Food Miles: Environmental Protection or Veiled Protectionism?

This article examines the international trade, environmental, and development implications of campaigns to convince consumers to make food purchases based on food miles. Buying food from nearby sources has become a popular objective. One of the unmistakable messages of the “locavore” movement is that importing food – particularly food that comes from far away – causes environmental harm. The theory is that transporting food long distances results in the release of high levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere and is thus a dangerous contributor to climate change. Proponents of this view therefore argue that “food miles” – the distance food travels from farm to plate – should be kept to a minimum. The problem is that in reality, food miles are a poor proxy for environmental harm. Studies have demonstrated that differences in farming methods as well as natural factor endowments can mean that growing some products locally may in fact result in more GHG emissions than importing those same products. Notwithstanding this disconnect, legislators frequently propose policies based on food miles. Were a government to permit discrimination on the basis of food miles, or to otherwise endorse such a policy through its actions, it could be vulnerable to a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution challenge. We first explain the term “food miles”, and how the concept has been used around the world. Second, it addresses the use of food miles as an indicator of environmental harm. We argue that food miles are in fact a poor proxy of such harm, and therefore should not be used. Part III considers whether food miles labeling currently in use as well as legislation that has been proposed could be successfully challenged through a WTO dispute settlement proceeding. Our analysis includes a detailed examination of the three 2012 Appellate Body decisions addressing the TBT Agreement, US – Clove Cigarettes; US – Country of Origin Labeling (US-COOL); and US-Tuna II (Mexico), and as such will be one of the first articles to engage in such an assessment. Fourth, we address the implications for developing countries of actions taken to reduce food miles. And finally, we examine and critique alternatives to food miles for those wishing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through farming and food consumption

Food Miles: Environmental Protection or Veiled Protectionism?

This article examines the international trade, environmental, and development implications of campaigns to convince consumers to make food purchases based on food miles. Buying food from nearby sources has become a popular objective. One of the unmistakable messages of the “locavore” movement is that importing food – particularly food that comes from far away – causes environmental harm. The theory is that transporting food long distances results in the release of high levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere and is thus a dangerous contributor to climate change. Proponents of this view therefore argue that “food miles” – the distance food travels from farm to plate – should be kept to a minimum. The problem is that in reality, food miles are a poor proxy for environmental harm. Studies have demonstrated that differences in farming methods as well as natural factor endowments can mean that growing some products locally may in fact result in more GHG emissions than importing those same products. Notwithstanding this disconnect, legislators frequently propose policies based on food miles. Were a government to permit discrimination on the basis of food miles, or to otherwise endorse such a policy through its actions, it could be vulnerable to a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution challenge. We first explain the term “food miles”, and how the concept has been used around the world. Second, it addresses the use of food miles as an indicator of environmental harm. We argue that food miles are in fact a poor proxy of such harm, and therefore should not be used. Part III considers whether food miles labeling currently in use as well as legislation that has been proposed could be successfully challenged through a WTO dispute settlement proceeding. Our analysis includes a detailed examination of the three 2012 Appellate Body decisions addressing the TBT Agreement, US – Clove Cigarettes; US – Country of Origin Labeling (US-COOL); and US-Tuna II (Mexico), and as such will be one of the first articles to engage in such an assessment. Fourth, we address the implications for developing countries of actions taken to reduce food miles. And finally, we examine and critique alternatives to food miles for those wishing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through farming and food consumption

Food Miles: Environmental Protection or Veiled Protectionism?

Eat local. Such a small phrase yet such a loaded proposition. Buying food from nearby sources has become a popular objective. This aim is associated with helping farmers in one’s country or region; observing the seasonality of one’s location; eating fresher foods; striving for food security; and protecting the environment. One of the unmistakable messages of the “locavore” movement is that importing food—particularly food that comes from far away—causes environmental harm. The theory is that transporting food long distances results in the release of high levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere and is thus a dangerous contributor to climate change. Proponents of this view therefore argue that “food miles”—the distance food travels from farm to plate—should be kept to a minimum. Farming interests in countries that import significant amounts of agricultural products have sought regulations to differentiate between foods based on how far they have travelled. And some supermarkets, particularly in Europe, have been utilizing differential labeling, such as placing an airplane sticker on produce that has been air shipped. The overwhelming implication, then, is that the farther food travels from farm to plate, the more environmental harm is caused

Statistical Modification of Anomalous-Scattering Differences

Statistical methodology originally introduced by French & Wilson [Acta Cryst. (1978). A34, 517-525] for the treatment of negative-intensity observations is shown to be useful for the estimation of anomalous-scattering differences. The general principles of this method are described, along with applications to data from a lead derivative of the enzyme carboxypeptidase A

Incorporation of Experimental Phases in a Restrained Least-Squares Refinement

The least-squares refinement of macromolecular structures is characterized by a low ratio of observed data to refined parameters. Efforts have been made to compensate for this problem by incorporating subsidiary restraints into the observational equations. In this paper, a method is proposed and examples given for the introduction of additional observations into a least- squares refinement in the form of experimental phase information

Australia's Unprecedented Future Temperature Extremes Under Paris Limits to Warming

Record-breaking temperatures can detrimentally impact ecosystems, infrastructure, and human health. Previous studies show that climate change has influenced some observed extremes, which are expected to become more frequent under enhanced future warming. Understanding the magnitude, as well as frequency, of such future extremes is critical for limiting detrimental impacts. We focus on temperature changes in Australian regions, including over a major coral reef-building area, and assess the potential magnitude of future extreme temperatures under Paris Agreement global warming targets (1.5°C and 2°C). Under these limits to global mean warming, we determine a set of projected high-magnitude unprecedented Australian temperature extremes. These include extremes unexpected based on observational temperatures, including current record-breaking events. For example, while the difference in global-average warming during the hottest Australian summer and the 2°C Paris target is 1.1°C, extremes of 2.4°C above the observed summer record are simulated. This example represents a more than doubling of the magnitude of extremes, compared with global mean change, and such temperatures are unexpected based on the observed record alone. Projected extremes do not necessarily scale linearly with mean global warming, and this effect demonstrates the significant potential benefits of limiting warming to 1.5°C,compared to 2°C or warmer.S. C. L. is funded through the Australian Research Council (DE160100092). A. D. K. is funded through the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (CE110001028). D. M. M. is funded by a NERC independent research fellowship (NE/N014057/1)