The years of prevarication and burying our heads in the sand are over; the carbon emission issue has now become irrefutably unavoidable. Whether you think climate change is a reality - and there is undoubtedly a certain amount of dissent around this question in itself - we are all being urged to go green in a bid to compensate for what climate change lobbyists are decrying as years of irresponsibility towards our environment.
Defra secretary David Miliband has been keen to show the government’s credentials in this area, recently setting an ambitious target for a “carbon neutral” Whitehall by 2012 and a 30 per cent reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions by 2020. Retail chains and the fresh produce industry alike have been swift to follow in his carbon-free footsteps.
Retailers have been among the first to jump on the bandwagon and announce numerous carbon-cutting initiatives in what some media reports have dubbed the “green wars”. Sainsbury’s recently held a one-day ban on plastic bags as part of its “Make the Difference” environmental initiative, handing out reusable bags for free in a move that the retailer claimed would revolutionise supermarket shopping. The chain has also launched a designer tote bag, costing £5 and bearing the slogan “I am not a plastic bag”.
Marks & Spencer has similarly been quick on the uptake, having entered a five-year partnership with sustainability consultancy group BRE in a bid to turn itself carbon neutral by 2012. The premium high-street chain has also launched into partnership with Tesco and six other major UK businesses as part of the “We’re in this Together” campaign, a major corporate social responsibility scheme, spearheaded by The Climate Change Group, which aims to cut CO2 emissions by 25 million tonnes over the next three years.
Pallet and container pooling specialist CHEP has in the last month signed deals with Tesco and The Co-operative to help reduce the packaging waste emitted by both retailers; and Waitrose has pledged to support sustainable farming, stating that by 2010 all its conventional fresh, prepared and frozen fruit and vegetables will be farmed to high environmental standards.
On the face of it, one has to applaud the retailers for their forward thinking and ability to drum up interest in environmental issues among a public that was largely unaware of the carbon footprint notion until several months ago. But are all these initiatives just a high-profile publicity stunt designed on the part of each chain to boost sales and trump its high-street rivals?
Nicky Chambers, managing director of sustainability consultancy Best Foot Forward, says: “There is a bit of a feeding frenzy at the moment among the supermarkets, but this of course does not mean they are actually implementing their environmental proposals. The proof will be in the pudding as to whether or not they fulfil their promises.”
The fresh produce world in particular has come under fire from a range of environmental accusations, from the high carbon emissions linked to airfreight of high-care products to over-packaging.
Peter Davis of Lincolnshire-based importer Davis (Louth) Ltd explains how his company is well on the way to reducing its footprint. “Not only do we group our organic vegetable box scheme deliveries together to cut down on emissions, but we are also exploring the possibility of wind turbine installation,” he says. “We are looking at wind turbines that can generate enough power for a medium-sized office of 20 to 30 people. We have applied for planning permission to build a bigger office to accommodate the wind turbines, and are also aiming to make our packhouses more energy efficient and our organic farmers self-sustainable.”
The carbon footprint is inextricably linked to sustainability, according to Jonathan Evans, managing director of software company Muddy Boots, and confidence in your supplier base is paramount to becoming carbon efficient. “Our clients are able to establish details about where and by whom a product has been grown, and our software allows fresh produce firms and retailers to understand their supply chain and become familiar with current practices, which can include information such as geographical spreads, supplier size, waste management and use of renewable energy.”
The Muddy Boots portfolio comprises three core products. Quickfire, a mobile audit management software, is a key tool in the sustainability debate, which can be used to evidence retailers’ corporate social responsibility statements and support bold environmental claims. Produce Manager is a tailored system for the management of fresh produce through any part of its commercial life, allowing for a better quality management system and ensuring less wastage. Finally, the CropWalker family of products supports best management practices with regard to the use of pesticides and fertilisers, protecting valuable habitats and managing environmental impact.
