Brakes put on biofuels race after warning over soaring food prices

THE government is to "proceed cautiously" over the introduction of biofuels, after a report found they could be increasing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to food price rises.

Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, stressed yesterday that the Gallagher review of biofuels did not recommend a moratorium on the fuels, which are sourced from organic materials such as sugar beet and palm oil.

But she said she planned to consult formally on slowing down their introduction in line with the review's findings. She said the government would not "hesitate to alter our policy if that is what the science suggests to be appropriate".

The Gallagher study looked at the indirect effects of biofuel production. It called for them to be introduced more slowly than planned until controls were in place to prevent food prices being pushed up and forests or food-crop land being turned over to growing fuel.

The report warned that current policies might cause greenhouse gas emissions rather than cut them – for example, if forests were cleared for crop plantations. It also found biodiversity would be reduced.

It said increasing demand for biofuels was contributing to the rising price of food – notably oil seeds, which could see a spike of 75 per cent by 2020 under the worst-case scenarios – and increasing poverty.

Current policies could push up grain prices in the European Union by 15 per cent, sugar by 7 per cent and oilseed by 50 per cent, while in other parts of the world, millions more people could be pushed into poverty.

An extra 10.7 million people in India could find themselves in poverty, while in countries such as Kenya, Malawi and Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands could be affected by food price rises caused by biofuels.

But Professor Ed Gallagher, the chairman of the Renewable Fuels Agency and the man behind the report, admitted the figures did not take into account the impact of climate change, the boosts that could be provided to rural economies, or the fluctuating oil price.

The review recommended biofuel production should target idle and marginal land, and the use of so-called second-generation biofuels – which use waste parts of plants for energy to avoid land-use change and reduce competition with food production.

If existing global biofuels targets were met, there would be a 1 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 – if it was done in such a way that avoided changes to the way land is used.

The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation aims to ensure 5 per cent of all transport fuels come from organic sources, such as rapeseed oil or sugar beet, by 2010, up from 2.5 per cent at the moment.

But the Gallagher review called for the target to be slowed to rises of 0.5 per cent a year, hitting the 5 per cent target by 2013-14. The targets should not go beyond that unless they can be shown to be "demonstrably sustainable", the report said.

The study's authors said they believed a target of 5 per cent to 8 per cent of energy for transport fuels could be sustainably sourced from biofuels across Europe by 2020, lower than the proposed EU target of 10 per cent.

Greg Archer, one of the co-authors, said: "With the scale of the challenge that global warming presents, we simply can't afford to throw away good options for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if it can be done in a sustainable way."

Prof Gallagher said: "Our review makes clear that the risks of negative impacts from biofuels are real and significant, but it also lays out a path for a truly sustainable biofuels industry."

Ms Kelly told the Commons: "I believe it is right to adopt a more cautious approach until the evidence is clearer about the wider environmental and social effects of biofuels. We also need to allow time for more sustainable biofuel technologies to emerge."

Government warns against waste as check-out costs rocket

AFFORDABLE food can no longer be taken for granted, the government warned yesterday as it published a report on tackling rising prices, health and the environmental consequences of what we eat.

The Cabinet Office study said world food output had to rise to cope with a growing population, in the shadow of a changing climate and scarcer natural resources.

Cutting waste both in homes and in the developing world food chain, where some 40 per cent of food harvested is lost, will help to cut bills and meet rising demand, the study said. A third of all food bought in the UK is wasted, costing the average household £420 a year and causing unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

The report comes after Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, urged families to eat prudently, thinking before they eat, storing food properly and planning meals to avoid waste and save money.

The Cabinet Office Food Matters study urged a more joined-up approach to food policy, which covered climate change, safer food, healthier diets and fair prices.

It said rising agricultural prices and higher energy costs have "put a brake on the long-term trend of food becoming ever more affordable".

In the UK the poor are being hit hardest, with the poorest 10 per cent of families spending 15 per cent of their expenditure on food in 2005-6, compared with the richest 10 per cent of households just 7 per cent.

Mr Brown said: "Food price increases are a powerful reminder that access to ever more affordable food cannot be taken for granted, and it is the family finances of the poorest in our society that are hit hardest when food prices rise."

Kath Dalmeny, the policy director of food and farming alliance Sustain, said: "Gordon Brown appears to point the finger of blame at individuals, but supermarkets bombard shoppers with messages to buy and eat more, and we also know of farmers who have had to throw away up to a fifth of their crop because supermarkets say the fruit or veg is the wrong colour, size or shape."

Knock-on effects of drive for alternative to petrol

HELENA STUART

THE Gallagher review into biofuels yesterday warned they could contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and rising food prices.

The study was commissioned by the government in April, amid concern that biofuels could be competing with food production, damaging the environment and creating more carbon emissions than they saved.

The research, led by the Renewable Fuels Agency, included an examination of the "indirect" or knock-on effects of producing the fuels, which are made from organic materials such as maize, sugar cane and palm oil.

These could include what happens when crops such as oilseed rape are converted to biofuels, causing food manufacturers to turn to unsustainable palm oil instead.

Crops used for biofuels have taken in carbon dioxide during growth, so they are low carbon compared with the fossil fuels they replace. But in order to grow them, forests are often cleared.

The destruction of forests also releases carbon – counteracting the fuels' supposed benefit – while the use of fertilisers and transportation can also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, concerns have been raised that agricultural land is shifting to biofuel production, rather than growth of food crops, and that demand is helping to drive up global food prices.

Recent research published in Science found that in some cases converting land to biofuel production caused many times more emissions than the savings the fuels delivered – for example, from the large tracts of rainforest being cleared for palm oil plantations in Indonesia.

And in January a report from the Royal Society warned there was a risk that biofuels could fail to deliver hoped-for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and could damage the environment.

The Environmental Audit Committee, the government's top environment adviser, Professor Robert Watson, and green groups and aid agencies have all called for a moratorium on biofuels.

But the Gallagher review said that government policy should be amended, rather than abandoned.