*100% organic

-100% 유기농으로 생산된 성분이어야 하고 이때 물, 염류는 제외임.

-농작물 같은 경우 유기농 채소나 과일같이 단일 유기농 성분으로 생산된 경우

-성분이 둘 혹은 그 이상으로 구성된 제품이 완전이 유기농 원료로 생산된 경우나 유기성분이 아닌 원료 또는 부가물을 사용하지 아니한 경우

-라벨링 : 한 가지 이상의 유기농 원료로 만들어진 경우 성분 표에 표기해야 한다. 완제품 취급자의 이름이나 주소 하단에 아래와 같이 표기해야 한다:

“Certified organic by____________” 혹은 유사하게 하고 인증기관 명을 뒤에 표기.

          성분 표에 유기성분을 나타낼 경우 별표나 다른 표시 마크를 사용할 수 있음.

          “100% organic” 표현을 제품 이름을 수정하기 위하여 사용할 수 있음.

          USDA seal 또는 인증기관의 seal 부착가능

          인증기관의 detail 명기 가능.

*Organic

-제품에 Organic 라벨을 사용하거나 나타내려면 적어도 물, 염류를 제외하고 무게로 95%이상의 유기농 성분을 함유하여야 한다.

-제품에 아황산염(sulfites)이 함유되어서는 안됨.

-라벨링 : 해당 유기농 성분에 표시를 해야 한다.

유기농 성분은 “organic”이라고 별표나 다른 표시마크로 표기하며, 이때 물, 염류를 포함하는 성분은 유기농 성분에서 제외해야 한다.

          완제품 취급자의 이름이나 주소 하단에 아래와 같이 표기해야 한다: “Certified organic by____________” 혹은 유사하게 하고 인증기관 명을 뒤에 표기.

        “ organic” 표현을 제품 이름을 수정하기 위하여 사용할 수 있음

          “X % organic” 또는 “X % organic ingredient”로 나타낼 수 있음.

USDA seal 또는 인증기관의 seal 부착가능

          인증기관의 detail 명기 가능

*Made with Organic Ingredients

-여러 가지 성분으로 이루어진 제품이 물, 염류를 제외하고 무게나 액상의 부피로 70%에서 95%의 유기농 성분을 함유하고 있어야 한다.

예) 야채수프가 85% 유기농 성분으로 생산된 감자, 토마토, 양파 등으로 만들어졌을 경우 “유기 야채로 만든 수프”로 표현할 수 있다.

- 제품에 아황산염(sulfites)이 함유되어서는 안됨.

- 라벨링 : 해당 유기농 성분에 표시를 해야 한다.

유기농 성분은 “organic”이라고 별표나 다른 표시마크로 표기하며, 이때 물, 염류를 포함하는 성분은 유기농 성분에서 제외해야 한다.

완제품 취급자의 이름이나 주소 하단에 아래와 같이 표기해야 한다: “Certified organic by____________” 혹은 유사하게 하고 인증기관 명을 뒤에 표기.

          “Made with organic____”이라고 나타낼 수 있다.

          “X % organic” 또는 “X % organic ingredient”로 나타낼 수 있음.

인증기관의 seal 부착가능

          인증기관의 detail 명기 가능

          USDA seal을 사용하여서는 안됨.

* Less than 70% organic ingredients

-유기농 성분이 70% 미만인 복합성분 제품 (물, 염류를 제외한 무게, 부피에 의해)

-라벨링 : organic이란 단어를 사용하였을 경우 성분 표시를 해야 한다.

Organic 성분의 %를 나타냈을 경우 유기농 성분을 별표나 다른 표시마크를 사용하여 표기하고 이때 물, 염류를 포함하는 성분은 유기농 성분에서 제외해야 한다.

인증기관의 seal 부착 불가능

        USDA seal을 부착 불가능.

================================


미국의 유기농식품 기준 및 표시

미국 농무부(USDA)는 지난 2002년 10월 21일부터 ‘유기농(Ogranic)’으로 표시된 식품이 갖춰야할 국가표준을 제정 운영하고 있다. 

(자료 : 농수산물유통공사 해외조사부/윤석황 과장)

Ⅰ. 미국의 유기농식품

1. 유기농(Organic) 이란
미국 농무부(USDA) 규정에 따르면 ‘유기농’은 식품과 섬유제품 등 농산물의 생산 및 가공방식을 나타내는 용어다.
‘유기농’이란 표현은 해당 농산물의 농사방법과 가공방법에 근거한 것.
우리나라와 같이 3년간 화학비료와 농약을 전혀 사용하지 않은 농토에서 농약과 비료없이 재배한 농산물을 말한다.

2. 자연식품과 유기농식품
자연식품과 유기농식품은 같은 의미로 사용할 수 없다.
자연식품은 단지 방목했거나 호르몬을 사용하지 않았다거나 천연과 같은 기타 다른 강조표시를 표기할 수 있다. 하지만 이러한 용어는 유기농식품과는 다른 말이다.
유기농식품은 USDA의 유기농규정에 적합하게 인증된 것에 한한다.

3. 유기농 표준제정 배경
미국에서는 1940년부터 유기농산물이 생산되기 시작했다.
이후 자가소비형태로 발전하던 것이 농장형태로 바뀌었다.
국가에서 유기농식물 생산에 관한 법과 국가 유기농프로그램(NOP)을 제정하면서 체계화됐다.
NOP는 유기농 성분을 포함하고 있는 원재료와 신선제품, 가공식품 등에 적용된다.
NOP에 의해 인증을 받은 사업자는 제품 또는 성분을 유기농으로 표시할 수 있다.

4. 유기농식품의 표시요건
표시요건은 제품의 유기농 성분비율에 따라 4가지로 구분된다.

가. 100% 유기농-유기 영농방식으로 생산된 성분만으로 생산된 제품을 말한다.
USDA 인증표시와 인증마크를 제품포장과 광고에 사용할 수 있다.

나. 유기농-물과 염류를 제외하고 중량기준으로 제품의 95% 이상이 유기농방식으로 생산된 성분인 경우를 말한다.
나머지 성분중 5%까지는 National List에서 허용하는 비농산물을 포함할 수 있다.
USDA 인증마크를 사용할 수 있다.

다. 유기농으로 제조-성분의 70%에서 95%까지가 유기농업 방식으로 생산된 제품을 말한다.
유기농성분 또는 식품유형을 세 개까지 명시할 수 있다. 하지만 USDA 유기농 인증표시는 사용할 수 없다.

