Hm. Been talking around here lately about the importance of buying/eating local. Over at the NYT, Stephen J. Dubner isn’t buying it. He notes a recent piece in Environmental Science and Technology magazine by two Carnegie Mellon researchers, who write:
We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying 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 achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.
Dubner concludes:
This is a pretty strong argument against the perceived environmental and economic benefits of locavore behavior — mostly because Weber and Matthews identify the fact that is nearly always overlooked in such arguments: specialization (which Michael Pollan mostly dislikes, and which has been around for a long, long time) is ruthlessly efficient. Which means less transportation, lower prices — and, in most cases, far more variety, which in my book means more deliciousness and more nutrition.
There’s obviously something to his argument; if you’e buying strictly local, for example, there are a lot of products you could never buy, things that simply aren’t grown/produced “around here.” Think bananas.
At the same time, though, Dubner misses one of the most important arguments for localism - supporting farmers/producers in your specific geographic area. That’s a good thing for a variety of reasons.
As to whether growing your own can provide you with the same quality of foodstuffs you might find in the supermarket, the answer is probably no - but again, I think he misses the point. In a world where oil costs $50 per barrel, we’re not even having this discussion. Of course you’re going to want to find the best produce, and if that’s shipped here from California or Mexico, then no biggie. But in a world where oil threatens to hit $150 per barrel by mid-summer, where indepedent truckers teeter on the brink of bankruptcy and the price of food goes up across the board, those tomatoes from Mexico lose a little of their luster. Particularly if they’re infected with salmonella - or if, as a result of the scare, you can’t get tomatoes at your local BiggieMart at all.
In the end, though, we’re talking apples and oranges (if not apples and tomatoes). Dubner’s talking flavor and efficiency; I’m talking local economy. If gas goes back to $2 per gallon one of these days, I’ll concede him the point; if it keeps going up, there may come a day when the only way he can get the ice cream he invokes is to make it himself.
