In This Article
Subscribe to Environment Updates
David Langford/AP
Is Local Food Really More Environmentally Friendly?
Hidden carbon costs suggest that locally produced food may have as much, if not more, of an environmental impact as industrialized farm products.
30-Second Summary
Eating locally may not be as environmentally friendly as leaders of the locavore movement had previously thought.
Local eating has been touted as the next wave in sustainable living. Although no exact definition of “local” exists, proponents of the local food movement generally believe that produce should travel no more than 100 to 200 miles from its original source.
The carbon footprint of local food, which requires little transportation, is believed by many to be smaller than that produced by large-scale, industrial farming, which ships edibles thousands of miles.
But new evidence suggests that hidden carbon costs may significantly increase the environmental impact of local food production and distribution. “Local food systems are often built around small-scale logistics,” says Chris Foster, a food researcher. “You begin to make more trips in cars. More food is shifted around in small trucks and vans, which are relatively energy-inefficient ways of moving.”
Additional factors, including the energy required to farm local produce in greenhouses during cold months, can offset the benefits of local food production. Deforestation caused by an increasing number of local farms can also damage the environment.
Nevertheless, there are clear positive aspects to local eating, such as the quality of food produced and the economic boost to the community.
Moreover, researchers have not fully determined all of the variables involved in measuring the environmental impact of food production on both a local and industrial scale. Food researcher Holly Hill noted, “There are so many complexities. Trying to make those real exact calculations is nearly impossible.”
Local eating has been touted as the next wave in sustainable living. Although no exact definition of “local” exists, proponents of the local food movement generally believe that produce should travel no more than 100 to 200 miles from its original source.
The carbon footprint of local food, which requires little transportation, is believed by many to be smaller than that produced by large-scale, industrial farming, which ships edibles thousands of miles.
But new evidence suggests that hidden carbon costs may significantly increase the environmental impact of local food production and distribution. “Local food systems are often built around small-scale logistics,” says Chris Foster, a food researcher. “You begin to make more trips in cars. More food is shifted around in small trucks and vans, which are relatively energy-inefficient ways of moving.”
Additional factors, including the energy required to farm local produce in greenhouses during cold months, can offset the benefits of local food production. Deforestation caused by an increasing number of local farms can also damage the environment.
Nevertheless, there are clear positive aspects to local eating, such as the quality of food produced and the economic boost to the community.
Moreover, researchers have not fully determined all of the variables involved in measuring the environmental impact of food production on both a local and industrial scale. Food researcher Holly Hill noted, “There are so many complexities. Trying to make those real exact calculations is nearly impossible.”
Headline Link: ‘Food miles’ may not add up
Roberta Kwok at Salon.com examined the carbon footprint of her local farmers market, attempting to determine how much greenhouse gas was emitted in the transportation of four foods by both local and industrial-scale farmers. According to Kwok, “Local farmers [proved] more carbon-friendly on squash. … But wholesalers beat local farmers on the four other produce items, boasting fewer average carbon dioxide emissions per pound of apples, oranges, lettuce and greens.”
Source: Salon.com
Background: The hidden carbon costs of local food and farming
According to a New York Times piece published in 2006, “There are many good reasons for eating local—freshness, purity, taste, community cohesion and preserving open space—but none of these benefits compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel consumption.” But the Times emphasized that the environmental impact of farming cannot be measured without taking into account all factors of production, including “water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications,” and much more.
Source: The New York Times
FindingDulcinea examines the new trend in sustainable farming, exploring how independent food production may actually be at odds with some environmental ideals, including fuel emissions and deforestation.
Source: findingDulcinea
Opinions & Analysis: The global picture of local food
According to researchers in Europe and the United States who attempt to account for all the resources required to produce food, including fertilizer, fuel, greenhouse building materials and heating, cooling and packaging equipment, “‘local’ is not the best way to think about food and energy, or the best basis for food-buying decisions.” The Boston Globe notes that “Judged by unit of weight, ship and rail transport in particular are highly energy efficient.” Thus, large-scale farm transport can cause less environmental damage per item than small, independent trucks driven by local farmers.
Source: The Boston Globe
In his opinion piece, “Is eating locally a crock?” Jacob Grier recognizes that, despite some “farfetched” claims made by local food proponents, local eating may “connect the buyer to a community, put him in touch with seasonality, introduce him to less common cultivars, [and] make him feel better about his environmental impact (though local isn't always better).”
Source: Los Angeles Times
Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have received a grant to study the public health impact of local eating. Although there’s no solid evidence that local food has a higher nutritional value, eating locally may prompt people to eat a greater variety of foods, and keeps processed foods off their plates.
Source: The New York Times
A food blog dedicated to the benefits of eating locally offers ten reasons why locally procured produce is better for your taste buds, health and the environment: among them, “Eating local protects us from bio-terrorism.”
Source: Life Begins at 30
Related Topic: How to eat local
Local Harvest tracks local food sources across the United States. Whether you are looking for farmers markets, restaurants, share programs or co-ops, Local Harvest pinpoints the closest resources to any location you select.
Source: Local Harvest
The 100-Mile Diet is an initiative to get people across North America to commit to eating food produced within a 100-mile radius. The 100-Mile Diet Web site shows you how to get started with the challenge, allows you to tell your story and helps you track others on the diet.
Source: 100-Mile Diet
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2017 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
