<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; food and grocery retailing</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Taking risks with the brand</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Innocent]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[NatureWorks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/innocent.jpg" align="right" height="273" width="176" />The Goodall household is well-trained. Compostable products get put on the compost heap. Plastic bottles end up in the recycling bin. Where should Innocent’s new smoothie bottles made from bio-degradable corn starch go? Surprisingly, the answer is into landfill.

Innocent, the company with one of the purest brands in the UK, has made a mistake. For the last year it has used a new material called PLA for one of its ranges of drinks. It admitted last week that it would cease to use this bio-plastic later this year. But on its website it was still making some surprising claims. It says that the bottles made from this bio-plastic break down in garden compost heaps. They will not. PLA needs to be heated for several days to temperatures far greater than those in a domestic compost bin before it begins to rot. The bottles would break down in a commercial composter, but very few local authorities operate one of these plants. Innocent’s ethical consumers are going to find a large number of plastic bottles at the bottom of their compost heap next spring.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/innocent.jpg" align="right" height="273" width="176" />The Goodall household is well-trained. Compostable products get put on the compost heap. Plastic bottles end up in the recycling bin. Where should Innocent’s new smoothie bottles made from bio-degradable corn starch go? Surprisingly, the answer is into landfill.</p>
<p>Innocent, the company with one of the purest brands in the UK, has made a mistake. For the last year it has used a new material called PLA for one of its ranges of drinks. It admitted last week that it would cease to use this bio-plastic later this year. But on its website it was still making some surprising claims. It says that the bottles made from this bio-plastic break down in garden compost heaps. They will not. PLA needs to be heated for several days to temperatures far greater than those in a domestic compost bin before it begins to rot. The bottles would break down in a commercial composter, but very few local authorities operate one of these plants. Innocent’s ethical consumers are going to find a large number of plastic bottles at the bottom of their compost heap next spring.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36#more-36" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Food packaging and climate change</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[shops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/food-packaging.jpg" align="left" height="74" hspace="5" width="69" />A recent Henley Centre survey suggested that 86% of people were eager to buy goods with less packaging, up 20% in the last two years. Nothing arouses as much spontaneous anger among British householders as the ‘over-packaging’ of foods. Recent newspaper headlines conveyed righteous indignation about the policies of UK retailers, in particular the failure to make all packaging recyclable.

The newspapers completely missed the point. Three issues need to be emphasised:
<ul>
	<li>Food packaging is a vanishingly small fraction of UK waste. Waste food is far more important.</li>
	<li>Good packaging is vital: it helps protect food from damage and helps lengthen its shelf life.</li>
	<li>Recyclable food packaging may actually be bad for climate change.</li>
</ul>
Making these points too loudly can get you lynched in some middle-class areas of Britain. Nevertheless, it needs to be said repeatedly that packaging, particularly of food, is not the environmental disaster it is made out to be.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/food-packaging.jpg" align="left" height="74" hspace="5" width="69" />A recent Henley Centre survey suggested that 86% of people were eager to buy goods with less packaging, up 20% in the last two years. Nothing arouses as much spontaneous anger among British householders as the ‘over-packaging’ of foods. Recent newspaper headlines conveyed righteous indignation about the policies of UK retailers, in particular the failure to make all packaging recyclable.</p>
<p>The newspapers completely missed the point. Three issues need to be emphasised:</p>
<ul>
<li>Food packaging is a vanishingly small fraction of UK waste. Waste food is far more important.</li>
<li>Good packaging is vital: it helps protect food from damage and helps lengthen its shelf life.</li>
<li>Recyclable food packaging may actually be bad for climate change.</li>
</ul>
<p>Making these points too loudly can get you lynched in some middle-class areas of Britain. Nevertheless, it needs to be said repeatedly that packaging, particularly of food, is not the environmental disaster it is made out to be.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39#more-39" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Soil Association and air freight</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/41</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/41#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[aviation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/41</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only 1% of imported organic food comes by air. But the Soil Association says that air freight ‘can generate 177 times’ the CO2 of shipping. Air transport is necessary for some fruit and delicate vegetables which provide a vital source of income in some poor countries.
The Association was caught in a dilemma. It didn’t want [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/kenyan-french-beans.jpg" align="right" height="301" hspace="5" width="200" />Only 1% of imported organic food comes by air. But the Soil Association says that air freight ‘can generate 177 times’ the CO2 of shipping. Air transport is necessary for some fruit and delicate vegetables which provide a vital source of income in some poor countries.</p>
<p>The Association was caught in a dilemma. It didn’t want to give its valuable imprimatur to foods that caused climate damage but neither did it want to impoverish poor tropical communities.</p>
<p>It carried out a detailed and thoughtful consultation with stakeholders. It seems a model of its kind. The consultation produced a consensus that air freight was only acceptable if the products were farmed in a way that brought development to the local community. In essence the Association is saying that only ‘Fairtrade’ products will be able to carry its valuable label. It won’t be enough just to meet the ordinary standards for organic agriculture.</p>
<p>Peter Melchett, the policy director of the Association, said that the ‘results of our very widespread consultation show that most people in the North and the South say that they only support air freight if it delivers real environmental and social benefits. The linking of organic and ethical or Fairtrade standards does that’.</p>
<p>The Soil Association will now move to ratify this decision, which went against central government advice, at least as expressed in a recent speech by a minister.</p>
<p>In the same press release it also announced a move to involve the Carbon Trust in providing a ‘footprint’ for organic foods (please see the article on <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/09/15/7">organic food and carbon emissions in Carbon Commentary Newsletter #1</a>). It said it would move towards carbon labelling of organic foods (please see the article on <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20">Tesco and Wal-Mart in Carbon Commentary Newsletter #2</a> for reasons why we think this is a mistake).</p>
<p>In a slightly surprising move, it also announced that it would seek to ‘actively encourage people to eat less meat’. Since beef cultivation is an important source of emissions, this makes good sense, but the Association is taking a risk by suggesting people should change their diet.</p>
<p>It also intends to review whether heated glasshouses are appropriate recipients of organic labels. This last point is well overdue. The carbon footprint of a food from a Dutch heated glasshouse is likely to be far greater than an air-freighted equivalent grown in the tropics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/41/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Consumer segmentation: Research from the Henley Centre and Marks and Spencer</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/21</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/21#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Marks &amp; Spencer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #2]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[marketing issues]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[shops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/m&#38;s.bmp" align="right" height="67" width="163" /> Many companies selling to UK families have a strong sense that consumer demands are shifting rapidly. M&#38;S recently talked to Carbon Commentary about its perceptions of changes in attitudes and behaviour. This article compares its results with those of a survey by the Henley Centre in summer 2007.

