With grocery shopping becoming ever more convenient, consumers may not realize the great migration of produce. From farm to table, American foods travel around 1,500 miles on average, releasing massive amounts of carbon emissions that pollute the environment (The Local Food Movement). In order to combat the carbon issues of food, the locavore movement emerged, which focuses on purchasing local foods instead of imported foods. The locavore movement gained popularity due to its seemingly beneficial impacts towards the community and the environment; however, a deeper examination reveals the unexpected drawbacks of the locavore diet. Evidence has disproven many benefits of the diet, showing the ineffectiveness of the locavore movement. Due to the spread of misinformation and lack of knowledge, locavores believe their eating habits promote a greener lifestyle and help stimulate the local economy by supporting local food suppliers. As environmental concerns rise, a primary motive of the locavore movement is conservation. Most locavores assume that because their food travels a shorter distance, they decrease the amount of carbon emitted during food distribution, but they often overlook many energy-draining factors that reveal the impracticalities of eating locally (Maiser). Although the locavore movement seems rewarding, studies have shown the inefficiencies and shortcomings of the diet, making it unrealistic in practice.
Many problems arise when considering the logistics of the locavore diet. Local farming lacks the consistency and availability brought by commercial farming. Because only specific climates and regions allow for the growth of particular foods, the locavore diet causes difficulty for the average consumer (Roberts). “In the United States, 80 percent of us live in large, densely populated urban areas, usually on the coast, and typically hundreds of miles, often thousands of miles, from the major centers of food production” (Roberts). Buildings and streets fill metropolitan regions, leaving no room for farms. The large percentage of people who live in cities have no access to fresh produce within a small radius, meaning they must rely on imported products. The ability to eat locally also heavily depends on geographic location and season; varying crops and plants flourish in different climates with specific conditions. Some areas do not allow for the growth of basic foods essential to the human diet, such as wheat (Roberts). When only relying on local foods, consumers living in barren climates would have limited access to many food groups including grains and vegetables. The little variety of fresh produce results in consumers foregoing their needed vital nutrients, a major health hazard. Even if some foods flower in a region, plant growth and production fluctuate based on the season (The Local Food Movement). If forced to follow the locavore diet, communities would only have access to certain products for a brief period each year, and the availability of fresh produce would constantly fluctuate. Unpredicted weather conditions would alter and curb plant growth by diminishing harvest and producing duller foods. “Local food is also more variable in quality, size, and flavor than food produced by large-scale farming” (The Local Food Movement). In commercial farming, companies regulate the quality and consistency of their products; however, local farms struggle in managing their plants and crops without proper resources, causing irregularities in the final products.
Although eating locally appears to benefit the environment, oftentimes locavores underestimate the negative environmental impacts of their eating. Depending on the conditions in which foods are produced, local varieties cause more environmental damage than imported varieties. Locavores argue that imported foods leave a substantial carbon footprint, due to fuel emissions needed to transport the food (Maiser). Their argument disregards many other factors that contribute to the environmental impacts of food. According to an analysis by Rich Pirog of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, transportation only accounts for a small fraction of the carbon emissions of food, while food production contributes a far greater percentage (McWilliams). Even though imported foods must travel greater distances, one cannot claim they harm the environment more than local foods without considering the entire process of food production and distribution. For example, shipping Kenyan-grown beans to Great Britain could create a smaller carbon footprint than beans grown directly in Great Britain. Even though the transportation of Kenyan beans requires cross-continental shipping, they are fertilized with cow manure, while British beans use synthetic fertilizer and are harvested using tractors (Mckie). Because the growth of Kenyan and British beans differ, the energy used during the British process of growing beans could damage the environment more than the carbon emissions released when shipping the beans from Kenya. When only considering the energy and resources used for transportation, many energy-draining factors are left out. “To take an extreme example, a shipper sending a truck with 2,000 apples over 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who takes a pickup 50 miles to sell 50 apples at his stall at the green market. The critical measure here is not food miles but apples per gallon” (McWilliams). Commercial farms produce much larger quantities of food than local farms, which allows the shipment of much more food while the carbon emissions remain the same. Although local produce travels a shorter distance, the incapabilities of local farms prevent them from producing commercial size shipments, increasing the ratio of carbon released to produce shipped. In Great Britain, apple harvesting occurs in the fall, so in order to have them all year round, manufacturers store them in coolers for up to ten months. It would be more environmentally friendly to import in season apples from New Zealand than to buy local apples (McKie). Because most plants can only grow during a specific season, the food must be chill stored to have stock the whole year. It would take more energy to keep the food fresh during its off-season than it would to ship them fresh from another location. The locavore movement neglects many environmental factors beyond transportation which illustrate the insufficiencies of the production of local produce.
Implementing the locavore diet would result in unnecessary complications by limiting access to produce and possibly increasing environmental damage. Although locavores intend to promote eco-friendly behaviors and support local businesses, the locavore diet fails to consider the lifestyle and needs of the average citizen. The distant locations of farms restrict the large population of people living in urban areas from eating locally; moreover, those who live near local farms have limited access to certain foods depending on the time of year. Because they only focus on food miles, locavores insist they protect the environment, but in reality, they may be causing more damage to the environment. The harvesting and production processes reveal the environmental consequences of local farming. In the future, the goals of locavores can be achieved if people choose to eat consciously. In order to truly eat foods that promote the community and the environment, it is necessary that people are informed about how their food is made, instead of perpetuating the misconceptions of locavores.
Works Cited
Maiser, Jennifer. “10 Reasons to Eat Local Food.” Eat Local Challenge, 8 Apr. 2006.
McKie, Robin. “Food Production Causes More Environmental Damage Than Food Miles.” The Local Food Movement, edited by Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010722209/OVIC?u=dove10524&sid=OVIC&xid=7263c15e. Accessed 2 Mar. 2021. Originally published as “How the Myth of Food Miles Hurts the Planet,” Observer, 23 Mar. 2008.
McWilliams, James E. “On My Mind: The Locavore Myth.” Forbes.com. Forbes, 15 Jul. 2009. Web. 16 Dec. 2009.
Roberts, Paul. The End of Food. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008. Print.
“The Local Food Movement.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2015. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999003/OVIC?u=dove10524&sid=OVIC&xid=02b3a266. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.
Be First to Comment