Food Miles and eating locally...

Hmm, not so simple a choice as it seems... <sigh>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html?th&emc=th Food That Travels Well
By JAMES E. McWILLIAMS Published: August 6, 2007 Austin, Tex.
THE term “food miles” — how far food has traveled before you buy it — has entered the enlightened lexicon. Environmental groups, especially in Europe, are pushing for labels that show how far food has traveled to get to the market, and books like Barbara Kingsolver’s “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life” contemplate the damage wrought by trucking, shipping and flying food from distant parts of the globe.
There are many good reasons for eating local — freshness, purity, taste, community cohesion and preserving open space — but none of these benefits compares to the much-touted claim that eating local reduces fossil fuel consumption. In this respect eating local joins recycling, biking to work and driving a hybrid as a realistic way that we can, as individuals, shrink our carbon footprint and be good stewards of the environment.
On its face, the connection between lowering food miles and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. In Iowa, the typical carrot has traveled 1,600 miles from California, a potato 1,200 miles from Idaho and a chuck roast 600 miles from Colorado. Seventy-five percent of the apples sold in New York City come from the West Coast or overseas, the writer Bill McKibben says, even though the state produces far more apples than city residents consume. These examples just scratch the surface of the problem. In light of this market redundancy, the only reasonable reaction, it seems, is to count food miles the way a dieter counts calories.
But is reducing food miles necessarily good for the environment? Researchers at Lincoln University in New Zealand, no doubt responding to Europe’s push for “food miles labeling,” recently published a study challenging the premise that more food miles automatically mean greater fossil fuel consumption. Other scientific studies have undertaken similar investigations. According to this peer-reviewed research, compelling evidence suggests that there is more — or less — to food miles than meets the eye.
It all depends on how you wield the carbon calculator. Instead of measuring a product’s carbon footprint through food miles alone, the Lincoln University scientists expanded their equations to include other energy-consuming aspects of production — what economists call “factor inputs and externalities” — like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs.
Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide to rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand’s most prominent environmental research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, explains that localism “is not always the most environmentally sound solution if more emissions are generated at other stages of the product life cycle than during transport.” The British government’s 2006 Food Industry Sustainability Strategy similarly seeks to consider the environmental costs “across the life cycle of the produce,” not just in transportation.
“Eat local” advocates — a passionate cohort of which I am one — are bound to interpret these findings as a threat. We shouldn’t. Not only do life cycle analyses offer genuine opportunities for environmentally efficient food production, but they also address several problems inherent in the eat-local philosophy.
Consider the most conspicuous ones: it is impossible for most of the world to feed itself a diverse and healthy diet through exclusively local food production — food will always have to travel; asking people to move to more fertile regions is sensible but alienating and unrealistic; consumers living in developed nations will, for better or worse, always demand choices beyond what the season has to offer.
Given these problems, wouldn’t it make more sense to stop obsessing over food miles and work to strengthen comparative geographical advantages? And what if we did this while streamlining transportation services according to fuel-efficient standards? Shouldn’t we create development incentives for regional nodes of food production that can provide sustainable produce for the less sustainable parts of the nation and the world as a whole? Might it be more logical to conceptualize a hub-and-spoke system of food production and distribution, with the hubs in a food system’s naturally fertile hot spots and the spokes, which travel through the arid zones, connecting them while using hybrid engines and alternative sources of energy?
As concerned consumers and environmentalists, we must be prepared to seriously entertain these questions. We must also be prepared to accept that buying local is not necessarily beneficial for the environment. As much as this claim violates one of our most sacred assumptions, life cycle assessments offer far more valuable measurements to gauge the environmental impact of eating. While there will always be good reasons to encourage the growth of sustainable local food systems, we must also allow them to develop in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts. We must accept the fact, in short, that distance is not the enemy of awareness.
James E. McWilliams is the author of “A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest for Food Shaped America” and a contributing writer for The Texas Observer.
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes, if the total cost of producing anything were actually considered, then it would be easier to make the right choices. Environmental degradation or cleanup being one cost that's hidden or subsidized. Or social impact, where if say, Afghan farmers could get a good price for cotton, maybe they wouldn't raise poppies.

I never knew what a real apple tasted like until I lived in Seattle, where it was picked that morning. Of course, they had no idea what real citrus or a watermelon tasted like.

Fresher and more variety. Corporate food is grown for shelf-life and appearance and is rarely the better tasting. We also lose our food knowledge. A little old grandma from Mexico was walking her grandkids by my house a few days ago. The kids called to me and asked if they could have the seeds and pointed to my Mimosa tree. With my poor Spanish, she told me the green, immature pods made great seasoning for pork. You won't find that recipe on the Internet....
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hehehehe. If you don't stop using facts and logic you will be asked to leave the room, young man.
Why can't you be a nice boy and just drink the Kool-Aid?
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

which includes keeping money circulating in local economies, one advantage

which is mainly based on shipping produce as opposed to air freight, at least for our produce. Kenyan apples, as an example, may have a much lower footprint than NZ beef so they may still come out ahead of European or US apples. NZ meat comes out ahead if it is shipped versus maybe UK meat trucked around. Air freighting produce throws the whole equation up in the air.
rob
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

as well as eating locally, eating seasonally makes a contribution. In autumn I can get local apples & pears from an orchard I drive by for work. I winter I can get mandarins from the store at the end of the road on my way home from work. Mandarins are in season whereas apples & pears have finished.
rob
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George.com wrote:

One day we bought a bag of garlic, got home and looked at it - you guessed it - "Product of China".
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:42:40 -0400, Frank

yeah, when i first saw chinese garlic in supermarket, i was incredulous - is it really cheaper to ship it all that way rather than grow locally!!!!
now, with the bad rap things chinese. esp edibles, are getting, will buy my garlic at farmer's market.
[excuse l/c - one arm in sling...]
persephone
Add pictures here
âś–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.