The budding “eat local” movement that has spurred increased interest in farmer’s markets and other sources of locally grown foods is now attracting critiques from some who question its validity.
While supporters claim that eating local is better for the environment, human health, and the economic lives of small farmers, critiques, which have recently graced the pages of
The Economist,
The New York Times and other big-name media outlets, say this is not so.
Specifically, those seeking to debunk the so-called “ethical foods movement” say that:
- Organic farming methods consume more energy than conventional ones
- Food bought locally often creates more greenhouse-gas emissions than food hauled long distances
- Efforts to reduce “food miles,” or the distance your food travels from the farm to your plate, may support higher carbon emissions at the source
While the local-food movement is gaining steam, the vast majority of food still travels well over 1,200 miles from farm to dinner plate, and food imports and exports have been increasing dramatically since 1999.
The idea of ethical eating has also not yet transferred to Wall Street, where shares of agribusiness powerhouses like Monsanto, Tyson, and Smithfield -- all of which are geared toward industrial agriculture and long-haul distribution -- are at all-time highs.
Grist August 16, 2007