The shift from “linear thinking” extract → use → dump to “cyclical thinking” that seeks to relate a process to an associated natural cycle for clues on efficiency gains can offer some tantalisingly large benefits. As an illustration of this approach consider the “food chain” or “from farm to fork”. The negative environmental impacts of the largely linear production of food are huge. The impacts arise from fertiliser and pesticide use, irrigation, soil erosion, processing, refrigeration, food miles, packaging, supermarkets, cooking and disposal. These arising negative impacts include Climate Change, ozone pollution and depletion of the ozone layer, water pollution, soil loss and degradation, resource depletion, loss of biodiversity, human health and so on. There are numerous natural cycles associated with food production. But, as an example, take just one – the carbon cycle.

The Summary from the e3 report (2001) “Sustainability in Practice – Achieving the UK’s Climate Change Commitments and the Efficiency of the Food Cycle” is as follows: (for Section Summaries please click here) or download the full report.

Food Cycle - Executive Summary

Addressing the UK’s Climate Change commitments through putting sustainability into practice should be the prime environmental topic in any genuine debate on the future of agriculture, rural development and the security of UK food supply. This interim report identifies that the food cycle is responsible for at least 22% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. The options available to policymakers and all stakeholders for putting sustainable development into practice and also achieving the UK Kyoto Climate Change Commitments are appraised.

Scope - Food Cycle The end point of the food chain is usually seen as the consumer. The costs and opportunities that occur with waste disposal are therefore typically overlooked. This paper considers the environmental aspects of the whole cycle of the food production process which impact on the UK Climate Change Programme. The UK is committed under the Kyoto Protocol to achieve a 12˝% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2008-2012. The food production process also emits GHGs that contribute to climate change which, in turn, have a significant negative impact on food production.

The Carbon Cycle

Food production ought to be an integral part of the carbon cycle. Photosynthesis in plants fixes the carbon from CO2 as carbohydrate, which we then directly or indirectly consume, using oxygen in the process and emitting CO2. The forgotten part of the cycle is where the dead matter and detritus are taken up by the soil as organic matter and the nutrients used for plant growth. The carbon cycle is solar powered, involves no waste and hence was “100% efficient”, with the local vegetation being in balance with the soil and water supply to form a stable bio-diverse ecosystem. The disposal of organic “waste” matter away from soil to landfill, incinerators, or via sewage works to the same and also to sea, seriously disrupts the carbon cycle.

Efficiency

There are a number of myths associated with today’s food. These include that food production is efficient (7 x more energy consumed today per unit output than 50years ago). This large increase in costs is attributable to food processing and “adding value”, waste, transport, refrigeration and supermarket infrastructure.

The data points to the following:

• Intensive livestock and chemical arable farming is unsustainable and significantly increases GHG emissions
• Adoption of extensive/organic principles decrease GHG emissions
• Centralised supply systems are inefficient and increase GHG emissions
• Sustainable soil management should be a strategic economic issue for the UK

Applying the eco-efficient principles of

• Trading locally
• Specifying organic
• Eating fresh seasonal food

throughout the food cycle could achieve GHG reductions in excess of 40Mtc – over 22% of the current UK emissions – and more than 50 % above the UK Kyoto target.

The adoption of extensive/organic agricultural practices and effective waste and soil management alone could achieve a 28 Mtc reduction in current GHG emissions – exceeding the required 12 ˝%.

NB Since producing this report more data has become available from Defra on food processing etc. which modify the GHG reduction figure to 27% of UK GHG emissions.

To request a full copy of the report click here

Food Cycle - Section Summaries

Agriculture

Fertilisers and pesticides are an essential requirement of chemical farming systems and require 1˝ times more energy for production than that directly consumed on the farm – cost 2.38 Mtc (million tonnes of carbon). The application of nitrate fertilisers is the single largest factor in nitrous oxide emissions. Eliminating nitrate fertilisers would reduce the direct emissions of nitrous oxide by 4.44 Mtc. There is a further potential saving of nitrous oxide emissions equating to 0.73 Mtc from leaching. Livestock. There is likely to be a significant reduction in overall GHG from a decrease in intensive rearing of livestock. However no reduction in 5.7Mtc attributable to methane emissions from livestock is claimed (insufficient data). Pigs and poultry are not assessed. Organic Productivity Yields from organic farming are generally similar to those of chemical farming. The notable exception is cereals. There is evidence that this chemically induced boost in cereal yields cannot be maintained. The associated costs of increased GHG emissions, soil erosion and pollution are largely ignored.

Processing

Lack of available data precludes claiming a reduction in GHG emissions for industrial food processing.

Packaging

The UK directly consumes 60m tonnes of goods annually, half of which is food. It is probably reasonable, therefore, that at least 50% of packaging is food related. Packaging is for protection in transit, presentation and labelling. Whilst there would be clear opportunities for reductions in packaging – no claim is made for GHG emissions reductions at this stage.