라. 유기농성분이 70% 미만제품-이런 제품은 주 표시면 어떤 곳에도 유기농이란 용어를 사용할 수 없다.
그러나 성분 표시란에 유기농업방식으로 생산된 특정성분을 명시할 수는 있다.

5. 유기농제품 종류
과일과 채소,면류,소스류,냉동주스,우유,아이스크림류,곡류,쇠고기,돼지고기,가금류,빵,수프,과자,포도주 등 농수산물과 가공식품의 대부분이 생산되고 있다.
이밖에 유기농 섬유제품 등도 공산품형태로 다수 생산되고 있다.

Ⅱ. 미국 유기농 기준

1. 유기축산물 표준
유기축산물 사육중 유전자변형식품(GMO), 방사선 처리제품, 하수찌꺼기 등을 사용할 수 없다.
또 항생제와 성장호르몬 등의 사용도 금지된다. 100% 유기사료만 사용할 수 있다.
특정농장이 유기농 생산농장으로 인증받기 위해서는 사용금지 자재를 마지막으로 사용한 이후 3년이 지나야 한다.
도축용 가축은 출생전 임신기간 마지막 1/3시간부터 도축 때까지 유기영농 방식에 따라 사육할 것을 의무화했다.
이밖에 가축의 노천구역 접근이 용이해야 하며 반추 가축의 경우 목초지 접근이 쉬워야 함을 규정했다.

2. 유기농산물 표준
유기농장에서 토양 비옥도와 작물 영양분관리는 경작과 윤작, 간작 등을 통해
이뤄진다.
농산물 표준은 퇴비사용에 대해서도 엄격한 규정을 적용하고 있다.
병충해, 잡초, 질병관리는 독성과 잔류성 농약을 사용하지 않는 영농방법에 의해 이뤄진다.

3. 심사 및 인증절차
USDA 담당업무중에는 공공 및 민간 인증기관의 지정업무가 포함돼 있다.
USDA 지정 인증기관은 생산자와 유통업자가 미국 유기농 표준을 준수하는지 여부를 확인한다.
인증 절차에는 재배포장 및 가공시설의 조사, 상세한 영농관련 자료관리, 정기적 토양 및 용수 검사가 포함된다.
생산자와 유통업자의 인증절차는 우선 신청자는 인증기관으로 지정된 기관에
▲ 사업장 유형
▲ 이전 3년간 재배포장에 사용한 물질내역
▲ 재배, 사육 또는 가공중인 유기농제품
▲ 영농관행 및 생산에 사용한 물질 등을 기술한 신청자의 유기농 사업계획 등을 제출해야 한다.

4. 표시기준 위반시 처벌규정
국가 유기농 프로그램(NOP) 규정에 따라 생산, 유통되지 않는 제품으로 고의적으로 유기농제품으로 판매하거나 표시한 자는 최고 1만달러까지 벌금을 부과해야 한다.

※ 참고: 미국 유기농관련 웹사이트

1. 미국 농무성 농업마케팅(AMS)
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop
  미국유기농의 표준과 규례에 대한 상세한 정보를 검색할 수 있다.

2. 유기농교역협회(OTA; Organic Trade Association)
http://www.ota.com
  유기농제품, 성분, 유기농 관련 서비스를 제공하는 기업들에 대한 자료를 검색할 수 있다.

3. 미국 농무성 해외농무청(USDA FAS)
http://www.fas.usda.gov/agx/organics/ogranics.html
  유기농상품란으로 이동하면 유기농에 관한 뉴스레터, 유기농 전시회와 행사일정, 유기농 산업소식 등을 제공받을 수 있다.

구제역 사태 진짜 진범은 이것

시사INLive | 우석훈 | 입력 2011.03.04 11:59

지난해 한국 경제에 관한 책을 준비하면서 올해 그리고 내년 경제는 어떻게 될 것인지 다양한 방식으로 예측을 시도한 적이 있다. 그러나 2011년 초 구제역이 이 정도까지 극성을 떨고, 정부가 이 정도까지 대책 없이 무너질 거라고는 상상도 못했다. 그래서 마음 단단히 먹고 현 사태의 주범이 누군지 털어놓아볼까 한다.

이명박 정부 인사들은 광우병 관련 사태가 전적으로 ‘인터넷 괴담’ 때문이라고 생각하는 것 같다. 이런 식으로 세상을 본다면, ‘구제역 괴담’ 역시 정부가 이른바 ‘우파 세력’을 통해 퍼뜨렸다고 할 수 있다. 지금까지 이들이 수군거려온 이야기는 크게 두 가지다. 하나는 구제역 바이러스의 ‘기원’에 대한 것이다. 안동의 어느 농민이 구제역 바이러스를 한국으로 가지고 왔으며, 이는 정부의 가이드라인을 제대로 지키지 않았기 때문이라는 것이다. 이는 결국 사실이 아닌 것으로 밝혀졌다(47쪽 기사 참조).

그 다음 얘기는 구제역 바이러스의 ‘전파’에 대한 것이다. 지난해 12월8일 서울에서 열린 ’2010 전국농민대회’로 인해 구제역 바이러스가 정부 방어망을 뚫고 의정부로 넘어갔다는 이야기다. 결국 바이러스는 농민 때문에 들어왔으며, 농민대회 때문에 전국으로 퍼진 것이 된다. 그래서 ‘자기네 농민’들이 잘못해서 이런 사태가 벌어지게 된 것이니까 보상해줄 필요도 없다는 식의 담론이 경제신문을 중심으로 파다하게 퍼졌다. ‘다방 농민’ 발언도 그 와중에 나온 셈이다(김종훈 통상교섭본부장은 지난해 12월13일 열린 한 세미나에서 “다방 농민이라는 말이 있다. 모럴해저드를 어떻게 할 것인가”라고 말해 농민들을 분노케 했다).

구제역 진범, ‘농정 로드맵 10개년 계획’

그러나 현 사태를 수년 전까지 거슬러 올라가 살펴보면 원인의 절반은 정책 실패이고, 나머지 절반은 인재(人災)라는 사실을 알 수 있다. 어떤 실업자가 우울증으로 스스로 목숨을 끊었다고 가정하자. 이 경우 ‘그 사람은 우울증 때문에 죽은 거다’라고만 진단해도 되는 것일까. 당연히 우울증이니까 자살했겠지만 그 우울증의 원인은 실업이다. 자살했다고 하더라도 사실은 ‘경제적 타살’인 것이다.

