Do We Really Need a Few Billion More Locavores?
In a typically provocative and thoughtful post, New York Times' Freakonomics blog contributor Stephen Dubner poses the above-mentioned question after he finishes making "three scoops of orange sherbet" at a cost of $12 to X-many hours. He tries to fathom whether it really is more environmentally sound for the whole world to grow our own food or eat only locally grown and raised food. To find the answer, he seeks out locavore guru Michael Pollan, but to no avail. Dubner persists and arrives at a surprising and ultimately flawed conclusion.
In searching for the answer he came across an article by Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews in the Environmental Science and Technology journal, which concluded:
"We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than 'buying local.' Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food."
Here is Dubner's flawed conclusion:
"This is a pretty strong argument against the perceived environmental and economic benefits of locavore behavior—mostly because Weber and Matthews identify the fact that is nearly always overlooked in such arguments: specialization (which Michael Pollan mostly dislikes, and which has been around for a long, long time) is ruthlessly efficient. Which means less transportation, lower prices—and, in most cases, far more variety, which in my book means more deliciousness and more nutrition. The same store where I blew $12 on ice cream ingredients will happily sell me ice cream in many flavors, dietetic options, and price points."
Dubner is clearly a first-rate economist and original thinker, but he doesn't know how to make ice cream and he doesn't know delicious. First of all, in no way does variety equal deliciousness, and even more importantly, in no way do agribusiness practices resulting in the efficient economies of scale he mentions produce tastier, more nutritious food. In fact, it's just the opposite.
I'll continue to eat as much local food as is feasible and affordable, and eat more eggs, fish, chicken, and vegetables. In other words I'll eat more like Michael Pollan and less like Stephen Dubner.
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
18 Comments:
His conclusion isn't flawed. It is not even an excessive extrapolation from the facts presented. Your conclusion is the 'flawed' one, in that you are overlaying personal preferences that are presented with no regard to the environment, or the sustainability of your choices in a very developed world. I respect your right to make those choices and add those factors. However, I would respect you far more if you presented ways to temper the sad fact that it does indeed appear that the agribusiness way is the more environmental way, rather than attacking the messenger.
sarahdlr at 10:15AM on 06/11/08
Well, I think the take-away lesson here is that we're stuck with two untenable choices: agribusiness may end up being more environmentally sound and economically efficient, but in doing so may lose quality. Eating locally may be higher quality (both in heath and taste) but is so at the expense of extreme inefficiency and possible environmental and economic unsustainability.
rheogs at 10:41AM on 06/11/08
I would have to agree with sarahdlr in that his conclusion isn't flawed. It may be biased, but then again, so is yours, and so is everyone else's. This is more an issue to be viewed through an economical standpoint. It is easier to specialize than to be broad when it comes to economics.
Jikuu at 10:43AM on 06/11/08
I believe that your logic is off. For one, Dubner does not actually state that he will eat fewer eggs, meat, etc. The ES&T article suggests that shift. He merely draws the conclusion that it is more economically/environmentall efficient to get food from agribusiness. That conclusion IS based on data, and not incorrect. (BTW, he is not an economist. He's a journalist. Levitt is the one with the degree.)
He equates variety to deliciousness as well as reducing gaps in nutrition, something that is achieved by not merely eating local. You also did not post his other points in reaching his opinion.
He did say (1) deliciousness is subjective, and (2) there are bound to be gaps in nutrition. Consider those places with shorter growing seasons or where the soil is so degraded that it is hard to grow crops, let alone ones that are full of the necessary nutrients.
synaesthesia.dc at 10:56AM on 06/11/08
So I guess this means we should focus our buying on farms whose production is carbon neutral.
jamieforrest at 10:59AM on 06/11/08
I feel like you completely misrepresent his conclusion. He says that through variety you achieve a more nutritious and (in his opinion) delicious. You obviously disagree with that portion, but it doesn't make it any more flawed than your point.
And, when you think the fact that he's talking about this on a very wide-scale, it's obvious that he's got a very valid point that isn't at all flawed.
dcoates at 11:07AM on 06/11/08
We can't forget to consider the other benefits of buying local including more interaction with the person who produces the food. This can mean safer food (everyone wants their tomatoes from the guy down the street right now) and more say in how the food is grown (try asking big agro about their water use and waste runoff).
And if you read the conclusions of the study Dubner references, you'll note that "food miles" play a much bigger role in the carbon footprint of vegetables. It's just that there are so many more inputs to animal agriculture, that they dwarf the carbon benefits of buying local.
mollyjade at 11:19AM on 06/11/08
yes, sorry Ed, but your argument completely fails to demonstrate a flaw in the cited author's, being overly simplistic and further skewing a contention in the original discussion.
i8alot at 11:41AM on 06/11/08
When we buy vegetables, meat, eggs, and milk locally, aren't they also more likely to have been brought to us by the kinds of small producers whose "production phase" emits fewer greenhouse gases (and is otherwise more responsible and diverse as well)? Or is this a naive assumption? And why not reduce meat consumption AND buy local vegetables, since that would be even a little more responsible?
