Notions of produce quality will need to be redefined if Britain and the world are to face up to the responsibilities of climate change, experts suggest.

Tara Garnett of the Food Climate Research Network told last week’s Re:fresh conference that what would be required of UK consumers and producers would be an entire revision of previously-held beliefs.

Garnett painted a picture of a world in which the pampered UK consumer would have to give up many of those items now held as essential luxuries: all-year-round produce, the consistency of quality, high degrees of choice and the general ubiquity of fresh produce. Instead, she sketched a future of ‘choice editing’ - a world in which fewer, more generally-acceptable options would be presented to the consumer by supermarket buyers.

Conversely, however, the overriding emphasis on energy-efficiency would throw up strong opportunities for canny growers. Far from meaning a back-to-basics approach, the upheaval could throw up a host of novel products. Ready meals, for instance, are often more energy-efficient than their fresh produce equivalents. Garnett pointed to a recent Swedish study, demonstrating very little energy-efficiency difference between the two modes, with the more efficient mass-production systems often trumping the energy-efficiency of home-cooking.

Additionally, Garnett noted that the jury was still out on the ‘air miles’ debate. She pointed out that it remains cheaper to grow most soft fruit in Spain and import it than to produce the equivalent locally.

Referencing the recent Sainsbury’s-Manchester Busines School study about Kenyan imports, she suggested that foreign produce was, for the time being, still more eco-friendly, contra the many ‘local produce’ initiatives presently mushrooming via the big multiples. However, the overall point was that ‘both are still bad’. The message was that ‘mindsets will have to change’ - the British public will have to pay more for less if they are to account for the full cost of their purchases.