그렇다면 현 사태의 진정한 원인은 무엇인가. 나는 노무현 정부 초기에 입안된 ‘농정 로드맵 10개년 계획’이 ‘진범’이라고 생각한다. 당시 노무현 정부는 우리 농업이 기업농·수출농 중심으로 가야 한다고 생각했던 것 같다. 그런데 이는 우리나라 초대 농림부 장관인 진보당 조봉암의 정책을 뒤엎는 것이었다. 당시 농지 개혁을 주도한 조봉암은 소농 중심의 정책을 추진했고, 한국 농업정책의 기조는 이 전통 위에 서 있었다. 심지어 1987년 9차 개정 헌법 때는 농정이 흔들리면 안 된다고 아예 ‘경자 유전의 원칙’을 헌법에 넣었다.

그런데 노무현 정부의 농정은 이를 뒤집었다. 그래서 참여정부 농지법 개정 논의 때 시민단체와 민중단체가 연대해 격렬하게 반대했다. 그때 실무 책임자 중 한 명이 바로 이명박 정부의 두 번째 농림부 장관이던 장태평이다. 이명박 대통령은 그가 넥타이 매고 다닌다고 한 소리 했다지만, 장태평은 그래도 농업을 좀 아는 사람이었다. 그가 장관직을 계속 유지했다면 구제역을 비교적 초기에 잡을 수 있었으리라 생각한다.

기업농으로 가려는 노무현의 개혁은 결국 실패했다. 이렇게 되자 노무현 정권의 ‘기업주의자’들이 다시 힘을 실어준 것이 ‘공장형 축산’이었다. 한국의 축산 시스템은 원래 ‘분산형’이자 ‘소형’이었다. 그런데 ‘기업주의자’들은 선진화·현대화 따위 논리를 동원하면서 중앙집중적 대형 축산(공장형 축산) 시스템을 도입하려고 했다. 이에 지역개발 논리 ‘클러스트’론이 가세하면서, 축산업을 특정 지역에 대규모로 집중시키는 시스템이 생겼다.

이 같은 시스템은 전염병에 취약할 수밖에 없다. 그래서 일부 시민단체는 식품위생기본법 같은 장치를 만들자고 주장했다. 국민들이 먹는 식품을 안전하게 하기 위해 축산 시스템을 분산형·소형·유기농 쪽으로 개조하자는 주장이었다. 그런데 유시민이 관련 부서인 보건복지부 장관이 되면서 이 논의를 정책화하는 길이 막히고 말았다.

‘유정복의 농림부’, 농업 위기 방어 못해

한국의 공장형 축산 시스템을 바꿀 기회가 한 번 더 있기는 했다. 지난 대선 당시 경실련 농업 담당자인 윤석원 교수(중앙대)가 이명박 후보의 농업특보가 되면서 ‘기업농 중심’이 아니라 ‘소형 농업 중심’ 공약을 제시한 것이다. 그러나 윤석원 교수는 농림부 장관이 되지 못했고, 그 자리를 차지한 정운천 전 장관은 광우병 사태로 새로 출범한 정부를 매우 힘들게 했다.

우리 농업의 기본 방향을 바꿀 사람으로 주목되던 윤석원 교수가 농림부 장관이 되지 못한 까닭은 무엇인가. 이명박 대통령이 후보 당시 진보 성향 시민단체 지도자급 인사인데도 윤 교수에게 직접 전화까지 걸어서 농업특보를 부탁한 바 있는데 말이다. 나는 지금까지 이명박 정부의 인사 행태를 보며 그 이유를 알게 되었다.

유능하고 신망받는 보수, 즉 좌파와 우파 모두에게 인정받는 그런 인재가 우리나라에도 없지는 않다. 그런데 MB 정부의 내각에 들어가려면 대운하를 찬성해야 한다는, 아주 기본적인 진입 장벽이 있다. 그런데 멀쩡하고 제정신이며 소신을 갖춘 존경받는 보수라면 한반도 대운하를 찬성하기 어렵다. 혹시 이명박 정부 초기의 대운하(지금은 4대강)를 찬성하는 사람들로만 내각을 구성하려다보니, 결국 지금 같은 ‘잡범 내각’이 탄생하게 된 것이 아닐까.

정운천에 이어 농림부 장관이 된 장태평은 기업농 노선이었으나 축산업의 규모 확대에는 그리 적극적이지 않았다. 그래서 일 못하는 장관처럼 보였고, 결국 쫓겨나게 된 것이다. 그러나 1998년 농림부 장관을 맡은 김성훈 이후로는 장태평이 제일 무난했다고 나는 평가한다. 현 농림부 장관 유정복도 친박 지분으로 가장 인기 없는 자리를 하나 얻은 것 같은 느낌이 자꾸 든다. 취임하자마자 텔레비전에 출연해서 가장 먼저 한 소리가 고작 ‘쌀 경작 면적의 축소’ 아니었던가. 이런 농림부가 어떻게 농업을 방어하고 구제역에 대응한단 말인가.

장기적으로 농업 정책을 바꿔야 한다. 특히 축산업은 그동안 기업농 논리를 지나치게 많이 받아들였다. 분산형과 유기 축산 쪽으로 가야 한다. 안 그러면 해마다, 그리고 점점 더 심하게 문제를 겪게 될 것이다. 농업을 바꾸려면 장관부터 바꾸어야 한다. 일단은 (구제역 후폭풍으로) 우유 수급 문제가 심각해질 것이다. 어쩌면 당장 3월부터 아기를 키우는 가정과 학교에 우유 긴급 지원금을 풀어야 할지도 모른다. 우유 값이 없어서 굶는 아기가 생겨나면 정권이고 뭐고 정말 대책 없다. 정신 좀 차리세요!

우석훈 (2.1연구소 소장) /

Study finds commercial organic farms have better fruit and soil, lower environmental impact

Research team compared fields and fruits in heart of nation’s strawberry patch

		IMAGE: John Reganold is lead author of a PLoS ONE paper finding organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries than conventional farms while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically… Click here for more information.

PULLMAN, Wash.—Side-by-side comparisons of organic and conventional strawberry farms and their fruit found the organic farms produced more flavorful and nutritious berries while leaving the soil healthier and more genetically diverse.

“Our findings have global implications and advance what we know about the sustainability benefits of organic farming systems,” said John Reganold, Washington State University Regents professor of soil science and lead author of a paper published today in the peer-reviewed online journal, PLoS ONE. “We also show you can have high quality, healthy produce without resorting to an arsenal of pesticides.”

The study is among the most comprehensive of its kind, analyzing 31 chemical and biological soil properties, soil DNA, and the taste, nutrition and quality of three strawberry varieties on more than two dozen commercial fields—13 conventional and 13 organic.

