Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

If It's Fresh and Local, Is It Always Greener?

Posted by Ed Levine, December 11, 2007 at 7:00 AM

Andrew Martin in his Feed column in the New York Times business section questions just how green the locavore movement is.

What spurred his question? Researchers at UC Davis are conducting studies trying to determine the actual carbon footprint of local food.

Isn't this kind of a silly academic exercise? We don't need a study to tell us that driving to a farmers' market every day in a gas-guzzling SUV to buy a pound of local produce leaves a heavy carbon footprint and is bad for the environment.

The bottom line is this: Whenever possible we are better off eating food grown locally by responsible farmers who use sustainable growing methods, who care about the land and what we eat, whether said farmers are organic or not. Local food carefully grown tastes better, is in many cases better for us, and supports local economies and farmers. We don't need a study to tell us that organic food grown in California and shipped by truck to New York leaves a heavier carbon footprint than local produce grown and transported to market responsibly.

Martin talks about the UC Davis study fostering a more nuanced debate on eating a low-carbon diet. What he is really saying is not that we need a more nuanced debate. Rather, we should all try not to engage in hypocritical behavior in the name of being green. John Travolta and Larry David shouldn't ride around in private jets while castigating the rest of us for our environmental sins, and the rest of us should think before we drive a hundred miles in a gas guzzler for a perfect locally grown peach.

As one of the UC Davis researchers put it, "Don’t drive your sport utility vehicle to the farmers' market, buy one food item, and drive home again. Even if you are using reusable bags."

Post a Comment Favorite this!  (0)

Tags: carbon footprints, environment, green, locavorism, Serious Green