Don't forget that any time you spend money on something locally-produced, your money stays in the local community and can continue to benefit you and your neighbors (through further purchases at local suppliers, which employ people in your community, who spend money at other local suppliers, etc). Also consider that the amount of influence you have over regulations and practices is larger than zero (though maybe not by much) when you have a vote, or the ability to run for office.

If you buy something produced elsewhere, your money (at least part of it) goes away and has no further chance to benefit you and your neighbors. If it was produced in another country (sometimes, even in another state/province or even community), you also have absolutely zero ability to influence the laws and regulations that govern production there.

Stephen that statement is pure fallacy. The idea of money 'staying in the community' is the same logic that led to the government subsidizing the auto industry, which has delayed progress in creating better, more fuel efficient vehicles. I suggest Donald Boudreaux's "Globalization" if you want to really understand the issue.

In response to the post, the Salon article takes into account full life cycle of the product, including land use efficiency, labor efficiency, and vehicle efficiency. "Buying local" is the result of distorted logic an a general misunderstanding of efficient business and production models. If you think it tastes better or is higher quality, hooray for you, vote with your dollar, but don't pretend it is more efficient.

I agree that greater influence over laws and regulations can be a good argument for buying local. However, I disagree with the "benefit you and your neighbors" argument. I agree we should avoid buying products that benefit hostile or oppressive regimes, or unfair practices that impoverish people.
However, I see no ethical reason to care more about my neighbors than about people half a world away. We are all equally human and worthy of concern and compassion. If I can give a dollar to my neighbor or get 10 cents of that dollar into the hands of poor farmers in third world countries, who benefits more?
If the other ninety percent gets into the hands of western-owned companies, that money gets reinvested into the world economy in one form or another, so I can benefit just as much. Even if that money ends up sitting in a bank account, it still benefits the world: savings represents a choice not to consume, which in the long run increases supply relative to demand, driving down prices and enriching us all.

I don't think the "debunking" article does such a thorough job as what is implied here:

"...we learn, moreover, that trucking transport emits four times more carbon per ton than the sea transport assumed by the researchers. Correction of this mistake would eliminate about a quarter of the Kiwi advantage. (Assuming air transport, as is necessary for fresh food, also would have totally undermined the study’s conclusion.)"

Ok, so the advantage is reduced by 25%. Assuming that the cost of trucking "locally produced" *within* the UK has also been taken into account. That means there is still a 75% advantage. Export lamb is not typically shipped via air transport, so throwing that comment in there is totally misleading.

"... what has any of this to do with buying from, in McWilliams’ words, “a producer in the backyard?” This study did not compare a locally and organically grown lamb in, say, Sheffield, with an exported Kiwi lamb – though that’s what the study’s authors and McWilliams suggest."

This is a ridiculous argument. NZ lamb production uses much less supplementary feed. If we're going to compare apples with apples, we'd look at the (environmental) cost of producing an industrially-farmed lamb in th UK/Europe vs that in NZ. As I believe the original study did. For a start, NZ population of 4 million occupies the same land area as the UK's 60 million. Who has more room for growing better-quality lamb (if we take it as an average quality, over the whole output) in sufficient amounts?

I don't think there is any question that local fresh organic lamb is going to be intrinsically much better and nicer than weeks-old frozen lamb. But what is it that most people can afford to put on their plates?

FWIW, I don't eat lamb, and I only buy organic meats in small quantities. But I also think that arguing that buying local (from an industrial farm using separately-grown feed and using up valuable land resources?) is always going to trump remotely-produced (from a farm where the animals free-range, food is rarely supplemented and there is plenty of land available) can be overly simplistic.

I agree that purchasing locally grown foods is about more than just your carbon footprint. Supporting the local farmers has been covered, and it is very true, but I also think that you have to look at the preservatives involved in sending food across the country or around the world. It is comforting to know that food that is grown locally comes without some of these additives; additives that are used solely to keep the food fresher longer, some of which have been proven to be bad for your health. I believe if you look at the bigger picture, buying locally wins out every time over whatever random lamb incidence critics come up with.

That is hardly a deconstruction. And good luck feeding the Population of the UK from locally sourced produce.

Unlike NZ's dairy industry, NZ lamb production is still based on a low intensity pastoral system, i.e. much of the energy comes from the sun - hydroelectric my ars-. That is the difference. Also is is largely produced on hill country not suitable for crops (good luck finding much of that locally in the UK).

Lamb production in NZ is efficient, and is also a viable utilization of hill country. Lamb will always be more efficient than beef and people are going to eat primary protein, so lets encourage them to do it efficiently.