“There is no paper in the literature that comprehensively and quantitatively compares so many indices of both food and soil quality at multiple sampling times on so many commercial farms,” said Reganold. Previous Reganold studies of “sustainability indicators” on farms in the Pacific Northwest, California, British Columbia, Australia, and New Zealand have appeared in the journals Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

All the farms in the current study were in California, home to 90 percent of the nation’s strawberries and the center of an ongoing debate about the use of soil fumigants. Conventional farms in the study used the ozone-depleting methyl bromide, which is slated to be replaced by the highly toxic methyl iodide over the protests of health advocates and more than 50 Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences. In July, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked the EPA to reconsider its approval of methyl iodide.

Reganold’s study team included Preston Andrews, a WSU associate professor of horticulture, and seven other experts, mostly from WSU, to form a multidisciplinary team spanning agroecology, soil science, microbial ecology, genetics, pomology, food science, sensory science, and statistics. On almost every major indicator, they found the organic fields and fruit were equal to or better than their conventional counterparts.

Among their findings:

• The organic strawberries had significantly higher antioxidant activity and concentrations of ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds.
  
• The organic strawberries had longer shelf life.
  
• The organic strawberries had more dry matter, or, “more strawberry in the strawberry.”
  
• Anonymous testers, working at times under red light so the fruit color would not bias them, found one variety of organic strawberries was sweeter, had better flavor, and once a white light was turned on, appearance. The testers judged the other two varieties to be similar.

The researchers also found the organic soils excelled in a variety of key chemical and biological properties, including carbon sequestration, nitrogen, microbial biomass, enzyme activities, and micronutrients.

DNA analysis found the organically managed soils had dramatically more total and unique genes and greater genetic diversity, important measures of the soil’s resilience to stress and ability to carry out essential processes.

=========================

유기농과일, 항산화성분 “훨씬” 많아

출처 : 연합뉴스 2010/09/03 09:36 



http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/international/2010/09/03/0619000000AKR20100903052600009.HTML?template=3398

(서울=연합뉴스) 한성간 기자 = 유기농 딸기가 농약을 뿌려 재배한 딸기에 비해 항산화물질이 훨씬 많이 함유되어있다는 연구결과가 나왔다.

   항산화물질은 우리 몸의 대사과정에서 생성되는 유해산소분자로 암 등 질병을 유발할 수 있는 활성산소를 무력화시킬 수 있는 물질이다.

   미국 워싱턴 주립대학의 존 리거놀드(John Reganold) 박사는 캘리포니아의 13개 유기농 농장과 13개 재래식 농장에서 재배된 딸기 3종류의 영양소, 질, 맛 등을 분석한 결과 이 같은 사실이 밝혀졌다고 말한 것으로 영국의 일간 데일리 메일 인터넷판이 2일 보도했다.

   유기농 딸기들은 항산화물질도 많이 들어있었지만 맛과 질도 우수한 것으로 나타났다.
리거놀드 박사는 유기농 딸기와 농약을 뿌려 재배한 딸기가 자란 토양도 분석한 결과 유기농 딸기가 재배된 토양이 훨씬 건강하고 박테리아와 곤충들이 더 많이 서식하고 있는 것으로 밝혀졌다.

   영국 식품표준청(Food Standard Agency)은 작년 유기농 식품이 일반식품에 비해 건강에 더 좋다는 증거가 없다고 밝힌 바 있다.

   그러나 유럽연합(EU)의 지원 아래 유럽 31개 대학 연구팀이 진행한 연구결과에 따르면 유기농 작물이 농약을 사용한 작물에 비해 비타민과 항산화물질 함량이 많고 금속과 독성 화학물질은 적은 것으로 밝혀졌다.
이 연구결과는 온라인 과학전문지 ‘공중과학도서관 – 원(PLoS One)’에 실렸다.

   skhan@yna.co.kr
 

줄기세포로 돼지고기 제조
연합뉴스 | 입력 2010.01.16 11:12 | 수정 2010.01.16 11:37

(런던 AP=연합뉴스) 네덜란드 과학자들이 줄기세포를 이용해 실험실에서 돼지고기를 만드는 데 성공했다.

네덜란드 정부의 지원을 받는 연구기관 연합체 `시험관고기 컨소시엄(IMC)’의 과학자들은 지난 2006년부터 실험관에서 돼지고기를 키우는 작업을 해 온 결과 약 1㎝ 길이의 고기를 만들어내는 데 성공했다고 밝혔다.

미국과 일본, 스칸디나비아에서도 여러 연구기관들이 실험실에서 고기를 만들어내는 연구를 진행 중이지만 네덜란드의 연구가 가장 앞선 것이라고 미국 존스 홉킨스 공중보건대학의 한 전문가는 평가했다.

연구진은 이 정도의 고기를 만들기 위한 세포 복제에는 약 30일이 걸린다면서 이런 방법이 성공한다면 돼지 한 마리를 갖고 100만 마리 분의 돼지고기를 만들 수 있을 것이며 이는 지구 환경을 파괴하는 목축업의 대안이 될 수도 있고 기아를 줄일 수 있을 것이라고 강조했다.

연구진은 실험관에서 만들어낸 돼지고기는 가리비처럼 단단하지만 자연 고기보다 단백질 함량이 낮아 축축하고 질퍽한 질감을 갖는다고 밝혔으나 아직 직접 맛을 보지는 않았다고 실토했다.

이들은 그러나 시험관 고기에 생선의 줄기세포를 이용해 만들어낸 오메가-3 지방산을 섞는다면 심장마비를 예방하는 햄버거나 건강에 좋은 소시지를 만들 수 있을 것이라면서 닭이나 소, 양 등 어떤 동물에도 같은 기술을 이용할 수 있을 것이라고 말했다.

하지만 영국의 한 유기농 전문가는 “어떤 신기술이든 감시가 필요한 미묘한 영향이 있기 마련”이라면서 이런 기술이 인체에 무해하다는 것을 입증하는 데 상당한 시간이 소요될 것이라고 지적했다.

그는 또 유기농은 농작물과 가축의 순환 관계에 의존하는 만큼 이런 관계에서 가축을 뺀다면 생태계가 파괴될 것이라고 경고했다.

또 다른 전문가들은 “고기의 맛은 특정 시기에 가축에게 무엇을 먹였는지에 달려있다”면서 시험관 고기의 맛이 진짜 고기의 맛과 같을 수는 없을 것이라고 의구심을 보였다.

그럼에도 시험관 고기의 양산에 성공해 목축업을 완전히 대체한다고 가정할 때 온실가스 방출량은 95%나 줄어들 것이며 토지 및 물 사용량 역시 95% 감소할 것이라고 옥스퍼드 대학의 해너 투오미스토 교수는 추정했다.

