Ever wondered what the reasoning behind Local Food Days is, or do you know about the basic advantages of buying local and want to learn more? The McGill Food Systems Project’s overarching goal is to implement and promote sources of food on campus that can be maintained sustainably – meaning sources that offer food that has been produced, transported, and sold by means that have the potential to continue indefinitely into the future without any ill effects. Fortunately, most local food meets these criteria for sustainability, as well as offering other benefits. The links below this summary of the benefits of local food go into more depth about just how great in every way local food can be.
Fresh: Whereas produce from the supermarket probably traveled for days and then may have sat in cold-storage for a few more, when you buy at a local farmer’s market – especially during the spring, summer, and fall – you are usually getting fruits and veggies that were picked less than 24 hours ago.
“environmentally responsible”: The greenhouse gases and other pollution produced by flying and driving food around the world really add up. Some examples of the absurdity that have come about as a result of cheap but unsustainable global shipping: cod caught off Norway is shipped to China to become filets and then shipped back to Norway to be sold; $70,000 of California pistachios are sent to New York, then travel by ship to Italy, while California imports $50,000 of pistachios from Italy; the US imports $19 million of Canadian cherries a year, while Canada is the second most important destination for California cherries….the list of wasteful and silly practices goes on and on.
Issues (from Food, Sustainability, and Institutional Procurement Policy at McGill:
The limitations to demand-side change, Glencross 2010):
To determine the legitimacy of the using the concept of ‘food miles’ as a policy tool for climate change mitigation, Weber & Matthews (2009) systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution. 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, however, exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat was around 150% more GHG intensive than chicken or fish (ibid). They conclude that 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:
“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.” (Weber & Matthews, 2009: 3508).
One shortcoming of this analysis is that many objectives of local purchasing policy are not accounted for in terms of GHG emissions. In fact, the intended impacts of localized food systems vary quite substantially, depending both on the participants as well as the methods used to get local food to the point of sale. In a report undertaken in 2009 by Équiterre and The Centre for Trade Policy and Law at Carlson University, the researchers highlight how the United Kingdoms working group on local food found that sellers emphasize minimizing distance and consuming processed produce while buyers place more importance on traceability and trust issues, quality, freshness, environmental impact, and support for the local economy. They also draw attention to geographical differences in the desires of consumers:
“While Northern Europeans emphasize sustainability, traceability, health, and food security, Southern Europeans tend to emphasize local flavours and the food’s connection to culture, land, and traditional production methods.” (Équiterre & the Centre for Trade Policy and Law, 2009: 7)
The term ‘local’ typically indicates a relation to a particular geographic entity. In their discussion of local food initiatives and a broader review of the literature, Équiterre & the Centre for Trade Policy and Law discovered a series of more elaborate definitions which often incorporate specific goals and objectives that a local food system ought to deliver into the definition itself (Équiterre & the Centre for Trade Policy and Law 2009). However, most are in some way related to proximity, such as geographic proximity, temporal proximity, bio-region or political/administrative boundaries.
One attempt to resolve the issue the integration of environmental various and complex information is to quantify all of the impacts from farm to table through the use of comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA). Quantitative analysis’ with a life cycle perspective are used to study how levels of pollution and resource use over the life cycle of various food products in the global food supply system vary depending on product type, origins and degree of processing. In a recent report on the Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate Change, Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzalez (2009) published a study of 20 common food items sold in Sweden and their associated emissions of greenhouse gasses (calculated by LCA), with Food items differ substantially (span of 0.4 to 30 kg CO2 equivalents/kg edible product).
For protein-rich food, such as legumes, meat, fish, cheese, etc, Carlssonn-Kanyama and Gonzalez discovered the difference is a factor of 30 with the lowest emissions for legumes, poultry, and eggs and the highest for beef, cheese, and pork (ibid). The researchers point out that the large emissions for ruminants are explained mainly by methane emissions. For vegetables and fruits, emissions were found to be ~2.5 kg CO2 equivalents/kg product, even if there is a high degree of processing and substantial transportation (ibid). Interestingly, it was highlighted that products transported by plane are an exception because emissions may be as large as for certain meats. Emissions from foods rich in carbohydrates, such as potatoes, pasta, and wheat, were totaled at ~1.1 kg/kg edible product.
The researchers conclude that changes in the diet toward more plant-based foods, toward meat from animals with little enteric fermentation, and toward foods processed in an energy-efficient manner offer an interesting and little explored area for mitigating climate change. (ibid) These conclusions have recently been confirmed in a north American context, where Weber & Mattews (2009) advocate for a similar transformation to a very similar low carbon diet. It should be noted that although carbon is only one environmental metric, given the implications climate change will have on every other environmental system, it is a reasonable indicator to prioritize. As such, it should be considered in light of a series of priority areas.
Healthy: The fact that local farmers do not have to worry about their products being excessively handled in transport means that they can pick their produce when it’s at peak ripeness, which means more nutritious (and delicious) fruits and veggies for us!
Helpful: A study by the New Economics Foundation found that a dollar spent locally generates twice as much income for the local economy. Buying from a local farmer stimulates purchases at other local businesses, which can help communities to grow and improve. From Brian Halweil’s book Eat Here, Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket : “The farmer buys a drink at the local bar; the bar owner gets a car tune-up at the local mechanic; the mechanic brings a shirt to the local tailor; the tailor buys some bread at the local bakery; the baker buys wheat for bread and fruit for muffins from the local farmer. When these businesses are not owned locally, money leaves the community at every transaction.”
Sources:
Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika & Gonzalez., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2009;89 (suppl):1704S–9S
Webber & Matthews, 2008. Impacts of Food Choices in the United States. Carnegie
Mellon University, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3508–3513
Glencross, J. 2010. Food, Sustainability, and Institutional Procurement Policy at McGill:
The limitations to demand-side change. Final paper for URBP 506 – Environmental Policy and Planning.
Xuereb, Marc. 2005. Food Miles: Environmental Implications of Food Imports to Waterloo Region
Region of Waterloo Public Health.
Équiterre & The Centre for Trade Policy and Law, Carleton University. 2009. Local Food Systems and Public Policty: A review of the literature.
More Info:
Sustainable Table
Worldwatch Institute
Local is Beautiful (Flickr group with tons of mouth-watering pictures)
