It is apparent that food is traveling long distances, but the extent to which food miles have an effect on the environment is more complex. The following sections will cover the formulas used to calculate food miles and investigate the energy involved in the transportation of food.

A series of formulas for calculating food miles has been developed and has become widely accepted. Calculating the distance a food item has traveled varies in complexity depending on whether the item is made up of a single ingredient or multiple ingredients and the mode of transportation used to carry the item.

The Weighted Average Source Distance WASD formula was developed by Annika Carlsson-Kanyama in and takes into account the amount of food transported in weight and the distance that it travels from the place of production to the place of sale.

Fruits and vegetables and other items consisting of only one ingredient would utilize the WASD formula for calculating food miles. The Weighted Total Source Distance WTSD formula was developed by the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and accounts for multiple-ingredient foods by calculating the weight and distance traveled for each ingredient.

Foods like flavored yogurt, bread, and other processed foods would employ the WTSD formula for calculating food miles. While both WASD and WTSD convey an estimate of the distance food travels between the producer and consumer, neither formula addresses greenhouse gas emissions associated with this distance traveled.

The Weighted Average Emissions Ratio WAER formula takes into account both distance and the associated greenhouse gas emissions for different modes of transportation. This formula was developed by the nonprofit organization LifeCycles, in As suggested by the Weighted Average Emissions Ratio formula, the mode by which food is transported is an important factor when considering the environmental impact of food miles.

A food item traveling a short distance may produce more CO2 than an item with high food miles, depending on how it is transported. Figure 4. Energy use and emissions for different modes of freight transport.

Source: Transport for a Sustainable Future: The Case for Europe. Figure 4 contains the estimated values of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for four different transportation modes measured in the UK.

The UK report also estimated that the social and economic costs of food transport including accidents, noise and congestion amount to over 9 billion British pounds every year or 18 billion American dollars.

Proponents of reducing food miles often suggest that buying local food will reduce the amount of energy involved in the transportation process, as food sourced locally travels shorter distances.

The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture has conducted several studies that compare the distance traveled by conventional versus local foods. Figure 5, compiled by the Leopold Center, compares food miles for local versus conventional produce traveling to Iowa.

In all cases, the locally grown food travels a significantly shorter distance than the conventionally sourced food.

Figure 5: Food miles for local versus conventional produce. Another study conducted by the Leopold Center in investigated the distance that food traveled to institutional markets such as hospitals and restaurants in Iowa using three different food sources: conventional, Iowa-based regional and Iowa-based local.

The study found that food sourced from the conventional system used 4 to 17 times more fuel than the locally sourced food and emitted 5 to 17 times more CO2. This information is displayed in Figure 6. It is interesting to note that when the transportation method was taken into account, the local food system required more energy and emitted more CO2 than the regional system.

This is because the trucks supplying food locally had a smaller capacity, therefore requiring more trips and logging more miles. Figure 6: Estimated fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and distance traveled for conventional, Iowa-based regional, and Iowa-based local food systems for produce.

It has been shown that local food systems do reduce food miles, which in turn tend to reduce energy consumption, but there are exceptions. Local transportation systems may not always be as efficient as regional systems, depending on the mode of transport and load capacity.

A Japanese group, Daichio-Mamoru Kai The Association to Preserve the Earth conducted a study that found that a typical Japanese family could reduce their CO2emissions by kilograms annually by eating locally.

This is the equivalent of removing 16, vehicles from the road. The food miles issue becomes even more complex when considering factors besides distance traveled and mode of transportation. The energy required to grow some foods in unsuitable climates may override the energy of transporting food from locations where the food is more easily grown.

For example, a Swedish study found that tomatoes traveling from Spain to Sweden were less energy intensive than tomatoes raised in Sweden, because of the process by which they were grown.

The Spanish tomatoes were raised in the open ground, while the Scandinavian climate required tomatoes to be raised in heated greenhouses utilizing more fossil fuels. A New Zealand report found that exporting some foods to the UK consumes less energy than producing the same food in the UK because the agricultural system in New Zealand tends to use less fertilizer and raises year round grass-fed livestock, which uses less energy than housing and feeding animals.

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA released a report in , which determined that food miles alone are not a valid indicator of the sustainability of the food system. In some cases, reducing food miles may reduce energy use, but there may be other social, environmental or economic trade-offs.

The consequences of food transport are complex and require a group of indicators to determine the global impact of food miles. There is increasing significance in considering all stages of energy consumption in the food system. Many organizations have investigated the idea of life-cycle-based analysis to determine the sustainability of the food system.