세계식량기구(FAO)에 따르면 오는 2050년까지 전세계 육류 소비량은 개도국 중산층의 확대에 따라 현재 수준의 2배로 늘어날 전망이다.

youngnim@yna.co.kr
(끝)

by Norman Church
April 2nd, 2005

출처 : http://www.321energy.com/editorials/church/church040205.html

“Concentrate on what cannot lie. The evidence…” — Gil Grissom

INTRODUCTION

Eating Oil?was the title of a book which was published in 1978 following the first oil crisis in 1973 (1). The aim of the book was to investigate the extent to which food supply in industrialised countries relied on fossil fuels. In the summer of 2000 the degree of dependence on oil in the UK food system was demonstrated once again when protestors blockaded oil refineries and fuel distribution depots. The fuel crises disrupted the distribution of food and industry leaders warned that their stores would be out of food within days. The lessons of 1973 have not been heeded.

Today the food system is even more reliant on cheap crude oil. Virtually all of the processes in the modern food system are now dependent upon this finite resource, which is nearing its depletion phase.

Moreover, at a time when we should be making massive cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in order to reduce the threat posed by climate change, the food system is lengthening its supply chains and increasing emissions to the point where it is a significant contributor to global warming.

The organic sector could be leading the development of a sustainable food system. Direct environmental and ecological impacts of agriculture 몂n the farm?are certainly reduced in organic systems. However, global trade and distribution of organic products fritter away those benefits and undermine its leadership role.

Not only is the contemporary food system inherently unsustainable, increasingly, it is damaging the environment.

The systems that produce the world’s food supply are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides, and as cheap and readily available energy at all stages of food production: from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution and packaging. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. The industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuels and one of the greatest producers of greenhouse gases.

Ironically, the food industry is at serious risk from global warming caused by these greenhouse gases, through the disruption of the predictable climactic cycles on which agriculture depends. But global warming can have the more pronounced and immediate effect of exacerbating existing environmental threats to agriculture, many of which are caused by industrial agriculture itself. Environmental degradation, water shortages, salination, soil erosion, pests, disease and desertification all pose serious threats to our food supply, and are made worse by climate change. But many of the conventional ways used to overcome these environmental problems further increase the consumption of finite oil and gas reserves. Thus the cycle of oil dependence and environmental degradation continues.

Industrial agriculture and the systems of food supply are also responsible for the erosion of communities throughout the world. This social degradation is compounded by trade rules and policies, by the profit driven mindset of the industry, and by the lack of knowledge of the faults of the current systems and the possibilities of alternatives. But the globalisation and corporate control that seriously threaten society and the stability of our environment are only possible because cheap energy is used to replace labour and allows the distance between producer and consumer to be extended.

However, this is set to change. Oil output is expected to peak in the next few years and steadily decline thereafter. We have a very poor understanding of how the extreme fluctuations in the availability and cost of both oil and natural gas will affect the global food supply systems, and how they will be able to adapt to the decreasing availability of energy. In the near future, environmental threats will combine with energy scarcity to cause significant food shortages and sharp increases in prices – at the very least. We are about to enter an era where we will have to once again feed the world with limited use of fossil fuels. But do we have enough time, knowledge, money, energy and political power to make this massive transformation to our food systems when they are already threatened by significant environmental stresses and increasing corporate control?

The modern, commercial agricultural miracle that feeds all of us, and much of the rest of the world, is completely dependent on the flow, processing and distribution of oil, and technology is critical to maintaining that flow.

Oil refined for gasoline and diesel is critical to run the tractors, combines and other farm vehicles and equipment that plant, spray the herbicides and pesticides, and harvest/transport food and seed Food processors rely on the just-in-time (gasoline-based) delivery of fresh or refrigerated food Food processors rely on the production and delivery of food additives, including vitamins and minerals, emulsifiers, preservatives, colouring agents, etc. Many are oil-based. Delivery is oil-based Food processors rely on the production and delivery of boxes, metal cans, printed paper labels, plastic trays, cellophane for microwave/convenience foods, glass jars, plastic and metal lids with sealing compounds. Many of these are essentially oil-based Delivery of finished food products to distribution centres in refrigerated trucks. Oil-based, daily, just-in-time shipment of food to grocery stores, restaurants, hospitals, schools, etc., all oil-based; customer drives to grocery store to shop for supplies, often several times a week

ENERGY, TRANSPORT AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

Our food system is energy inefficient…

One indicator of the unsustainability of the contemporary food system is the ratio of energy outputs – the energy content of a food product (calories) – to the energy inputs.

The latter is all the energy consumed in producing, processing, packaging and distributing that product. The energy ratio (energy out/energy in) in agriculture has decreased from being close to 100 for traditional pre-industrial societies to less than 1 in most cases in the present food system, as energy inputs, mainly in the form of fossil fuels, have gradually increased.

However, transport energy consumption is also significant, and if included in these ratios would mean that the ratio would decrease further. For example, when iceberg lettuce is imported to the UK from the USA by plane, the energy ratio is only 0.00786. In other words 127 calories of energy (aviation fuel) are needed to transport 1 calorie of lettuce across the Atlantic. If the energy consumed during lettuce cultivation, packaging, refrigeration, distribution in the UK and shopping by car was included, the energy needed would be even higher. Similarly, 97 calories of transport energy are needed to import 1 calorie of asparagus by plane from Chile, and 66 units of energy are consumed when flying 1 unit of carrot energy from South Africa.

Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup (2). The study considered the production of inputs to agriculture, tomato cultivation and conversion to tomato paste (in Italy), the processing and packaging of the paste and other ingredients into tomato ketchup in Sweden and the retail and storage of the final product. All this involved more than 52 transport and process stages.

The aseptic bags used to package the tomato paste were produced in the Netherlands and transported to Italy to be filled, placed in steel barrels, and then moved to Sweden. The five layered, red bottles were either produced in the UK or Sweden with materials form Japan, Italy, Belgium, the USA and Denmark. The polypropylene (PP) screw-cap of the bottle and plug, made from low density polyethylene (LDPE), was produced in Denmark and transported to Sweden. Additionally, LDPE shrink-film and corrugated cardboard were used to distribute the final product. Labels, glue and ink were not included in the analysis.

This example demonstrates the extent to which the food system is now dependent on national and international freight transport. However, there are many other steps involved in the production of this everyday product. These include the transportation associated with: the production and supply of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium fertilisers; pesticides; processing equipment; and farm machinery. It is likely that other ingredients such as sugar, vinegar, spices and salt were also imported. Most of the processes listed above will also depend on derivatives of fossil fuels. This product is also likely to be purchased in a shopping trip by car.