I read Dubner's post yesterday and found it extremely irritating. No one, as far as I know, is claiming that the whole world can eat in some ideal Pollan-approved way, but does that mean that those of us who CAN should not feel obliged to, just b/c the difference we're making is small? I was pleased that so many commenters responding to his post pointed out that you can make delicious ice cream for way less than $12.
Robin Bellinger at 11:43AM on 06/11/08
And PS it is incorrect for Dubner to say that Pollan dislikes specialization, I think. Pollan is not arguing that we should all grow all our own food (although he does encourage some gardening), and he has a great deal of admiration for specialists like the amazing farmer in his chapters on polyculture. He is arguing--I think--that when we have "specialists" growing single crops propped up by the government as they deplete the environment and make us all unhealthy, that isn't really efficiency. It just doesn't make any sense.
Robin Bellinger at 11:50AM on 06/11/08
What Jikuu said.
Start with your metier of specialization and your final answer will inevitably result from that rhetorical posture.
To me it is like discussing which of one's children one prefers - it is an impossible task, they are both there - each with their strengths and weaknesses.
foodvox at 12:24PM on 06/11/08
Mr. Dubner is not actually an economist. He may be a first-rate writer and editor, but Steven Levitt is the economist behind the Freakonomics operation.
poptart at 12:36PM on 06/11/08
Being a strict locavore is dumb. Most of the places in the world where people are starving to death are locavores, but not by their choice.
Also, the best of anything is not sold locally. The best is sold elsewhere for the highest price. The transportation costs becomes a smaller component of the price.
eatorama at 1:22PM on 06/11/08
My biggest issue with the article is the conclusion is made because he failed at what he did, once, and then gave up. If you buy all the stuff for a garden and then never garden again then you'll never re-coup the cost, but if you continue to use those tools and more importantly the lessons learned, it can become very cost effective to grow some of your own veggies.
twicebuzzed at 2:37PM on 06/11/08
Carbon emissions are a significant problem and I'm glad that people are thinking about them more and more, but they are hardly the only cause of environmental harm. All that paragraph from ES&T addresses is the carbon footprint of certain food choices. There is so much more to consider regarding the environmental costs of agribusiness.
Eatorama, I strongly disagree with your statement about the best not ever being local. If that were true, I'd be able to get the best fruits at a grocery store in New York. This is not even close to the case as local apples and peaches from the farmer's market trounce the offerings from any grocery store.
ECA at 3:12PM on 06/11/08
Some really good points arguing both sides of this, awesome! I'll try here with my feeble addition.
A few things are overlooked by the article and comments. First off, how the hell does comparing the costs of a retail purchase at the end of the carbon footprint chain, combined with his apparent lack of shopping and culinary skills, at all compare with local producers that are buying in bulk at a wholesale rate? It doesn't. It's a ridiculous, hyperbolic comparison that is so prevalent in the media and used as a tool by bullsh*t artists that can only make their points of linear thinking by exaggerating, dividing and framing the discussion into a black or white mindf*ck. Had he left it as just a comedic intro it wouldn't be worth commenting on. But he uses it as the foundation of his comparative argument. The indication of his exaggerated title alone transmutes anything he's got to add to the discussion as highly suspect.
Again, hyperbole is used in his assessment of the quality of commercial goods being better, feeding on the ignorance of his audience because statistically very few have neither now nor have ever grown vegetables and understand the simplicity and bounty. And just as general appeal is concerned, his assessment of what is better is, like deliciousness, is obviously, highly subjective - neigh, highly trained on lifetime of commercially produced product. And he discloses no point of objective comparison to suggest otherwise.
He asks, "Are you sure you really saved money by growing your own zucchini." Absolutely. I stick a seed in the ground, water it, pull a few weeds, maybe use some home-made organic pesticide, harvest, compost remains to nourish next crop. How is that not saving money and carbon footprint? To suggest otherwise is absolutely ludicrous.
And to top it off he completely misses the point of environmental as well as community, individual, and environmental health benefits and biodiversity of producing locally - including growing your own.
This article is narrow-minded trash journalism and not worth our time. But we all fell for it.
It's a spade. Boo hoo, next.
travin at 3:59PM on 06/11/08
Interesting, bbc radio 4 dedicated the food program to this issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/foodprogramme.shtml
jennywenny at 6:10PM on 06/11/08
Like any other good idea, buying produce locally has its problems. For one, seasons. My local farmer's market is open less than half the year, and if that was the only place I bought produce, right now I could have lettuce, spinach, aspargus and radishes. If I want any sort of produce in December, it's going to have to travel to get here unless it's grown in a greenhouse, and I have to wonder how carbon-friendly that is.
I buy from the farmer's market from the time it opens until the day it closes, but I still buy other produce at grocery stores. I happen to like bananas and oranges and other things that don't grow in this climate. Could I live without those things? Sure. But I don't want to. Nor do I want to give up coffee, salt, pepper, most spices, or sugar, none of which are locally produced.
When it comes to "food miles," one thing that's left out of the equation is the fact that the truck that delivers the produce likely has a load of something that will go the other way. Eliminate the food being shipped one way, and there's still the freight that has to go the other way. Maybe it's food going both ways, but it's different food. It's not like we're shipping carrots back and forth across the country just for the fun of it.
dbcurrie at 12:30AM on 06/12/08