar/25/foodanddrink.features5
  14. https://www.connect4climate.org/initiative/what-are-food-miles
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262501265X
  16. https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/files/pubs-and-papers/2005-03-calculating-food-miles-multiple-ingredient-food-product.pdf
  17. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3614
  18. https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Food/DEFRA_Food_Miles_Report.pdf
  19. https://www.ecowatch.com/food-miles-supply-transportation.html
  20. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/field-fork-global-food-miles-generate-nearly-20-all-co2-emissions-food-2023-01-25_en
  21. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00531-w
  22. http://www.salmone.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/zeromilesfinal.pdf
  23. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/155973/adbi-wp118.pdf
  24. https://www.mercatus.org/sites/default/files/d7/publication/yes_we_have_no_bananas_a_critique_of_the_food_mile_perspective.pdf
  25. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
  26. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/carbon-footprint-factsheet
  27. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
  28. https://www.carbonbrief.org/food-miles-have-larger-climate-impact-than-thought-study-suggests/
  29. https://www.fao.org/statistics/highlights-archive/highlights-detail/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-agrifood-systems.-global--regional-and-country-trends--2000-2022/en
  30. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
  31. https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/weber_2009.pdf
  32. https://skoot.eco/articles/what-are-food-miles-and-how-do-you-reduce-a-restaurants-carbon-footprint
  33. https://foodservicefootprint.com/azzurri-group-lowers-ghg-emissions-intensity-10-amidst-restaurant-growth/
  34. https://www.sodexo.com/inspired-thinking/local-sourcing-benefits
  35. https://www.edengreen.com/blog-collection/food-miles
  36. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/food-transport-indicators
  37. https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/document/food-miles
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550925001435
  39. https://www.foodlegal.com.au/bulletin/articles/2009-03/environmental_food_claims_and_the_legal_limitations_of_a_food_miles_claim/
  40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.13239
  41. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=mjil
  42. https://foodpolicyforcanada.info.yorku.ca/goals/goal-5/sustainable-transportation/challenges-transport/
  43. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/from-the-archive-myth-of-food-miles_0.pdf
  44. https://fruitforum.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/nz-foodmile-study20062328_rr285_s97601.pdf
  45. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/does-eating-local-food-reduce-the-environmental-impact-of-food-production-and-enhance-consumer-health/C264A576782D7B79B95A47D50515B02A
  46. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/a-locavores-dilemma
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8147589/
  48. https://academic.oup.com/af/article/1/1/40/4638598
  49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0171-8
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219301289
  51. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/32e85f3e-6513-4c58-ac6b-b33a57e6b1f1
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8374513/
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344921005541
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9408002/
  55. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2008/04/28/diet-choices-and-production-matter-more-than-food-miles-study/
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37118044/
  57. https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/most-food-is-transported-by-boat-so-food-miles-are-a-relatively-small-part-of-the-carbon-footprint-of-most-diets
  58. https://massivefoundation.org/eco-terms/case-of-food-miles-is-local-always-better/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384548555_Transcending_Food-Miles_Unpacking_the_Drivers_of_In-Store_Vertical_Farming_Adoption_Among_Food_Retailers_in_France
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.