PrintIf It's Fresh and Local, Is It Always Greener?
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."
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.
6 Comments:
This is interesting and hits on one of my big complaints when Whole Foods first invaded my city. They purchased a local chain, who tended to carry mostly locally grown produce and it was very inexpensive yet high quality. With WF's insistence on Organic produce they quickly replaced much of the non-organic items because there are no local growers that are certified organic.
Instead of a beautiful bunch of flat leafed parsley the size of my head that stayed fresh for a week and cost me .99 they now sell these pathetic little clumps of half wilted parsley shipped in from California and they charge me $2.50. I used to be able to buy big bunches of other kinds of herbs but instead they started carrying the organic crap that comes in little plastic clamshells which are again shipped from California.
Luckily I have moved since then and am much closer to a year round Farmer's Market and only have to go to WF when there is something I just cannot get anywhere else.
vox8ight at 8:22AM on 12/11/07
Hmm.. different individuals must read into that article differently. Ed, you seem to hang onto the point that individuals should not drive SUVs to buy few items and revisit the market often. To me, that is mostly common sense. The nuanced debate comes from other parts of the article. One of the main passages that stuck out to me was:
"If mass producers of strawberries ship their product to Chicago by truck, the fuel cost of transporting each carton of strawberries is relatively small, since it is tucked into the back along with thousands of others.
But if a farmer sells his strawberries at local farmers’ markets in California, he ferries a much smaller amount by pickup truck to each individual market. Which one is better for the environment?"
The debate is over whether conventional wisdom that locally grown food leaves a smaller carbon footprint than commercially shipped food. If you are so sure that local is better (for the environment), then I'm sure you believe the numbers will back you up.
I think that technological advances in the coming years will negate the idea of carbon footprints as a discussion. The focus will then shift primarily on taste. The idea I got from the article was that we have to really do some math and calculations before we can say buying local is better for the environment. You may believe this debate is on the wrong subject (food effects on the environment vs food taste/flavor), but there should be no question as to whether the idea of "carbon footprint" has seeped into our food conversations.
foodinmouth at 10:11AM on 12/11/07
I get really annoyed by people who fly in private jets lecturing others about the environment. Occassionally fine, but Travolta flies around in a huge plane... one of 5 he owns.
NSW at 10:34AM on 12/11/07
Sometimes when information provided is on something that hits close to home it can be startling.
From this article the following passages made me blink several times:
Quote:
fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year.
Quote:
FOR as long as most people can remember, food has been getting cheaper and farming has been in decline. In 1974-2005 food prices on world markets fell by three-quarters in real terms. Food today is so cheap that the West is battling gluttony even as it scrapes piles of half-eaten leftovers into the bin.
Quote:
That is why this year's price rise has been so extraordinary. Since the spring, wheat prices have doubled and almost every crop under the sun—maize, milk, oilseeds, you name it—is at or near a peak in nominal terms. The Economist's food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005.
If this is true and food prices rise for the consumer at that great an increase, it's my feeling that most people would shop simply by cost due to necessity, regardless of where it came from.
Would the scenario above make local foods or "greener foods" cost less?
Karen Resta at 11:19AM on 12/11/07
I would have to question the impartiality of UC Davis and Iowa State -- the other "experts" mentioned, each is a state agricultural school established to support their local food producers.
I can't imagine a study coming out of UC Davis that wouldn't support California's agriculture industry.
It is good to raise questions about how we obtain local produce. But there are also those of us, in urban settings, who walk to the farmer's market, join CSAs and don't even own a car.
BostonZest at 11:47AM on 12/11/07
I think there's an interesting difference between the perception about what's more green and any given product's actual impact on the environment, which is a pretty complicated calculation.
At first glance, local really seems like the right choice, but is it the right choice in every situation?
Should I choose to eat dangerously overfished local cod or go for certified sustainable wild Alaskan salmon?
Quinoa is a hardy Central and South American crop that grows with a naturally bitter layer that protects it from pest damage. It travels farther than New Jersey corn, but it has far less ecological impact at the source. How do you run an accurate calculation to compare that?
missginsu at 3:52PM on 12/11/07