In saying, “I’ve always thought that the real benefits of local food production were in building and preserving communities. I like having farms within easy access of where I live and I like knowing the people who produce my food,” Nestle (correctly, IMO) states that eating locally is primarily about aesthetics. But what if it turns out (as may well be the case) that localvorism actually *increases* GHG emissions? How would localvores choose in that case?

Food miles can and do matter; not if you are comparing apples to meat, but rather, obviously apples to apples. If you live in New York, which has less environmental impact, apples grown in-state or apples shipped in from Washington? Or put another way, just because one thing has an effect on emissions does not mean another thing can also have an effect. Or one more way, which thing CAN you do. For instance, you may be able to switch apples more easily than you can give up hamburgers.

As to the containers/trains are more efficient. That may be true in the large sense, but it still does not mean things balance out. More importantly, do we buy our Chilean grapes at the dock? Do you think that this food-stuff is never subject to a panel truck?

Marion likes to chat to farmers, dig her garden, cook for pleasure etc… some people like to watch their local football team, go out all night clubbing, make model trains, skateboard whatever…its all good stuff but none of it stands up to the claim that ‘everyone ought to do this to make our society sustainable.

This research seems to say that ‘eat less meat’ is a message that does stand up to this claim while ‘watch your food miles’ doesn’t.

The big danger with the food miles approach is that it attacks the markets for food exporters in developing countries (Kenyan green beans, South African fruit etc…) who need the income just as much if not more than your local community.

The ‘food miles’ concept has been pushed with a message about relative carbon footprints that this research seems to indicate just isn’t true.

Mass produced food has only been around for about 100 years. Let’s not keep it around for another hundred.

The “Eat less meat” thing – well, that would depend on how much of what meat you normally eat (Duh!). An oversimplified, broad sweeping brush stroke such as this does not address reality. There are so many issues that this just doesn’t acknowledge.

Eating locally does begin to address many of these issues. Eating food you know, eating food you tended and raised, eating food someone you can check up on tended and raised, eating food consciously grown/raised in ethical manners that consciously support the local ecology and economy, . . . I’m with you: Local matters. Local makes a difference.

Great post!

If we really truly want people to eat healthier, at some point the message has to get out there that it’s going to cost more than what we spend now. I once heard someone bemoan the fact that a dozen eggs from chickens fed purely free-range/organic food would cost $12. That seems astronomical, but compare the nutrition in a $1 egg to a $1 soda or candybar and you realize that it’s a much much better deal.

@All – I didn’t read the study, but I cannot take seriously anyone who says “eat less meat”. Eat less factory farmed grain-fed meat? Sure. Eat less free range organic meat? Go take a hike – I refuse to pretend to be an herbivore. That’s like asking me to be a homosexual to reduce overpopulation – denying the biological reality that we are omnivores is a recipe for disaster.