Loving Green

As International Development Secretary Hilary Benn MP finds himself celebrating Valentine's Day by calling for consumers to purchase imported, air-flown flowers from Kenya rather than European greenhouse-grown flowers, I think I may be adjusting my thinking on the food miles concept.

Benn's argument is that Kenyan-grown flowers have lower carbon footprints, and choosing these also has a social/poverty impact upon the livelihoods of Kenyans dependant on employment from flower-processing areas (Fairtrade flowers, even?). It's not all so rosy, however, as the Guardian reports on the ecological and human costs of flower production - water consumption, soil erosion, deforestation, child labour, criminal violence, poor working conditions are just the tip of the iceberg.

I may have developed a rather slavish adherence to looking at labels and seeing where food has come from, but more and more I find thinking about the broader picture beyond country of origin and mode of transport. Can the emissions from the biological growing process really outweigh the emissions from air-flown transport and packaging? Carbon-lifecycle footprints are incredibly difficult to calculate, especially with all the indirect inputs and outputs by following the entire process, but they are perhaps the only accurate measure of Dutch/Kenyan flowers being the greener option. Food miles do matter - not least for the economic and social spillovers for the sustainability of the local economy - but perhaps not food miles uber alles.

The price tag of goods never really do reflect their environmental and social cost. Supermarkets have been able to push prices down by sourcing mangetout from Peru and asparagus from Thailand by the simple process of going for the choice that involves the lowest purchasing price, no matter where they may be. Wherein do human rights and environmental issues fall? I think I've just increased the amount of time I spend staring at the shelf deciding which option to go for.