Get 20% off your bill at Pizza Express


It’s not easy to do the right thing these days, especially on the food front. Not so long ago, we were happy to load up our trolleys with whatever the supermarkets pushed at us, the more battery reared, industrially grown, air-freighted and genetically modified the better. How carefree that seems now, when a trip to the shops can present enough ethical dilemmas to tax King Solomon. Animal welfare, pesticides, antibiotics, food miles, carbon emissions… there are so many issues to be considered that it can leave the conscientious shopper’s head in a spin.
Do you choose a tomato grown in a heated greenhouse here over one grown in the open air in Spain? Better an English apple kept for six months in refrigerated storage or a New Zealand import shipped by sea? Is an organic leg of lamb from a farm 50 miles away, better than a regular one from the local farm shop?
Problems, problems. And now we have another level of complexity to deal with. The latest buzz phrase is “food print”, the amount of land needed to supply one person’s nutritional needs for a year. With the world population growing by an estimated half a billion every decade, and a concomitant loss of agricultural land to housing and development, it’s not hard to understand why this has become the hot topic de nos jours.
The term was coined by researchers at Cornell University in New York state, who found that a person who followed a low-fat vegetarian diet would need less than half an acre per year to produce their food. A high-fat diet with a lot of meat, on the other hand, needed 2.1 acres. They concluded, however, that the most efficient diet was one that married the two, as raising livestock made productive use of less fertile ground unsuitable for growing crops.

Clearly food prints differ from area to area, depending not just on how fertile the land is, but also on the eating habits of the inhabitants. Equally clearly, those who demand less intensive farming techniques – free range, organic, etc – use up more land proportionately than those eating more mass-produced food.
Next year two studies sponsored by the Rural Economy and Land Use programme will report on just such issues in this country. Professor Bruce Traill, at Reading University, has been looking at the potential effects on our landscape if we were all to meet governmental targets by eating five portions of fresh fruit and vegetables a day, while Professor Gareth Edwards-Jones of the University of Wales has been looking at the pros and cons of eating locally produced fruit and veg against those produced abroad.
Could it turn out that by doing the right thing we’ve been doing the wrong thing all along? Whatever the outcome, food prints are here to stay.
For the best local produce in your area visit the Times Real Food Directory

Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£100k
The National Skills Academy for Social Care
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
£75k - £85k
Confidential
London
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
$3.5 million
Also avaliable for rent
Times Online Property Search will help you find it
Amazing Far East Offers - Visit Hong Kong
from £499pp
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
We should consider the inherent value of human ingenuity.
While we may worry about our foodprints limiting production of foods for humanity, consider the multiplier affects of skyscrapers - with mutilple floors and what could be done if we use that multiplier effect of buildings - offering us the opportunity to use multiple floors - for greenhouse growth of foods,. using recycled water and waste from human activity in other floors to provide the nutrients for raising crops on those food floors.
The energy to operate that arrangement could be obtained from utilizing thin film solar panels in the sides of the buildings and windpower electricity, capturing the exciting potential of high elevation winds of those high rise skysctraper buildings.
Then look to the future, when buildings will include a complex of slyways and industry, transporting the activities and goods and services of human commerce that promotes and supports efficient growth through cooperation.
Will Mische, St. Cloud, Minnesota
So, again in order to live with the Earth, it requires much fewer people. Another example would be that if everyone would use wood heat the forests would disappear in a year. Another is the making of maple syrup and preparing for distribution of sea algae,,,,,,very energy consuming. Over population is a serious problem.
Earl, Duluth, U.S.
Wow, I wish I would have coined this phrase. I have believed for years since the organic craze began that we cannot feed our own folks, much less the world with organic foods. We need to look at how to increase yield and keep the costs down so that the poorest people can afford to eat. Compare shop in a regular grocery vs the stores usually located in the more exclusive sections of town promoting organic, cage free, range fed, etc., and one realizes that most people cannot afford to shop organic exclusively. Also, anyone knows that less yield come from these farms. I like the term "food print". I will be interested in the future studies.
Marty Loeffler, RD, CSR, LD, Portland, USA/Oregon