One study has estimated that UK imports of food products and animal feed involved transportation by sea, air and road amounting to over 83 billion tonne-kilometres (3). This required 1.6 billion litres of fuel and, based on a conservative figure of 50 grams of carbon dioxide per tonne-kilometre resulted in 4.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions (4). Within the UK, the amount of food transported increased by 16% and the distances travelled by 50% between 1978 and 1999.

It has been estimated that the CO2 emissions attributable to producing, processing, packaging and distributing the food consumed by a family of four is about 8 tonnes a year (5)

It is not that this transportation is critical or necessary. In many cases countries import and export similar quantities of the same food products (6). A recent report has highlighted the instances in which countries import and export large quantities of particular foodstuffs (6). For example, in 1997, 126 million litres of liquid milk was imported into the UK and, at the same time, 270 million litres of milk was exported from the UK. 23,000 tonnes of milk powder was imported into the UK and 153,000 tonnes exported (7). UK milk imports have doubled over the last 20 years, but there has been a four-fold increase in UK milk exports over the last 30 years (8).

Britain imports 61,400 tonnes of poultry meat a year from the Netherlands and exports 33,100 tonnes to the Netherlands. We import 240,000 tonnes of pork and 125,000 tonnes of lamb while exporting 195,000 tonnes of pork and 102,000 tonnes of lamb (6).

This system is unsustainable, illogical, and bizarre and can only exist as long as inexpensive fossil fuels are available and we do not take significant action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

GLOBAL WARMING AND FINITE OIL

Discovery of oil and gas peaked in the 1960s. Production is set to peak too, with five Middle Eastern countries regaining control of world supply (9). Almost two-thirds of the world’s total reserves of crude oil are located in the Middle East, notably in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq (10). An assessment of future world oil supply and its depletion pattern shows that between 1980 and 1998 there was an 11.2 per cent increase in world crude oil production, from 59.6 to 66.9 million barrels of oil per day (10). Current world production rates are about 25 Gb (billion barrels) per year. A simple calculation shows that if consumption levels remain constant, world crude oil reserves, at approximately 1 trillion barrels, could be exhausted around 2040 (11).

The oil crises of the 1970s when the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) states reined in their production have passed into folk memory. However, they were accompanied by massive disruption and global economic recession. The same happened in 1980 and 1991 (12).

Colin J. Campbell, a pre-eminent oil industry analyst, believes that future crises will be much worse. 밫he oil shocks of the 1970s were short-lived because there were then plenty of new oil and gas finds to bring on stream. This time there are virtually no new prolific basins to yield a crop of giant fields sufficient to have a global impact. The growing Middle East control of the market is likely to lead to a radical and permanent increase in the price of oil, before physical shortages begin to appear within the first decade of the 21st century. The world’s economy has been driven by an abundant supply of cheap oil-based energy for the best part of this century. The coming oil crisis will accordingly be an economic and political discontinuity of historic proportions, as the world adjusts to a new energy environment?(9).

The three main purposes for which oil is used worldwide are food, transport and heating. In the near future the competition for oil for these three activities will be raw and real. An energy famine is likely to affect poorer countries first, when increases in the cost of paraffin, used for cooking, place it beyond their reach. Following the peak in production, food supplies all over the world will begin to be disrupted, not only because of price increases but because the oil will no longer be there.

IS ORGANIC ANY DIFFERENT?

One of the benefits of organic production is that energy consumption and, therefore, fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, are less than that in conventional systems.

The energy used in food production is separated into direct and indirect inputs. Indirect inputs include the manufacture and supply of pesticides, feedstuffs and fertilisers while direct energy inputs are those on the farm, such as machinery. One measure of the energy efficiency of food production that allows a comparison between different farming practices is the energy consumed per unit output, often expressed as the energy consumed per tonne of food produced (MJ/tonne) or the energy consumed per kilogram of food (MJ/kg).

A study comparing organic and conventional livestock, dairy, vegetable and arable systems in the UK found that, with average yields, the energy saving with organic production ranged from 0.14 MJ/kg to 1.79 MJ/kg, with the average being 0.68 MJ/kg or 42 per cent (13). The improved energy efficiency in organic systems is largely due to lower (or zero) fertiliser and pesticide inputs, which account for half of the energy input in conventional potato and winter wheat production and up to 80 per cent of the energy consumed in some vegetable crops.

In conventional upland livestock production, the largest energy input is again indirect in the form of concentrated and cereal feeds. When reared organically, a greater proportion of the feed for dairy cattle, beef and hill sheep is derived from grass. In the case of milk production, it has been found that organic systems are almost five times more energy efficient on a per animal basis and three and a half times more energy efficient in terms of unit output (the energy required to produce a litre of milk) (13).

So far so good – but once passed the farm-gate, things begin to go wrong. Britain imports over three-quarters of its organic produce, and despite consumer demand, only two per cent of its land is organically farmed (14). As the market has grown it has been met by imports.

A study looking at the energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions when importing organic food products to the UK by plane (15) found that carbon dioxide emissions range from 1.6 kilograms to 10.7 kilograms. Air transport of food is the worst environmental option but road transport, especially unnecessary journeys, is also bad. For example 5kg of Sicilian potatoes travelling 2448 miles emits 771 grams of carbon dioxide.

The problem is that, overall, human beings have developed a tendency to deal with problems on an ad hoc basis – i.e., to deal with ‘problems of the moment’. This does not foster an attitude of seeing a problem embedded in the context of another problem.

Globalisation makes it impossible for modern societies to collapse in isolation. Any society in turmoil today, no matter how remote, can cause problems for prosperous societies on other continents, and is also subject to their influence (whether helpful or destabilising).

For the first time in history, we face the risk of a global decline.

Shocks to the system

As already stated, the three main purposes for which oil is used worldwide are food, transport and heating. Agriculture is almost entirely dependent on reliable supplies of oil for cultivation and for pumping water, and on gas for its fertilisers; in addition, for every calorie of energy used by agriculture itself, five more are used for processing, storage and distribution.

Since farming and the food industry are not famous for spending money unnecessarily, there must be a presumption that there is very little short-term ‘slack’ which would allow its demand for energy to be reduced at short notice without disruptions in food prices. In the case of transport and heating fuel, there is more scope for saving energy at short notice; cutting leisure journeys, for instance, wearing extra pullovers and, in the slightly longer term, driving smaller cars have a role to play while, in the longer term, there is a totally different low-energy paradigm waiting to be developed. But it is the short term that has to be survived first and, in that short term, the competition for oil for food, transport and heating will be real and raw.

