August 17, 2007
Counting the Miles and Measuring Footprints
RetailWire’s Editor-in-Chief George Anderson recently had us discussing “locavores” (see RetailWire, 6/8/07 – Hunting for ‘Locavores’). A related term that has gained traction in the U.K. is ‘food miles’. Many people believe that knowing the distance food travels from field to plate has clear advantages. Knowing this number means we can make informed decisions and choose whether to support local producers or (knowingly and for whatever reasons) purchase something that has been imported.
Supporters see food miles as a way of encouraging people to buy local. The reasons for that, as explained by James E. McWilliams in the International Herald Tribune, include “freshness, purity, taste, community cohesion and preserving open space.” On top of that, it helps the local economy, keeping money circulating close by rather than going into the coffers of large national or multinational manufacturers and retailers.
Opponents, including Dean Best, acting editor of just-food.com, declare food miles simplistic, explaining that food produced locally can sometimes use more energy than imported food. Carbon footprints can more meaningfully explain environmental impact. They also brand food miles supporters as Luddites and protectionists, depriving farmers in developing countries of much-needed export markets.
Mr. Best points out that a 2006 report commissioned by the U.K.’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at the impact of food transport concluded that making decisions based on distance “would be misguided on a number of fronts.”
Paul Watkiss, the report’s co-author, mentions the possibility that “food grown naturally abroad and exported to the UK could have a lower carbon footprint than that produced here.” Environmental costs “across the life cycle of the produce” need to be taken into account, not just in transportation.
Mr. Best also quotes Anne-Marie Warris, global product manager for climate change at LRQA, part of the Lloyd’s Register Group, who believes, “Labeling is inevitable. Consumers will want something to tell them what their carbon footprint is. The issue is what the label will tell them and what they want to know about.”
Some manufacturers and retailers, including Walkers (owned by PepsiCo) and Tesco, have started measuring carbon footprints and putting the information on packs.
But the debate really isn’t as simple as either food miles or carbon footprints. Information about food miles is easy to calculate and understand, cheap to implement. Information about carbon footprints is none of those. Add on the cost and need to design and agree on symbols and it could take decades to become recognized and routine.
Discussion Questions: Do you see consumers demanding packaging information related to food miles or carbon footprints in the future? Will the inclusion of the information provide the company/brand that uses it with a competitive advantage of sorts?
[Author’s comment] Carbon counts on packaging may be a good thing or may add to the confusion. Only when we all know our personal footprints will we understand what represents a big or small contribution. As for developing a universal standard, as Tesco has promised, I don’t plan to hold my breath waiting. There have been far too many arguments and disagreements about how to label fat, salt and sugar content in a way that is easy to understand. Now it’s going to start all over again? With manufacturers all figuring out how much carbon they’re using and everyone agreeing on the same formula? And the same symbols? Never mind that the item has traveled different distances depending on where it is sold or that different ingredients come from different sources – plus the bottom line realization that somebody (consumers?) will have to pay.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Taking a very selfish view of things–why would I want my neighborhood and its groundwater polluted with fertilizers and pesticides? I’ll rather have that happen far far away from me….
On a different view–is this not protectionism? How would this differ from the backlash against outsourcing?
The answer in my view–if you care so much–grow your own!
Just as there are political issue junkies–and everybody else, there are food issue junkies–and everybody else. To those of us who are either of those kinds of junkies (or both) knowledge is power and we’re pretty intense. I suspect, though, that the locavore/carbon footprint aspect of food labeling is rather far down the wish list for most consumers. They just want “safe.” Certain producers might want to test the appeal of such labeling on a voluntary and trial basis in a few places like Whole Foods. But, the very same small and local producers who many of us currently strive to encourage, support and buy from would be the most financially strapped by forced compliance with such labeling and certification requirements should they become governmentally mandated.
Oh good–something more to think about when I go grocery shopping! The same small group of shoppers who care about organics or a manufacturer’s environmental performance will care about this–most people won’t.
It depends on the consumer and it also depends on your definition of the future. Will carbon footprints be critical in Europe? They already are. Will they be critical in the U.S.? Yes. When? God only knows. We have become a consuming culture with no sense of seasonality. Most children don’t realize that crops come in and out of season. Instead they are used to getting apples, grapes and stone fruit in their lunches (assuming they actually eat fruit) 52 weeks a year. You can’t have a national diet like that and reduce your carbon footprint significantly. Something has to give.
