Is Eating Local Best? Perhaps Not
There are many within the Primal community, I know, who also like to eat local. Some months, of course, allow for the confluence of these priorities more than others. Right now, we’re at the height of harvest season. Farmers’ markets are overflowing, CSA boxes are brimming, and backyard gardens are gratifyingly bountiful. Nonetheless, all good things must come to an end. In a few short months, farms and gardens will be snow-covered in many parts of the country. If you live in balmy Southern California like I do, that’s not much of an issue. If you live in Minnesota or Maine, it is. We Primal types love our produce, and winter complicates that relationship for some of us. Must locavore-minded Northerners relegate themselves to frozen and canned vegetables for several months of the year? Are root vegetable remnants really the only acceptable fresh produce before the spring thaw? Last week I stumbled upon a guest editorial in the New York Times that took on the nagging locavore guilt trip.
The author, Stephen Budiansky, personally embraces eating local. He happens to tend an impressive garden and even raise sheep. Although he freely acknowledges the many culinary benefits of eating local, he’s got some words – and numbers – for those who preach the environmental angle of locavore living. The crux of his argument revolves around the total energy expenditure for the agricultural sector in the U.S. – and the comparatively small role of transportation in that equation. Budiansky first goes after some allegedly fuzzy calculations that have been thrown around within the locavore and environmental communities. One claim he assails: the common assertion that it takes “36 (sometimes 97) calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast.” This oft-quoted bit is a load of hooey, he says. The number, a misguided comparison to begin with, actually reflects the total energy expenditure invested in that head of lettuce from the time it’s planted to the time it’s served. Since it only requires “about a tablespoon of diesel fuel to move one pound of freight 3,000 miles by rail,” transporting that lettuce is practically inconsequential in the grand scheme of production and consumption.
Budiansky doesn’t end his argument there. He submits other statistics to quash the transportation guilt that troubles locavore-minded consumers everywhere. Citing Department of Energy analysis, he contends that the concept of food miles is a red herring. Whereas shipping constitutes approximately “14 percent of the total energy” used within “the American food system,” consumers’ activities account for some 32 percent of that pie chart, and that doesn’t include the trip to the grocery store and back – the real haulage hog. Once we get the goods back home, Budiansky says, we’re running up the meter to store them and prepare them in our individual (i.e. inefficient) facilities. Touché. (Maybe the guy’s got a point there.)
Budiansky spends the rest of his editorial illustrating a larger perspective on American agriculture. Although today’s farms are responsible for supplying three times the populace and exporting ten times the product, he explains, total farm acreage is essentially the same as it was in 1910. Growing and raising food where it most flourishes, he says, makes the most environmental sense. Not only does it save us additional soil erosion, added chemical usage, and vegetable greenhouse heating costs, it spares countless acres of land for wilderness. In other words, geographically suitable trumps the proverbial “sustainable” message that circulates through the locavore movement.
Readers of Budiansky’s article questioned his sources, and he happily offered them up in a follow up blog post. Yes, there are plenty of gaps in Budiansky’s presentation. For one, environmentalists would argue that transportation’s impact isn’t simply measured by diesel use but by added pollution. And his assessment doesn’t take on the more substantial energy expenditure of importing food from as far away as China or South America. On another note, it takes additional energy to refrigerate produce and meat during transit.
Nonetheless, I think, Budiansky presents good food for thought. While the spirit of the eat local movement encourages positive changes in communities (e.g. supporting small-time area farmers and locally-based businesses) as well as better eating choices (e.g. wider variety, fresher and more nutrient dense produce), the practice eventually hits up against a reasonable limit. My point here isn’t to debate the benefits of regional economies, the environmental impact of small versus larger farms, or the safety issues surrounding imported food. There are plenty of solid arguments to be made within the full spectrum on these issues.