Life cycle assessment LCA is a method used to analyze the consumption and environmental burdens associated with a product. LCA takes into account energy input and output involved in all stages of the life cycle including production, processing, packaging, transport and retirement.

Life cycle evaluation accounts for a matrix of sustainability indicators beyond greenhouse gas emissions, including resource depletion, air and water pollution, human health impacts and waste generation.

This method provides a more holistic approach to assessing the impact our food choices have on the environment. Life cycle assessments of various conventional food products have found that the current food production and consumption patterns are unsustainable.

Cranberries loaded on truck for shipment. Photo by Earl J. Otis, USDAC. For producers, reducing food miles means selling products to a more local or regional market. The following sections briefly examine some of the markets and methods available for a producer looking to reduce the energy involved in transporting food.

Direct marketing allows farmers to compete with wholesale market channels and mass supermarket systems, thereby creating a local food network and reducing the distance that food travels. The ATTRA publication Direct Marketing offers information about alternative marketing systems, with an emphasis on value-added crops.

By removing brokers from the distribution chain, farmers are able to reap a greater profit. Community supported agriculture CSA offers another option for marketing to a local or regional clientele.

The ATTRA publication Community Supported Agriculture contains information about production considerations and using the Internet as a means of information dissemination to members.

Selling food directly to schools, hospitals, prisons and other institutions is becoming an increasingly popular option.

Selling food to institutions creates a reliable market for the farmer and provides great health and economic benefits to the consumer. Farm-to-institution programs also reduce food miles.

Ecolabels offer one method for educating consumers about locally grown, sustainably raised foods, and have proven effective in product marketing. Food miles ecolabel example. The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture has researched the impact that labeling food with ecolabels containing information such as food miles and CO2 emissions has on consumers.

The study aimed to determine consumer opinion of locally produced food and food miles. The study also found that consumers are willing to pay more for food that has low environmental impacts.

Producers may question the extent to which consumers are using food miles as a basis for their food choices. In general food choices are no doubt based on price, taste and appearance and a large section of the public knows and cares little about climate change, especially with regard to food choices.

There has been increasing demand for food produced in accordance with ethical and environmental standards, however, such as organic and fair trade.

Food mile concerns may grow as well. Increasing food security and the domestic supply chain may be other arguments for reducing food miles. For consumers, convenience and cost are often driving factors when purchasing food.

The choices consumers make, however, can have a great deal of influence on the direction our food system is headed. Reducing the energy intensiveness of our food has several economic, social and environmental benefits. Consumers who are reducing their food mile footprint:. Buying local and regional food is just one of many dietary choices with important environmental consequences.

There has been a great amount of public interest over the last few years in organic food systems. Organic food is grown without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides.

Since these chemicals are usually made from natural gas and other fossil fuels, through a highly energy-intensive process, eliminating synthetic fertilizer and pesticides can significantly reduce the amount of energy required for production. However, increased demand for organics has resulted in retailers sourcing organically grown food from around the globe, creating increased emissions in the transportation process.

Some locally grown nonorganic foods may be less energy intensive than organic foods traveling long distances. When evaluating our food options, the decisions are complex, especially if you want to make sustainable choices.

Local, organic, fair-trade and other forms of sustainably produced food all play a role in creating sustainable food consumption patterns. The following table provides some guidelines for making ethical food decisions.

Table 1. What individuals can do to reduce food miles. Food Carbon Emissions Calculator This calculator allows users to calculate the carbon emissions related to your food choices, including transportation, waste, and quantity. Food Carbon Footprint Calculator A tool for residents within the UK to calculate their food carbon footprint to better understand the extent to which food decisions impact global warming.

LCA Food Database A tool for acquiring an aggregated description of emissions, waste and the resource use from soil to kitchen per unit of different food items. Iowa Produce Market Potential Calculator This calculator was designed to help users determine expanding markets in Iowa if consumers ate more locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables rather than produce from conventional sources outside the state.

Truck on highway near Petersburg, West Virginia. Photo: Ken Hammond, USDA. Food miles are a growing cause of concern due to the greenhouse gas emissions released through the transportation of our food—and rightly so, as food miles consume a considerable amount of energy.

However, we must consider the many complexities of the food system besides just the distance our food is traveling. Other important issues include the mode of transportation, the production method, and packaging considerations, as well as our own personal dietary choices.

