Bishop Hill Importing food
Feb 8, 2009 Economics Alex Renton has deeply muddle-headed piece in the Graun today. His theme is food waste, but he simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
the British food economy is not healthy today and we've only begun to feel the first tremors of world food shortages. We import 52% of our food; the figure seems likely to rise since, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) figures state, 63% of our 300,000 farms are essentially not economically viable.
If they are not economically viable, it's because there's oversupply of food, so presumably there is no sign of Mr Renton's food shortages yet. If it does happen in the future, guess what will happen? That's right, food prices will go up and all those farms will be economic again. It's like magic isn't it?
We bring lamb and butter from the other side of the world and most of our bacon from Europe, not because it tastes better but because it is marginally cheaper.
And your problem with this is what exactly? We want to use fewer resources, yes?
A mixed salad illustrates the absurdity. We must have fresh salad all year, so we import 60% of it.
The thing about growing seasons is that we get a surplus at some times of year and a shortage at others. But we can overcome this problem by sending food from areas of plenty to areas of shortage. With this ingenious insight we discover that we can feed more people. A good thing, most would agree.
Processors and retailers throw away on average 40% of what they eventually sell, because of the problems in forecasting demand.
If you can come up with a way of predicting the future, we'd like to hear it.
Most of these statistics come from a fascinating exercise in dissecting the nation's rubbish bins, carried out by the Defra-funded Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap). It found that, in total, British households throw away 6.7m tonnes of food, at a value of £10bn, 30% of Britain's food wasted.
Yes, but everyone knows that study was a fiddle. What WRAP calls food, you and I would call waste - potato peelings, chicken carcasses and so on.
Wrap has got some commitments from retailers: extra advice on packets, rationalisation of sell-by dates and fewer buy one get one free offers.
What a fool! BOGOFs are specifically intended to deal with overstocks. All this will do is to increase the amount of food thrown away by supermarkets.
Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, is an adviser on food security and sustainability to government. He says that attitudes are changing fast from a time, quite recently, when politicians would privately ask if there was any need for farming in the UK at all and food policy was best described as "leave it to Tesco". "But we haven't got a coherent policy. Are we raising production or are we relying on world food markets? Which? Because we've got to get on with it."
Hmm. Central planning of the food supply chain being hinted at there. Now I'm worried. The result is usually starvation.
Reader Comments (17)
Whilst I have seen some merit in the industrial-related areas of their remit, almost all directed at the consumer seem to be the worst examples of quangocracy, with vast budgets driving massive comms budgets designed more to meet artificial recycling/waste reduction targets so box-tickers can accord each other bonuses.
Which, as far as I am concerned, is a massive waste of money that could be directed much more productively to tangibles. Not to mention what seems to me a conflict of interest. If I am paid by shifts in public awareness, where will I direct my spend?
http://timworstall.com/2008/01/14/a-third-of-food-thrown-away/
The WRAP story relies on the conflation of food waste (waste derived from food) with "wasted food".
My disappointment with the original article is that it didn't include the true cost of production especially in reference to oil consumption, nor the issue of food packaging or any form of solution to this food waste. Finally it also comes down to what food we expect in the shops.
Perhaps people need to stop buying overly processed, high packaged food and return to eating in tandem with the seasons. Perhaps when people and industry produces food waste then it needs to be practically used in digesters of various descriptions. Perhaps people need to be told that supermarkets don't deliver good value for money in many cases and that low food mile, high quality food is available on the doorstep.
It would help if you were a bit more specific about what you think is wrong. How exactly can I prove that BOGOFs are designed to deal with overstocks?
The costs of food production are encapsulated in the price. If you use more oil, your goods will be more expensive.
You've said you want to see low-food-mile local produce, without addressing my earlier point about why we should want to move foods from places of abundance to places of shortage. It's all very well saying I've not proved my points, but you are just ignoring them anyway.
I think Simon would prefer salads to rot in the ground in Chile rather than transport them to Northern Europe.
Bishop - You stated the claim about BOGOFS and its therefore up to you to support your argument.
In addition the cost of food is rarely encapsulated in the price. We have heavy farm subsidies, we have supermarkets hiding the true cost of production and we have a total disconnect between the carbon cost and the shelf cost of food. That's even before we get onto the cost of disposal of the wasted food and all the packaging it comes in.
Your point regarding surplus is valid however it fails to declare what sort of "surplus" this is. Most UK crops can be stored so lets consider high food miles food like Sugar snap peas and fine green beans. Currently these are mainly produced in Kenya. Is this production "surplus" or actually being produced simply for a housewife in Bristol who demands that these items are available all year round? Could that land being used produce food for the millions starving on the same continent instead?