“By the consolidation of supplier data, weaknesses are exposed and measures can subsequently be implemented across the supply base to ensure sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions. Retailers can feel confident that they are dealing with responsible suppliers, and suppliers can monitor their compliance to retailer guidelines,” explains Evans.
While retailers and importers may be the principal targets in the media’s environmental barrage, foodservice firms will also soon incur the carbon finger of blame unless they take steps now. With such a high proportion of eating now taking place outside of the home, consumers want to be sure that their environmental and ethical credentials are applicable beyond their own kitchens. Catering supplier Fresh Direct is taking plenty of measures to eradicate its carbon footprint. “Our policy at Fresh Direct is to source British produce wherever possible,” explains managing director Nigel Harris. In a survey conducted by the company, consumers were found to be more interested in the seasonality of their produce than whether or not it is grown in Britain. “With this in mind, we flag up any airfreighted produce to highlight and build customer awareness, with the aim of encouraging the exploration of alternative lines, producing fewer food miles and sourcing seafreighted products,” says Harris.
“To help further reduce our emissions, we are looking at securing land around our headquarters in Bicester, from where we hope to source a variety of seasonal produce. Close proximity control will ensure high-quality produce, at the lowest rate of carbon emission possible.”
The firm’s new fleet of lorries has been procured under a low-carbon policy, running off Euro 4 in accordance with EU emission regulations. “Although Euro 3 vehicles are still acceptable, we have decided to make this environmentally prudent jump early,” explains Harris. “We also have a carbon reducing calculator in place, which measures the CO2 emissions of every vehicle within every depot, allowing us to continually assess our environmental performance.”
Further afield, Best Foot Forward is working closely with two South African suppliers to implement carbon management programmes. “It is very easy for a retailer to say they are only going to stock carbon-efficient goods, but much more difficult to implement,” says Chambers. “We are conducting an in-depth analysis of South African exporter Colors’ apple supply. Although the fruit is shipped and not airfreighted, it is all refrigerated, which of course has an impact on the environment. We are also working with Fynsa, a South African flower exporter which airfreights product to the UK. Although airfreight is obviously the significant carbon factor here, other aspects such as packaging also crop up.”
There are easy, short-term measures that companies can implement, according to Chambers, such as composting, and also more complicated, long-term proposals, for example secondary packaging systems, to take on board.
“Therefore, Best Foot Forward recommends that its clients implement a full carbon management programme, with two phases incorporating both long-and short-term proposals. A lot of recommendations are also cost efficient for companies, and should help boost their brand,” she explains.
Carbon offsetting, for example planting a forest to counteract carbon emissions, is one part of a total management programme, according to Chambers, but is certainly not enough in itself to reduce carbon emissions. In the future, she believes, a global carbon allowance programme could be introduced in which everyday decisions may well boil down to spending your carbon points on flowers from South Africa or airfreighted beans from Kenya. “When Best Foot Forward was set up 10 years ago, it was because we had anticipated that the future would throw up exactly this kind of debate,” she adds.
But buzzwords are a dangerous concept in today’s hyperbolic world, and carbon neutrality is no exception. The media has grabbed the bull by the horns and in some cases launched a no-holds-barred attack against supermarkets selling airfreighted goods. Recent moves by stores like Tesco and M&S to label produce that has been flown in from other countries with “airfreighted” stickers may therefore seem on the face of it to be an environmentally wise decision helping inform consumers; but have retailers or shoppers stopped to consider the impact of such decisions on the ground?
Ghanaian fresh-cut fruit firm Blue Skies, which airfreights its produce to the UK and Europe on a daily basis, organised a debate at London’s City Hall in April in an attempt to shed some light on this complex and emotive situation. With the Soil Association conducting a consultation process into a possible ban on airfreighted organic product entering the UK, a discussion ensued on how regulation on food miles can be balanced against supporting agriculture in developing countries.
