Locavore Redux: Is it REALLY eco-friendly?
While acknowledging that eating local food has gained significant “momentum” and “is all the rage,” a Sunday New York Times article cites a report by a team of researchers from the University of California, Davis, posing provocative questions about the environmental impact of those who choose to eat this way.
Check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/business/yourmoney/09feed.html
Reminds me of this bit of truism-busting I saw several months ago, R: “Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
The thing about these “studies” is that they never take into account some of the biggest reasons for eating locally - community building, saving agricultural land, food security, recycling money locally, etc. Focusing only on carbon footprints really irritates me. Yes, transporting thousands of pallets of strawberries thousands of miles might use less energy than a flatbed truck coming to the market for a season, but what you get is a strawberry that is white in the middle and tastes like cardboard, there is no connection with the grower and the profit goes to the marketers and trucking company. The points are lost with these researchers…
I’m sure you’re right, Trace. Certainly the link I posted — about the impact of the additional food production required to feed the hungry someone who’s walking around everywhere — is a kind of game.
The whole point of locavorism seems to be that its benefits are manifold, and whole, and complicated.
Carbon-counting games suddenly seem necessary to writers like those cited above to counter the puffery and sanctimony that often accompany the *discussion* of eating well. So it’s a narrow rejoinder to a (sometimes) narrow and self-righteous proposition. Meanwhile practitioners such as yourself do what they do, and thank goodness. cricketbread.com looks like a practical, unpuffy account of eating well in this area.
You make some good points, Trace, and I was hoping as much when I posted that story. Once a movement gets enough traction — as locavorism clearly has — you can be sure of a backlash of some sort. I can’t agree with you more about Big Ag company strawberries. Last summer I told Stefan of Black River Organic Farm that his were much tastier than those in the supermarket. He seemed surprised by this, saying that west coast strawberries are supposedly much sweeter that east coast ones. That may be true when comparing similarly farmed produce, but those fruits in Harris Teeter, Lowe’s, Food Lion, etc. truly are tasteless. Fear not, though, because CSA season is just around the corner.
Here’s another locavore debunker, and if you don’t mind driving to the Triangle, you can meet her in person.
http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/931654.html
Author questions ‘eat local’ dogma
The guiding philosophy of the increasingly popular locavore movement holds that the fewer miles food travels to arrive at our tables, the better for the environment.
Not necessarily, says journalist Sarah Murray, a frequent contributor to the Financial Times. She speaks Tuesday at Durham’s The Regulator Bookshop about her new book, “Moveable Feasts: From Ancient Rome to the 21st Century, the Incredible Journeys of the Food We Eat.” Her writings offer locavores — those who try to eat as much locally raised food as possible — something else to chew on.
So, using this logic we are to drive 100 miles to listen to someone tell us we shouldn’t be driving 100 miles for food?
And this: The myth of food miles, from the great group blog MetaFilter, which refers to a Guardian article about ethical eating.