Eating locally not necessarily better
The environmental impact of food production has been a big story over the past year. But commentator Will Wilkinson says making sure you eat local doesn't do as much to improve your carbon foodprint as the way food is produced.
Commentator Will Wilkinson (The Cato Institute)
More on Commentaries, Food
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Scott Jagow: The two food stories of the past year have been prices and the environmental impact of food production. One of our commentators, Will Wilkinson, just moved from Washington, D.C. to America's heartland, Iowa. The "eat local" movement he discovered there got him thinking.
Will Wilkinson: The food co-op in my new hometown offers buttons, bags, and newsletters coaxing customers to "eat local." The deli counter helpfully enumerates the "food miles" of the various goods on offer. That's the distance traveled from farm to market. The New Oxford American Dictionary's "Word of the Year" for 2007 was, yes, "locavore."
Local food is often better-tasting and more nutritious. That's a pretty good reason to pay more for it. Maybe you want to support small local farms. Go ahead, if that's your bag. But don't think going local does much to reduce your carbon footprint. And it shouldn't do much to ease your conscience.
How far your food travels matters a lot less than what kind of food it is, or how it was produced. According to a recent study out of Carnegie Mellon University, the distance traveled by the average American's dinner rose about 25 percent from 1997 to 2004, due to increasing global trade. But carbon emissions from food transport saw only a 5 percent bump, thanks to the efficiencies of vast cargo container ships.
A tomato raised in a heated greenhouse next door can be more carbon-intensive than one shipped halfway across the globe. And cows spew a lot more greenhouse gas than hens, or kumquats, so eating just a bit less beef can do more carbon-wise than going completely local. It's complicated.
But one thing is clear enough: the farmers in Mexico, China, and Brazil, who produce a lot of the imported food Americans eat, are poorer than the farmers here in Iowa. A lot poorer. The corollary of "eat local" is "don't eat Mexican," so to speak. But the way poor people get less poor is to do business with people who have a lot of money, like us. If the local stuff is mouthwatering, you might as well pony up. But if your salad is made with Mexican lettuce, savor your righteousness.
Jagow: Will Wilkinson is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Milwaukee, WI, 09/15/2008
Check out this carbon calculator (includes diet): http://www.ecohatchery.com/calculator. And article on what to prioritize for planning a green meal:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/09/prweb1305454.htm
Am interested in your feedback!
From Cedar Rapids, IA, 09/01/2008
I am pleased that the majority of people saw this article as simplistic and very poorly researched. Will seems to be saying that eating local is somehow irrelevant because it matters less ecologically than how the food is produced. Even if the location of production is less important, that doesn't mean it is not still vitally important to the overall ecological health of the globe. A local tomato properly grown has significantly less impact than a foreign tomato properly grown.
Moreover, his argument that buying produce from poor Mexican farmers helps those farmers is horribly shortsighted. Economies of scale are often too focused on the immediate future and unable to see that promoting monocultures dependent on fossil fuels for efficient production is ultimately damaging to all involved. Haiti is a poignant example: the export-oriented agriculture practiced there for many years has, through horrible farming practices, turned the country into a food desert.
I hope that Mr. Wilkinson spends more time researching his journalism before presenting it to the public.
08/28/2008
Marketplace apparently doesn't allow HTML tags, so, here's the link to explain HOW Bretton Woods sez you can't tax international food-shipping fuel:
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/04/time-to-tax-international-food-shipping.html
08/28/2008
Marketplace apparently doesn't allow HTML tags, so, here's the link to explain HOW Bretton Woods sez you can't tax international food-shipping fuel:
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/04/time-to-tax-international-food-shipping.html
08/28/2008
Uhh, Will?
One BIG monkey wrench in your ideas:
Per Bretton Woods, countries CANNOT TAX fuel used for international food shipments, and I’m sure that would include precluding a carbon tax.
From TOPEKA, KS, 08/28/2008
The folks that pointed out that efficiency does not equal better-for-the-environment (Gary Zenitsky and Dan Rutherford, Ph.D.) are absolutely correct. I stand corrected.
I also appreciate Mark Horn's and Craig Howard's easy-to-understand descriptions.
I am not sure that I understand how the local movement helps downtowns. Money in farmer's hands makes it into downtown businesses, that's for sure. I don't see how it matters where that money ultimately comes from though. Mr. Jorgenson, do you believe that this helps downtowns, because the cost of transport is lower, so profit margins are higher, or am I missing something?
I can't help but think of the Bentonville Arkansas town square. An interesting thing about the Bentonville town square is that it is in between the homes of many of the Wal-Mart Home Office workers, and the Wal-Mart Home Office itself. Wal-Mart executives get to see an example of a town square with successful Mom-and-Pop businesses every time that they drive through. Wal-Mart brings money into the community, and that money gets spent at other local businesses, and hence raises the entire local economy. Bentonville never was a big city during most of its history, it was a true small-town (although that is now changing). So, to paraphrase Mr. Howard, "A dollar in the local economy is still a dollar whether it came from across the street or across the [world]."
