Is Fresh and Local always Greener?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12.10.07
Joyce Dopkeen/The New York Times: Produce at the huge Hunts Point Market in the Bronx.
We have been discussing this for years, and Andrew Martin of the New York Times jumps into the fray noting a new California study (from the state that produces most of the food that gets shipped the farthest) suggesting that "the distance that food travels from farm to plate is certainly important, but so is how food is packaged, how it is grown, how it is processed and how it is transported to market."
Well, yes, of course, but that is why we love our farmers' markets...
Martin continues:
Consider strawberries. If mass producers of strawberries ship their product to Chicago by truck, the fuel cost of transporting each carton of strawberries is relatively small, since it is tucked into the back along with thousands of others.
But if a farmer sells his strawberries at local farmers’ markets in California, he ferries a much smaller amount by pickup truck to each individual market. Which one is better for the environment?"
The article is full of questions and few answers, but makes a few good points, and concludes:
Certainly, there are many reasons for eating local food — from supporting local farmers to a desire for fresher, potentially tastier food. The research in California, however, offers the prospect of a more nuanced debate on eating a low-carbon diet. In the meantime, the research has already led one researcher to this conclusion:
Don’t drive your sport utility vehicle to the farmers’ market, buy one food item and drive home again. Even if you are using reusable bags. ::New York Times
Where I live I have to drive 15min to pick up those strawberries transported from afar but only 5 to get the ones at my farmers market. Don't they tell us to order things online because it is trips to the store that pollute more than commercial transportation? Granted if the nearest farmers market is a long drive it may not be worth it.
I know an organic farmer in VT who was trying to run an organic greenhouse year round to avoid the carbon footprint of shipping. He ran the numbers and found out it would be much worse for the environment to try to keep commercial greenhouses warm in a northern climate than it would be to ship fresh food from the south.
This is a green-hummer debate. Local is greener. If your behavior is the same for imported foods vs. local foods, local is greener. When you start adding variables to one category and not the other, you can't compare them at all. Imported organics may be better than local non-organics, but why are you buying non-organics if you are concerned about the impact they make? If an imported item has a smaller footprint than a local one, the issue to address is: Why? What are we doing WRONG with our local products?
Any analysis should also include the fact that a farmers' market is generally unable to fulfill all our needs. There would still need to be a trip made to other stores for meats, dairy items, and household goods. This would likely mean the use of more energy.
I don't think anyone really understands how to "run the numbers" yet. Just the real differences between car commuting and train commuting are hard to quantify, although we know the train is likely much better (especially if it's electric).
why be concerned about dairy and meats? If we stop the senseless exploitation of animals we won't need to make those other trips. If we use homespun products, we won't need the other things that the markets offer.
This is more proof that there are no simple, one-size-fits-all solutions. What works in one case may not in another. Local has its benefits, and its limitations. Like absolutely everything else in the world. What a surprise!
Pat is right: greenhouses in the north are serious CO2 emitters. That should be one of your considerations. Transportation is only one of the contributors to a product's footprint.
In Britain, they get a lot of fresh veggies from Kenya. They say that even with air freighting, It's still lower carbon than many local sources, because the growing is less mechanized, and uses fewer energy-intensive inputs. I don't know who did the LCA, or if it's accurate, but it gives you something to think about.
Some parts of the world are better at growing food than others. We shouldn't ignore that fact, but use it wisely, if it can help lower emission while keeping us optimally healthy. It's all part of being a modern, specializing society.
Here in Southern California, I have found very FEW farmers, and even less organic ones at our farmer's markets, and I recently bought organic garlic from, of all places, CHINA!!!! I kid you not. It was from Whole Foods!
We each must make our purchasing decisions alone, and base them on our own needs and desires to offset carbon. Little things add up, but we really need to not forget the big problems. The US will fail to sign Kyoto this next year, and we still mass-produce gas guzzling trucks and cars. You would be shocked at the flow of trucks going in and out of our shipping areas.
We ship OUT most of our produce here in San Diego. The farmers here suffer greatly from over-priced water and land use issues. The next years will be the hardest on those farmers, especially the ones that were burned out in the horrible fires we have had.
If it's from California, thank you for consuming it; I probably will never see it in my store.
What about growing what you can? Saving rainwater? Growing small amounts? Eating more simply? I know we all don't live in climates like I do in San Diego. However, what did the original people do in the area? Can one choose to follow a bit more of their style/food choices? Oops! That might mean I'd have to give up chocolate if I REALLY followed THAT idea!! Yikes!