iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Eating Local: Does It Matter?


First Posted: 05/20/2011 3:03 pm EDT Updated: 03/18/2013 8:55 pm EDT

It is a veritable maxim of the modern environmental movement: To help heal the planet, eat local.

If only it were that simple.

A growing number of studies, including one recently published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, suggest that our food production and distribution systems are incredibly complex, making it increasingly difficult to rely on bumper-sticker solutions.

The most recent analysis, spearheaded by David Cleveland, a professor of environmental studies at U.C. Santa Barbara, looked at fruit and vegetable production in Santa Barbara County, a bountiful pannier of fruit and vegetable yields. The county is in the nation's top one percent in terms of agricultural value overall.

And Santa Barbara, with its farmers markets, organic farming, burgeoning networks of Community Supported Agriculture, and other deep-green bona fides, would seem a ripe locale for the food localization movement.

But Professor Cleveland and his co-authors, most of them former undergraduate students in the Environmental Studies Program, found that more than 99 percent of the produce grown and harvested in Santa Barbara County is, in fact, exported, and roughly 95 percent of the produce consumed in the county is actually brought in from elsewhere.

Some of the food is shipped in from from far-flung spots like Chile and Argentina. The most remote source? New Zealand.

The researchers also concluded that even if the situation were somehow remedied, and all produce grown in Santa Barbara County remained local (sold and consumed inside the county), the impact on greenhouse gases would be negligible, reducing emissions from the agrifood system by less than one percent overall.

Despite the popularity of the locavore movement, Cleveland argues, transportation really accounts for just a very small part of the agribusiness footprint.

This is not exactly a revolutionary notion. Previous studies have shown that despite widespread attention to the great distances that many agricultural products now travel in a globalized food system, the production phase dominates greenhouse gas emissions.

One recent analysis put transportation at about 11 percent of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, with final delivery from producer to retail outlet accounting for just four percent of emissions. The same study suggested that reducing our consumption of certain food categories that are high in emissions during their production, particularly red meat, would do far more to help the planet than trying to go 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," the authors found, "achieves more [greenhouse gas] reduction than buying all locally sourced food."

Cleveland believes his analysis highlights precisely what's wrong with emphasizing "eating local" as an end unto itself.

"The takeaway here is that if you just focus on localization -- well, food miles have a lot of cachet, locavores and all that," Cleveland told The Huffington Post. "But if you allow that that to become your strategy or the goal for your food system, you can get deceived and not really improve anything."

Better to choose other goals, Cleveland said, like better community nutrition, for which local agriculture is a necessary but not sufficient component. Indeed, the researchers noted that while the potential for locally grown produce to improve community nutrition is substantial, particularly among low-income families, simply substituting locally grown fruits and vegetables for imported fare "will not automatically have a positive effect."

"[T]here are many intervening cultural, social, economic, and geographic obstacles, including national agrifood policy," the authors wrote in the study. For localization to improve nutrition across an entire community, "a number of other changes would be needed to overcome these obstacles."

Labor creates another issue. "Harvesting strawberries -- a lot of it is done by migrants, and those migrants come from somewhere, they don't just magically appear," Cleveland said. "Communities in southern Mexico are being destroyed by economic policies in this country that drive people to work in American farm communities even as we localize our food system. We want a just food system, but not at the expense of families and communities elsewhere."

These are the sorts of targets and issues that food activists ought to be keeping in mind, Cleveland said.

"Do localization," he said, "but don't get lulled into thinking that it's the end game."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

 
 
  • Comments
  • 790
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
03:39 PM on 06/01/2011
Eating Locally has a miriad of benefits, some of them notable and immediate. Did this study observe what companies gas their produce while being trucked for delivery? Did this study observe the positives, which are many? Eating Locally and Organic, just speaking nutritionally, can be optimal healthwise, and can be augmented with organic and natural agriculture from other states that are not available locally.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:13 AM on 05/26/2011
Frozen mangos, frozen spinach, sardines, oysters.

All yummy, all cheap, all come from far away.

It's one of the great pleasures of modern life to enjoy these things with ease.

Their low impact is baked into their price. If there was a lot of fuel involved, they wouldn't be so damn cheap.
09:59 PM on 05/26/2011
"all come from far away [...] If there was a lot of fuel involved, they wouldn't be so damn cheap."

So, how are they transported from a far away place to your supermarket without using a lot of fuel? I'd be interested to know.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:42 PM on 05/26/2011
By boat, packed solid. Boats can carry 1 ton of cargo 500 miles on a gallon of fuel. So it works out to a pretty small $ per mango.

My confusion is the opposite. If my frozen mango requires a lot of fuel to get to me, how do they get away with selling it so cheap without going out of business?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joshmcdonald
12:29 PM on 05/25/2011
This article is simply silly. Of course most food is exported. That isn't news.

I don't eat local because I expect it to save the planet...we're WAAAAAAY past that point.