I agree on both counts: some kind of labeling is inevitable, because (some) vocal consumers are demanding it, but whether that labeling will be informative in any way, shape, or form is another matter entirely.
It seems to me it’s kind of like RFID–the IDEA is a good one, and you can see how if we had the capability, the world could potentially be a better place, but boy, the execution is killer.
“Carbon footprint” is just the latest environmentalist tactic bootstrapped up to influence politics. It’s a cute concept designed to make people feel guilty about simply being alive, but there’s no “there” there. Al Gore, a kingpin pusher of this drug, has a carbon footprint that grows exponentially every time he switches on the lights in his mansion, hops on a private jet, fires up one of his SUVs, or dines. It’s as silly as considering one’s “oxygen footprint,” “sleep footprint,” “information footprint,” or “slightly-illegal footprint.” (Did you exceed the speed limit recently, or access an internet porn site? What’s YOUR illegal footprint?) Carbon footprint refers to what you do to sustain your life and the life of your family, and is used to make you feel bad about it. That’s why consumers couldn’t care less. Carbon footprint is always negative and you’re never OK. Who wants that?
Here’s the key question on this topic: Why is a carbon footprint (what a stupid term) either good or bad (always bad, of course)? Can’t we think for ourselves? We are a carbon-based life form. Carbon is not a bad thing unless, of course, it falls on your head in a mine in Utah. Despite the sky-is-falling hysteria generated by environazis and environistas, carbon represents life on our planet. Using too much? Well, stop exhaling all that CO2. That’ll satisfy them. For a while.
Consumers want a lot of things: fresh taste, good nutrition, low carbon impact, little or no use of chemical fertilizers, and, of course, low price. Which consumers are using which combination of criteria for making choices is the critical question. The next question is what do they do if they don’t find their choice at a particular store?
Labels for carbon footprint, distance traveled, and a host of other issues will only work if they are coordinated across the industry. If there is no standardization, consumers will have a difficult time understanding the labels and making choices. If they find out that a label didn’t mean what they thought it did and feel the company was misleading them, the company will lose sales of that product but possibly other products they sell because that consumer will have lost faith in the company.
Many consumers was more information but they want reliable information.
Many consumers don’t understand the industry language used around sustainability. A variety of research has been done (Iconoculutre and The Hartman Group have great work in this area) to determine what consumers understand and how they “act” today against sustainability. About 20% of consumers are really involved. On average, about 60% of consumers understand only some of the vernacular, and they bring the concept of sustainability to life in a way that encompasses themselves, then their family, and perhaps then their community. Most cannot yet interpret the complicated concepts of carbon footprints and how they are calculated. That said, the good news is that they do get the connection to “locally grown,” and may very well understand “food miles.” But, as marketers, we need to make sure we don’t jump too far ahead of the consumer with complex labeling systems. Simple is better and truthful is a must.
Carbon footprints and food miles are minor compared to packaging waste. However, it might be good pr for food suppliers (retailers as well as famous brands) to be open about as many measures as possible. Without openness, suspicion grows. Furthermore, many theoretic alternatives aren’t practical, anyway. Even if millions of people wanted to minimize their food miles, would they plow up their lawns and plant vegetable gardens next Spring? Would they start container gardens with dwarf fruit trees on their decks and balconies?
Good to see that the “no” votes are winning the poll…. Personally, I would prefer to eat produce that has traveled around the world rather than items that my neighbors grow in their backyard. Quality and quantity (of miles traveled) are often correlated in a positive way….
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Taking a very selfish view of things–why would I want my neighborhood and its groundwater polluted with fertilizers and pesticides? I’ll rather have that happen far far away from me….
On a different view–is this not protectionism? How would this differ from the backlash against outsourcing?
The answer in my view–if you care so much–grow your own!
Just as there are political issue junkies–and everybody else, there are food issue junkies–and everybody else. To those of us who are either of those kinds of junkies (or both) knowledge is power and we’re pretty intense. I suspect, though, that the locavore/carbon footprint aspect of food labeling is rather far down the wish list for most consumers. They just want “safe.” Certain producers might want to test the appeal of such labeling on a voluntary and trial basis in a few places like Whole Foods. But, the very same small and local producers who many of us currently strive to encourage, support and buy from would be the most financially strapped by forced compliance with such labeling and certification requirements should they become governmentally mandated.