Francis Blake, standards and technical director at the Soil Association, explained to the audience that climate change is a real threat, and environmental concerns have overtaken health worries as the primary reason why consumers buy organic. “Consumers trust organic and expect it to meet their expectations,” he said. “Airfreight emits 150 times more carbon than seafreight, and therefore we cannot ignore this issue. However, it is hugely complex, so we have embarked upon a two-stage consultation, which could propose a number of measures, anything ranging from labelling airfreighted product, as some supermarkets are already doing, to carbon offsetting initiatives to a complete ban on imports.”
But Seth Dei, director of Blue Skies, told delegates: “The possibility that our organic pineapple may be refused entry to the UK presents a real danger to the livelihoods of our farmers and fresh-cut factory employees. Blue Skies always uses passenger aircraft anyway, so we are not adding to carbon emissions. We also ensure that all our non-export worthy fruit is composted, and are conducting a study into our own carbon footprint. Product is regularly flown to Africa from western countries, but this factor does not seem to come into the equation for the western world.”
Panic has been generated among the farmers following the news of a possible moratorium, agreed Blue Skies pineapple grower Kweku Ayuba. “We have spent 15 years bringing our cultivation up to scratch for the UK market, which is now our best source of revenue. I thoroughly urge the authorities here to reconsider any ban, which would throw our whole community back into abject poverty.”
And Dr Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, insisted that the UK should not impose its own carbon footprint on developing countries whose carbon emissions actually stand at a far lower level than our own. “In 2005, our concerns were all about making poverty history,” she told the audience. “In 2007, in a bid to go green, we have apparently forgotten all about this. But really we need to hold both issues in our consciousness at the same time. We in the west have caused global warming and we cannot force less developed countries to take the blame for this. We have a responsibility to Africa and other developing nations, and having generated demand for their fresh produce, cannot now snatch away their main markets.
“This whole debate needs to be placed in a broader context of climate change, in which the only fair solution will be an international allocation of carbon points, which would give countries like Ghana a surplus they could then use up in airfreighting product to the west.”
Concerns have also been voiced that the UK produce industry is using the food miles debate as a way to promote local produce over imported. New Zealand strawberries recently became yet another casualty of the UK media. A report published on The Times’ website stated that the cost of flying a 225g punnet of strawberries from New Zealand to a UK household’s fridge generated the same amount of carbon dioxide as driving the kids to school 11 times. But the newspaper had egg on its face when it realised that the berries are not, and have never been, exported to the UK in the first place. “British growers and environmentalists are using the food miles argument as a trade barrier and marketing tool to promote home-grown produce over imports,” said a spokeswoman for Horticulture New Zealand.
The industry and the country as a whole is certainly very confused about the airfreight issue and how it contributes to our own carbon footprint, agrees Evans: “Kenyan farmers, for example, have a lifelong carbon emission that is negligible compared to their counterparts in the west. By boycotting airfreighted produce from Africa, the UK’s total carbon emissions would be reduced by less than 0.1 per cent. Research has shown that producing dairy products, lamb, apples and onions in New Zealand and shipping them to Britain uses less energy overall than growing them here, as farming and processing in this country is much less energy intensive. Consumers need to look at the whole picture and not just at airfreight labels. There is a big difference between air miles and carbon miles. While it makes sense to choose a product that has been grown locally over an identical product shipped in from afar, such direct comparisons are rare.”
Whilst ditching airfreighted produce totally is clearly not the answer, nor should carbon neutrality necessarily mean going organic. “There is still some ambiguity over whether organic farming is better for the environment,” says Evans. “Anthony Trewavas, a biochemist from the University of Edinburgh, states that organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower.”
Norman Borlaug, father of the ‘green revolution’, advocates the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields, says Evans, as he contends that the more intensively you farm, the more room you have left for rainforest.
And to what extent are consumers really concerned about the carbon footprint of their shopping trolley just yet? The mixed messages emitted daily by the media are clearly causing confusion at both business and consumer level.