For me, Budiansky’s editorial offers useful perspective, and I always love seeing these kinds of conversations fully played out. As someone who wants to maximize nutritional benefit in my diet, I buy local items when they provide the freshest and thus most nutrient dense options. In the winter months when local harvests are sparser (even here), I happily take advantage of modern technology and trade to buy what I want to maintain a healthy diet. I don’t go out of my way to purchase the farthest flung imported items, but I’m not going to wallow in guilt either when I feel like eating bell peppers in January.
Eating Primally is foremost a commitment to your personal health. It’s about optimizing your diet and other lifestyle choices to cultivate genuine wellness and disease prevention throughout your lifetime. Nonetheless, going Primal doesn’t have to discount other priorities in the social and environmental realm if they’re important to your personal values and lifestyle choices. I think the big picture comes together differently for all of us, and the PB offers a surprisingly versatile outline for our personal, cultural and value-based preferences.
Along that vein, I believe the most interesting point in the locavore discussion was actually mentioned by a reader in her response letter to the Times. Characterizing the locavore movement from a different angle, the reader described the “holistic approach to the plate” that locavores ultimately hope to achieve. The food miles concept isn’t a red herring. In fact, it’s not even the central point, according to this reader. Transportation is too often part and parcel of a much larger issue with food, she suggests. When it comes to food related energy expenditure in this country, she says, the real elephant in the living room is our taste for processed, packaged and prepared foods. She cites her own statistic (from the Dept. of Agriculture) to reveal that nearly 58 percent of food related energy expenditures comes down to the “processing, packaging, transportation, wholesale and retail, and food service energy use that locavores are seeking to avoid.” The real difference, she suggests, is made by rejecting the manufacturing of food products to begin with. A “real locavore,” she says, wouldn’t touch a Twinkie with a ten foot pole even if it were made down the street. According to this reader, “eat real” food is as much or more of the locavore message as “eat local” is.
Have your own thoughts on the locavore perspective? Share those comments, and thanks for reading today.
Get Free Health Tips, Recipes and Workouts Delivered to Your Inbox
Posted By: Mark Sisson
A few things.
1. This is one man’s study. While I do respect his work, there’s also a volume of work for the other side.
2. Even he says there is a small amount of fuel used to move produce. What does it matter if it’s small or big? If I can save it and get better quality food that way, why wouldn’t I?
3. Keep in mind that the fuel costs of modern agriculture aren’t just in the transportation. Fertilizer, refrigeration and harvesting are also big components, and one which this article seems to ignore. I’d much rather buy from some local organic farmer than a far away industrial farmer.
That said, I’m not going to buy local if it’s 10 times the price. At that point, I’ll just find a cheaper local alternative.
I agree that only eating local is not necessarily great. Eating the right foods will ultimately use less energy because we will be healthier!
Think of all the energy expended in our healthcare systems because of poor eating habits (research and manufacture of drugs, hospital infrastructure, bypass surgery, etc). If everyone ate real, good food despite where it came from, perhaps that would lower our total communal energy use. You have to think about food energy on a larger scale, taking into account the energy expended on the consequences of our eating habits, too.
This is one of the most appealing aspects of the PB for me. The fact that I am just a healthy person makes me less of a burden on society. I suffer no chronic maladies and can more easily prevent accute injury and illness, even if I have to drive to the store to get the good food.
I’m glad to be Zero Carb and not think about what fruits/vegetables are seasonal. I just go for grassfed or organic meats and Kerrygold butter, and that is my plan.
I started our Locavore eating three years ago with concerns mainly about energy usage. As we’ve been eating this way for three years now, it’s really about the Food! The quality, the flavor, the freshness, the freedom from worry about contaminants and recalls. Supporting your local farmer. Spending your money in a way that benefits your local community.
You as the taxpayer are ALREADY supporting the commodity foods: soybeans, wheat, and corn; and they’re coming back to you as fast food, junk food, transfats, high fructose corn sweetener.