I eat local because I want to make sure that once the oil runs out and the food distribution networks and the supermarkets collapse I still know how to even GET food.
09:52 AM on 05/26/2011
I so agree. Being able to get locally grown/made products is one of the essential life skills that we have forgotten or may never even have known. I think if communities become more self sustaining we wouldn't see the kinds of economic crises we've been witnessing. We've been lured away by cheaper prices from food giants, and are stifling local production and are settling for ever diminishing nutrition and ever increasing health risks.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:50 AM on 05/25/2011
An article disparaging local food production in favor of the current regime, without one word about rising fuel costs.

www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
04:40 PM on 05/24/2011
what big food company paid to get this article written? My main reason to buy local is to support small farmers in my area. I also can visit the farm where my vegetables and meat are grown and raised. Plus, since I don't buy my food from a grocery store more profit is going directly to the farmer and I get cheaper higher quality organic food. I almost never need to go to the grocery store now a days and I've been able to eat the best tasting food I've ever had without a huge impact to my wallet.
12:11 PM on 05/30/2011
I totally agree with you.
04:34 PM on 05/24/2011
The problem with the way this article is written is that somehow people may walk away thinking "eating local is not necessarily good". Well, exercise is not necessarily good either if you're not doing other things in addition, and not doing the right kinds of exercise.

Eating local is a piece of the puzzle. But eating local can involve many things. Getting to know the producer, buying from organic and sustainable producers, growing your OWN food locally, learning how to preserve the local food you buy so you don't have to buy so much shipped in during the off-season, making sure that all segments of society have access to local food, etc. I could go on.

When we get to know local producers, or grow our own food, or help develop community gardens for people who perhaps can't afford the farmer's market, we put local control and local accountability back into the system. For example, you can buy "organic" at Wal-Mart. Does that mean that you're doing things right? Hardly. Wal-Mart's business model is one of exploitation wherever possible. So when you get to know your local producers and ask them how they raise their crops or their animals, when you teach people how to raise their own local food, you are reducing the poisons being put into the environment and also being more conscious of your own (and others') nutrition. "Miles traveled" is not the only ingredient in a sustainable agricultural model.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
solevad
12:20 PM on 05/24/2011
Badly written article. Carbon Footprint is the most important aspect to look at when it comes to reducing the effects of climate change, so it is certainly relevant, but what local food provides is so much more: developing community, boosting local economies, eating healthier overall, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jdjay
10:43 PM on 05/24/2011
I totally agree. The problem is the context in which they are evaluating food production is biased. When you evaluate things according to our current "value system" eating local does not have much value. The general capitalistic philosophy is that unless we use massive amounts of fuel in the process of food production or transportation the whole thing is just a waste of time. That's the only way the profits can be siphoned off through wall street into the petrol gods pockets. What really doesn't have value is our current value system. Having tractor trailers blazing all over the earth when we can be self-sufficient right in our own local communities, ya, that makes a lot of sense. In reality necessity rules. Employing the most efficient and least invasive technologies will drastically improve the quality of our lives. There will never be real peace or real wealth as long as we are raping the earth. How ridiculous we have become. It's amazing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ABACADABRA RABBIT
03:16 AM on 05/24/2011
Symptom of undergraduate research = Poor modeling

Did they take into account all tractor usage whilst harvesting?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
solevad
12:25 PM on 05/24/2011
They did. And undergraduates and graduates ASSIST (to learn!) from talented faculty in these studies and models. silly rabbit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ABACADABRA RABBIT
04:41 PM on 05/24/2011
How do you know? Are you at UCSB?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ABACADABRA RABBIT
04:52 PM on 05/24/2011
And what does "undergraduates assist from" mean?

Obviously over 95% of fruits and vegetables grown in SB move out of the county. What did they expect? They have higher value in counties that don't grow these commodities.

Sending food thousands of miles away is inefficient and way less healthy than eating local produce. This study is nonsense, silly solevad. What is it saying, don't support local farmers? Only support Big Ag businesses and supermarkets?
06:16 PM on 05/23/2011
The boundary of 'local' as county lines seem more an artifact of accessible county agriculture stats, than a useful variable.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
06:05 PM on 05/24/2011
I had a similar thought. Who the heck defines "local" in terms of the county line? This is more a county economic study than an analysis of "locavorism." I live so close to several county lines that food from three neighboring counties is more "local" to me than food from the far end of the county I actually live in. Did they even look at the concept of "foodshed"?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elatas
50% French and 50% Italian mix
05:38 PM on 05/23/2011
This study generalizes local grown vs imports and it's not that simple.