Through its dependence on oil, contemporary farming is exposed to the whole question of the sustainability of our use of fossil fuels. It took 500 million years to produce these hydrocarbon deposits and we are using them at a rate in excess of 1 million times their natural rate of production. On the time scale of centuries, we certainly cannot expect to continue using oil as freely and ubiquitously as we do today. Something is going to have to change.

The same applies more widely to every natural resource on which industrial civilisation relies. Furthermore, one might think that there is a compounded problem. Not only are there more people consuming these resources, but their per capita consumption also increases in line with the elaboration of technology. We seem to be facing a problem of diminishing returns, indeed of running out of the vital raw materials needed to support our economic growth.

Almost every current human endeavour from transportation, to manufacturing, to electricity to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies.

We are now at a point where the demand for food/oil continues to rise, while our ability to produce it in an affordable fashion is about to drop.

Within a few years of Peak Oil occurring, the price of food will skyrocket because the cost of fertiliser will soar. The cost of storing (electricity) and transporting (gasoline) the food that is produced will also soar.

Oil is required for a lot more than just food, medicine, and transportation. It is also required for nearly every consumer item, water supply pumping, sewage disposal, garbage disposal, street/park maintenance, hospitals and health systems, police, fire services and national defence.

Additionally, as you are probably already aware, wars are often fought over oil.

Bottom line?

If we think we are food secure here in the UK and other industrialised countries simply because we have gas in the car, frankly, we are delusional. Despite the appearance of an endless bounty of food, it is a fragile bounty, dependent upon the integrity of the global oil production, refining and delivery system. That system is entirely dependent on the thread of technology. Modern, technology-based agriculture produces both food, and seeds for next year뭩 food, on a just-in-time basis. There are precious little reserves of either food or seeds to sustain any protracted interruption.

Technology and the incredibly rich tapestry it has made possible has created a false sense of security for so many of us. The thread is flawed; the tapestry is now fragile; famines are possible. We must take that seriously. . .

Our food supply, and our economic survival as a whole, depends on the steady availability of reasonably priced oil. Is oil our Achilles heel?

The oil supplies that fuel the food system could be exhausted by 2040 (19). In many regions oil production has peaked and most reserves lie in the Middle East. Food security is also threatened: for example, even if all UK fruit production was consumed in the UK, of every 100 fruit products purchased, only 5 will now have been grown in the UK.

For every calorie of carrot, flown in from South Africa, we use 66 calories of fuel. The huge fuel use in the food system means more carbon dioxide emissions, which means climate change, which means more damage to food supplies, as well as other major health and social problems.

Even organic supplies are becoming hugely damaging as imports fill our shelves (17). One shopping basket of 26 imported organic products could have travelled 241,000 kilometres and released as much CO2 into the atmosphere as an average four bedroom household does through cooking meals over eight months (18).

Other problems highlighted include loss of nutrients in food, increased incidence and spread of diseases such as Foot & Mouth and other major animal welfare problems. Poor countries producing food for distant markets are not necessarily seeing benefits through increased and often intensive production for export. The report reveals how such trends could be reversed through industry, government and public action.

In other words, we won뭪 have to run completely out of oil to be rudely awakened. The panic starts once the world needs more oil than it gets.

To understand why, you뭭e got to fathom how totally addicted to oil we have become. We know that petroleum is drawn from deep wells and distilled into gasoline, jet fuel, and countless other products that form the lifeblood of industry and the adrenaline of military might. It뭩 less well known that the world뭩 food is now nourished by oil; petroleum and natural gas are crucial at every step of modern agriculture, from forming fertiliser to shipping crops. The implications are grim. For millions, the difference between an energy famine and a biblical famine could well be academic.

Independent policy analyst David Fleming writes in the British magazine Prospect (Nov. 2000),

With a global oil crisis looming like the Doomsday Rock, why do so few political leaders seem to care? Many experts refuse to take the problem seriously because it “falls outside the mind-set of market economics.” Thanks to the triumph of global capitalism, the free-market model now reigns almost everywhere. The trouble is, its principles “tend to break down when applied to natural resources like oil.” The result is both potentially catastrophic and all too human. Our high priests뾲he market economists뾞re blind to a reality that in their cosmology cannot exist.

Fleming offers several examples of this broken logic at work. Many cling to a belief that higher oil prices will spur more oil discoveries, but they ignore what earth scientists have been saying for years: there aren뭪 any more big discoveries to make. Most of the oil reserves we tap today were actually identified by the mid-1960s. There뭩 a lot of oil left in the ground ?perhaps more than half of the total recoverable supply. Fleming says that that is not the issue. The real concern is the point beyond which demand cannot be met. And with demand destined to grow by as much as 3 percent a year, the missing barrels will add up quickly. Once the pain becomes real, the Darwinian impulse kicks in and the orderly market gives way to chaos.

Some insist that industrial societies are growing less dependent on oil. Fleming says they뭨e kidding themselves. They뭨e talking about oil use as a percentage of total energy use, not the actual amount of oil burned. Measured by the barrel, we뭨e burning more and more. In Britain, for instance, transportation needs have doubled in volume since 1973 and still rely almost entirely on oil. Transportation is the weak link in any modern economy; choke off the oil and a country quickly seizes.

This wouldn뭪 matter much, Fleming laments, “If the world had spent the last 25 years urgently preparing alternative energies, conservation technologies, and patterns of land use with a much lower dependence on transport.” (He figures 25 years to be the time it will take a country like Britain to break its habit.) Instead, “the long-expected shock finds us unprepared.”

SOME UK FOOD STATISTICS

UK food supply chain

UK food retailing market was worth ?03,800 million in 2001

Food manufacturing is the single-largest manufacturing industry in the UK

Food supply chain employs 12.5% of the entire workforce in the UK

Food supply chain contributes 8% to the UK economy

Food and drink accounts for 21% of weekly household expenditure

Food supply chain and unsustainability

Food supply chain is the largest energy user in the UK

Food production and distribution contributes up to 22% of the UK뭩 total greenhouse emissions

Food travels further than any other product – 129 km compared to the average product travel of 94 km

Wages in the food industry are notoriously low compared to other sectors

Nearly 30% of household waste is food waste

CONCLUSIONS

Indicators of social, environmental and economic performance, such as food security, greenhouse gas emissions, food miles, farm income and biodiversity highlight this fact. This process could be reversed by re-establishing local and regional food supply systems and substituting 몁ear for far?in production and distribution systems. This would reduce both the demand for, and the environmental burdens associated with, transportation.