From Clinton, MN, 08/28/2008
Mr. Howard and Mr. Horn-you need to get out of your cities and visit small town America. The re-emergence of small farms, who provide for the local foods movement, have rejuvenated many Main
Streets in the Upper Midwest. The past trend of bigger and more specialized farms growing, in our area, corn and soybeans, profits the likes of Monsanto, Archer and Daniels Midland at the expense of our local economies and the environment. Don't trivialize the effects of the local food movement with your uninformed and opinionated comments.
From San Francisco, CA, 08/28/2008
The argument that food miles don't matter because transport is becoming more efficient is silly. If global emissions from food transport increased by 5% from 1997 to 2004 yet the distance American food is transported increased by 25%, that means that ships became 20% more efficient over that time (round numbers only, here). We missed an opportunity to reduce emissions by 20% just by keeping the 1997 transport distance constant.
A missed opportunity -- to hand off a healthy planet to our grandchildren -- is still an opportunity.
Dan Rutherford, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
International Council on Clean Transportation
From Buffalo, NY, 08/28/2008
The willful economic ignorance on this thread is astounding. Buying local makes perfect sense when the taste and freshness outweigh any price premium. That's a sensible economic decision. The feel-good blather about keeping money in the local economy, however, is meaningless. A dollar in the local economy is still a dollar whether it came from across the street or across the state. Some of you seem to fear that if you don't buy from the local farmer, no one will. That's true only if he's a very bad one -- in which case I suspect you wouldn't buy from him anyway.
From Des Moines, IA, 08/27/2008
If you want to lie or advance your agenda with statistics, one of the easiest ways is to use percentages. Going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase, but going from 100 to 101 is only a 1% increase, yet both increased by 1 unit. I haven't seen the study Will cites, but I'm guessing it's rather uninformative to contrast percent increases in miles of food transport with percent increases in tons of carbon emission. A 25% increase in an already big number is huge; likewise with a 5% change in an already tremendous amount. Were we suppose to acknowledge Will's point simply because a 25% change in miles didn't cause a 25% change in emissions? Out-of-season produce purchased in the midwest, even before 1997, came from far away places like California, the Southwest, Florida, and other far away places, traveling hundreds or thousands of miles by big diesel trucks. Compare that to the in season produce found at farmer's markets that may have traveled, say, 30-50 miles and often much less. The massive quantities of food arriving on those super huge cargo ships still have to travel long distances by truck or other freight to reach the midwest. And there's been no mention of the vast resources (land, water, petro-chemicals, energy, etc) gobbled up in far away places that are over-producing for export, trying to feed more and more of the world's growing population that can afford to buy it.
From Charlotte, NC, 08/27/2008
Mike Jorgenson says, "Eating locally and seasonally keeps more of the food dollar in the local economy." This is false. First, it's irrelevant how much money is kept in the local economy. What's more important to wealth creation is taking advantage of those who can produce the most efficiently.
But suppose your goal is to keep more money in the local economy. If so, then don't forget that when I spend less to buy remotely produced food, I keep money in the local economy. Suppose a locally produced food costs $2 and the same remotely produced food costs $1. Buying the remote produced food immediately keeps $1 in the most local economy possible: my own. Now it's highly unlikely that a local producer could come anywhere near matching the economies of scale that a large remote produce can take advantage of. So it's highly likely that the profit margin of the local producer is lower than $1.
So if I buy remote I keep $1 in the local economy. If I buy local, I keep less than $1 in the local economy.
But like I said, keeping money local is irrelevant. What matters is efficiency. If the local producers are more efficient than remote producers, then buy local. If not, then don't. How do you know which is most efficient? The one who can sell their product for the least price is the winner. Buy from that person. That's the best way to make yourself and your neighbors wealthier.
08/27/2008
What a surprise that the Cato Institute is throwing around more simplifications to help promote their offshore everything and import cheap labor agendas.
From Harrisburg, PA, 08/27/2008
Thanks to all of those listeners who disagreed with Will and support "Buy Fresh Buy Local." He was wholly uninformed about the core issues- learning to eat seasonally and supporting our local communities, especially the farmers who work hard to produce our food.
This is not just about a trend, it is about food security and justice, as well as reducing food miles and saving our precious farms/farmland and open space.
I want to know where my food comes from and there's nothing more rewarding than feeling as though you have a relationship with the source of your food. A couple more e-coli outbreaks and we will all go back to having our own "victory gardens."
It's also about creating connections for our inner cities- people (yes, poor people!) have been fed cheap, processed product for far too long- we all deserve access to fresh, affordable and nutritious foods.