Life cycle analysis studies show that the energy required to grow everything in heated glasshouses may be more damaging to the environment than having vegetables flown in from Mexico from example. And we're lucky because in Quebec, our energy is hydroelectrical and not coal, the worst of all energy sources. The best thing is to eat locally whenever it is in season, and for the balance of the year, there is no single answer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elatas
50% French and 50% Italian mix
05:43 PM on 05/23/2011
greenhouses..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SuperMom101
What's on your plate?
05:13 PM on 05/23/2011
You may find the following link interesting about Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell. She's the author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. She’s the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine... for over 20 years. http://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/

So, I take most food and nutrition studies that are widely publicized at face value. They are infomericals paid for by (insert industry with $$$'s at stake).

p.s. It's so strange. America (and her children) and never been fatter or sicker and we can't seem to figure out why. Meanwhile, we have an abundance of PhDs, industry experts and government agencies telling us everything is fine with our food supply.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
06:17 PM on 05/24/2011
We can't figure out why? Yes, we can. We eat too damn much. And most of the excess calories we're shoveling down come from refined carbohydrates (mostly grains but also added sweeteners), and added oils (i.e., oils that do not occur naturally in foods -- and the increase in added oils is attributable ENTIRELY to increased consumption of VEGETABLE oils).

The amounts of these food categories consumed in the U.S. have shot up DRAMATICALLY over the last 40 years. The refined carbs, added sweeteners, and added oils are all earmarks of processed food. If we get that stuff off our plates the health problems will diminish.
photo
Issaquah79
Look mom no head!
03:14 PM on 05/23/2011
This is a silly article. Our environmental problems are numerous and complex. We shouldn't reduce everything down to "carbon footprint". I hate this aspect of environmentalism. It's not just about climate change and there is no ONE answer to climate change or any other issue related to the environment. I eat locally and seasonally as much as possible because I know this is what nature intended, the food tastes WAY better, and I like to support my local farmers and economy.
03:25 PM on 05/23/2011
Credit where credit is due... I strongly agree. Well said.
mothergrace
If they knock you down, bite 'em on the ankle.
03:36 PM on 05/24/2011
I'm sorry but I must disagree.

Climate change is an overwhelming problem that must be dealt with effectively.

Remember that civilization as we know it, all of the plants and animals as they exist, including the plants we grow for food, developed over a relatively calm and stable climate over a 10-11,000 year period.

To drastically change that, over the whole world, not just regionally with unusual weather patterns is probably the single greatest threat we face for the too near future.

Carbon footprint may not be the only factor, but I will bet that if you start there, you will see your choices are good for many other reasons as well under that umbrella.
photo
Issaquah79
Look mom no head!
06:40 PM on 05/24/2011
I'm not seeing where we disagree. Since I agree with everything in your post I'm guessing you misunderstood me or don't fully know my views on climate change or environmental issues as a whole. Pretty common on the internet. :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
GordonNYC
Not for Sale
01:43 PM on 05/23/2011
Isn't it all about choice? You buy locally what is in season at your farmers market because it's fresher. If you want watermelons in february they are going to come from some place in the world where they are in season.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipB
12:23 PM on 05/23/2011
These is a false assuption that directs the reader here to believe that it is an either-or situation "Better to choose other goals, Cleveland said, like better community nutrition, for which local agriculture is a necessary but not sufficient component."
You can do both, having locally grown food and "community nutrition". What exactly is "community nutrition" that should be focused on and how does that vague idea become applied? Perhaps the author of the study could give some concrete examples of that, and either way, there is no reason why it has to be a choice between something, and giving up on locally grown food for something else.
11:08 AM on 05/23/2011
The problem with the locavore movement is I live in an area that has a very short growing season, we get frost every month of the year. People here think they have to eat locally grown produce. I am part owner of a produce market, we bring in produce from our closest growing region when it's in season, yet when it is not the growing season people will forgo fresh fruits & vegetables if they are not from our area. I'm not talking food from another country it's food from a neighboring state. To top it off they don't even understand growing seasons, they are just hearing they need to eat locally produced produce, from local farmers. It doesn't work for all areas of the United States. Eating healthy should be good enough, now we have to put stipulations on where it is grown. I understand not wanting to eat food imported from other countries, but now we can't eat food from southern growing areas of the United States when it's our off season.
11:57 AM on 05/23/2011
Regionalism, not just localism, plays a very important part in sustainable eating, particularly in areas such as yours, where weather conditions dictate shorter growing seasons. I would assume that people there have no problem getting local meat year round though, which should be a much larger proportion of the diet during those times. Our diet does not have to be the same throughout the year, and it shouldn't be. In some regions, people may need to include more of their produce from outside of their region during part of the year, which is fine, but there is nothing wrong with trying to eat seasonally and locally when it's practical, and that is indeed the healthiest way of eating.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jumbotron16
a slight improvement over jumbotron15
12:23 PM on 05/23/2011
The problem is that people are used to having access to everything, all the time. :/
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
12:40 AM on 05/24/2011
I live in a region (the Great Lakes) with a short growing season. The way to eat a local diet in such a region is to freeze, dry or can fruits and vegetables for those months when there is no fresh produce. Meanwhile find local sources for meat, dairy and eggs. If you have enough land, raise your own livestock. You can also learn how to hunt or fish.