The proximity principle is a straightforward concept in Eating Oil, where production processes are located as near to the consumer as possible. When applied to food supply, local food systems in the form of home-delivery box schemes, farmers?markets and shops selling local produce would replace imported and centrally distributed foodstuffs.

Taking UK food supply and trade at present, there is great potential to apply the proximity principle, in the form of import substitution. Apart from products such as bananas, coffee and tea, many of the foodstuffs that are imported at present could be produced in Britain. Many meat products, cereals, dairy products and cooking oils are – or could be – available here throughout the year. So could fruit and vegetables, perhaps the most seasonal of food groups, through a combination of cultivating different varieties and traditional and modern storage and preservation techniques.

There is growing evidence of environmental benefits of local sourcing of food in terms of reduced transport-related environmental impact. In the case of organic produce, a survey of retailers compared local and global sourcing of produce marketed in different outlets between June and August 2001. Products were chosen that were available in the UK during these months but are at present imported by the multiple retailers. These included spring onions imported by plane from Mexico, potatoes imported by road from Sicily, onions imported by ship from New Zealand. It was found that local sourcing through a farmers market, for example, would therefore reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with distribution by a factor of 650 in the case of a farmers?market and more for box schemes and farm shop sales (16).

The value of UK food, feed and drink imports in 1999 was over ?7 billion. It is clear that a reduction in food imports through import substitution would not only be of benefit to the UK economy as a whole but could also be a major driver in rural regeneration as farm incomes would increase substantially. Local food systems also have great potential to reduce the damaging environmental effects of the current food supply system.

A sustainable food system cannot rely, almost completely, on one finite energy source; an energy source which causes enormous levels of pollution during its production, distribution and use. Although food supplies in wealthy countries such as the UK appear to be secure and choice, in terms of thousands of food products being available at supermarkets, seems limitless, this is an illusion.

The vulnerability of our food system to sudden changes was demonstrated during the fuel crisis in 2001. A sharp increase in the price of oil or a reduction in oil supplies could present a far more serious threat to food security and is likely to as oil enters its depletion phase. Food production and distribution, as they are organised today, would not be able to function. Moreover, the alternatives, in the form of sustainable agriculture and local food supplies, which minimise the use of crude oil, are currently unable to respond to increased demand due to low investment and capacity.

The food system is now a significant contributor to climate change. Reducing the carbon dioxide emissions from food production, processing and distribution by minimising the distance between producer and consumer should be a critical part of any strategy to mitigate global warming.

There are many benefits to organic farming, including reduced fossil fuel energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. However, these are often overshadowed by the environmental damage of long distance transport. Organic products that are transported long distances, particularly when distribution is by plane, are almost as damaging as their conventional air freighted counterparts. Highly processed and packaged organic foodstuffs have an added adverse environmental impact.

The priority must be the development of local and regional food systems, preferably organically based, in which a large percentage of demand is met within the locality or region. This approach, combined with fair trade, will ensure secure food supplies, minimise fossil fuel consumption and reduce the vulnerability associated with a dependency on food exports (as well as imports). Localising the food system will require significant diversification, research, investment and support that have, so far, not been forthcoming. But it is achievable and we have little choice.

Compiled by Norman Church

Norman@noidea.me.uk

Norman Church
April 2nd, 2005

REFERENCES

1 Green, B. M., 1978. Eating Oil – Energy Use in Food Production. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 1978.

2 Andersson, K. Ohlsson, P and Olsson, P. 1996, Life Cycle Assessment of Tomato Ketchup. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg.

3 Cowell, S., and R. Clift., 1996. Farming for the future: an environmental perspective. Paper presented at the Royal Agricultural Society of the Commonwealth, July 1996,CES, University of Surrey.

4. Data for shipping and airfreight from Guidelines for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: London, March 2001. Data for trucks is based on Whitelegg, J., 1993. Transport for a sustainable future: the case for Europe. Belhaven Press, London; and Gover, M. P., 1994. UK petrol and diesel demand: energy and emission effects of a switch to diesel. Report for the Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, London.

5. BRE, 1998. Building a sustainable future. General information report 53, energy efficiency best practice programme, Building Research Establishment, Garston, UK.

6. Caroline Lucas, 2001. Stopping the Great Food Swap – Relocalising Europe뭩 food supply. Green Party, 2001.

7. 21 Lobstein, T, and Hoskins, R, The Perfect Pinta. Food Facts No. 2. The SAFE Alliance, 1998.

8. FAO, 2001. Food Balance Database. 2001. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome at www.fao.org

9 Colin J. Campbell, 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Multi- Science Publishing Co. Ltd

10 Green Party USA, 2001. World crude oil reserves ?Statistical information. Based on data from the Oil and Gas Journal and the Energy Information Agency. At http://environment.about.com/library/weekly/aa092700.htm

11 Medea: European Agency for International Information, 2001. Oil Reserves. at – http://www.medea.be/en/ 11 David Fleming, 2001. The Great Oil Denial. Submission to the UK Energy Review. At

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/innovation/2001/energy/submissions/Fleming

12 EIA, 2001. World Oil Market and Oil Price Chronologies: 1970 ?2000. Department of Energy뭩 Office of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Analysis Division, Energy Information Administration, Department of the Environment, USA, at www.eia.doe.gov

13 Energy use in organic farming systems ADAS Consulting for MAFF, Project OF0182, DEFRA, London, 2001.

14 Natasha Walter, 2001. When will we get the revolution. The Independent 19th July 2001.

15 Based on data on sourcing from UKROFS and a survey of supermarket stores during June ?August 2001; distance tables for air miles at www.indo.com/cgi-bin/dist and the environmental impact of airfreight in Guidelines for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, March 2001.

16 Data for shipping and airfreight from Guidelines for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: London, March 2001. Data for trucks is based on Whitelegg, J., 1993. Transport for a sustainable future: the case for Europe. Belhaven Press, London; and Gover, M. P., 1994. UK petrol and diesel demand: energy and emission effects of a switch to diesel. Report for the Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, London. Data for cars from the Vehicle Certification Agency at www.vca.gov.uk; Whitelegg, J., 1993. Transport for a sustainable future: the case for Europe. Belhaven Press, London; and Gover, M. P., 1994. UK petrol and diesel demand: energy and emission effects of a switch to diesel. Report for the Department of Trade and Industry, HMSO, London.

17 RCEP, 2000. Energy ?The Changing Climate. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Twenty-second Report, June 2000, HMSO, London.

18 DETR, 2001. The draft UK climate change programme. DETR, 2001. HMSO, London.

19 USDOE, 2001.World Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels, 1980-1999. US Department of the Environment at http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1.xls