locavore movement essay

Why eating local isn’t always best for the environment

 it’s what you eat, not where it comes from, that matters most, new analyses suggest, jonathan moens • may 8, 2020.

Transportation accounts for around 6% of carbon emissions in the global food system, new analyses suggest. [Credit: CC0 | Pixabay]

Do i have to be vegan to combat climate change, lydia chain • july 8, 2015, a third of the world’s calories are threatened by water scarcity, maria paula rubiano • december 11, 2019, does an organic label mean anything, rachele cooper • may 15, 2007, food for thought, alison snyder • november 20, 2006.

Dissatisfied with the United States’ wasteful and planet-degrading food system, San Franciscan food activists Jessica Prentice and Sage Van Wing came up with an idea in 2005. They challenged everyone they knew to eat nothing but locally grown food for a month.  

It wasn’t an easy challenge, says Prentice, but by 2007 their idea had gained so much traction that it required its own word. “It was that challenge that birthed the word ‘locavore,’” recalls Prentice, a chef and author. That same year, ‘locavore” became the New Oxford American Dictionary’s “word of the year.”

Ever since, “eat local” has become a widely-accepted mantra for people seeking to reduce their carbon footprint. It’s even recommended by large institutional bodies, including the United Nations .

It may also be the wrong message. A recent set of analyses led by Hannah Ritchie , a data scientist from Oxford University, concludes that eating local can be misguided advice. “Many have the misconception that eating locally-produced food is one of the most effective ways to cut their carbon footprint,” writes Ritchie in an email. “But most of us underestimate the emissions involved in the production stage of food.”

With food production accounting for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, knowing which products and food systems are most environmentally friendly is key, explains Ritchie.

Her analyses are based on the most comprehensive meta-analysis of global food production to date, collecting data from 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries. Her central finding is that, on average, transportation of food accounts for less than 10% of carbon emissions in the global food supply. It’s dwarfed by emissions related to changes in land use, such as deforestation, as well as farm-related emissions, notably the release of methane from cow farts and burps. 

Most emissions come from land use change and farming practice. Source: Our World in Data

The misconception, explains Ritchie, is rooted in a public misunderstanding about global food transportation. Many assume that food grown in foreign countries is imported via airplane, but actually only 0.16% of global food transportation happens by air. Most of it, 60% , happens by sea, which releases about 50 times less greenhouse gas emissions than air transport.

It’s what you eat, not where it comes from, that really has an impact, Ritchie says. In her analyses she illustrates greenhouse gas emissions broken down by 29 food types — ranging from meat and dairy to nuts and vegetables. Consistent with previous findings , red meats — particularly beef — emitted the most greenhouse gases, whereas plant-based foods emitted the least. “We need to eat a lot less meat, and the meat we do eat needs to be the lowest-footprint it can be,” Ritchie concludes. 

In a follow-up analysis , Ritchie shows that these results hold true even when accounting for stark differences in how these foods are produced. For example, the most sustainably produced beef still emitted more greenhouse gases than the least sustainably produced tofu.

Her message is getting support from other experts. “The blanket advice to eat local is misguided,” says Henning Steinfeld , an agricultural economist at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations who was not involved in the Oxford analyses. “It needs to be qualified.” As a real-world example, Steinfeld explains how countries such as Saudi Arabia, which rely on importing fruits due to land and water shortages, would almost certainly incur a higher environmental footprint if they were to switch to producing these domestically.

But while experts criticize eating local as being largely ineffective in reducing one’s carbon footprint, the locavore movement is still going strong, says Prentice, its co-founder. Restaurants, supermarkets, and food markets all still emphasize the fact that they use local produce, she adds. A 2018 Gallup poll confirms this, showing that nearly 75% of Americans say they actively try to include locally produced food into their diets. 

A major step that could help consumers eat more sustainably, says Ritchie, would be to encourage producers to put labels on air-freighted foods . She adds that placing clear, colour-coded labels on food to illustrate their carbon footprint could help consumers make more sustainable food cho ices. A team at Oxford University is currently developing the food analytics to help achieve this goal in the near future.

Animal products emit significantly more carbon emissions than plant-based foods, regardless of how they are produced. Source: Our World in Data.

Prentice, however, says she’s unimpressed by these findings. She says that by focusing only on climate-warming emissions, Ritchie and others are failing to account for other benefits of eating local — especially supporting small-scale farms that create a sense of community.

“Nobody who’s eating local beef is eating factory farm beef,” Prentice says, adding that “factory farm beef is coming from few, disgusting farms in the United States that are mega farms.” 

Still, Prentice acknowledges that obsessing over how many miles food has traveled — a unit known as “food miles”  — without considering the farming practices employed to produce them is a mistake, even for the most dedicated locavore. “Food miles is a piece of the picture but, to me, it’s far from the most important part of what the local eating movement is about.”

People eat locally for different reasons, says Brent Sohngen, an environmental economist at Ohio State University who was not involved in the analyses. While eating local does not guarantee a low carbon footprint, locavores can help strengthen communities and support local industries, he says. But if the sole purpose of the movement is to help the planet, eating local is misleading advice, he adds.

