The Accidental Hedonist's Guide to:




My Book



99 Drams of Whiskey:The Accidental Hedonist's Quest for the Perfect Shot and the History of the Drink


Communication

A hole in the Locavore argument?

06/11/08, by Kate Hopkins Email 1336 views • Categories: Eat Local

My apologies for the title of this post, as I did not know what to say to convey my own perspective when it comes to the locavore movement.

My own argument for eating local isn't an environmental one, but rather one of taste. It is my opinion that smaller farms tend to pay more attention to details that allows them to grow better products. They don't have the responsibility to fill mega-sized orders from the likes of the distributors of Wal-Mart and Safeway that requires them to cut techniques that relate to quality. Of course this is mere supposition on my part, as I know close to nil about actual farming.

I do realize that a fair amount of people eat local under the assumption that the practice of eating food locally produced is better for the environment. The logic seems pretty straightforward: it takes less gas to move cabbage from fifty miles away versus cabbage from five hundred miles away. This assumption may be incorrect. From Environmental Science and Technology:

it's how food is produced, not how far it is transported, that matters most for global warming, according to new research published in ES&T. In fact, eating less red meat and dairy can be a more effective way to lower an average U.S. household's food-related climate footprint than buying local food, says lead author Christopher Weber of Carnegie Mellon University.

Weber and colleague Scott Matthews, also of Carnegie Mellon, conducted a life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gases emitted during all stages of growing and transporting food consumed in the U.S. They found that transportation creates only 11% of the 8.1 metric tons (t) of greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) that an average U.S. household generates annually as a result of food consumption. The agricultural and industrial practices that go into growing and harvesting food are responsible for most (83%) of its greenhouse gas emissions.

Not being a scientist, nor trained in input–output life-cycle assessment, I cannot neither defend nor dispute their conclusions. it is, however, the most detailed scientific report that I've seen yet in regarding the local food movement.

Of course this doesn't address the plethora of the other issues surrounding massive Ag-Farms, all of which should be considered when determining food choices. The recent Tomato recall is clear evidence of that. Issues surrounding the sustainability of the farming practices as well as the amount of nutrition supplied by these foods should also be considered.


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Patrick R [Visitor] Email
I prefer eating local foods, but like you, not for any strictly environmental reasons (although that also plays a part). Basically, I just like the idea of being able to talk to the people who farmed the food, support local economy, and so on. Plus, it also takes TIME to transport food across the continent, which affects freshness. At the farmers' market I can buy vegetables that were harvested the day before.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/08 @ 07:47
Comment from: Rebecca [Visitor] Email
I wish topics like this were simple. I buy local because I like the taste and want to promote my local economy. Buying local produce and meats doesn't always result in me paying the best or even the lowest prices; but I'd rather buy less and enjoy it than buy more and throw it out.

I appreciate the argument put forth by Environmental Science and Technology; and (at its base) they're probably right. Raising, slaughtering, and processing large herds of animals is a huge drain on resources and does create a lot of polution. Especially if the animals require vast amounts of drugs to keep them healthy (and producing milk).

I'm not a vegetarian, nor do I ever intend to be one. I drink milk regularly and love cheese. Finding a happy median - where I can reduce my carbon footprint and still eat the quality of food I want is not easy. But the more I know about where and how my food is produced gives me more options when I go shopping.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/08 @ 09:28
Comment from: Mithrandir [Visitor] Email · http://www.soundandfury.info/
None of the findings really surprise me. While on a per-mile basis large trucks and container ships chug down fuel, they sip slowly when you consider fuel per ton-mile.

Tractors on the other hand... I'm pretty sure there are relatively few emissions regulations for farm equipment. And a surprising amount of greenhouse gases are released by decomposing fertilizer.

Cannibalism is actually worse than eating cows. Humans take a very long time to mature, and are omnivores. So they expend much more energy over their lifetimes than they provide, and their feedstock is itself fairly inefficient.

You would be considerably better off eating vegans. Young vegan couch potatoes would be even better. But still worse than cows.

Chicken calories required about twice as many feedstock calories, which is pretty good for meat. Chicken grow quickly and don't move around a lot (at least the way they're usually raised).

Pork and lamb are about half as efficient. Cows are about half as efficient again. So 100 calories of beef takes about 800 calories of feedstock to produce.

Meat's poor feed efficiency is a big part of why food prices are going up: the Asian population is starting to be able to afford meat. Shifting caloric intake from grains to meat means (in essence) eating 2-8 times as much. There are a lot of Asians...

Want to save the world? Find a way to make biodiesel out of algae, and use the leftover bits as beef feedstock or fertilizer. And grow the algae on non-arable land.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/08 @ 10:15
All I know is that no ear of corn or tomato from a grocery store has EVER tasted as good as those that come from our favorite roadside produce stand in my town. The reasons may be varied, but the result is the same--it just tastes better and fresher when it's from the local farmer.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/08 @ 11:36
Comment from: Janet [Visitor] Email · http://foodperson.com
The study (and comments) just show how complex the whole food production and distribution question is. I think the best thing for most people is to be conscious eaters, pay attention to what we put in our mouths, and eat what's in season on our continent.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/08 @ 13:08
Comment from: Bear [Visitor] Email · http://slowfoodcolumbus.org
Thanks for this post. I buy local when I can for the same reasons you do -- it just tastes better, mostly. I've never quite bought the environmental argument because I really have no way of knowing how any of my produce comes to market. Big farms could use trucks or trains; my local farmer could drive a hybrid SUV or a 1938 GMC half-ton.

My guess is that adding the environmental impact of growing and harvesting practices actually makes a better case for local farmers. The environmental impact of, just to pick an example, large-scale hog farms, is staggering.
PermalinkPermalink 06/12/08 @ 03:36
Comment from: Jacqueline Church [Visitor] Email · http://JacquelineChurch.wordpress.com
I asked my farmers' market farmers what wine they had with dinner the night before. Wasn't made in Boston.

I'm also mindful that the "locavore" movement started in Berkley, CA. Not so tough to eat within a 100 mi radius there. Try Boston in February. Little different.

That said, I'll take my Scotch with my local, natural when I can get it meals...and make balanced choices whenever possible erring on the side of healthy for me- healthy for the planet AND delicious food.

e.g. Wild Alaskan seafood is worth supporting, or gulf shrimp from the White Boot Brigade, though hardly "local"...anyway here's a post I did on the "locavores"
http://gourmetfood.suite101.com/article.cf/locavores_and_100_mile_dieters

Jacqueline Church
Fork in Hand, Hope in Heart
PermalinkPermalink 06/17/08 @ 00:58
Comment from: marybeth [Visitor] Email · http://www.dinkswithkids.com
It's not just about fuel consumption. Well, OK, it probably IS ultimately about fuel consumption when you consider the amount of fuel it takes to plant and harvest the corn, process the corn, and transport the corn all around the country to feed lots and dairy "farms". Then you've got to move all those darned cows all over the place. In other words, I really find it hard to believe that beef from my local supermarket has a smaller carbon footprint than 100% pastured beef from my farmer....who delivers to me when he comes into town to visit family nearby! And, well...the taste can't even compare.
PermalinkPermalink 06/17/08 @ 20:20

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?