Hidden costs of food revealed
The cost of the weekly food shop does not reflect the true cost of food production for people and the environment, says one expert.
By measuring and reporting the impact of things like synthetic fertilisers and antibiotics in food production, more action could be taken to improve farming methods, senior lecturer at the University of South Australia, Harpinder Sandhu, said.
Sandhu, who did his doctorate at Lincoln University in agroecology, developed a way of accounting for the environmental and social costs and benefits of different farming systems.
The framework was created in collaboration with 150 scientists, economists, farmers and policymakers from 30 countries through the United Nations Environment Program, supported by the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.
It has been used to evaluate the hidden cost of food in Britain, and the United States.
A report addressing how this approach could be applied globally outlined how certain chemicals found in pesticides and hormones used widely in conventional farming resulted in yearly health costs of US$217 billion (NZ$304.2b) in the European Union and US$340b in the US.
‘‘Our current research indicates that if food costs US$1 (NZ$1.42) in the market today then it has US$2 worth of negative cost associated with it if we cost all the damages to [the ecology] and human health.’’
It varied according to the food production system and could help ensure fair pricing to farmers, consumers and industry, he said.
True cost accounting could be applied to New Zealand agriculture, although it had not been done.
Natural, social and human capital were all assessed using the method.
Natural resources such as clean air, water, soil and biodiversity (natural capital) are positives on the ledger, and the loss of them are counted as costs.
The value of networks and relationships between people in a society (social capital) and the skills, knowledge and experience possessed by people (human capital) are also counted.
The loss of previously common mixed farming systems, which gave way to dairying in Canterbury, was an example of the loss of skills and experience, and included the impact on human health from exposure to chemicals, Sandhu said.
‘‘Generally, mixed or integrated farming that was practised for many centuries until the 1960s was more sustainable in terms of maintaining soil health and biodiversity on farming landscapes.
‘‘Farmers in Canterbury used to practice mixed crop and livestock operations until about 2000.
‘‘We have observed loss of soil, heavy nutrient load in waterways, antibiotics in the ecological system and the loss of shelter belts since dairy operations became popular in the region,’’ he said.
Despite dairy cows grazing on pasture, a large amount of concentrated feed was also fed to cows along with large doses of antibiotics to avoid the spread of any animal disease.
Much of this made its way into the soil, waterways and air, through cow dung and urine, he said.
Other systems, such as organic farming, did not have these detrimental effects, however they still used fossil fuel to run machinery or transport produce.
Benefits from sustainable agricultural practices were also not captured by farm or national accounts, Sandhu said.
If the accounting method was adopted, policymakers and economists might include it when calculating gross domestic product (GDP), which could lead to policies that encouraged farming practices that led to things like greater amounts of carbon stored in the soil and increased biodiversity, he said.
Sandhu said that while New Zealand agriculture was much better than other intensive farming systems, many of its effects were not well reflected in farm accounts.
And despite pasture-based grazing there were ‘‘huge issues’’ with water and air quality in Canterbury. Horticulture and sheep and beef farming were not off the hook either.
‘‘A proper true cost accounting at industry, regional and national level is required to fully understand the costs and benefits of New Zealand agriculture,’’ Sandhu said.