During the last year or so, the percentage of 'green zealots' in M&#38;S research has risen from 3-4% to nearer 8%. Henley also sees a figure of 8% for the two greenest groups 'principled pioneers' and 'vocal activists'. A further 31% (Henley Centre) or 30-35% (M&#38;S) are actively concerned and want to adjust their behaviour. There has also been a big growth in this group in the last year.

In both surveys another third are aware of environmental and ethical issues, but are unlikely to take active steps unless pushed. A final quarter or so don't care very much. M&#38;S says that they are 'struggling'. Henley calls them 'disengaged'.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/m&amp;s.bmp" align="right" height="67" width="163" /> Many companies selling to UK families have a strong sense that consumer demands are shifting rapidly. M&amp;S recently talked to Carbon Commentary about its perceptions of changes in attitudes and behaviour. This article compares its results with those of a survey by the Henley Centre in summer 2007.</p>
<p>During the last year or so, the percentage of &#8216;green zealots&#8217; in M&amp;S research has risen from 3-4% to nearer 8%. Henley also sees a figure of 8% for the two greenest groups &#8216;principled pioneers&#8217; and &#8216;vocal activists&#8217;. A further 31% (Henley Centre) or 30-35% (M&amp;S) are actively concerned and want to adjust their behaviour. There has also been a big growth in this group in the last year.</p>
<p>In both surveys another third are aware of environmental and ethical issues, but are unlikely to take active steps unless pushed. A final quarter or so don&#8217;t care very much. M&amp;S says that they are &#8217;struggling&#8217;. Henley calls them &#8216;disengaged&#8217;.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/21#more-21" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/21/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tesco vs. Wal-Mart vs. carbon emissions</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Marks &amp; Spencer]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #2]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tesco]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Wal-Mart]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[shops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/wal-mart-tesco.bmp" align="left" height="117" vspace="10" width="200" />The rivalry between Tesco and Wal-Mart is well known. Tesco's imminent entry to the US heartland of the world's largest retailer may have created an extra edge to the battle. And, unsurprisingly, the two giants are squaring up over carbon issues as well as over such things as employee conditions and global sourcing policies.

Tesco said earlier this year that it would eventually put carbon labels on all its 70,000 food lines. It has been trying to find way of doing this using Life Cycle Analysis, putting a greenhouse gas cost on every element of a product's move from farm to plate. This was always a hugely over-ambitious project and recent weeks have seen the company drift back from its early optimism. Now Wal-Mart has come up with a similarly impossible dream – to use the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) to assess and manage the energy footprint of its suppliers. These big retailers know that they have to be seen to be doing something about greenhouse gases, so they have both launched incomplete schemes that will achieve little.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/wal-mart-tesco.bmp" align="left" height="117" vspace="10" width="200" />The rivalry between Tesco and Wal-Mart is well known. Tesco&#8217;s imminent entry to the US heartland of the world&#8217;s largest retailer may have created an extra edge to the battle. And, unsurprisingly, the two giants are squaring up over carbon issues as well as over such things as employee conditions and global sourcing policies.</p>
<p>Tesco said earlier this year that it would eventually put carbon labels on all its 70,000 food lines. It has been trying to find way of doing this using Life Cycle Analysis, putting a greenhouse gas cost on every element of a product&#8217;s move from farm to plate. This was always a hugely over-ambitious project and recent weeks have seen the company drift back from its early optimism. Now Wal-Mart has come up with a similarly impossible dream – to use the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) to assess and manage the energy footprint of its suppliers. These big retailers know that they have to be seen to be doing something about greenhouse gases, so they have both launched incomplete schemes that will achieve little.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20#more-20" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
