Should we stop flying in organic food?

Should the Soil Association withdraw the 'organic' label from produce flown in from abroad? As the public debate hots up, critics insist a ban would threaten the livelihoods of farmers in developing nations. Others are more worried about the environmental impact ..

Guardian, UK

No

Claire Melamed, head of trade and corporate policy at charity Action Aid

A ban would have serious consequences for the developing world. It is important to keep the greenhouse gas emissions produced by organic air freight in perspective. The trade of fruit and vegetables from Africa to the UK accounts for only 0.1% of all the UK's emissions. Therefore, banning organic green beans from Kenya or mange tout from Zambia, say, is not going to make much difference to the UK's overall carbon footprint. However, there are many poor people in Africa who depend on that trade, so, for them, banning organic air freight means fewer children in schools, no investment in small businesses, less development of the economy and more poverty.

Of course, it is in the interest of the whole world to live in a greener way. No one denies that we should all be thinking about the effects on the planet of the emissions caused by aviation, but we shouldn't be looking to the poorest people in the world to save us from climate change. Every country is going to have to make some sacrifices for the environment and I think it is much fairer to ask everyone in the UK to give up one of their cars than it is to ask families in Africa to give up their entire year's income. It isn't acceptable for us to keep driving to the supermarket in our gas-guzzling 4 x 4s but stop people from developing countries from selling us their products because it has had to be flown into the UK. It shouldn't be the poor who suffer while we carry on in our own little world.

I don't think there is a single magic bullet to increase development in poorer countries but trade is undeniably a force for good - if it is the right sort of trade. In some countries exports are a very important part of the solution, and we can't deny that fact. At the moment, developing countries earn twice as much trading with UK supermarkets as the UK gives them in debt relief, so it is incredibly significant for their economies.

We all need to be thinking about ways to reduce poverty without damaging the environment. The organic movement should be a part of that, but rather than saying where the axe should fall now, we should be looking at how we can help organic farmers in Africa achieve this aim. A start would be giving them access to technology and investment so they can produce crops that have a longer shelf life and can be shipped to us, rather than air-freighted. We have to give them the tools to be able to reduce their environmental impact, rather than just cutting them out of the market.

Yes

Jon Stewart, campaigner for pressure group Airport Watch

There are major problems with the air-freighting of organic produce, which we need to address. The contribution of aviation to global warming is the most alarming. The figure that is often quoted is that it accounts for 2% of emissions worldwide. That figure seems quite low, but because it is a worldwide average and people in poor countries hardly fly, it essentially means the developed world's aviation emissions are proportionately very high.

Farmers in the developing world may have a sense of security from exporting fresh produce, but it is a false security because the poorest will feel the effects of climate change most immediately and most acutely. That's why richer countries need to take action first.

Another problem is the noise pollution caused by air freight and the impact it has on local communities in the UK. A lot of freight comes in on rather old, noisy planes, which often arrive at night. For example, East Midlands airport has more than 160 flights flying over rural Leicestershire every night and the people are being driven crazy by it. This may seem a small problem compared with what people in the developing world are facing, but don't forget they suffer from it too, only at the other end.

Also, air-freighting will soon become economically unsustainable as the demand for oil starts to outstrip supply. This will cause fuel prices, including the price of aviation kerosene, to rise rapidly. Farmers in Kenya who are growing organically are becoming almost entirely reliant on air freight to sell their goods. In the short term, that will bring some development benefits but it is a high-risk strategy. I would argue that it is unwise to become so dependent on a form of transport that won't be able to continue in the future the way it is now. Instead of being tied to this unsustainable form of trade, it would be more sensible to develop local trade, industry and agriculture.

It is a very difficult decision for ethical consumers to stop buying organic fresh produce that has been air-freighted to the UK because they naturally want to support farmers in the developing world. But they are also environmentally conscious. Therefore, I'm not advocating a ban on organic air freight overnight. But I do believe there has got to be a planned programme over the next 10 to 20 years where developing economies become less dependent on air freight and create more local opportunities. A selective ban with some exemptions introduced over a number of years seems the most equitable way forward.

· If you would like to comment on the Soil association's air freight consultation, visit soilassociation.org/airfreight. Read Peter Melchett on why the issue is dividing the Soil Association at blogs.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving

· Post questions and answers to Ask Leo The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1 3ER Fax: 020-7713 4366. Email:ethical.living@guardian.co.uk Please include your address and telephone number.