Refrigeration

Locally produced fresh seasonal food offers a saving in industrial/supermarket refrigeration ozone depleting GHG emissions - 0.59Mtc

Transport

International Haulage Reduction in international haulage from adapting the UK market to trade locally offers a saving of up to 5.4 million tonnes of export/import by road.
Domestic Road Haulage amounts to 156 billion tonne kms per year. 48 billion of that is agriculture/foodstuffs – 31% of the total. Food is hauled 30% further than the average load. Supermarkets have increased their share of the food retail market to 80% in the last 20 years and the total tonne/kms have increased by over 70%.
Domestic Transport Shoppers made 5% more shopping trips, and travelled 45% further in 1999 than in 1986. Trading locally could result in a consequential 34% reduction in car mileage.
Commuting Around 25% of car mileage is attributable to commuting. Trading locally would recreate local jobs and therefore also reduce the overall commuting requirement with benefits to congestion and GHG emissions. No reductions are claimed against commuting.
Costs The increase in supermarkets has given rise to a decrease in distribution efficiency (increased GHG emissions) and reduced retail employment.
Security Locally produced food shortens the food “chain” and offers reduced risks from contamination arising from importation of disease, terrorist acts and food poisoning. It is probable that food self sufficiency for the UK has more to do with improving the efficiency of production, including creating markets for local food, rather than a serious mismatch between agricultural production capacity and the population’s need. Trading locally offers a saving of 12.2 Mtc from reduced road transport. International road haulage is not included

“Waste” Disposal

The total waste arisings for the UK are 428 million tonnes a year. Around 25% of food purchased is thrown away. The current disposal of wasted organic matter to landfill, sea or incineration has the double cost of eroding the soil of organic matter and significantly enhancing methane and other GHG emissions. Reduction and composting of organic waste currently sent to landfill, could reduce methane emissions from landfill by 3.8Mtc

Recovery

Soil organic matter in agricultural topsoils is derived from crop residues, organic manures, microbial biomass and soil micro flora and fauna. Organic matter plays a key role in maintaining soil fertility and structure, holding water and in mitigating drought and flooding. It is estimated that we have 10,000 million tonnes of carbon as organic matter in our soil and only 90 Mtc locked in our woodland. A small change in the organic content of our soil will have a profound effect on our GHG emissions. There has been a totally unsustainable erosion of organic matter of 12% in 15 years (4 Mtc per year). Some claim it has halved in the last 20 years. Agriculture has been converting the capital of fertility into the income of yields. Specifying organic and a requirement for the sustainable management of soil would achieve a GHG reduction of 7.4 Mtc, arising from reversing the land use change.
Planting offers a 1 Mtc from sequestration through a modest increase in farm hedge/tree planting for windbreaks and biodiversity.
Sequestration Mixed farming accumulates soil organic carbon at 0.84 tonnes/ha/yr compared with arable only. Organic fertilizer accumulates soil organic carbon at 0.6 tonnes/ha/yr compared with chemical only farming. Overall the UK could sequester 6.0 Mtc/yr in soil whilst maintaining current food production.
Forest and Soil Management - A reduction from land use change of 7.4 Mtc, 6 Mtc from carbon sequestration in soil, current 3 Mtc forest sink and a further 1Mtc farm planting offers a total of 17.4 Mtc.

Sustainability

There is a rapidly rising world population, the available arable land is being increasingly lost to development and urbanization, and the soil and its fertility is being eroded by weather extremes and chemical farming. Globally this will give rise to an increasing and unsustainable demand for food production from the dwindling soil resources.

Stakeholders

Substantial progress can be achieved by sound Government policies that fully environmentally appraise the options. Raising awareness and targeted action by the key stakeholders can further the three eco-efficient principles and promote the identified outcomes. Government Departments, retailers, waste managers, planners, farmers, consumer groups, transport managers, Local Authorities, water companies can each play a key role in eco-efficiently integrating their activities into the cycle of food. Such “joined-up thinking” and action could contribute significantly to the environmental and sustainability outcomes.

Eco-efficiency

Food production is a major use of land and other natural resources, and therefore influence over the state of the countryside. The eco-efficiency of food production, especially the amount of fossil fuels consumed by, and the greenhouse gas emissions arising from cultivation, livestock, processing, packaging, transport/distribution and disposal per unit of food delivered to the consumer has a very significant impact on climate change and the UK targets. Rather than incur the current costs and methane emissions of disposing organic “waste”, farmers could receive an environmental payment for reincorporating the “waste” (carbon) into the soil, save on the costs/impacts of nitrate fertilisers and make a very significant contribution to mitigating climate change. Understanding, and seeking to align the food cycle with the natural carbon cycle, highlights the current shortcomings, and indicates the eco-efficiency gains that are readily available.