With demand for meat growing , especially in the developing world, it’s especially important for the public to understand that what you eat is more important than where it’s grown, says Ritchie. “We’re at a crucial point in shifting attitudes towards diets and environmental impact.” With plant-based and lower carbon-intensive diets becoming increasingly common in the Western world, Ritchie is “cautiously optimistic” that the message is starting to get out. “The signs are positive that people are interested in understanding how they can have a positive difference.” 

About the Author

Jonathan Moens

Jonathan Moens is a New York based science journalist with a background in neuroscience and philosophy.

Great analysis

I read today in the Gaurdian’s re-hash of your article’s analysis. Not really a surprise that supply chain and logistics costs/protocols would increase locally. You can’t apply just-in-time practices to just-in-the-boonies farms, scattered all over the place. But you cannot discount the value of the product being superior, or more nutrient dense (well i’m sure someone will). A bit of a conundrum: planet vs health. I don’t see the small farms winning this in the long run, cost increase and government intervention. ADM, Cargill, General Mills, etc… they win the day and the future. SWAT shows up at raw milk farms, that friendly reminder will have you stop questioning homogenization and sipping on UHT lactose free White Russian’s by happy hour.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Scienceline Newsletter

Sign up for regular updates.

• Cooking School
• Culinary Glossary

What is a Locavore?

StockSeller_ukr / Getty Images

• What Foods Can't Eat
• Locavore Movement

Environmental Benefits

Getting started.

You may have heard the word "locavore" tossed around during conversations along with eco-consciousness and healthy eating. But what exactly does it mean to be a locavore? The term is a combination of the word "local" and the suffix "vore" which refers to an animal's diet—herbivore (plant-eater) and carnivore (meat-eater) are two examples. In a nutshell, a locavore is someone who eats locally grown and prepared food whenever possible. Exactly how local is a matter of debate and depends on your location and preferences.

What Does a Locavore Eat?

The ultimate goal when becoming a locavore (sometimes spelled localvore) is to eat as locally as possible. The exact limitations of this way of eating depend on the parameters established by the individual eater. Many locavores attempt to eat foods grown and prepared within 100 miles of their home, but if you live in a remote location or someplace with a cold climate, this can be a little too limiting. Others aim for 150 to 250 miles or within their state borders. While some allow for exceptions, others are more strict.

Some locavores are also vegetarian or vegan , but eating local can be a part of any diet. Locally sourced seasonal vegetables, fruit, meat, and cheese are relatively easy to find in most places, while some basic items like wheat flour, certain nuts, and sugar can be difficult to source within the chosen radius depending on where you live. Other foods, like chocolate, tea, and spices, can be downright impossible to get locally unless you live in a select few places.

What Foods Can't a Locavore Eat?

The locavore movement is built on the basic concept of eating local without hard and fast restrictions. The benefit is that anyone can be a part of the movement, fitting local eating into their lifestyle. However, the lack of strict rules leads to some confusion over what is and isn't allowed when calling yourself a locavore.

When adopting a locavore lifestyle, the focus is on location rather than the actual food item. While a variety of produce and other products are likely available within a certain radius of your home, most people do not live near a coffee plantation, banana farm, or a salt mine. Some locavores are strict and give up these items, while others simply limit their purchases of non-local products as much as possible and buy imported items from local businesses.

Some locavores choose not to eat meat, but it is certainly not a requirement. Eating meat regularly does tend to have a high environmental impact, so minimizing meat consumption is often encouraged. When you do purchase meat, buying from local, sustainable farms is in line with the locavore way of life.

The Locavore Movement

The term locavore was first coined on Earth Day in 2005 by a group in San Francisco. Over the years, the word and the ideology behind it has gained steam, with locavore being named Oxford's 2007 word of the year. The movement promotes local eating as a way to help the planet while also eating healthier, more nutritious foods and supporting sustainable agriculture. The movement even gained traction with many grocery stores, restaurants, and schools increasing the amount of locally sourced food they offer.

How humans eat greatly impacts the environment. The growing, raising, shipping, and selling of food produces huge amounts of pollution. The locavore movement brings attention to the idea that the farther a product has to travel to get to you, the greater its impact on the environment. Buying from local farms and businesses that buy directly from the source cuts out middlemen and unnecessary packing and shipping, in turn making your environmental footprint smaller.

In addition, by supporting local farms—especially organic farms that practice sustainable farming practices—you are using your purchase power to support environmentally friendly enterprises.

If you're interested in becoming a locavore, it's wise to do your research and gradually begin to introduce as many local products as you can into your diet replacing imported and processed foods. Look for nearby farmers markets and CSAs that will often sell fresh produce, eggs, cheese, meat, honey, and fish. Research local farms that sell directly to consumers—you can ask the farm stands at the farmers markets for advice, too.

If you can't live without imported items like salt, sugar, and spices, look for locally owned stores that sell sustainably farmed and manufactured items and, if possible, buy directly from the maker. Many wine stores buy wine directly from organic wineries, many coffee and chocolate shops buy the beans directly from farms, and many local breweries get their hops straight from the grower.

Buying locally will give you a greater awareness of your area's agriculture and businesses, seasonality , and the environment, all while improving the quality of your diet.

• Learning How to Cook