Keep your eyes (and mind) open, Will- BUY FRESH BUY LOCAL IS HERE TO STAY!
From Topeka, KS, 08/27/2008
In Lawrence KS people will skip the locally-owned franchise in order to shop at locally-owned extremely expensive non-franchise restaurant. My stepson works at one of these expensive places, and the employees almost never get raises. Every dollar that the owner keeps out of his employees pockets goes into his own. Not the case with corporations. Investors and executives usually get rich buying and selling stock, while a large part of actual revenues goes to actual employees, and these companies often have explicit policies about raises and promotions. Either way these are real people working real jobs, and they really belong to your community. The local people here are simply prejudiced against one group of them. You can't avoid the corporate world, and you can't avoid our global marketplace. Where do you think Mrs. Local Farmer buys her equipment and fertilizer from?
Mexico, China, and Brazil are growing middle classes, and that is because we buy goods there. At this point that's an historical fact. Middle classes are necessary for peaceful democracy. You can make the world a better place regardless of where you buy your lettuce.
Corporations are people. Third world workers are people. You are not helping people by being prejudiced. Is there some us-or-them genetic tendancy that must be exercised, so that some folks always have some group to hate?
Local isn't always better for your carbon footprint. That can be shown simply by comparing the efficiency of ship and rail, against that of trucks and cars.
"The Inconvenient Truth" compellingly showed one possible scenario where rising temperatures kick off an ice age, but even if the scientists are correct, is CO2 poison? Has anyone suggested removing all the fizzies from soda? That's CO2.
Carbon gets transferred from the atmosphere to plants via photosynthesis (plants breath CO2). This is the ONLY way that it gets into living things. Carbon gets transferred from plants to animals through eating. This is the ONLY way that it gets into animals. Therefore ALL of the CO2 that we could possibly put into the atmosphere came out of the atmosphere in the first place. That is the source of CO2. All of the carbon in fuel came from the atmosphere. Remember: oil is plants and dinosaurs. Ethanol doesn't solve anything, because the fields that were used to create it would have created other plants for people to use. Either way the carbon-sync-abilities of the grown plants are similar. Not driving would help though. Higher fuel prices, in fact, would be good for lowering our carbon footprint, but who is asking for higher fuel prices again? (sounds of crickets)
The real problem causing global warming is that there are too many people, and too many farm animals, using too much energy. Having less babies, eating less meat, and using alternative energy would help, but most real solutions are not acceptable to most real people, even those that believe that they care about this issue.
From Cincinnati, OH, 08/27/2008
wow that was an oversimplified poorly thought out story! you're comparing apples to radiators. Try getting some data on carbon footprint of an in-season tomato next door and one shipped from mexico. try comparing pasturefed local beef to cafo beef from 1000 miles away. the listener is less educated having been exposed to your information.
From Clinton, MN, 08/27/2008
Wil, you need to do a little more research into Buy Fresh, Buy Local before you get on your soabox. Eating locally and seasonally keeps more of the food dollar in the local economy. In western Minnesota where I'm from that is very important. Local foods will keep more people on small farms and help decrease our national dependence on petroleum. Modern corn and soybean production puts money in Monsanto, Archer Daniel Midland, and the other conglomerates pockets at the expense of local economies. Local food puts the food dollar into local farmer's and grocer's bank accounts.
From Lancaster, PA, 08/27/2008
The movement Mr. Wilinson refers to is not just "eat local" at whatever cost. The national movement is known as "Buy Fresh Buy Local." Buying fresh and local food has a significant impact on one's carbon foot print because buying fresh, local food means buying food that is in season and able to be grown locally, anturally. That, of course, is a change in our eating habits. It means eating tomatoes when they are in season, not hot house tomatoes. Anyway, the Buy Fresh Buy Local movement is about a lot more than reducing carbon emissions. It is about becoming a part of your local community, eating healthier foods, discovering new foods and new ways to prepare local foods.
From East Waterford, PA, 08/27/2008
The impacts of our eating decisions on global and local ecologies; as well as global and local economies; is indeed complicated.
So Wilkinson should not have used a simplistic and moralistic economic argument to trump the ecological conundrum of our eating choices.
But sorry: Poor people do not get richer by doing business with rich people. They get richer by making more than they spend to live on; just like anyone else. The global food economy has done far more to impoverish poor farmers than local, community based agriculture ever could.
Go ahead and savor both your imported lettuce and your self righteousness, Wilkinson. I'm guessing you've never tried to make a living as a farmer, eh?
But from my experience, I'm guessing most poor farmers in the world, both in developing and in wealthy countries, will be far better and more justly served through local food systems. And so will our common ecologies.
From Philadelphia, PA, 08/27/2008
Carbon IS the economy of the future. Please provide source/author for Carnegie Mellon study.
Thanks!
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.