Each consumer food decision provides an opportunity to make a difference large or small in the way energy is used and greenhouse gases are emitted. At the same time, growing consumer interest in local and regional foods is creating new marketing opportunities and new possibilities for partnerships with agricultural producers.

While not everything you buy will be local, you can still reduce your food miles by shopping local for whatever you can. Farming methods vary greatly and have different impacts on the environment, and certain crops are simply more resource-intensive than others.

At Vegetable and Butcher, we try to cut down on our food miles to serve you higher quality food, support our favorite farmers, and lesson the hardship we put on our planet. This is why we put so much thought into creating your menu and sourcing ingredients!

PR and Marketing Specialist of Vegetable and Butcher and a self-proclaimed nutrition nerd and sustainability junkie. Emily called DC home for three years before making her way to California.

Emily has her master's in Nutrition Education and is a Certified Nutrition Specialist® CNS® candidate. She's passionate about helping people learn to use food to fuel their outdoor activities, and in her free time you can find her rock climbing.

You can connect with her on her website and on Instagram. Get scientifically-backed, inspirational content every week to keep your mind sharp. FRIENDS HELP FRIEND SAVE TIME AND EAT HEALTHY. REFER A FRIEND TODAY. GET STARTED LOGIN. Sign up. Forgot your password? Reset your password We will send you an email to reset your password.

Sign In Cancel. more than food. Here are four other reasons to shop local: Fresh produce contains more nutrients The quality and nutritional value of produce can be affected by careless handling, mechanical harvesting methods, storage at improper temperatures, and rough transport — all factors that are more likely to increase the farther it must travel.

Less travel means a safer food supply Less transportation and handling also means less chance for contamination throughout the supply chain. What are food miles? Plus four reasons to reduce them.

It means that it is time to think about where your food has come from and what environmental effects this has had.

The effects of food miles can be measured in the pollution that is caused. Think about the distance travelled, then think about how that distance was covered.

Was it by Plane? Buy Local! That's the key. This means supporting local growers. Its much better for the environment growing and buying organic, but what if that organic product has come from, say Chile? That's a long haul journey for your apples to go! Its better to go down the road on a bicycle and buy from your local farmer, or grower.

Beware though, even some foods that may appear to be from local suppliers, if bought is supermarkets, have probably toured the country between depots before arriving back in the shop. Why not walk to the local shop or get the bus?

This all helps to reduce the "food mileage" effect. Composting packaging, where possible, is another way of reducing the environmental effects of our food.

Thicker arrows indicate greater emissions. The plot highlights some of the hotspots of trading activity in certain regions — for example, in Europe and China — while others see less traffic. Most notable is the lack of trading with countries in Africa.

It adds:. Dr Mengyu Li from the University of Sydney is the lead author of the study. She explains that high per-capita emissions in rich counties are in part due to the wide choice of food available there. Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.

Find out more about our newsletters here. Meanwhile, countries with high populations and large land areas generally have the highest domestic emissions, the study finds. It notes that two-thirds of domestic emissions come from China, India, the US and Russia.

Buying locally sourced food is often touted as an easy way to reduce dietary emissions. Meanwhile, the authors find that less than 0. Nevertheless, switching to a local diet can still reduce emissions — especially in richer countries.

The authors found that if the entire world were to switch to a purely domestic food supply, food-miles emissions would be reduced by a modest 0.

They add that 0. Carbon Brief asked lead author Li whether eating local is still a useful way to combat food emissions. For example, he says that the mass of food transported and emissions from some modes of transport may be overestimated.

For example, he says, the study assumes that Li et al , Nature Food. Sections Science Climate modelling Extreme weather Health and Security Ice IPCC Nature Oceans People Temperature Energy China energy Coal Emissions Nuclear Oil and gas Other technologies Renewables Technology Policy China Policy EU policy International policy Other national policy Rest of world policy UK policy UN climate talks US Policy In Focus Country profiles DeBriefed Explainers Factchecks Features Guest posts Infographics Interviews Media analysis State of the climate Translations Webinars Daily Brief.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram Youtube Rss. SEARCH ARCHIVE Type All Types Articles Daily Brief Topic All Items 1. Truck unloads freshly harvested oil palm fruit bunches at a collection point in Borneo. FOOD AND FARMING 20 June Ayesha Tandon Charts showing a food miles, b food-miles emissions and c food-production emissions for different components of the food system.

Source: Li et al CO 2 equivalent: Greenhouse gases can be expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e. For a given amount, different greenhouse gases trap different amounts of heat in the atmosphere, a quantity known as… Read More.