Another example - is our desire to import Danish Bacon driven by the UK not having the facilities to produce our own livestock or is it because the supermarkets would prefer to make an extra 20p a pack profit? Our pig industry has been destroyed simply because legislation regarding pig welfare meant that UK farmers were being undercut. That isnt about surplus. Its about greed.
Our expanding waistlines indicates that we are not eating well. Too much of the wrong stuff. Do you seriously think we can have "fresh" food grown thousands of miles away and delivered to plate being as good for us as locally grown crops freshly harvested?
The global logistics food program set up by the big supermarkets is designed to make life easy for consumers who care little about what goes into their mouths. The fact that so much is wasted is criminal.
We are facing huge issues regarding food security, quality and price. If you cast your mind back it wasn't that long ago that food prices were souring. Even with the recession the food inflation rate is still high for the year. The UK is very vulnerable. Reducing food waste is just a small step we can take.
Asking me to prove something like "BOGOFs are designed to deal with overstocks" is a silly game that we can both play. Care to prove that supermarkets are hiding the true cost of production? That most UK crops are stored?
If you have a different view on what BOGOFs are for, let me know and we can examine the details.
I agree with you about subsidies, and if you were to call for the end of the CAP I'd be right there with you. However, other things being equal, more fuel consumption means a higher price, so my original point stands. The cost of packaging is included in the price. Disposal costs are not, and if you call for pay per throw on waste disposal I would probably support you, although this is actually one of those areas where there is a strong case for collective action because of the public health implications of someone not toeing the line.
You ask about green beans. I don't know the answer to your question. Employing people on bean farms is presumably not doing them harm and is enabling them to buy food elsewhere.
On bacon, you are right that the supermarkets buy from Denmark in order to get the extra 20p. This is why the free market is so good, because it encourages supermarkets to buy from the most efficient suppliers - the ones who use the least resources (again, other things being equal). If our animal welfare laws have made the UK uncompetitive, then we need to look at our animal welfare laws don't we?
The global logistics operations are designed to supply food that people want. Good. You want logistics operations designed NOT to supply the food people want? Or to supply food they DON'T want? Profitable logistics operations are not incompatible with not wasting food. In fact you will ONLY have a profitable supermarket if you don't waste food.
We agree that not wasting food is good. The supermarkets waste as little as they possibly can. They make more money that way. That is why we have all these technological innovations like packing food under nitrogen. I'm sure you support them.
And yes, it is an empirical fact that many people prefer "overly processed, high packaged food" over "eating in tandem with the seasons". Actions speak louder than words.
So you dont have any evidence then.
>>>Care to prove that supermarkets are hiding the true cost of production?
I've highlighted many already - CO2 produced in shipping, lack of animal welfare, farmers ability to survive on the price paid etc etc.
>>>That most UK crops are stored?
Less of the strawman please. I said CAN be stored.
>>>Employing people on bean farms is presumably not doing them harm and is enabling them to buy food elsewhere
So why not employ them to produce food that can be consumed by the millions of malnourished around the world? Or do you like the fact that Green Beans are available all year round in the UK despite millions of people being malnourished?
>>>If our animal welfare laws have made the UK uncompetitive, then we need to look at our animal welfare laws don't we?
No we dont. Our laws are minimal as it is. If you prefer eating pork from an animal that has never seen daylight, is filled with hormones to make it grow and survive its short life and whose meat is then injected to bulk it up then thats fine. Rather than the masses being fed crap I would prefer to see us eating better bred animals. Same for chickens and beef. Your argument seems to be that you prefer Tesco making an extra 20p profit and you will happily buy crap to enable them to do such.
>>>The global logistics operations are designed to supply food that people want. Good. You want logistics operations designed NOT to supply the food people want? Or to supply food they DON'T want? Profitable logistics operations are not incompatible with not wasting food. In fact you will ONLY have a profitable supermarket if you don't waste food
Firstly the food we buy in supermarkets is designed to last as long as possible. The taste and nutrition has largely been bred out of food. Chicken is fattier and has less Omega 3. Apples are sitting in frieght containers for up to 6 months before reaching us. Carrots have become almost pointless except as a filler. Dont you see how that is wrong?
I'm saying that the public need to appreciate that if they want to eat well and food is available to all then changes need to be made. Choice has become its own worst enemy.
If people changed habits we could reduce waste, improve the quality of food, support out farmers/local producers and have food security.
The current system just wont last. It cant. Consumerism will need to change.
>>>When given the freedom to choose, people will make choices according to their personal preferences and the means at their disposal. You may not agree with their choices but that does not give you any right to interfere with their lives.