Oh good–something more to think about when I go grocery shopping! The same small group of shoppers who care about organics or a manufacturer’s environmental performance will care about this–most people won’t.
It depends on the consumer and it also depends on your definition of the future. Will carbon footprints be critical in Europe? They already are. Will they be critical in the U.S.? Yes. When? God only knows. We have become a consuming culture with no sense of seasonality. Most children don’t realize that crops come in and out of season. Instead they are used to getting apples, grapes and stone fruit in their lunches (assuming they actually eat fruit) 52 weeks a year. You can’t have a national diet like that and reduce your carbon footprint significantly. Something has to give.
I agree on both counts: some kind of labeling is inevitable, because (some) vocal consumers are demanding it, but whether that labeling will be informative in any way, shape, or form is another matter entirely.
It seems to me it’s kind of like RFID–the IDEA is a good one, and you can see how if we had the capability, the world could potentially be a better place, but boy, the execution is killer.
“Carbon footprint” is just the latest environmentalist tactic bootstrapped up to influence politics. It’s a cute concept designed to make people feel guilty about simply being alive, but there’s no “there” there. Al Gore, a kingpin pusher of this drug, has a carbon footprint that grows exponentially every time he switches on the lights in his mansion, hops on a private jet, fires up one of his SUVs, or dines. It’s as silly as considering one’s “oxygen footprint,” “sleep footprint,” “information footprint,” or “slightly-illegal footprint.” (Did you exceed the speed limit recently, or access an internet porn site? What’s YOUR illegal footprint?) Carbon footprint refers to what you do to sustain your life and the life of your family, and is used to make you feel bad about it. That’s why consumers couldn’t care less. Carbon footprint is always negative and you’re never OK. Who wants that?
Here’s the key question on this topic: Why is a carbon footprint (what a stupid term) either good or bad (always bad, of course)? Can’t we think for ourselves? We are a carbon-based life form. Carbon is not a bad thing unless, of course, it falls on your head in a mine in Utah. Despite the sky-is-falling hysteria generated by environazis and environistas, carbon represents life on our planet. Using too much? Well, stop exhaling all that CO2. That’ll satisfy them. For a while.
Consumers want a lot of things: fresh taste, good nutrition, low carbon impact, little or no use of chemical fertilizers, and, of course, low price. Which consumers are using which combination of criteria for making choices is the critical question. The next question is what do they do if they don’t find their choice at a particular store?
Labels for carbon footprint, distance traveled, and a host of other issues will only work if they are coordinated across the industry. If there is no standardization, consumers will have a difficult time understanding the labels and making choices. If they find out that a label didn’t mean what they thought it did and feel the company was misleading them, the company will lose sales of that product but possibly other products they sell because that consumer will have lost faith in the company.
Many consumers was more information but they want reliable information.
Many consumers don’t understand the industry language used around sustainability. A variety of research has been done (Iconoculutre and The Hartman Group have great work in this area) to determine what consumers understand and how they “act” today against sustainability. About 20% of consumers are really involved. On average, about 60% of consumers understand only some of the vernacular, and they bring the concept of sustainability to life in a way that encompasses themselves, then their family, and perhaps then their community. Most cannot yet interpret the complicated concepts of carbon footprints and how they are calculated. That said, the good news is that they do get the connection to “locally grown,” and may very well understand “food miles.” But, as marketers, we need to make sure we don’t jump too far ahead of the consumer with complex labeling systems. Simple is better and truthful is a must.
Carbon footprints and food miles are minor compared to packaging waste. However, it might be good pr for food suppliers (retailers as well as famous brands) to be open about as many measures as possible. Without openness, suspicion grows. Furthermore, many theoretic alternatives aren’t practical, anyway. Even if millions of people wanted to minimize their food miles, would they plow up their lawns and plant vegetable gardens next Spring? Would they start container gardens with dwarf fruit trees on their decks and balconies?
Good to see that the “no” votes are winning the poll…. Personally, I would prefer to eat produce that has traveled around the world rather than items that my neighbors grow in their backyard. Quality and quantity (of miles traveled) are often correlated in a positive way….