“The word out is that we have a problem,” says Evans. “Sustainability and carbon footprinting are hot media topics at the moment and the messages are difficult to avoid. Consumer product choices would also be influenced this way, but the carbon footprint labelling scheme is still in embryo phase. Due to the lack of consensus on the issue, consumers are not yet able to make carbon-influenced product choices, but as this complex labelling system is rolled out, consumer choice will surely become influenced. Airfreight labelling is one aspect of the debate they are now more familiar with. Yet this label associates a product with the form of transport which has the highest level of carbon emissions. It does not give any indication of the economic lifeline which buying that product might give to African growers. Sometimes the consumer needs to look beyond the label to make the right choice.”
“The consumer is not as sophisticated at the moment as we give them credit for,” agrees Chambers. “But businesses need to take the issue seriously and must set carbon reduction targets, as consumers will soon catch up. There is currently a lot of confusion about what carbon footprints are, whether organic farming is better or worse for the environment and what carbon labelling would look like. At Best Foot Forward, we are trying to cut through the confusion and show fresh produce companies and retailers that they need to take steps to engage consumer trust.”
Whether you believe in it or not, while the issues of climate change and carbon footprints rage in the media, the fresh produce industry must be seen to be doing its bit to alleviate the problem, and companies wishing to maintain and secure future business deals cannot afford to bury their heads in the sand. A raft of new regulations are also likely to be brought in which will soon make turning a blind eye to the situation an impossibility.
But there is certainly no immediate solution to this highly complex problem. Forcing our fresh produce suppliers in developing nations, who several years ago we were encouraging in their endeavours, to lose out as a result of our own carbon footprint is not the answer. Simply telling consumers what has been flown in, or banning airfreighted imports altogether, is a one-dimensional response to an issue that must take into account more than the guilty conscience of the culpable western world.
TURN TO WOOD, URGES TIMCON
The Timber Packaging and Pallet Confederation, TIMCON, has released a short film, available on memory stick to retail and manufacturing companies, highlighting the efficiency of wood pallets and wood packaging in protecting the environment. Using wood packaging from reputable, sustainable sources can help companies reduce their carbon emissions, as it is a naturally renewable resource, claims Timcon.
Forests also have carbon sink effect; for every cubic metre of European softwood used, almost a tonne of carbon dioxide is prevented from entering the atmosphere, and with 350 million pallets used throughout Europe annually, that constitutes a saving of 11m tonnes of CO2.
The film touches on the most effective ways to get the best carbon value from pallets and packaging, through the use of pallet pools, re-use and repair and recycling.
AIRFREIGHT OFF CARGOFRESH AGENDA
German controlled-atmosphere equipment specialist Cargofresh has struck gold in its endeavour to offer viable alternatives to airfreight.
The company’s Erik Dunkelmann says: “Ever since we started to offer controlled-atmosphere equipment to the reefer container industry, and even earlier still, when our first engines came out for reefer trucks, it has been our approach to offer true alternatives to airfreight. So far, Cypriot grapes and Brazilian papayas, both traditionally airfreighted for the whole journey, have benefited from our expertise and can now be shipped in reefer container or partially sent by air and then trucked.”
In fact, produce shipped in Cargofresh ocean containers often arrives in better shape than airfreighted produce, says Dunkelmann, due to the fact that the cool chain is tightly maintained all the way.
“Reducing carbon footprint is on the daily agenda for most retailers and fresh produce companies nowadays,” explains Dunkelmann. “Airfreight used to imply quality, but now it can tarnish the image of dealers and retailers.
“It is critical that exporters in countries such as Kenya and Ghana, where lots of jobs are on the line because of this airfreight issue, are offered alternative solutions, and that is where Cargofresh can come in. We are already testing our equipment on high-care flowers and vegetables from these countries. Usually, such drastic measures cost a lot of money, but it is actually the opposite with Cargofresh equipment. Exporters can therefore save a lot of money on freight, while preserving the environment,” he adds.
No comments yet