Yes, we drink tea and coffee, we use olive oil (California), we eat salmon (Alaska) occasionally. I buy a little California produce in the winter. I also can, dry, and freeze the local bounty. I don’t buy strawberries in January.
Local eating is about taking your food supply back from the megacorporations, and supporting your neighbors.
I eat local when I can. But like I said in my Real Food post (http://chymerikaen.com/2010/08/real-food/), eating an apple grown in New York is still better than eating a Kraft macaroni and cheese meal made in a factory only three hours away from my house.
Forgot to mention…
I get all my seasonal vegetables from an urban farm that delivers weekly to my work through a CSA. The urban farm was started as a jobs creation program for local low wage workers. Not only can these farmers now provide for their families, but there is a renewed sense of community between the farmers, their families, and the buyers here at work. The farms are designed as a learning tool for the children and a sustainable business for the adults. In this regard, the value of the farm being “local” — actually IN the city — is that we now have a community space where we can build valuable personal relationships.
Last year, one of the farmers’ brothers died unexpectedly and the other farmers and the buyers agreed to use some of the farm funds to help with the costs. This social interaction is so essential in life and is lost when we start shipping things around and packaging them and removing the face from the product.
When you do buy local (or even from a distance) I urge you to attempt to get to know the people making your food. They will get satisfaction from your hapiness and it will all eventually lead to a stronger, healthier society.
Is that enough touchy-feely stuff for one post?
You fell for Budiansky’s contention that locavores care only about being local! As though no one else noticed that it’s a complex issue and that food miles don’t tell the whole story. I heard him on NPR a few months ago trying to stir up controversy on a panel, but as soon as the other panelists corrected him on the above issues, he had very little to add to the dialogue.
We eat locally produced food – protein and vegetables – not because of transportation issues but to avoid all the processed junk out there. Our lives have changed for the better – and it tastes better too.
I have found that you have to watch some items. I recently found a case of tomatoes at a local farm that was shipped 300 miles to get here. No problem except they had chemicals on the fruit to preserve them. Next day went to the Farmer’s Market and got fresh, chemical free produce.
Hello all. I am a total advocate for eating local and a localized market in general. But not for energy foot prints or anything like that.
1) I believe that the food that grows locally is all that Grok had to go on and I belief that the food that is available in that season and in that area are what the animals (including us 2 legged ones) need to best cope with the climate and the terrain and other elements in that area. It seems logical right? It was only possible for Grok to eat what was around right? No imports for him or any other animal on the planet as far as I know.
3) When it’s local (within 50-100 miles) the food doesn’t need to be stored as long thus causing rot or insect/bacterial infestation. Thus require less pesticides and refrigeration and other special techniques that could possibly alter the food on some level.
Those are my two cents. I LOVE LOVE LOVE your blog Mark. I just started my own that links to lots of great information including yours of course!
Looks like it’s time to boycott the local Farmers Market :]
Most environmentally appropriate food is best you say? Budiansky’s starts down the right path but can’t see the real story here.
So the real news story is that the perennial grasslands that supported 90 million buffalo for 10,000 years might be better used as grazing land rather than torn up every year and dumped with chemicals to grown annual crops.
Budiansky seems to have forgotten the old journalist anecdote: A high school newspaper teacher is showing his charges how to write a lede. He tells them that Thursday the teachers will attend an all-day off-site training. He asked the students to write a headline. All of them write something along the line of “Teachers to Attend Training Thursday”. NO!!! the headline is “Classes Canceled Thursday”.
It’s a journalist’s job to think through the IMPLICATIONS of the facts they are presented with. Budiansky’s is right to point out the tiny cost of transportation. But the real implication here is that sustainable, minimal impact food systems mimic the natural environments of a given ecological area. That means that there is very little space for the wheat/corn/soy trifecta. That’s the real story.
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your weblog? My website is in the exact same niche as yours and my visitors would really benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thanks!