The Evolution of Miles and its Limitations as an Indicator of Use and Climate Impact

RichRich Pirog,Pirog, AssociateAssociate DirectorDirector LeopoldLeopold CenterCenter forfor SustainableSustainable AgricultureAgriculture LeopoldLeopold CenterCenter forfor SustainableSustainable AgricultureAgriculture z CreatedCreated inin 19871987 (Iowa Groundwater Protection Act) z StateState fundedfunded (Iowa(Iowa generalgeneral revenuerevenue fundfund andand taxtax onon NN fertilizerfertilizer andand pesticides)pesticides) z AveragingAveraging 1.21.2 millionmillion perper yearyear inin fundedfunded projectsprojects z FocusFocus onon 33 initiativeinitiative areasareas sincesince 2001:2001: MarketingMarketing andand FoodFood SystemsSystems PolicyPolicy EcologyEcology WhatWhat areare “food“food miles?”miles?” z DistanceDistance foodfood travelstravels fromfrom wherewhere itit isis grown/raisedgrown/raised toto wherewhere itit isis purchasedpurchased (consumer(consumer oror endend--user)user) z 19691969 DODDOD studystudy –– 1,3461,346 milesmiles z OtherOther estimatesestimates –– 1,5001,500--2,5002,500 milesmiles z FoodFood milesmiles inin industrialindustrial nationsnations havehave increasedincreased significantlysignificantly inin lastlast 5050 yearsyears Import Share of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables – U.S. selected years

45 40 35 30 25 Fresh Fruit 20 Percent 15 Fresh Vegetables 10 5 0 5 5 5 3-8 3-9 3-0 198 199 200

Source: Prepared by USDA Economic Research Service Dole sliced peaches

Peaches grown in Peaches shipped to Thailand For processing

Peaches shipped to U.S. for distribution

Peaches arrive in Iowa store

Total food miles: 14,700 (minimum) LocalLocal foodsfoods inin aa changingchanging contextcontext

GrowingGrowing interestinterest inin locallocal,, moremore concernconcern aboutabout climateclimate change,change, health,health, foodfood safetysafety

Estimated fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, and distance traveled for three truck-based food systems.

Food transport Fuel Co2 Emissions Distance system Consumption (lbs./year) traveled (miles) (gal/year)

National 368,000 8,400,000 2,245,000 semitrailer

Regional 44,000 993,000 370,000 midsize truck

Local 88,000 1,730,000 1,518,000 small truck (institutional)

From: Food, Fuel, and Freeways – Leopold Center, 2001. Each system was to transport 10% of per capita consumption of fresh produce to feed Iowa

Ecolabel Value Assessment – Phase I

What do you consider "local" when making a food purchase or carrying a food product through oury store or business?

s 50 e 40 30

pons 20 s

e 10

r 0 % no Grown 25 Grown 100 Grown in Grown in Other Business - response miles or miles or my state the No less from less from Midwest Ecolabel purchase purchase Consumer -No ecolabel FoodFood milesmiles z AA veryvery goodgood indicatorindicator ofof “localness”“localness” ofof aa foodfood z AA greatgreat metaphormetaphor toto contrastcontrast locallocal andand globalglobal foodfood systemssystems z NotNot aa goodgood indicatorindicator ofof environmentalenvironmental impactimpact

NeedNeed toto considerconsider z ModeMode ofof transporttransport andand fuelfuel efficiencyefficiency z EnvironmentalEnvironmental impactimpact acrossacross thethe entireentire foodfood supplysupply chainchain (LCA)(LCA) Comparison of CO2 emissions in g CO2 per kilogram of food item for systems and mainstream food systems

2500

2000

kg 1500 Local Food Systems 2/

O Mainstream Food Systems C

g 1000 *

500

0 e s e s s e s t g e c e e eef l a o r p t to B rro ttu e ouda a a hees e ta Ap G C m L o C Av P To

*CO2 Emissions are from transport, processing, storage. Local system: various local case studies in and around Flanders, Belgium

Data from Energy Lifecycle Inputs in Food Systems: A Comparison of Local Versus Mainstream Cases. A. Van Hauwermeiren et al - 2007. in the

• Total U.S. Energy Use: 100 QBtu (2005) 1

• Food System: 10.25 Qbtu 2

Based off producing 3,800 calories of food

Sources: 1) Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Overview (2005); 2) Heller and Keoleian "Life Cycle-Based Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System” (2000); Comparison of Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions between Iowa CSA Delivery and Pickup

CO2 Emissions ) 90.0 4.5 Gasoline Consumption ons l l

80.0 4.0 a ) G

bs 70.0 3.5 n ( l o ( i t s 60.0 3.0 p on i 50.0 2.5 s um s i

40.0 2.0 ns m o E

30.0 1.5 C 2 e n i CO

20.0 1.0 l o

10.0 0.5 s a 0.0 0.0 G Pickup Delivery Pickup Delivery CSA Pickup Data based upon U.S. average fuel economy - two routes, Story County, IA CSA Delivery Data based upon Toyota Prius fuel economy - two routes, Story County IA

Pirog and Rasmussen, Leopold Center for Sustainable , Iow a State University 2008 Figure 12. Willingness to pay for produce that contributes 50 percent less gas emissions

I'd pay 30% less 3%

I'd pay 20% less 1%

I'd pay 10% less 2%

I'd pay the same amount 47%

I'd pay 10% more 36%

I'd pay 20% more 9%

I'd pay 30% more 3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Percent of respondents Swedish research Healthy

Environmental

Benefits

Carlsson-Kanyama et. al - 2003 ThankThank you…foryou…for moremore informationinformation z Rich Pirog z E-mail: [email protected] z Web sites: www.leopold.iastate.edu www.valuechains.org z Phone: (515) 294-1854