The “?” is because I am never really sure what is meant by the term ' food miles'.
Many people use 'food miles' as a shorthand to express a general discomfort with the global transport of food and the associated environmental and social impact. As with so many ethical and environmental issues the issues are complex; the distance travelled from field to door is a very poor indicator of the environmental impact of food, and then there are the broader issues of the social benefits trade can deliver.
Some reasons why the use of 'food miles' is not useful:
As a means of determining which foods are good and bad for our planet, 'food miles' are too simplistic a measure. The term has had the virtue of harnessing public opinion and stimulating debate over what food can be delivered at an acceptable environmental cost but sensible decisions need to be guided by a more sophisticated measures.
Riverford's transport emissions
We import relatively little produce (around 80% of box contents over the year are home grown) and we never airfreight. Transport from grower's gate to doorstep accounts for 60% of our total emissions (click here to find out what makes up the rest): 21% is the result of imports (ships 15% and trucks 6%) and 39% UK transport (lorries 13% and vans 26%).