Beyond the Hype: The Limits of "Eating Local"
Why this rule of thumb isn't always good advice.
One of the most famous lines for eating well for people and the planet comes from Michael Pollan’s 2006 The Omnivore’s Dilemma, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Its simplicity has been celebrated ever since.
Perhaps an even more well-known guide is the imperative to “eat local”. Unlike Pollan’s line, this one is not so simple.
“Locavore” became the Oxford American Dictionary word of the year in 2007, two years after advocate Jessica Prentice challenged an audience to spend one month eating only foods grown near their homes. It’s become gospel in the sustainability movement with the belief that it will solve all our food problems for people and the planet.
While not new (the farm-to-table movement boomed in the 1960s and 70s), the idea of “eating local” is incredibly appealing in what seems like a good intuitive sense.
But it doesn’t take long for that intuition to be called into doubt over a cup of coffee (probably not local for most of our readers) or noticing that the neighborhood store sells products from Nestle and ConAgra.
You might be wondering, What could be wrong with eating fresh produce, supporting neighboring farmers and boosting local economies? Nothing, of course. We love our local food. But when trying to choose sustainable foods, we know it’s not always the best or only choice.
For example, which is better: to buy from a local farm which uses industrial methods, or an organic farm on the other side of the country? Is it better to import fresh fruits from countries where they are in-season, or to grow them out of season locally in a greenhouse?
To unpack this, we’re going to start with what it means to eat locally before examining the environmental, socio-economic and health rationales for doing so.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EAT LOCAL?
At first glance, it seems simple: eat foods that are only produced or sold near you. But what counts as “near”?
Is it within 25 miles? 50? Within the region or state? When Jessica Prentice gave her challenge, the limit was 100 miles (160km). Does this mean that most people can’t ethically have coffee, tea, or chocolate? Already we can see that it’s not simple after all.
CLIMATE & THE ENVIRONMENT
The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from food transportation is among the most cited reasons for eating locally.
This hinges on the concept of “food miles” and the long supply chains that are only possible thanks to cheap fossil fuels. The farther food must travel, the more food miles and emissions.
However, studies reveal that the carbon footprint for food transportation is relatively small. Less than 10% of a food’s emissions come from packaging, transport, and retailing (sometimes much less).
Even if we consider the carbon footprint of moving animal feed, fertilizer and machinery, you’re still between 10-20%.
The reason that emissions are lower than we think is that most internationally shipped food (including avocados) comes in by boat, and international shipping is quite carbon efficient. Most emissions are actually from food on trucks (very little is put into a plane) and most trucking is done domestically, often as part of “local” food systems!
Local foods take their own toll. For example, in the cooler months of the year, farmers may be forced to abandon open-field cultivation and move their plants into greenhouses. These must be temperature controlled 24/7 and may lead to a larger footprint than importing foods from farms where they are in season.
These studies suggest that it’s much more important to think about what you’re eating and how it was produced rather than where it comes from. Food production methods tend to account for about 60% of greenhouse gas emissions.
SOCIAL & ECONOMIC BENEFITS
A second argument for eating local is to support your economies and communities. This is a nice idea, as who wouldn’t want their dollar to benefit a neighbor rather than a faceless corporation? Plus, the thought of opting out of the industrial food system is appealing to many (certainly us).
Unfortunately, “the local trap” leads us to make assumptions that all local food is inherently good. This may be true in some cases but it doesn’t substitute knowing how the food is produced.
In the United States, many small farms are exempt from paying minimum wages or following some occupational health and safety rules. Local stores may also be distributing products from industrial sources as it’s often more cost-effective than local products.
Local might not also be the best place to use your money to fight poverty. In his 2006 book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, Peter Singer makes the argument against prioritizing local food as a way of doing good in the world.
He asks, if you’re living in a prosperous part of the United States, why is it better to support your local economy than to buy fair trade goods from countries such as Bangladesh? Your money could go much further there towards helping poor communities access a better life.
HEALTH & NUTRITION
This might be the one area where most people agree that buying local is better, at least for the nutritional value of fresh fruits and vegetables. The fewer days between you and the harvest mean that the food is likely to have a greater concentration of nutrients.
This has limitations, of course, as your options are likely to be limited for many months of the year. But prioritizing local when it’s in season in your community for freshness and nutrition makes a great deal of sense.
CONCLUSION – DON’T STOP ASKING QUESTIONS
Unfortunately, there is no simple rule to guide all your food choices.
Eating locally is great in so many ways - it promotes learning about food, connecting with farmers and producers in your area, and may even lead some people to start their own gardens. It’s probably tastier too!
But local food doesn’t exempt us from asking how it’s produced, by whom and who benefits.
These limits highlight a key truth about the fight for a more sustainable food system: there is not one simple one-size-fits-all solution, and while some solutions may seem intuitive and appealing, they may not always deliver the expected outcomes.