Buy local, part of the solution or part of the problem?

“Buy local”. These two words have become a mantra for many people in recent years, the so called “locavores”. The idea is easy: to buy locally grown, the nearer the better. The issue comes when defining what is local, being for most of the people a limit of 100 mile radius (160 kilometres), in what is called the 100-Mile Diet. But it doesn’t imply only distance, also buying products that are seasonal and minimally processed from small farms. The supporters of this way of consume adduce the many benefits of local food:

• Tastes better and is more nutritious: once harvested, produce loses is freshness and nutrients quickly. Shorter distances mean more quality.
• Preserves genetic diversity: as the produce doesn’t have to withstand long shipping, more varieties are grown than those which are tolerant to the rigors of overseas transport. Also, small producers tend to grow varieties in order to extend their harvesting season.
• Promotes energy conservation: reducing the energy used in transportation.
• Uses less packaging: buying from farmers market or directly from a farm involves less packaging.
• Supports local farmers and builds community: the middleman disappears and the farmer increases the income. At the same time, knowing the producer of the food builds connection with the neighbour and the environment.
• Preserves open space: by buying locally grown, the value of the farmer’s land increases and makes land development less likely.
• Keeps the money in the community: money from local produce is reinvested in the community.
• Supports the environment and benefits wildlife: because it reduces transportation emissions and also because family farmers tend to be good stewards of the land.

With the strong idea of consuming just locally grown products, the concept of “food miles/kilometres” has gained strength, in the sense that it measures the distance that the food has travelled to reach the vendor. However, this food mileage doesn’t show the real environmental impact, because it depends not only on the distance but also on how it is transported and how it is produced.

Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews, of Carnegie Mellon University, carried out a life cycle analysis (LCA) of the average North American diet and concluded that 83% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions occur before produce even leaves the farm. In contrast, transport from the producer to the point of sale accounted only for 4% of the total GHG emissions. Another LCA of the British food chain made by Tara Garnett, of University of Oxford, showed similar results: transport from farm to vendor represents 10% of the total GHG emissions.

But another issue arises when buying local in high-income countries: agricultural subsidies. Although the subsidies that wealthy countries give to their farmers are classified as “non-distorting”, actually they allow developed countries’ farmers to sell on market at prices far below production value,  leaving small producers  in the developing world unable to compete. They also encourage excess supply, which further lowers world agricultural prices and render small producers  unable to benefit from price increases but exposing them when prices decline. It also creates a chain effect: livelihood insecurity of food producers generates high and volatile prices in local food markets, causing food insecurity for local consumers. Additionally, measures from developing countries’ governments to support local producers tend to clash with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

Given the circumstances, choosing between locally grown or imported food may suggest choosing between a closer, environmentally friendly way of producing or a big scale, industrial and high pollutant production. But it can also mean choosing between a subsidized production or a way of production that has to compete against distorted prices, where the producers are in the brink of extreme poverty. The choice is not an easy one.

Main sources

1. DeWeerdt, S (2013) “Is Local Food Better?”, retrieved from  http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6064.
2. FAO (2003) “Subsidies, food imports and tariffs key issues for developing countries”, retrieved from http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/wto2.htm.
   
3. Ghosh, J (2002) “Why farming subsidies still distort advantages and cause food insecurity” in The Guardian, retrieved from
   http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/nov/27/farming-subsidies-distort-advantages-food-insecurity.

Comments Off on Buy local, part of the solution or part of the problem? / 27 Feb 2014 por juancarlosgomezmartin
IMSD /

Comentarios cerrados.