When someones choice interferes with the good of the wider society then it matters not a jot what someone wants. Our choices are currently unsustainable. We must start doing something about it.
You say I have no evidence, but you asked for proof. These are rather different things. Here's someone promoting wine sales because of overstocks
http://www.onlineshoppingaustralia.com.au/2008/06/two-case-bulk-buy-wine-deal-buy-one-get-one-free-overstock-wine-sale.html
Now you tell me why you think they do BOGOFs.
CO2 produced in shipping (not the supermarket hiding it), lack of animal welfare (not a cost - it's a consumer preference), farmers ability to survive on the price paid etc etc (evidence of oversupply, not of supermarkets hiding anything).
Re green beans - The question is whether they are better off growing staples locally or growing cash crops and buying in staples from other places. You assume, without presenting any evidence, that they are better off with the former scenario. But they voluntarily choose the latter (there is no slavery in Kenya AFAIK). This makes particular sense for the Kenyans when staples are hugely subsidised in the West. Sell high priced cash crops to us and get subsidised staples in return. This will presumably deliver more food than trying to grow staples locally.
Re animal welfare. I would rather have better quality, but I recognise that "the masses" (as you endearingly call them) don't give a monkey's. Quite why our personal preferences should take precedence over the preferences of "the masses" is beyond me. Do you think you know better than them?
"When someones choice interferes with the good of the wider society then it matters not a jot what someone wants. Our choices are currently unsustainable. We must start doing something about it."
You are at least halfway down the road to fascism. Seriously.
When someones choice interferes with the good of the wider society then it matters not a jot what someone wants. Our choices are currently unsustainable. We must start doing something about it. </I>"
this is reminiscent of Tim Lang, http://www.city.ac.uk/communityandhealth/phpcfp/foodpolicy/about/timlang.html
Once you bring in enough "invisible costs", for environment, social good, food security, -not forgetting obesity- and weigh up these unquantifiables, you can start telling people what to do. Don't take my word for it; read.
http://www.city.ac.uk/news/archive/2008/12_December/11122008_3.html
You keep using those words... I do not think they mean what you think they mean. What you mean is "The muddy masses' choices are currently unsustainable. The enlightened elites (represent!) must start doing something about it." Anyway, you keep citing examples where the consequences of choices are borne by those who make the choices, so your actual argument has to be something different altogether.
In the case of food waste, it can be a valuable resource, used as an input to anaerobic digestion (AD) or Energy-from-Waste (EfW) plants. Not only does this produce renewable energy, but (in the case of AD) a by-product is a fertilizer that (if allowed by regulations) can be a useful way to displace those petrochemical-based fertilizers of which Simon disapproves.
For an estimation of the scale of this resource, see a recent report by National Grid (http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Media+Centre/Press+Releases/Global+Press+Releases/020209.htm ). It's complete rubbish, massively overestimating the potential, for the rent-seeking purposes of persuading the Government that it need not bother with equal support for other solutions in the heat sector (which would reduce the dominance of gas in the market), and to support one particular option in that sector which happens to suit National Grid, but even so, it helps to demonstrate that this is not an insignificant resource.
(Incidentally, waste from supermarkets is quite a small proportion of total food waste. Most of it originates either in the production of the food, or in the consumption.)
In an ideal world, it might be preferable not to have excess food to utilize, but as you point out, it's not a perfect world. People's preferences will always be to some degree unpredictable, as will agricultural yields. We should not assume that, because there is some proportion that is not consumed, this is simply "wasted", or that trying to reduce the proportion that is consumed would produce the most efficient or environmentally-beneficial outcome.
At some point in trying to more closely match supply to demand, you reach a point where the inefficiencies of trying to plan more accurately or constrain demand are more costly than the inefficiencies of allowing for some degree of wastage.
There are so many interventions distorting prices in the agricultural, waste and energy markets that it is impossible to know whether our current balance is roughly efficient or not. To that extent, Simon has a point. We should be careful to distinguish between the (in my opinion, justifable) argument that the free-market approach is the least bad solution and the (in my opinion, false) arguments that the free-market solution is perfect, or that what we have at the moment, because it involves markets, is a free market and therefore as good as it gets. We are clearly a very long way from these sectors (agriculture, waste and energy) being close to free or efficient.
Simon, I live in Buffalo, NY. It may not be well-known in the UK but we have six month long winters here with well over 100" of snow. All that said, I rather like it here but said snow, when melted, would provide us with just about all the seasonal nourishment we might expect to find locally.
Really, think a bit more before you spout rubbish like that.